What was the relative level between the player characters and the enemies?
That is the big dial for adjusting difficulty.
Tactics and teamwork is the next biggest dial. So what were the party's overall tactics like? From the sound of it, I am suspecting that the PCs spent two actions drawing weapons and moving towards the enemy, then one action attacking - leaving them adjacent to enemies that have three actions to retaliate with.
Players hit too hard. Their damage is maybe a tad too high.
Players hit too hard. Their damage is maybe a tad too high.
Unless there is actually a problem that new players aren't aware of or accounting for.
For example, do the characters have level appropriate runes for their weapons?
What level were the PCs? What level were the enemies, and how many of them were there?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what were the party's overall tactics like? From the sound of it, I am suspecting that the PCs spent two actions drawing weapons and moving towards the enemy, then one action attacking - leaving them adjacent to enemies that have three actions to retaliate with.yes，Yes, as you mentioned, that's exactly what they did. The advantage was that all the enemies focused their attacks on them, keeping the wizard and cleric players relatively safe.
*nods*
Yeah, that is a tempting and common tactic. It isn't the best idea though. There are better ways of getting that result of protecting the squishies without having the brawlers lose 3/4 of their HP resource in the first round.
To start with, PF2 squishies aren't all that squishy. No, they can't take the punishment that a brawler can, but they also aren't leaving themselves open to three attacks per round. If the enemy has to Stride to get to one, then that removes one attack. A spellcaster can usually survive two attacks and be able to kite during their next turn.
Some other options for the brawlers is to draw their weapons and prepare, but then not fully engage. Use a ranged attack of some variety. Demoralize or some other debuff. Draw weapon, move adjacent, then trip - that at least makes the enemy use an action standing back up before they can attack and drops the number of their attacks down to 2 at most.
-----
But still. The big dial. What is the party level and what is the level of the enemies?
March of the Dead features a scaling difficulty where if your efforts to prepare a hideout aren't sufficiently thorough, you may easily be facing an overwhelmingly powerful encounter. My own players very nearly succumbed to the second wave but ended with nobody falling in combat. They aren't by any means expert tactical players but I can see how poorer rolls might result in more difficulty. Never had any problem with damage output
For reference MotD is set for 3rd level characters so the lack of striking runes is normal for the level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Players hit too hard. Their damage is maybe a tad too high.To increase the players' damage, I gave them stronger weapons: two +1 Striking Flaming Longswords. Otherwise, their damage would have been even lower.
Basing the idea of players not doing enough damage on a 3rd level module isn't testing the game.
I can assure you that after playing and/or seeing nearly every class to level 17 plus and several to level 20, players hit extremely hard, perhaps a bit too hard. Their tactics and options are often superior to the enemies they face and become increasingly so as you gain levels.
Something seems off. Sending multiple enemies level 3 to 5 enemies against 4 3rd level PCs is set up for a very extreme encounter. I am not familiar with this adventure specifically, but the GM Core has guidelines for encounter design that should give you guidance on encounter design that can help you tune things in.
Not saying that there isn't risk in any tactics chosen. That is what makes the game interesting. Each combat is its own puzzle to handle. You can't just 'win' the game during character creation.
Something seems off. Sending multiple enemies level 3 to 5 enemies against 4 3rd level PCs is set up for a very extreme encounter.
From what Sibelius said, that may be a part of the design of this particular adventure.
For reference MotD is set for 3rd level characters so the lack of striking runes is normal for the level.
Ah, 3rd level. Striking runes appear in the loot and shops at 4th level, so the martial characters lack any way to increase their weapons damage besides a friendly spellcaster casting Runic Weapon. Meanwhile, the opponents get more hit points at every level.
On the other hand, that is also the level at which my very experienced players demonstrated that they were tactical masterminds in Pathfinder 2nd Edition, too. They developed their style of stopping their opponents from using their best abilities, such as deceiving enemies so that they did not regroup or forcing melee opponents to attack at range. My party also gained a champion at that level, who demonstrated her proficiency at preventing damage to allies.
Moreover, many of the feats chosen by my players were simply unable to be utilized in combat.
That is a serious problem. Some feats can be exploited more often through teamwork. What are the feats that fell flat?
If it weren't for the wand I provided for the wizard player, they would have been unable to deal even one-seventh of the monster's hit points in damage within a single round.
I would expect about 12 damage a round from the party, due to misses against a high-AC boss. Seven times twelve is 84, about right for the hit points of a 5th-level monster. Okay, this is the way PF2 is designed. I would expect a wand to make only a little difference, since they are essentially once-per-day items. What was the spell it cast? Haste could be significant.
The recommended technique against a monster two or more levels above the party is defensive debuffing. Find ways to force the monster to waste actions or miss their attacks. Fighters raise their shields. Rogues take a Step out of the opponent's reach. Wizards cast spells that debuff the monster for a turn on a successful save.
Something seems off. Sending multiple enemies level 3 to 5 enemies against 4 3rd level PCs is set up for a very extreme encounter.From what Sibelius said, that may be a part of the design of this particular adventure.
Two 3rd-level enemies and a 5th-level enemy against a 3rd-level 4-person party is an Extreme Threat encounter in which the party has a 50% chance of total party kill unless they have good preparation and tactics.
The bulk encounters... the worst wave in the evening would be two shambler troops (Creature 4) + two husk zombies (Creature 2) for an Extreme 3.
Okay, that is definitely an Extreme Threat encounter. Even if the party wins, they won't be in shape to deal with another wave. Why is this adventure so punishing?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A couple of things:
1. It takes time and experience to learn a new system and PF2 can be quite challenging for players coming from other games because 3 actions, 4 degrees of success and monster level actual equaling player level can all be a bit of a shock. I am glad to see your group trying it out and you looking into what is making it a challenge for your group. I am a big fan of the game and the people I have met playing it. I also really like Paizo and what they are doing with their game and game world.
2. Starting off with a higher level adventure is pretty industrious of you and your players. As it seems like you all discovered, sometimes getting feats to work the way you imagined them to takes time and experience using them in many encounters, which is also why low and moderate encounters often make up the first encounters of a level 1 adventure. Severe and extreme encounters in PF2 really are very high difficulty encounters.
3. Undead, especially Zombies, have absurd amounts of HP and hit like a truck. They are different than many other enemies. As your party discovered, ending your turn next to a standing zombie is a very bad idea. With 3 actions, it is a good idea to think about how you can avoid ending your turn in their reach with them having 2 actions left. They are also slow. It is possible to control them with difficult terrain and other obstacles where they can barely get 1 attack a round in. In OF2, you win by denying enemies their strengths much more than by exploiting your own.
Also as a very practical follow up, your players might be asking “how are we supposed to know all this? Like, how do new players learn about the strengths and weaknesses of Zombies?
Well, recalling knowledge and investigating during exploration mode are great ways for GMs to help players prepare tactically for difficult encounters. It really is better, especially when everyone is learning, to give out too much information about enemies, rather than trying to hold info back.
3 rounds seems in the standard ballpark for a lot of AP combats I see. When we did Abomination Vaults, Outlaws, Kingmaker, Malevolence, and Ruby Phoenix 3 rounds felt typical. 2 for smaller encounters, up to maybe 5 for bigger encounters, but rarely anything past that unless it was structured specifically as a multi-wave encounter.
Self correction: it indeed is the third wave described above with which my players faced the greatest difficulty. The two husk zombies cornered our Iruxi Monk with sneak attacks while he was in the only 'safe' square between the two shambler troops. The Goblin Champion's mount did fall unconscious in the midst of the troop, but was saved when the champion rolled a lucky pair of successive crits (first over 10, second by nat 20) and nearly halved the troop with his glaive. The monk managed to stun one of the husk zombies and the other fled before the very angry Gnoll Barbarian could catch up with her.
After the fight, the Monk roleplayed his character laying down on the ground and passing out from exhaustion and bloodloss. This lizardman was a powerful force with his tiger stance triggering many devastating instances of slashing weakness per fight.
As for my own experience, 3 rounds is pretty typical. Some fewer, some (especially the fight described above) can go upwards of 5 rounds.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So there's a lot to unpack here and I know we've gone through quite a bit, but there are a few things we should look at.
Recently, my friends and I played a new adventure called "March of the Dead."
As Unicore has said, jumping in to a game at higher levels may work in some systems, but PF2 tends to do front-load a lot of its learning. Level 3 may not seem like "high level," but you're already dealing with rank 2 spellcasting, somewhat established character builds (as in, "my character wants to do this routine, even if it won't help in this situation"), and is actually a fairly awkward spot for magic items. This is pre-striking runes, which means that damage comes from smart play.
There's also just... so many variables to deal with when it comes to the adventure you chose. Where did they choose their Holdout? How were their fortifications? What did they do with the two hours between each wave? A group being given an Extreme encounter looks to be a group dealing with the consequences of their own actions (or inaction).
As the GM, I gave the players two level 8 magical items and two level 5 magical items, and even then, the damage caused by the players was barely enough to defeat the enemies.
From what it sounds like, you gave the players +1 striking flaming longswords which should be simply amazing at level 3. Were the PCs playing classes that couldn't utilize them well? Like a two-handed weapon fighter, a rogue, or an investigator? Each martial has ways to increase their damage and sometimes those end up being a bit based on the weapon weilded.
Moreover, many of the feats chosen by my players were simply unable to be utilized in combat.
Unless you're talking about skill or general feats, I'm not sure what these feats could be that you're talking about. I can think of very few class feats (especially on martials) that can't be used in combat. This circles back somewhat to my question of "were the longswords given the PCs that couldn't make use of them?"
The battles often consisted of the players moving and attacking, followed by the monsters' turn where the players would be left near death. The cleric would then spend their actions to heal the players. If it weren't for the wand I provided for the wizard player, they would have been unable to deal even one-seventh of the monster's hit points in damage within a single round.
I mean, as has been stated here and everywhere since the Playtest, these are just bad tactics, which is often why people will recommend starting at level 1 and the Beginner Box is so widely praised. Zombies, especially, are not creatures you want to end your turn next to. Not to mention, the slowed condition that each of the opponents in the wave encounter have drastically reduces their threat. Your players could have simply walked up, attacked, and walked away. The threat of the zombies is that they have so many hit points, but it's also balanced out by their low mobility, low AC, and lack of overwhelming damage. Are you allowing the PCs to crit their opponents if they beat their AC by 10? Even the shambler troop can be easily crit, they just can't pass through multiple thresholds. I can't help but feel like something was missed during these encounters.
It seems clear that something went very wrong somewhere in the execution, though the most dangerous solo-monster in the adventure is a weak sulphur zombie. If the weak template was inconsistently applied, it may have had 23 AC, which could have been a struggle, especially if the slashing weakness was missed or the players didn't account for their striking runes properly. It's hard to guess what could have gone wrong without more information though.
Are you guys adding your level to all your stats? I've seen a handful of new groups miss that one, to their detriment.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Threw up some spoiler tags on a couple of posts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Recently, my friends and I played a new adventure called "March of the Dead." As the GM, I gave the players two level 8 magical items and two level 5 magical items, and even then, the damage caused by the players was barely enough to defeat the enemies.
Is player damage too low?
No. Even by 4th level my group has players that get damage in the 40s on a regular basis.
Instead of 'giving them specific magic items' give them the gold they should have by a given level, and let them get any common magic items of their level or less, and GM approval for uncommons. Hold off on rares until you've done a campaign or two and know lore and such.
- Then make sure martials take weapon boosting enchantments, and kineticists take their accuracy boosting magic (gate attenuator - you need one for each element you have).
Players then need to start using tactics to boost their chance of a critical and reduce the enemy's chance of a critical.
That noted, we're getting scores in the 20s-30s without crits simply from things like a swashbuckler ensuring they have panache, a barbarian being in rage, a monk using flurry of blows, and so on.