| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I looked at the Encounter Budget table in my PDF of the GM Core and that is definitely at typographical error.
ENCOUNTER BUDGET
Threat | XP Budget | Character Adjustment
Trivial | 40 or less | 10 or less
Low | 60 | 20 [Error!]
Moderate | 80 | 20
Severe | 120 | 30
Extreme | 160 | 40
The Character Adjustment is always supposed to be one quarter of the XP Budget. Therefore, the Character Adjustment for a Low-Threat encounter is 15 xp, not 20 xp.
I usually use multiplication instead of character adjustments. I run a 7-member party, so for the XP Budget I multiply by 7/4 because my party is 7/4 the size of the expected 4-member party. Then for individual XP awards to the PCs, I multiply the XP by 4/7 to convert it to individual size. For example, the XP Budget of a 7-PC Low-Threat encounter is (7/4)(60 xp) = 105 xp and the XP Budget of a 7-PC Moderate-Threat encounter is (7/4)(80 xp) = 140 xp. And each PC still earns 60 xp for the Low-Threat encounter and 80 xp for the Moderate-Threat encounter.
I usually use multiplication instead of character adjustments. I run a 7-member party, so for the XP Budget I multiply by 7/4 because my party is 7/4 the size of the expected 4-member party. Then for individual XP awards to the PCs, I multiply the XP by 4/7 to convert it to individual size.But... That's exactly the same thing then?
Yes, the underlying PF2 mathematics of XP Budget is elegantly consistent, which means that several different methods give the same result. The Character Adjustment method is easiest for mental calculations and the multiplication method is faster with a pocket calculator handy, and they give the same result.
The consistency is also why I am sure that the Low-Threat Character Adjustment has to be 15 xp.
So, what would be the best way to notify a staff member about this, so that this can be fixed? Do they already monitor the forums?
It isn't a Paizo error. The .pdf is correct according to what Mathmuse said.
The Archives of Nethys team is a licensed partner, but they are separate.
I expect that they have their own process for people reporting errors.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, what would be the best way to notify a staff member about this, so that this can be fixed? Do they already monitor the forums?It isn't a Paizo error. The .pdf is correct according to what Mathmuse said.
The Archives of Nethys team is a licensed partner, but they are separate.
I expect that they have their own process for people reporting errors.
No, the PDF is wrong. That 20 in the Low-Threat row is wrong. The copy of that table in the Archives of Nethys is wrong at this time, though I expect that one day it will be corrected. The GM Core Errata in the official FAQ does not yet mention that error.
In the Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion subforum fans have created threads for Player Core 2 Errata and Monster Core Errata, but none of GM Core errata. Thus, I added an errata suggestion as Pathfinder Remaster Errata Submission comment #213.
Ah. OK. I was misinterpreting what Mathmuse posted.
I'm not sure that it makes all that much difference. So you could run the game with either value for the encounter building and it would likely work fine.
I can only think of one reason why that would be a deliberate design decision to have the table not follow the math progression for that one entry:
Since the added XP for creatures is intended to be used for adding additional creatures rather than increasing the levels of existing creatures, having the value be 20 instead of 15 means that you would be adding a level -2 creature instead of a level -3 creature.
A level -3 creature is as much of a pushover as a level +3 creature is a TPK threat. A level -2 creature could be a better add for the enemy party to account for a character add to the player party. Even for a Low Threat encounter.
A bit late to the party, but I only just learned of this apparent typo.
I don't think Finoan's explanation is a valid justification for Low encounters deviating from the scaling math like this. If you can't find 15 XP of enemies to add or remove, the game already allows you to add or remove a slightly different amount.
Many encounters won’t match the XP budget exactly, but they should come close.
Running a Low encounter for 5 players increases the budget from 60 to 75. But you are still allowed by the rules to go 5 XP over or under that new target number. Giving GMs the wrong math just isn't needed here.
And while Low threat means Low resource expenditure, it's still higher than Trivial. If the players have to fight multiple Low encounters without healing in-between (this can happen in APs), then the attrition can be worse for a 6-person party if 20 XP is added for each player after the 4th.
I don't think Finoan's explanation is a valid justification for Low encounters deviating from the scaling math like this.
Well, on one hand - I didn't say it was a very good explanation. Just that it was the only explanation that I could come up with under the assumption that it isn't an error.
If you can't find 15 XP of enemies to add or remove, the game already allows you to add or remove a slightly different amount.
On the other hand - there definitely is 15 XP of enemies readily available: the level -3 creature that I mentioned. The one that may not make any meaningful difference in the combat. Posting that as the expectation isn't going to lead people to think that they are supposed to fudge the XP allotment for the combat to compensate. It is going to lead people to think that adding a level -3 creature is effective compensation for adding another PC to the party.
Which may or may not be accurate. Whether that is enough compensation is completely subjective.
When I ran the Beginner Box for 3 players, I ran into a lot of difficulty when balancing the Severe encounters, because at level 1, there are no PL-4 or PL-3 monsters. At higher levels, there are of course such monsters, but there is still the challenge of finding monsters that make sense in the context of the encounter and/or synergize well with the existing monsters.