| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me, and my table at least, the fact that sometimes a character crit fails a save vs a nasty spell at the start of combat, or gets hit from full to down can be what makes encounters more fun, because you have to account for the possibility that luck alone is going to be responsible for changing the situation on the ground in your planning and preparation for encounters. Without that real threat, you just slip into doing the same thing all of the time and never even consider dipping into your bag of tricks.
The key of course is that it shouldn't happen all the time, or it feels defeating, but it is just as big of a problem if the party never experiences a threat that forces them to immediately change game plans, because the important thing is for encounters to feel alive and that each creatures actions actually could turn out to be the key moment that turns the tide one way or another.
I think PF2 is very well dialed in to offer these situations at a frequency that works for my table. Obviously others here disagree, but hopefully it is clear why I (and others here too) are opposed to root changes to the system (instead of just optional house rules and helping teach new GMs how to adjust combat encounter tension and difficulty dials on the fly) that not only change this dynamic, but also other dynamics that are already hinging on a needle (spell damage has been slightly tweaked a couple of times from the beginning of the play test through the remaster process and by the addition of new spells, for example).
Also, a character dropping from full to down may not have been the explicit result of planned encounter difficulty, but its potential is what adds the wildcard element that can make encounters less predictable, which adds complexity to the tactical approach and thus difficulty for a party that is unprepared for that complexity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am skeptical that looking at the chatgtp output tells us the makeup of stances it gathered as inputs. We dont have a complete or sufficiently complete list of those inputs to analyze and i am guessing we dont know exactly how the algorithm was designed to the degree that we can know the input from the output.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I really think it is weird that people are arguing that the low level issues are just the opinion of a tiny minority, anecdotal and whatnot.
Outside these forums it isn't exactly a contentious opinion.
I mean, after priming chatgtp to answer relative to D&D5e by asking 'is pathfinder 2nd edition harder than d&d 5th edition' I asked the following:
Chat GPT is looking at the same minority of opinions posted to the internet as people pointing to them as proof that new players find PF2's early levels too hard. Any such arguments will also be looking at the first two years of products, where the design team was still working to get the APs tuned right.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it took a lot of time on the subreddit earlier in the game's lifespan to realize new players had difficulty with the game. You can blame the content to a degree—especially the popularity of abomination vaults, which was responsible for a lot of pain. But we've already established that using the encounter builder as-written at low levels will produce harder encounters than it would at higher levels, so it's not even an issue exclusive to published content. When you combine new players who may be playing suboptimally built characters—especially ones who don't understand how important one or two points in CON can be, and might put points in CHA over CON for RP or flavor reasons—with a DM trusting that a PL+2 monster really is a "moderate" encounter because it fills the 80 xp budget, or just one running an earlier AP, it can create a bloodbath.
It's also just... not contentious that casters have issues feeling useful at L1-4, which exacerbates the difficulty.
We're retreading and disputing things we already agreed on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it took a lot of time on the subreddit earlier in the game's lifespan to realize new players had difficulty with the game. You can blame the content to a degree—especially the popularity of abomination vaults, which was responsible for a lot of pain. But we've already established that using the encounter builder as-written at low levels will produce harder encounters than it would at higher levels, so it's not even an issue exclusive to published content. When you combine new players who may be playing suboptimally built characters—especially ones who don't understand how important one or two points in CON can be, and might put points in CHA over CON for RP or flavor reasons—with a DM trusting that a PL+2 monster really is a "moderate" encounter because it fills the 80 xp budget, or just one running an earlier AP, it can create a bloodbath.
It's also just... not contentious that casters have issues feeling useful at L1-4, which exacerbates the difficulty.
We're retreading and disputing things we already agreed on.
I think we've talked more about AP encounters and not the GM core guidelines. I've been using the GM core guidlines for my low level encounters and it works really well.
But, Is it safe to say encountering a PL+3 (one with extreme/unique abilities cause not all creatures have extreme damage or DCs for their level)in a severe or extreme encounter where you are not prepared can easily end up in a TPK at any level?
Reason being is that a prepared low level party can handle those PL+2s and 3s. Even a level 1 party should have some found/purchased resources before they are put against one allowing even the lowest level an opportunity to be prepared.
Thing is what I think the arguments that want some change boil down to is taking away the difficulty of extreme situations.
No matter how its dressed if PCs are retuned to handle those extreme damage higher level foes they will curb stomp everything else that normally was a moderate threat.
If monsters are also gaining extra HP like Unicore said PCs with lower damage abilities are severely penalized. And since the creatures with extreme damage are getting more HP that will actually benefit them more than the PCs with lower damage abilities getting extra HP a lot. Essentially increasing creature hp more would give them more turns to down PCs that would have otherwise been exposed to less rolls from them. This generates a damage race meaning more players will feel they need to have d12s.
Also to add here about the caster issue, the recommendations in the subreddit are usually to pick spells suited to bosses when facing them. That would be spells with good fail effects.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After running Malevolence, I am not convinced a low level party can consistently handle PL+2 single enemy encounters. Perhaps my experience is full of outliers, but the math on those is fairly brutal at levels 3 and 4, even if you're prepared.
Deriven is also correct that severe and extreme encounters become much easier as the party gains levels, and I have seen this in my own play experience. Available numerical bonuses do stop being matched as closely by enemy defenses or check DCs, and all classes—though casters most of all—gain abilities that let them be more efficient and have ever-stronger battlefield control.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
After running Malevolence, I am not convinced a low level party can consistently handle PL+2 single enemy encounters. Perhaps my experience is full of outliers, but the math on those is fairly brutal at levels 3 and 4, even if you're prepared.
Deriven is also correct that severe and extreme encounters become much easier as the party gains levels, and I have seen this in my own play experience. Available numerical bonuses do stop being matched as closely by enemy defenses or check DCs, and all classes—though casters most of all—gain abilities that let them be more efficient and have ever-stronger battlefield control.
The lower the level, the more signposting is required to make a PL+2 (or greater) encounter feel fair.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mathmuse could you run the same numbers for this scenario? Edit: Actually its pretty intuitive after seeing two examples
The rest of the party can keep distance and avoid notice but the tanky shield fighter will use the defense exploration activity. This is to insure they are the most likely target. They can even be banging their shield as they walk to draw attention Edit: though on second thought I am guessing wild life like a boar might just run off at the sound if they are not protecting their territory.
If I were in a party hunting a boar I might recommend my party do something like this. The boar going up against a 20 AC on the first turn makes the chances of going down drop to a very favorable chance for the fighter. If they can shield block it makes going down a very minute possibility. After that first turn if another party member can come out of hiding and demoralize, another move in flank and trip. I think the boar will have a very hard time staying alive.
If were talking level 2 then the fighter might be in plate bumping the AC to 20 before a shield and 22 with one raised. i guess what I am saying is the way things are now investing in defense has a purpose and a benefit even if it never reduces the threat of a creature to 0.
If no one is going to go down why bother with defense at all?
Let's talk 1st level. The 1st 5 PCs in my Ironfang Invasion campaign were deliberately high-Dex builds because stealth was necessary for the module Trail of the Hunted (two more PCs joined at 6th level when stealth was no longer vital), so a heavy armor fighter won't fit into the team. Instead, let's set this scenario one month before the Ironfang Invasion.
We want a fighter in plate armor. That is rare, because a PC starts with 15 gp and plate armor costs 30 gp, but an extra 20 gp--the fighter needs other gear too--is not as outrageous as extra hit points. Plate armor has a -10 penalty to speed. Strength +4 reduces that to -5, but the fighter is still going to be slow. So let me go all out and declare the fighter is a dwarf with the Unburdened Iron feat. Dwarven ancestry gives 10 hp instead of the measly 8 hp from human ancestry.
Armored fighter Ferric Blondebeard is in Phaendar on business and stopped at the Phaendar Trading Company to talk to his cousin, local blacksmith Kining Blondebeard. Ferric heard that a boar is harassing woodcutters in the area and offered to lead a band to kill it. Kining's stableboy Sam (rogue 1) overheard and recruited Zinfandel (ranger 1) and Stormdancer (druid 1) to accompany Ferric. The character Binny (rogue 1) was a messenger who only visited Phaendar occasionally, so she is the obvious character to leave out for just 4 party members.
Since Ferric was using Defend exploration activity, the boar (this is only a 2nd-level regular boar, not elite boar Gashmaw) spotted them at a distance. It used Boar Charge to charge Ferric. With his shield raised in advance, Ferric has AC 21 (10 + 6 from plate armor + 0 from Dex cap + 2 from training + 1 from level + 2 circumstance from shield). The boar gains a +2 circumstance bonus to its attack roll from its charge, so it has a +12 to hit. It needs to roll a natural 9 to hit and a natural 19 to crit. Thus, it has only a 10% change for a critical hit. For its 2nd Strike, it lacks the circumstance bonus, so it needs a natural 16 to hit and crits only on a natural 20. That is a 20% chance of a regular hit and 5% chance of a critical hit.
The odds of Ferric taking double damage is 10% + (50%)(20%) + 5% = 25%.
However, double damage is 4d6+8 piercing damage, which averages to 22 damage. Ferric is a high-hp character with 28 hp. He decides to not shield block, because that would break his shield, and is left with 6 hp. Ferric is still standing!
Okay, there is a chance that Ferric could take triple damage, average 33 hp, or even quadruple damage, but the chance that is only (10%)(20%) + (60%)(5%) = 5%. Let's say that Ferric took double damage and is standing at 6 hp.
Ferric gets a swing. He has +7 to hit and would deal 1d8+4 slashing damage. Since the boar has AC 15, that gives Ferric a greater chance to hit than the boar has to hit Ferric. He has a 50% chance of a regular hit and a 15% chance of a critical hit. On his 2nd Strike he has a 35% chance of a regular hit and a 5% chance of a critical hit. For his 3rd action he raises his shield. Thus, we multiply 1d8+4 by 1.25 to calculate Ferric's average damage per turn: 10.6 damage. Not bad.
Sam deals 1d6 piercing damage plus 1d6 sneak attack damage with is shortbow and has an even higher chance of critting because he hides to catch the boar off-guard. He follows that with a non-sneak bow Strike for 1d6 piercing damage and then he Hides again. That comes out to 8.6 damage per turn. Zinfandel has to use Hunt Prey but takes 3 Strikes with Flurry Edge and Hunted Shot for an average of 8.1 damage per turn. Stormdancer, in this situation does not have to cast Heal or Stabilize, and the boar has already run to within range of her Tempest Surge focus spell, so this particular turn she deals an average of 5.2 damage.
10.6 + 8.6 + 8.1 + 5.2 = 32.5 damage. The boar is down to 7 hp.
So the boar gets to maul Ferric and drop him down to dying, but the rest of the party finishes it off before it can turn its attention to them. Then Stormdancer casts heal on Ferric and they also use a 10-minute Treat Wounds. The 25% bad luck made this more like a Moderate Threat encounter than a Low Threat encounter, but since the druid had prepared Heal and Stabilize, Ferric was at no real risk of dying.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For me, and my table at least, the fact that sometimes a character crit fails a save vs a nasty spell at the start of combat, or gets hit from full to down can be what makes encounters more fun, because you have to account for the possibility that luck alone is going to be responsible for changing the situation on the ground in your planning and preparation for encounters. Without that real threat, you just slip into doing the same thing all of the time and never even consider dipping into your bag of tricks.
The key of course is that it shouldn't happen all the time, or it feels defeating, but it is just as big of a problem if the party never experiences a threat that forces them to immediately change game plans, because the important thing is for encounters to feel alive and that each creatures actions actually could turn out to be the key moment that turns the tide one way or another.
I think PF2 is very well dialed in to offer these situations at a frequency that works for my table. Obviously others here disagree, but hopefully it is clear why I (and others here too) are opposed to root changes to the system (instead of just optional house rules and helping teach new GMs how to adjust combat encounter tension and difficulty dials on the fly) that not only change this dynamic, but also other dynamics that are already hinging on a needle (spell damage has been slightly tweaked a couple of times from the beginning of the play test through the remaster process and by the addition of new spells, for example).
Also, a character dropping from full to down may not have been the explicit result of planned encounter difficulty, but its potential is what adds the wildcard element that can make encounters less predictable, which adds complexity to the tactical approach and thus difficulty for a party that is unprepared for that complexity.
Yep. This is why DM/GMs are so important to the game. These Tabletop RPGs are not computer games where everything is coded and preset. DM/GMs tailor to the group they're playing whether that is brand new players that need some coaching or veterans who want you to try to kill them so they can test tactics against highly challenging encounters and enemies. And everything in-between.
One major thing for good GMing is know your group. What they like, what they can handle, and tailor the encounters and campaigns for the group.
PF2 APs are set for what I consider a moderately experienced group of mixed personalities. They aren't so easy new players won't have trouble and not so hard that min-max optimizers won't destroy them. So if you have a group outside that moderately experienced group, you're likely to have to tailor APs and game encounters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mathmuse could you run the same numbers for this scenario? Edit: Actually its pretty intuitive after seeing two examples
The rest of the party can keep distance and avoid notice but the tanky shield fighter will use the defense exploration activity. This is to insure they are the most likely target. They can even be banging their shield as they walk to draw attention Edit: though on second thought I am guessing wild life like a boar might just run off at the sound if they are not protecting their territory.
If I were in a party hunting a boar I might recommend my party do something like this. The boar going up against a 20 AC on the first turn makes the chances of going down drop to a very favorable chance for the fighter. If they can shield block it makes going down a very minute possibility. After that first turn if another party member can come out of hiding and demoralize, another move in flank and trip. I think the boar will have a very hard time staying alive.
If were talking level 2 then the fighter might be in plate bumping the AC to 20 before a shield and 22 with one raised. i guess what I am saying is the way things are now investing in defense has a purpose and a benefit even if it never reduces the threat of a creature to 0.
If no one is going to go down why bother with defense at all?Let's talk 1st level. The 1st 5 PCs in my Ironfang Invasion campaign were deliberately high-Dex builds because stealth was necessary for the module Trail of the Hunted (two more PCs joined at 6th level when stealth was no longer vital), so a heavy armor fighter won't fit into the team. Instead, let's set this scenario one month before the Ironfang Invasion.
We want a fighter in plate armor. That is rare, because a PC starts with 15 gp and plate armor costs 30 gp, but an extra 20 gp--the fighter needs other gear too--is not as outrageous as extra hit points. Plate armor has a -10 penalty to speed. Strength +4 reduces that to -5, but the fighter is still...
Thank you Mathmuse I appreciated the detail you put into that scenario.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After running Malevolence, I am not convinced a low level party can consistently handle PL+2 single enemy encounters. Perhaps my experience is full of outliers, but the math on those is fairly brutal at levels 3 and 4, even if you're prepared.
Deriven is also correct that severe and extreme encounters become much easier as the party gains levels, and I have seen this in my own play experience. Available numerical bonuses do stop being matched as closely by enemy defenses or check DCs, and all classes—though casters most of all—gain abilities that let them be more efficient and have ever-stronger battlefield control.
Why would a first level party regularly be encountering level +2 creatures? That should probably be a one time thing that happens during the whole of 1st level encounters, if it happens at all. So maybe over the course of the first 3 levels it happens 3 times-ish? It is a situation where some thought should probably go into those encounters, designing it so that it is an encounter that doesn't have to be met head on, and have ways of retreating built into the story structure. That is definitely the approach taken in most APs I have run, but I will admit to not knowing Malevolence, or its encounter break downs. Many of the ones I remember from adventures and APs involve creatures with melee attacks only, and often very exploitable weaknesses or movement limits, on top of not being set up to immediately go after the party as soon as they see the creature. When that is the case, it means characters can certainly do pre-buffing, recalling knowledge, and even back tracking to come back another day, with the right resources to make the encounter much easier.
Party level 4 level +2 or 3 encounters are worth talking about separately, for how creature numbers break at level 6. It is not just one thing that goes up by two, it is everything jumping up, kind of making all level 6 creatures have the elite template against level 4 creatures. The party might have a couple of +1 weapons at that point, but maybe not, depending on how early the encounter takes place in the level and there will be no extra defensive boosts the party will have received by then. It is definitely the roughest "low level difficulty" edge and why one encounter in book of Age of Ashes has made everyone weary of the entire AP (even though there are tough encounter spaces all through that AP, usually the TPK-threatening encounters in those books are not isolated encounters, the other difficult party killer encounters tend to be hard because of how they can cascade into other encounters).
Does the GM guide really need to call out this particular bubble? (The level 11 one is also a bit rough, but the party should be much better at being able to get the extra bonuses by level 9). I don't know if that is really necessary as long as the adventure writers are made aware of it and there is online discussion about it that GMs who are getting into custom campaign building can easily find.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Malevolence is 3-6, and has a ton of PL+2 enemy encounters (most of which won't or can't leave their designated rooms, thankfully). It's a horror game, so the lethality is actually somewhat at home for once. But it's a brutally open setup with few rails, making it especially lethal if the PCs don't follow the soft design hints (with areas behind locked doors, and upper and lower floors, roughly signalling increases to difficulty). If I'm remembering correctly, the PCs can walk into an encounter labeled moderate 5 at level 3 if they take the wrong idea from something they're told.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why would a first level party regularly be encountering level +2 creatures? That should probably be a one time thing that happens during the whole of 1st level encounters, if it happens at all.
Why is that the case, though? It's not the case at higher levels - you can comfortably throw level+2 creatures there without issue. So why should the maths of the game make it unwise to regularly use level+2 creatures in the first few levels? Of all the published content I've run or played for PF2, level+2 creatures haven't been avoided at low level either. In an AP I'm running, there were 3 level+2 creatures at level 1 and 4 at level 2. In an Adventure I played, the very first creature we encountered was a completely unhinted at level+2 creature when we were level 3. Looking at the most recent 1-10 AP I own, there are 2 level+2 creatures at 1st level still, one of which does not seem to be built up much at all. Not only does the game not effectively communicate that it's best to avoid level+2 or level+3 creatures at low levels, they actively still use these creatures at low levels. Why not make level+2 mean the same thing throughout the whole game?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why would a first level party regularly be encountering level +2 creatures? That should probably be a one time thing that happens during the whole of 1st level encounters, if it happens at all.Why is that the case, though? It's not the case at higher levels - you can comfortably throw level+2 creatures there without issue. So why should the maths of the game make it unwise to regularly use level+2 creatures in the first few levels? Of all the published content I've run or played for PF2, level+2 creatures haven't been avoided at low level either. In an AP I'm running, there were 3 level+2 creatures at level 1 and 4 at level 2. In an Adventure I played, the very first creature we encountered was a completely unhinted at level+2 creature when we were level 3. Looking at the most recent 1-10 AP I own, there are 2 level+2 creatures at 1st level still, one of which does not seem to be built up much at all. Not only does the game not effectively communicate that it's best to avoid level+2 or level+3 creatures at low levels, they actively still use these creatures at low levels. Why not make level+2 mean the same thing throughout the whole game?
Because level 1 and 2 characters are considered green newbies and high level characters are grizzled fantasy superheroes.
That's progression. If the game feels the same at level 1 and 2 to 5 to 7 to 12 to 15 to 18 to 20, would you even notice any progression? What would be the point of high level magic items, feats, and the like if the game was a static threat from 1 to 20?
To me this is the subtle math of RPGs where they carefully show progression with mathematical power increases that slowly change the game from you die very easily to you destroy what you fight easily and all the between progression.
3E/PF1 missed the mark at the high levels so far in the player's favor it was almost unplayable. PF2 has made progression feel very real, but at a much more controlled pace that doesn't allow the challenges to become so trivial as to make a GM completely rewrite the rules to challenge the PCs.
The game should not feel the same at 1 to 4 as it does at 18 to 20. That part of the game is shown by how well you can handle a PL+2 encounter at level 1 and 2 versus how easily you can handle it at level 18 to 20.
You can obliterate a PL+2 encounter at 18 to 20. Just waste it with ease.
I would even go so far as to say the game is very different at 15 to 20 as well as 1-4. Yet no one seems to be complaining about that.
This all seems to be about being one shot at level 1 to 4, which I've mainly experienced at level 1 and 2. 3 and 4 you're pretty durable to one hit, even a crit. Healing is starting to ramp at level 2 spells and up.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you Mathmuse I appreciated the detail you put into that scenario.Mathmuse could you run the same numbers for this scenario? Edit: Actually its pretty intuitive after seeing two examples
...
Let's talk 1st level. The 1st 5 PCs in my Ironfang Invasion campaign were deliberately high-Dex builds because stealth was necessary for the module Trail of the Hunted (two more PCs joined at 6th level when stealth was no longer vital), so a heavy armor fighter won't fit into the team. Instead, let's set this scenario one month before the Ironfang Invasion.
We want a fighter in plate armor. That is rare, because a PC starts with 15 gp and plate armor costs 30 gp, but an extra 20 gp--the fighter needs other gear too--is not as outrageous as extra hit points. Plate armor has a -10 penalty to speed. Strength +4 reduces that to -5, but the fighter is still...
The details would be better if I had gotten them all right. But I miscalculated Ferric's hit points. I had given him 28 hp but he should have had 22 hp: 10 from dwarven ancestry, 10 from fighter class, and 2 from CON +2. Dwarves have a CON boost from their ancestry, so a dwarf fighter would probably go for CON +2 rather than CON +1.
If the boar deals double damage to Ferric, then it has a 55.6% chance of rolling a 22 or more and a 44.4% chance of rolling a 21 or less. If it deals only 21 damage, then Ferric will be standing with 1 hp and the scenario continues as I wrote it. If it deals 22 damage, then Ferric blocks with his Steel Shield. This is the right time to sacrifice the shield. The shield blocks 5 damage, so Ferric is left standing with a broken shield and 5 hp and then the scenario continues as I wrote it except add a Repair activity at the end.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This "all about" making the game just a bit better, specifically in regard to the new player experience.
You really seem to be stating the way things are, and then claiming it "should," be like that.
When you don't engage with the arguments mechanically, we cannot respond properly, only with emotional arguments of our own.
Because level 1 and 2 characters are considered green newbies and high level characters are grizzled fantasy superheroes.
The best I can do is cut out the emotional appeal and translate it to a mechanical one.
Do you think L1 & 2 PCs "should" always be 2ish reg hits away from Dying? In a system where *single* foes can make 3 attacks, let alone what happens when a 2nd foe is on the map?
.
To be clear, my beef specifically with the HP growth is secondary/emergent.
(I have beef w/ it because it's the systemic cause of the "real" problem; if I thought a different change would be better at the job, then I'd switch my advocacy.)
This is also why I'm trying to steer away from "should" be able to fight PL+2 as a question. It's valid to ask, but we're not there yet.
I think the real "problem," one that's especially harmful to newbies, is the [end turn @ 100%] --> [Dying] being a math-normal situation to deal with. It shouldn't happen in a system of small numbers like pf2, at any level.
I'm just glad it's mostly only a low level problem, else I'd have a much bigger challenge getting others on board.
.
In the past, whenever I can keep a hold of that core (dare I say universal) issue, that's how I've been able to get through to people.
So, I'll try to maintain that discipline a bit.
Does anyone here think it's "okay" for a ttrpg adventure game to have math where the 100% HP Fighter spends their turn to:
[Raise a Shield] --> [Stride] --> [Shove boar off ally].
Then, two (PL+0) boars flank and maul him. The next time it's his turn, he's making death saves.
Does anyone think that makes for a fun gameplay experience?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is that the case, though? It's not the case at higher levels - you can comfortably throw level+2 creatures there without issue. So why should the maths of the game make it unwise to regularly use level+2 creatures in the first few levels? ...
.
What's especially frustrating is that a rare advantage of a d20 game that uses flat numbers, is that it genuinely *can* have level gaps be equally dangerous across the levels.
(just from a d20 % |success|fail| PoV, that math can genuinely be consistent)
A lot of games will have tiny accelerations or other % and multiplier based weirdness in stat growth that can make the idea of a level gap break down if they're not careful.
.
But a system where each level up is a flat +1 or +2 to different stats, that is supposed to be the rare case where you don't have to worry about it. The net difference between the two sides is always going to be that same [level gap] * [stats per level] number.
There are a lot of imo problematic tradeoffs, but that's a genuine positive of this "flat additive" level up approach.
The "real problem" is that you CANNOT treat HP the same way as stats like Strength. Attributes like STR are there to be plugged into formulas like attack rolls.
HP is a resource pool, it's fundamentally a different "job" and needs different math.
If the system adds flat +HP and +dmg as levels go up, you get a weird (not really, but for simplicity) "no change" outcome if +HP & +dmg is even,
and a really bad "drift" in "hits till down" when it's not.
(which is super common when you have variable +HP growth, like Barb vs Wiz)
It's common for PCs with "below par" HP growth to end up reaching that one-shot territory at a later level, which is where I'm used to seeing this.
And that's only because it's so dodo-level rare for the math to *start out* broken in the other direction, where they forget to have a substantial starting pool of HP.
The notion that pf2's formula is to start at 0, then add ancestry, class, ect, is just completely wild to see in an "add flat numbers" system like pf2.
It's why you end up with an Alch going from L1 -->2 being a +60% max HP change. That's still just as mind-blowing to me today as it was a month ago.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you Mathmuse I appreciated the detail you put into that scenario.Mathmuse could you run the same numbers for this scenario? Edit: Actually its pretty intuitive after seeing two examples
...
Let's talk 1st level. The 1st 5 PCs in my Ironfang Invasion campaign were deliberately high-Dex builds because stealth was necessary for the module Trail of the Hunted (two more PCs joined at 6th level when stealth was no longer vital), so a heavy armor fighter won't fit into the team. Instead, let's set this scenario one month before the Ironfang Invasion.
We want a fighter in plate armor. That is rare, because a PC starts with 15 gp and plate armor costs 30 gp, but an extra 20 gp--the fighter needs other gear too--is not as outrageous as extra hit points. Plate armor has a -10 penalty to speed. Strength +4 reduces that to -5, but the fighter is still...
The details would be better if I had gotten them all right. But I miscalculated Ferric's hit points. I had given him 28 hp but he should have had 22 hp: 10 from dwarven ancestry, 10 from fighter class, and 2 from CON +2. Dwarves have a CON boost from their ancestry, so a dwarf fighter would probably go for CON +2 rather than CON +1.
If the boar deals double damage to Ferric, then it has a 55.6% chance of rolling a 22 or more and a 44.4% chance of rolling a 21 or less. If it deals only 21 damage, then Ferric will be standing with 1 hp and the scenario continues as I wrote it. If it deals 22 damage, then Ferric blocks with his Steel Shield. This is the right time to sacrifice the shield. The shield blocks 5 damage, so Ferric is left standing with a broken shield and 5 hp and then the scenario continues as I wrote it except add a Repair activity at the end.
That makes more sense. And I think with extreme damage creatures a GM has tools to make even the most defensive PC sweat a bit and worry about going down. But the PC like normal is not in any real danger of death because of how low the creatures AC is.
But I will admit things can spiral when you use creatures at the extremes when conditions make their vulnerabilities less vulnerable, like giving the boar the advantage of positioning and initiative where it can take out a caster and another low AC character in the first round.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like you say, Malevolence has deliberately hard encounters in virtue of the horror genre they're trying to evoke (there's also a 'mandatory' PL+4). There are some specifics about those early encounters also that make them harder than a standard PL+2.
** spoiler omitted **
Yep. For some additional details:
The two encounters you called out are among the first that come to mind.
WRT the gibbering mouther, I was new to DMing the system and had no way to know the engulf action cost was wrong. I think that encounter had two PCs hit the ground, though they did win despite the players being scared witless. I think that was their first or second encounter, so it set a rather grim tone.
The mandragora is absolutely brutal, and probably overtuned for its CR. There would've been a PC death there (possibly multiple) if it weren't for them calling back to a bit of table-specific improvisation. For background, I told them as part of their RK that the mimic in the foyer was abnormal for warning them to leave instead of just lying in wait to attack them; as often can happen with DM miscommunications, they took this to mean they should be able to talk with it and befriend it. They seemed to want it badly enough that I obliged, and that was the right call. They honestly had a pretty good time with the mimic—they fed it the dead birds from outside, talked to it every once in a while, promised to feed it different kinds of food, that sort of thing. Anyways, during the mandragora encounter, our magus (who was feybound, and thus more attractive as a target) was focused by the mandragora and nearly died. They were downed twice, and barely got to a point where they could run away; the entire party was sickened, was missing attacks like crazy, and expected they weren't much better off than the magus in the longterm and also tried to run. The mandragora chased them, but the party went for one last trick: they tried to coax the mimic into helping, and had the mimic transform into the mansion door after they ran outside. This actually worked, and the mimic trapped the mandragora, allowing them to win the encounter.
If they hadn't done that, I probably would've gone for a plot resolution instead, and had the mandragora offer to spare the magus in exchange for more blood in the future. The mandragora would've eventually turned on them and just tried to suck the magus dry, but the party would've had a few more levels at that point, so the encounter would've gone a lot better.
Another notably bad encounter was the esobok ghouls. The party was on-level for that, but people failed their paralysis saves. I did softball the encounter by having them only attempt to finish off people once everyone was paralyzed or otherwise incapacitated, but if I'd played that more bloodthirstily it easily could've been a TPK.
Also almost had a death from the encounter in the back of the basement cave; phantasmal killer was 1 or 2 points of damage off from reducing someone to zero and killing them outright.
Most other encounters had player downs, but they weren't at risk of getting wiped by them; they could've caused deaths if played bloodthirstily, though. A few haunts were also pretty brutal, as was the will-o'-wisp. The final boss was one of the least threatening encounters, funnily enough, since they went in with full prep and had great luck.
I will also add that past a certain point, I buffed hero point rerolls in response to how brutal the game had been; this didn't really diminish how terrified everyone was or stop them from getting downed, but did give them critical tempo swings that probably prevented some deaths. It also makes it harder to say my experience was representative of vanilla PF2E, but the table's enjoyment increased, so it was the right call.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The game should not feel the same at 1 to 4 as it does at 18 to 20. That part of the game is shown by how well you can handle a PL+2 encounter at level 1 and 2 versus how easily you can handle it at level 18 to 20.
I also like a level based RPG to feel a little different from the player side from low to high level.
But PL+2 is a behind the scenes GM construct? Unless the GM tells them or players' flip through the AP or GM notes after, the players will never really experience this progression?
They will get the sense of the fictional position of enemies within the world --- used to fight goblins and now fight dragons. And some sense that Dragons are more complex. But that would work just as well if the goblins were PL+2 and the dragons were PL+2 and both were hard fights at their respective levels. (instead of current PF2e math which means you throw a PL+4 or whatever at higher level parties to achieve the equivalent threat).
I'm not sure the shifting of what PL+2 means adds that much to feeling more heroic.
Heroic? It's an empirical way to show you are much more powerful that you are more easily able to defeat more powerful threats.
I DM a lot and play a lot. So I see the math on both ends. As a DM, I can see the players empirically go from goblins being able to create a deadly threat to level 1 or 2 PCs to CR23 creatures supported by level 18 creatures being easily defeated by level 20 PCs.
My assumption given this power progression that it is intended design to give the clear feel of increases in power.
When I was growing up this, genre was called high fantasy.
High fantasy refers to epic fantasy which is set in an alternate world. It typically includes lots of magical elements, fantastical creatures, and unusual technology. Whereas low fantasy is when magical creatures and elements intrude upon the regular world.
Heroic is not always something the game is concerned with. The initial game was often wandering dungeons and jacking enemies for their stuff. It depends on the plot.
Paizo tends to throw a lot of world threatening plots into their APs so you can be a hero. That's a story choice to put the characters in position to be heroes.
Normally this is high fantasy and you're adventuring whether it's for heroic reasons or not.
Thus progression is empirically noticeable increases in power at certain points where they have set the math up so you get better odds of success what you're doing to the point defeating enemies at particular levels starts to feel easier and you can deal with more powerful enemies or groups of enemies.
It seems the math is very tightly bound to not allow the game to get out of control at high level in PF2. It got way out of control at high level in PF1 and 3E.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The idea that players need to know CRs to feel that they're getting stronger is false. You can look at the number of levels that it takes a solo monster to become something you face in groups or as lackies to other foes, and feel how that accelerates as you level.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Heroic? It's an empirical way to show you are much more powerful that you are more easily able to defeat more powerful threats.
I DM a lot and play a lot. So I see the math on both ends. As a DM, I can see the players empirically go from goblins being able to create a deadly threat to level 1 or 2 PCs to CR23 creatures supported by level 18 creatures being easily defeated by level 20 PCs.
My assumption given this power progression that it is intended design to give the clear feel of increases in power.
In contrast, my assumption is that the GM or the module writer is supposed to provide the feeling of power. I explained two years ago in Encounter Balance: The Math and the Monsters that Severe Threat is a boss battle, Moderate Threat will make the party struggle and use up resources, Low Threat is easy combat, and Trivial Threat is for plot rather than for challenge, such as door guarded by a single Trivial-Threat sentry is different from an unguarded door.
I provide the feeling of increase in power by carefully selecting the Threat challenge. For example, I had a lot of control over encounters in my Ironfang Invasion campaign, because I was converting it to PF2 and had to make substitutions. The 1st chapter was the invasion of the village Phaendar and the typical enemy unit was a pair of CR 1/2 Ironfang Recruits. CR 1/2 is creature -1 in PF2 notation, so the pair was a Trivial Threat. That is not the impression I wanted to give of the war-ready Ironfang Legion, which would conquer all of southwestern Nirmathas before stopped. Thus, I replaced the pair of Ironfang Recruits with a squad of four Hobgoblin Soldiers, creature 1. That was an Extreme Threat, so the party never encountered a squad without a helpful squad of the Phaendar Defense Force nearby. (I had to invent the defense force, too.) That threat definitely made the party feel that evacuating the elderly and the children out of town and into the Fangwood Forest--their assigned duty from the Phaedar Defense Force--was a wise course.
But later at 2nd and 3rd level, they encountered similar squads (two 1st-level Hobgoblin Soldiers and one 2nd-level Heavy Trooper) in the Fangwood Forest hunting for refugees (hence, the module was named Trail of the Hunted). And then they could defeat them. That provided the feeling of increased power. The party was not expected to go on the offense until the 2nd module, but my players went on the offense hunting down Ironfang roadblock outposts at 4th level in Trail of the Hunted.
I did not need 1st-level characters being unusually weak to give a clear feel of increases in power.
On Sunday, May 25 in comment #640 Deriven Firelion had said:
It's never been mentioned in any of d20 games that I know of, but this progression has always existed. Low level you can't take on very powerful creatures and at high level you can absolutely crush them.
Everything seems to be built to progress the characters from green, easily killed new guys to high fantasy superheroes that can level dragons easily.
Even the math seems to support this where you have a difficult time using skills or hits against even a PL equal to PL+1 creature at early levels, then level 15 to 20 even PL+4 creatures are fairly easy to defeat, especially if solo.
The designers tend to know you become much, much stronger with far more options at high level. In PF1 it led to a broken game at high level where the PCs far exceeded the encounter design math loosely referred to as quadratic power increases. PF2 tightened the the math so the increase at high level is less substantial, but still gives the feel of massively increased power and resilience while not being invincible. ...
And recently, thejeff said,
Though you do get more XP for the same amount of challenge, which seems weird. Like you say, it's a GM tool for judging what a group can handle, it should be consistent. (And it's far closer than CR was in PF1.)
Because the extreme weakness at 1st level has always existed in Dungeons & Dragons and its successors, we long-term GMs and players learned to compensate for it before Pathfinder 2nd Edition existed. My adjustment is almost reflexive: go easy on the PCs at 1st level. I have played some roleplaying games that are not directly from the D&D tradition, such as GURPs, Rifts, Legend of the Five Rings, and the Serenity Roleplaying Game; unfortunately, I have played very few levels in those games. Some of them buy skills rather than leveling up. So the D&D and Pathfinder family of games is my only in-depth experience for tabletop roleplaying games.
Yet I have also played the Elder Scrolls series of computer roleplaying games. In the single-player ones, such as Elder Scrolls V; Skyrim the characters start out weak but the encounters barely change (they had hidden adjustments that a low-level character would encounter low-level bandits and a mid-level and high-level character would encounter mid-level bandits, and high-level bandits did not exist). The low-level characters learn to stick to the towns and roads, which are relatively safe, and definitely avoid mountaintops and ancient ruins, which are deadly. The off-road countryside and bandit camps are in between. The multiplayer Elder Scrolls Online originally had five zones in each faction, the first for up to 10th level, the 2nd for levels 10 to 20, and so on, capping out at level 50 in the fifth zone. Non-faction zones are even more difficult and require the enhancement of after-50th-level champion points. But in the One Tamriel revision, the developers decided to equalize the characters. A character in a zone above their level gains a multiplier number. The damage they deal is multiplied by that number and the damage they take is divided by that number to make them equal to the the level of the zone. When I play a new character who wanders into a difficult zone at 2nd level (out of 50), the new character can take down a tough monster in only two basic weapon attacks while a full-level character would need ten advanced-skill attacks.
Is the extra weakness of 1st-level characters best for the game, or is it merely familiar so that we experienced players have grown to expect it? I believe the latter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The game should not feel the same at 1 to 4 as it does at 18 to 20. That part of the game is shown by how well you can handle a PL+2 encounter at level 1 and 2 versus how easily you can handle it at level 18 to 20.
I also like a level based RPG to feel a little different from the player side from low to high level.
But PL+2 is a behind the scenes GM construct? Unless the GM tells them or players' flip through the AP or GM notes after, the players will never really experience this progression?
They will get the sense of the fictional position of enemies within the world --- used to fight goblins and now fight dragons. And some sense that Dragons are more complex. But that would work just as well if the goblins were PL+2 and the dragons were PL+2 and both were hard fights at their respective levels. (instead of current PF2e math which means you throw a PL+4 or whatever at higher level parties to achieve the equivalent threat).
I'm not sure the shifting of what PL+2 means adds that much to feeling more heroic.
Heroic? It's an empirical way to show you are much more powerful that you are more easily able to defeat more powerful threats.
I DM a lot and play a lot. So I see the math on both ends. As a DM, I can see the players empirically go from goblins being able to create a deadly threat to level 1 or 2 PCs to CR23 creatures supported by level 18 creatures being easily defeated by level 20 PCs.
My assumption given this power progression that it is intended design to give the clear feel of increases in power.
It's a clear feel and an empirical way to show you're more powerful only if players are aware on the meta level of what CR enemies they're facing. Otherwise, being able to fight dragons instead of goblins already feels far more powerful.
And if this is intended, it's a tool that isn't made clear to new GMs. New GMs will assume that the system works as advertised and that a severe...
What exactly is advertised?
Well, they will learn that a Severe challenge to level 1 is very different than Severe challenge to level 12 and a severe challenge to level 20s. That it is by intention so characters can feel the power of gaining levels.
Level 20 characters can destroy level 20 severe challenges with relatively ease. Do you want that difficulty increased? So you want level 1 to feel like level 20? Same level of difficulty across the game? Is that what you want?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Heroic? It's an empirical way to show you are much more powerful that you are more easily able to defeat more powerful threats.
I DM a lot and play a lot. So I see the math on both ends. As a DM, I can see the players empirically go from goblins being able to create a deadly threat to level 1 or 2 PCs to CR23 creatures supported by level 18 creatures being easily defeated by level 20 PCs.
My assumption given this power progression that it is intended design to give the clear feel of increases in power.
In contrast, my assumption is that the GM or the module writer is supposed to provide the feeling of power. I explained two years ago in Encounter Balance: The Math and the Monsters that Severe Threat is a boss battle, Moderate Threat will make the party struggle and use up resources, Low Threat is easy combat, and Trivial Threat is for plot rather than for challenge, such as door guarded by a single Trivial-Threat sentry is different from an unguarded door.
I provide the feeling of increase in power by carefully selecting the Threat challenge. For example, I had a lot of control over encounters in my Ironfang Invasion campaign, because I was converting it to PF2 and had to make substitutions. The 1st chapter was the invasion of the village Phaendar and the typical enemy unit was a pair of CR 1/2 Ironfang Recruits. CR 1/2 is creature -1 in PF2 notation, so the pair was a Trivial Threat. That is not the impression I wanted to give of the war-ready Ironfang Legion, which would conquer all of southwestern Nirmathas before stopped. Thus, I replaced the pair of Ironfang Recruits with a squad of four Hobgoblin Soldiers, creature 1. That was an Extreme Threat, so the party never encountered a squad without a helpful squad of the Phaendar Defense Force nearby. (I had to invent the defense force, too.) That threat...
This is the strongest first level characters have ever been.
Best for the game? What exactly does that mean? You are using concepts I'm not sure how you decide that for the "game."
I've watched so many changes over the years that I'm assuming Paizo's designers are doing what they have found best for the game. Remove save or die spells. Now save or suck spells are vastly reduced. Focus everything on damage with short-term bonuses and penalties.
We would have to go through all the changes and then talk to the internal designers who have access to game data and sales metrics to find out what they have seen is best for the game as in driving sales and player retention.
This is a forum discussion on preferences absent any real data on what the company views as best for the game.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
And if this is intended, it's a tool that isn't made clear to new GMs. New GMs will assume that the system works as advertised and that a severe...What exactly is advertised?
The GM Core explains how to set up an encounter: Running Encounters It does not describe that 1st-level PCs cannot easily handle a single 3rd-level creature; instead, it calls that a Moderate-Threat encounter.
The Pathfinder: Get Started! web page says, "Pathfinder is a fantasy tabletop roleplaying game where you tell heroic tales in a world of quests, magic, monsters, and treasures. Your choices, and the roll of the dice, determine how the story unfolds." The GM Core advertises, "This comprehensive 336-page hardcover rulebook gives Game Masters everything they need to craft thrilling tales of adventure, from a single-night’s dungeon delve to complex epics spanning years. Within these pages you’ll find clear guidelines for creating new hazards and monsters, tools to design challenging, balanced encounters, and rules for rewarding characters for the dastardly challenges you array before them!" The Beginner Box promises to be an introduction to new players, but the adventure paths don't. Instead, the Get Started page describes Adventure Paths with, "The first volume of each Adventure Path typically starts at 1st level, and each volume has a self-contained story that eventually leads to a big climax at the end of the final volume." Nothing about feeling an increase in power.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is the strongest first level characters have ever been.
Yes, isn't it great! I was able to make the beginning of Trail of the Hunted more dramatic and more consistent with the rest of the adventure path because I converted it to PF2.
Best for the game? What exactly does that mean? You are using concepts I'm not sure how you decide that for the "game."
I've watched so many changes over the years that I'm assuming Paizo's designers are doing what they have found best for the game. Remove save or die spells. Now save or suck spells are vastly reduced. Focus everything on damage with short-term bonuses and penalties.
We would have to go through all the changes and then talk to the internal designers who have access to game data and sales metrics to find out what they have seen is best for the game as in driving sales and player retention.
This is a forum discussion on preferences absent any real data on what the company views as best for the game.
The designers explained their goals during the public playtest of Pathfinder 2nd Edition in 2018. They could have changed their goals in the 7 years that followed, but I think those goals are sound.
This rulebook represents the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game’s next evolution. For the past 10 years, we’ve worked hard to make Pathfinder a game that we could all call home, filled with robust options and supported by a rich setting. We’re proud that you came with us on that journey and that you’ve shared your insight into what worked and what we should strive to improve. Now, we hope that you’ll come with us on the next step of our adventure!
This book is the culmination of more than two years of designing and developing a new edition of Pathfinder. Our aim is to make the game easier to learn and simpler to play, while maintaining the depth of character and adventure options that has always defined Pathfinder. In this version of the game, for example, players can still build a dual-wielding ranger or an elemental-focused druid, but doing so is easier and more streamlined. Along those same lines, a lich is still the same terrifying foe that it’s always been, but now Game Masters can build one to add to their stories in about half the time.
A consistent threat system for encounter balance that does not treat 1st level, 10th level, and 20th level differently fits the "easier to learn and simpler to play" goal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the designers wanted to change how the first few levels feel, they could have with the remaster. That they didn't suggests that such a change wasn't a priority for them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What exactly is advertised?
Well, they will learn that a Severe challenge to level 1 is very different than Severe challenge to level 12 and a severe challenge to level 20s. That it is by intention so characters can feel the power of gaining levels.
Level 20 characters can destroy level 20 severe challenges with relatively ease. Do you want that difficulty increased? So you want level 1 to feel like level 20? Same level of difficulty across the game? Is that what you want?
I want a Sever challenge to be a severe challenge. As a GM, I want to be able to use the tools the game gives me to judge how difficult challenges will be, without having to apply a hidden level filter to that. Now I accept such tools will always be imperfect, but I don't think the game design should deliberately make them worse without notice.
And yes, I do want the same level of difficulty throughout the game. Extreme challenges shouldn't become Moderate ones at high level. That's the whole point of having such ratings. If you wanted the game to become easier as you go up levels, you could use the rating system to design easier encounters.
There are other ways of making the PCs feel more powerful than lying on the meta level about how hard encounters will be. Having previously scary solo monsters show up as minions is an obvious one that works across all levels.
Well, I am telling you how they did it. If you wanted something else, that's not PF2.
I don't know what your process is in these games, but my process is to take the new game and play it as it is out of the box. Then modify to suit my and my groups tastes.
After playing this game for however many years, the following is true:
1. Level 1 and 2 are still the most dangerous where you can be killed by one bad crit from a higher level monster.
2. Casters still start off very weak. Not as weak as previous editions, but very weak.
3. Monsters are different challenges not just by CR, but because some abilities are more powerful within the game system. Caster monsters are very easy to kill for most levels due to action control options causing casting using 2 actions or more suboptimal when the group can control your actions. Ranged abilities when combined by high mobility is very powerful if the area allows it. And this would be a very long discussion, but suffice it to say not all challenges are the same even if the CR says they are.
4. Around level 11, the PCs become very powerful, especially casters as they are able to inflict massive hit point damage across groups which increases speed to destroy encounters that were not possible to level so quickly at lower level.
5. Certain classes are substantially more powerful than others.
6. Certain magic items are essential for martials and most magic items are barely noticeable for casters as spells are their main form of power.
Whatever you think the advertisement intended, it doesn't work like this in play. Power progression is carefully layered in to make the same CR encounters much, much easier to higher level characters.
Maybe this wasn't intentional, I cannot say. RPGS have always been built so power on the player side increased and being able to destroy encounters that were once difficult and much bigger numbers was always the way it increased. I've come to expect it over the years.
What has this led to on the forums?
Threads like this one where people think the low level hit point threshold is too low.
Threads about casters being weak which is certainly the inarguable case at low level. I even bought into this when I first tried the game because casters felt terrible at level 1 or 2. You think this hit point problem is terrible feeling, the feeling of playing a low level caster in these games including PF2 compared to a martial probably causes more people to want to quit the game than low hit points.
Is there any text in the caster descriptions for 6 hit point casters saying, "You will suck horribly at level 1 to 4, then slowly you will turn into one of the most powerful, encounter altering classes in the game." Does that text exist explaining 6 hit point casters? I don't recall it in the description for the classes. Yet this reality exists in the game.
What do you want me to tell you? Game advertisements are nebulous and generalized.
That's why you need to dig into the game and play them to figure out how it all works.
I'm telling you how it works while you are arguing how you think it should work. It doesn't work like that.
For me, that means I make my own adjustments to get the feel I want. If you want to petition Paizo for further change and hope their internal metrics will lead to them supporting the changes are you asking for, keep at it.
So far I've seen them and other game companies implement a lot of ideas from the community changing the game over the years, but at the moment the game does not provide a consistent challenge over the course of the levels. Level 1 and 2 characters have a much, much, much harder time with Moderate to Severe encounters and level 20 characters can absolutely wipe the floor with severe encounters with the same ease a level 1 or 2 character might kill a goblin or kobold warrior.
That is what I've experienced and what I see from the math progression.
The main reason I'm ok with it is because the designers still did a much, much better job of challenging level 20 characters. It at least takes group coordination doing it now rather than the level 20 wizard destroying such encounters alone in PF1/3E. Is a severe 20 encounter as hard for a level 20 character as it is for a level 1 character: no, it is not. It is not even close. A level 20 party has vast options compared to a level 1 party, enormous defenses and abilities, and can absolutely wreck a Severe 20 encounter with fair ease. You still have your work cut out for you to challenge level 20 characters as a GM and if you follow the encounter guidelines, the fight will likely be very easy for them. You have to exceed the level 20 severe encounter guidelines and likely tailor the fight to counter your party's tactics to push them like you would push a level 1 or 2 character in a moderate encounter without putting any work in.
If you want to look at that as a failure in Paizo's design, that's your call. I think of it as Paizo having done a better job than previous editions where level 15 to 20 characters were unchallengable within the rules, especially 3E/PF1.
If they get better at designing consistent challenges in future iterations of the game, I guess that will be better for you. Right now, the progression occurs as I stated it occurs. I learned this by playing PF2, not reading the advertisements.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is the strongest first level characters have ever been.Yes, isn't it great! I was able to make the beginning of Trail of the Hunted more dramatic and more consistent with the rest of the adventure path because I converted it to PF2.
Best for the game? What exactly does that mean? You are using concepts I'm not sure how you decide that for the "game."
I've watched so many changes over the years that I'm assuming Paizo's designers are doing what they have found best for the game. Remove save or die spells. Now save or suck spells are vastly reduced. Focus everything on damage with short-term bonuses and penalties.
We would have to go through all the changes and then talk to the internal designers who have access to game data and sales metrics to find out what they have seen is best for the game as in driving sales and player retention.
This is a forum discussion on preferences absent any real data on what the company views as best for the game.
The designers explained their goals during the public playtest of Pathfinder 2nd Edition in 2018. They could have changed their goals in the 7 years that followed, but I think those goals are sound.
...This rulebook represents the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game’s next evolution. For the past 10 years, we’ve worked hard to make Pathfinder a game that we could all call home, filled with robust options and supported by a rich setting. We’re proud that you came with us on that journey and that you’ve shared your insight into what worked and what we should strive to improve. Now, we hope that you’ll come with us on the next step of our adventure!
This book is the culmination of more than two years of designing and developing a new edition of Pathfinder. Our aim is to make the game easier to learn and simpler to play, while maintaining the depth of character and adventure options that has
I don't know that I want what you want. I don't want level 1 characters to feel like level 20 characters. I don't know that players would feel better about it either, which is why designers like Paizo don't do it.
If you played a character for years to get to level 20 starting off as a one shottable new, do you want to feel like that at level 20?
I think most players want their level 20 character to feel like a level 20 character. Part of that feeling is winning much easier even against Severe threats. You have your level 19 and 20 capstone feats and abilities that allow you to do absolutely insane things like a rogue with master strike, blank slate with an invisibility, and their major striking a weapon descending on a room filled with marilith using Master Strike to one shot them when a level 1 or 2 character might have trouble one shotting a kobold or orc. The caster is unleashing level 10 cataclysm doing insane damage to a whole group. And so and so on.
Do you really want that to feel the same as playing at level 1 or 2?
I don't know that is desirable in any game.
You may not like how Paizo or any game company does it, but making it easier to fight the same threat encounters is generally how they tailor power progression. I don't know it would make their games more popular or better if a level 20 Severe threat was as difficult to your level 20 character you played for years as a Severe 1 threat is to a level 1 or 2 character you whipped up in 10 minutes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are there any people here that are more recent to P2E that can share their experience so far building encounters and running them?
I have not found making low level encounters that meet the threat level they say they are to be hard to do.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know that I want what you want. I don't want level 1 characters to feel like level 20 characters. I don't know that players would feel better about it either, which is why designers like Paizo don't do it.
If you played a character for years to get to level 20 starting off as a one shottable new, do you want to feel like that at level 20?
I think most players want their level 20 character to feel like a level 20 character. Part of that feeling is winning much easier even against Severe threats. You have your level 19 and 20 capstone feats and abilities that allow you to do absolutely insane things like a rogue with master strike, blank slate with an invisibility, and their major striking a weapon descending on a room filled with marilith using Master Strike to one shot them when a level 1 or 2 character might have trouble one shotting a kobold or orc. The caster is unleashing level 10 cataclysm doing insane damage to a whole group. And so and so on.
Do you really want that to feel the same as playing at level 1 or 2?
I don't know that is desirable in any game.
You may not like how Paizo or any game company does it, but making it easier to fight the same threat encounters is generally how they tailor power progression. I don't know it would make their games more popular or better if a level 20 Severe threat was as difficult to your level 20 character you played for years as a Severe 1 threat is to a level 1 or 2 character you whipped up in 10 minutes.
My Ironfang Invasion campaign:
1st level: The party runs around Phaendar Village warning people of the invasion to evactuate them. The Ironfang army teleported in via an artifact called the Stone Road. The PCs have to avoid being cornered by 1st-level Hobgoblin Soldiers.
2nd level: The party scouts for the refugee band led by the retired ranger Aubrin the Green and hiding in the Fangwood Forest. They kill wild animals and a patrol of Hobgoblin Soldiers.
3rd level: The party clears a secret hideout of human-sacrificing xulgath cultists so that the refugees can hide there.
4th level: The party scouts the next village, Polebridge, and find an 320-xp Ironfang garrison maintaining a roadblock. They wipe out the garrison.
5th level: The party seeks the Chernasardo Rangers who were supposed to defend Phaendar and Polebridge. The first Chernasardo fort had been conquered by fey who had conquered it from the minimal Ironfang Legion force left to occupy it. They bluff the fey and rescue a one-legged Chernasardo Ranger. That ranger explains that an adult black dragon had conquered the fort for the Ironfang Legion.
6th level: The Chernasardo Ranger guides them to a second Chernasardo fort, this one occupied by Ironfang trolls. They kill some trolls, having to burn hero points because they don't have enough fire. Then they brave the traps in the armory to find dragon-killing weapons.The party jumps to Radya's Hollow in the 3rd module to stop the Ironfang Legion from conquering it. They defeat an entire 64-soldier army, grouped into 5th-level troop units of 4 Hobgoblin Soldiers each.
7th level: They use magic to reconnaissance and secretly enter the 3rd Chernasardo fort. By deception they take out some of the Ironfang hobgoblins, rescue captured Chernasardo recruits, and get a night's rest. Then they clear out the fort and make a deal with the black dragon to break ties with the Ironfang Legion. The druid adopts a roc animal companion.
8th level: They go to the city of Longshadow, which is unaware that the Ironfang Legion is closing around them due to a deception campaign. They take out the impostors feeding the false information. They improve the city defenses and train additional defenders.
9th level: They take out the Ironfang camps surrounding Longshadow.
10th and 11th level: They, the Longshadow archers they trained, and the highest-level NPCs in Longshadow defend the town from an assault of 350 soldiers, most grouped into 9th-level troops units of 16 Hobgoblin Soldiers each, but some are troops of minotaurs and goblin wolfriders. After their victory, they reject a truce with the Ironfang Legion because the hobgoblins won't free their slaves.
12th level: They return to Phaendar to dig an escape tunnel to rescue captured villagers. Then they head down into the tunnels of the Darklands to trace how the Ironfang Legion found the Stone Road artifact.
13th level: They fight some inhabitants of the Darklands and befriend others.
14th level: They enter the Dwarven Sky-Citadel of Kraggodan and assure the dwarven rulers that they are not another band of thieves. They clear the reliquary of ancient artifacts of inter-dimensional monsters to learn the secrets of the Onyx Key that controls the Stone Road. They stop a war between Kraggodan and Moltune.
15th level: They head northward to the Blighted Region of Fangwood. The module skips the journey, but my players insisted on playing through a 75-mile journey through Ironfang-occupied territory. They defeated a hag innkeeper and acquired a mithral waffle iron. They used their black dragon contact from 7th level to meet the ancient black dragon of the Blight and distract her with delicious waffles to steal a magic ring from her.
16th-level: The rogue acquires a Jubjub bird animal companion. They enter the underground residence of Blighted Dryad Queen Arlantia. They bluff their way past the early minions, but have to fight the rest including a 19th-level Primal Bandersnatch. They free four Ironfang Commandos from Queen Arlantia's mind control.
17th level: Queen Arlantia traps the party in the pocket dimension where she has imprisoned the goddess Gendowyn for the last 700 years. But they arrive with all their magic items and manage to combine resources with Gendowyn and her surviving retainers to break free. They defeat 20th-level Queen Arlantia and her minions.
18th level: The party heads to Tamran, capital of Nirmathas, for a war council. Gendowyn's retainer Gossamer warns them that the Ironfang Legion is invading the town of Emberville. With the help of an artifact given to them by Gendowyn, they and some observers from the war council treestride to Emberville. They defeat five 16th-level Ironfang Veteran Troops and their 16th-level leader pretty easily.
19th level: The party travels to the Vault of the Onyx Citial on the Elemental Plane of Earth. They use their own means rather than a captured Stone Road gate, so the Ironfang Legion does not know they are there. They secretly sabotage all seven geomantic nexuses that power the Stone Road. They rescue the Vault Keeper Ziguch the Seventh Facet who rewards them with apex items and a map of the Onyx Citadel. They sneak into the 3rd floor of the Onyx Citadel, but end up fighting the 23rd-level avatar of Hadregash, the Barghest Hero-God of Slavery. Player character Honey achieves godhood.
20th level: They defeat General Azaersi and sorceress Zanathura and stop Zanathura's backup plan of using the Stone Road to annihilate Nirmathas and Molthune. They give the Onyx Key back to Ziguch the Seventh Facet. Upon returning home, Gendowyn sends the party to Deadeye's Haunt, an undead-infested valley where the evil goddess Argwyn will emerge. The party befriends Argwyn, and Gendowyn, Honey, and Argwyn form a pantheon.
The PCs fought soldiers, entire armies, flying creatures, incorporeal creatures, lava monsters, four-armed horrors dreamed up by H.P.Lovecraft, whimsical monsters dreamed up by Lewis Carroll, an avatar of a god, and a few powerful spellcasters. But it wasn't the power level of the creatures that mattered, it was the variety. They talked with dragons instead of fighting them. They solved mysteries. They trained defenders. They negotiated with governments. They visited the Darklands, a dwarven metropolis, and the Elemental Plane of Earth. The difficulty at 1st and 2nd levels and the ease of 19th and 20th level (sigh, I had assumed they defeated a level+4 avatar via good tactics on an oversized party) is simply a pair of annoying potholes on the long road of an adventure path. So very much else is going on at all levels that a gradual gradient in power level is not going to make any noticeable difference except to the GM who notices that the Encounter Budget table is miscalibrated at those fringe levels.
I would rather have the miscalibration corrected.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know that I want what you want. I don't want level 1 characters to feel like level 20 characters. I don't know that players would feel better about it either, which is why designers like Paizo don't do it.
If you played a character for years to get to level 20 starting off as a one shottable new, do you want to feel like that at level 20?
I think most players want their level 20 character to feel like a level 20 character. Part of that feeling is winning much easier even against Severe threats. You have your level 19 and 20 capstone feats and abilities that allow you to do absolutely insane things like a rogue with master strike, blank slate with an invisibility, and their major striking a weapon descending on a room filled with marilith using Master Strike to one shot them when a level 1 or 2 character might have trouble one shotting a kobold or orc. The caster is unleashing level 10 cataclysm doing insane damage to a whole group. And so and so on.
Do you really want that to feel the same as playing at level 1 or 2?
I don't know that is desirable in any game.
You may not like how Paizo or any game company does it, but making it easier to fight the same threat encounters is generally how they tailor power progression. I don't know it would make their games more popular or better if a level 20 Severe threat was as difficult to your level 20 character you played for years as a Severe 1 threat is to a level 1 or 2 character you whipped up in 10 minutes.
My Ironfang Invasion campaign:
** spoiler omitted **...
First, you have to prove it's a miscalibration meaning the designers did not intend it.
It seems they have already increased the power level of level 1 to 4 martials and casters, though the casters still feel terrible at level 1 to 4 compared to the martials.
The "miscalibration" as you call it is even worse for level 1 to 4 6 hp casters. But I always considered this the unwritten rule of "You start off weak and terrible, then become absolute monsters by level 20."
Maybe they should include some of this in their DM guidelines as those of us that have been playing for 40 plus years are used to it. To new players this "unwritten" progression may feel jarring. I think it occurs in every game I've ever played other than Marvel Superheroes for the real old timers that tried the game back in the 80s. Advancement in that game was point-based by very gradual and the majority of the power was given from the beginning because you were a superhero.
But point-based games like GURPS or level-based like D&D/PF or some mix like Top Secret all start off with very weak, easily killable players then reach the apex of near invincible heroes.
If you feel the measures they took in PF2 to shore up the low levels are insufficient, then petition for more.
As far as the power progression, I'm not real sold that people want their level 20 characters having problems with even severe encounters. I think they like being supremely powerful at level 20 to where they wipe the floor even with the tough encounters.
They could explain this to GMs better, especially new GMs. I would think it was pretty obvious that when the encounter design math is using PL+2 for a level 1 or 2 character who can maybe do an electric arc for 2d4 or a burning hands for 2d6 to a few enemies is going to be very different than a PL+2 encounter for a character dropping chain lightening with martials using greater striking weapons with ramped up rage or specialization.
I'm not sure how you make those exact same characters feel the same threat level at level 1 or 2 with few options and level 11 to 20 with numerous amazing options feel the same without making power progression feel as though it doesn't exist.
I walked in as an example at level 20 with my sorcerer and dropped a level 9 banishment that took numerous CR 18 extraplanar creatures off the board with a 3 action cast. There is zero chance a level 1 or 2 character can do this. It would have taken martials likely numerous rounds to carve through them taking hits. Caster just removed them from the board.
I've seen crit fails on CR+3 and 4 bosses on a slow spell which turns those encounters from "This seems hard" to a walk in the park. If you have a trip specialist martial with a slow caster, those fights go from "This looks severe" to "Let's finish the rolls. This thing is done."
What more can Paizo do to make this happen even less? Remove slow? Get rid of Trip? Just turn it all into back and forth damage? I have done AOE slow at level 11 and up and that turns mook battles into weak fights or if you have multiple AOE casters ripping groups apart.
You want level 1 and 2 characters to be able to do this right from level 1? I don't know. So you feel like superman all the way up? I don't know that that feels great. Seems like it make progression feel stale.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is deeper than numbers if you expect solo level +4 creatures to be the same threat at 1st level and 20th level.
1. Severe encounters are particularly dangerous at low levels because players are still learning their characters and haven't necessarily had time to make sure their characters have a full range of actions, reactions, movement types, and consumable emergency options that can be employed when you feel like you are encountering a boss.
2. Spells have to do more than just more damage as they increase in rank. The number of spells players have available to them at higher level increases too and thus the breath of options available to players grows over time. This is not just true with spells, it is true with items as well.
3. High level feats need to feel more impressive than lower level feats, and with so many different classes, that adds a lot more potential variety to player options as well. These feats are more static than spells and items, but...
4. You just can't have a functional game and design high level monsters to have the same kind of versatility and options as players. It is too much to memorize and keep track of in combat. NPCs have to be streamlined, and most of the time, this will mean that the party grows more tactically flexible than the enemies over time.
However, sometimes, even high level PCs get caught off gaurd by some monsters nastier abilities and those fights can be really challenging for players at high level. At low level, the numbers alone can make a fight challenging, but by higher level, the options for buffs and debuffs are so broad that numbers alone don't really cut it.
I think this is why Deriven sees this across games. These things are not about starting HP or mathmatical balance, they are primarily about how players grow more proficient with their characters while the GM will likely grow less proficient with NPC abilities, as you don't use all the high level creatures as frequently in play and there can be a lot to keep track of. Failing to do so can quickly make a monster much less of a challenge than it was before.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is deeper than numbers if you expect solo level +4 creatures to be the same threat at 1st level and 20th level.
1. Severe encounters are particularly dangerous at low levels because players are still learning their characters and haven't necessarily had time to make sure their characters have a full range of actions, reactions, movement types, and consumable emergency options that can be employed when you feel like you are encountering a boss.
2. Spells have to do more than just more damage as they increase in rank. The number of spells players have available to them at higher level increases too and thus the breath of options available to players grows over time. This is not just true with spells, it is true with items as well.
3. High level feats need to feel more impressive than lower level feats, and with so many different classes, that adds a lot more potential variety to player options as well. These feats are more static than spells and items, but...
4. You just can't have a functional game and design high level monsters to have the same kind of versatility and options as players. It is too much to memorize and keep track of in combat. NPCs have to be streamlined, and most of the time, this will mean that the party grows more tactically flexible than the enemies over time.
However, sometimes, even high level PCs get caught off gaurd by some monsters nastier abilities and those fights can be really challenging for players at high level. At low level, the numbers alone can make a fight challenging, but by higher level, the options for buffs and debuffs are so broad that numbers alone don't really cut it.
I think this is why Deriven sees this across games. These things are not about starting HP or mathmatical balance, they are primarily about how players grow more proficient with their characters while the GM will likely grow less proficient with NPC abilities, as you don't use all the high level creatures as frequently in play and there can be a lot to keep track of....
That's part of it.
Part of it power in these games also is driven by how much you can effect. Let's say Mathmuse is designing a severe encounter with multiple creatures. At level 1 to even level 10, this can be a much rougher encounter than a single boss due to action economy parity. Low level PCs have a limited ability to affect multiple targets which makes these fights much, much tougher. Once you get to higher level the encounter design is similar based on recommended encounter design, but you can affect multiple creatures much easier whether it's damage or effects. A caster goes from casting a single target fear to a single target slow at level 5 to a multitarget slow at level 11 to easily casting a multitarget slow nearly every battle at level 15 plus. It's the same with damage spells.
If you're designing an encounter using the encounter design rules, the number of creatures the PCs can easily deal with changes drastically while the encounter math is still telling you that's a PL+2 severe encounter.
Do I think the designers don't know this? I have a hard time believing that as most of them are experienced and intelligent game designers.
So I have to believe they know that when you go from casting a burning hands to a fireball to a sunburst to a meteor swarm to a cataclysm, they know that progression of spell power allows higher level characters to more easily defeat the same CR encounters that lower level characters might have more trouble with with their weaker overall power and ability to affect multiple targets.
Combat Progression is basically how much you can shift the probabilities and whether that is improvement of defense and offense combined with action economy that includes the number of targets you can affect per action spent.
While the encounter difficulty guidelines seem to stay pretty static.
That would indicate to me that the designers without stating incorporated power progression that allows higher level characters to handle more difficult encounters more easily while DMs/GMs are expected to use the same guidelines using CR to design the encounters. This ensures the players feel satisfied by progression and GMs must trust creatures are still designed strong enough to ensure that the game isn't much as a pushover as 3E/PF1.
They don't state it in this fashion, but the game definitely ensures players feel much stronger as they level and GMs can still provide a challenge even if a severe for a level 1 and 2 isn't near as hard as a severe for a level 19 and 20.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's put it that way, the very first PL+2 enemy I ran in Abomination Vaults, which was only at level 3, because I had nerfed all other PL+2 - PL+3 enemies before that to be PL+1 with more minions (due to a recommendation on Reddit), critted our sanctified holy Cloistered Cleric with a Chilling Darkness, which only due to my misreading of the spell didn't massive damage the character from 100% to -100% health. As it was, the crit instantly dropped her to 0 hitpoints from full hitpoints.
At higher levels stupid stuff like this can't happen anymore and Chilling Darkness probably is an outlier, because it was changed in the Remaster from being 100% more effective against celestials to being 100% more effective against everyone who is sanctified holy (which is an insane upgrade to enemies, since a lot of Champions and Clerics will be sanctified holy at many tables), but it really was an eye-opener for me that maybe low levels really need to be treated a bit more carefully than higher levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Best for the game? What exactly does that mean? You are using concepts I'm not sure how you decide that for the "game."
It genuinely comes down to design "universals" like "players hate getting KOed by bullshit" as the shared starting point, then working to pin down what "bullshit" means, subdividing it until you can get to fundamental points of agreement / disagreement.
This is why my starting point is "no mistake" full-->downs. If the player doesn't make an error, a "punishment" like one-shotting them is easy to see as "BS."
... Remove save or die spells. Now save or suck spells are vastly reduced. Focus everything on damage with short-term bonuses and penalties.
You seem to catastrophize a lot, there is no reason that a reduction of save-or-die magics would lead to an over-focus on damage. It's kinda closer to the opposite. When a spell doesn't have a "the target is out of the fight" crit fail, and that save-or-die nonsense is removed, it leaves more "power budget" to make the spell more useful in the general case of other outcomes.
Incap as a concept is a way to artificially "reduce" the power of many of these spells specifically to make them worse in the player's hands, but not their foes.
The more pf2 I play, the less I think incap "worked" as a design concept. It's the definition of an artificial barrier. Higher level foes already have the save advantage.
I don't know what your process is in these games, but my process is to take the new game and play it as it is out of the box. Then modify to suit my and my groups tastes.
And this is what most people are doing here. Your issue is that "most people" have less bias to favor 30+ year old "bad" math. It really doesn't take a degree in game design to understand that the HP growth is FUBAR.
I'm telling you how it works while you are arguing how you think it should work. It doesn't work like that.
No, and this is why you find this conversation so frustrating.
People do understand how the math and systems express themselves emergently in game play right now. Someone can understand that having the HP durability of paper causes the player to feel weak, and then still disagree with that being a "good thing" mechanically.
They are attempting to converse to pin down what specific elements are "flaws." Rephrased, what specific elements are hurting their fun more than helping it.
.
They are doing exactly what you claim, taking the as-is game and then discussing how to modify it.
This is why I didn't enter this thread convo until I had a system change ready to offer, a +X increase to starting PC HP.
(and this bonus can be reduced with a [-Y * level] if they want to leave high level untouched, or any other tweak to the base concept)
.
I'll also head off and preempt your repeated "rebuttal:"
There are many countless ways to uses systems and math to make low level PCs feel like neophytes in combat, without cursing them to explode Dying all the time from a lack of HP.
For starters, there's all the static DC skill checks. Even when putting class feats to the side,
there's the chassis class progression where rather key parts of one's kit are denied at low level.
Everyone's genuinely happy that Alch get's to use Powerful Alchemy for their daily prep items now, but it's easy to forget that it's a L5 power. You get 0 DC scaling at all until L5. That's a huge "not a newbie anymore" moment.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Incapacitation is very much a trait that helps PCs as much as it “hurts” them. When facing hordes of pre remaster ghouls, for example, the party will really notice when the fear of having to not ever roll a natural one goes away and a suddenly difficult enemy becomes something they don’t have to worry about nearly as much. The same with enemies that can dominate or control PCs or any of the ones that turn the party to stone.
If the PCs never get to experience that switch, they might not be likely to notice how much incapacitation helps them, but, directly from the developer’s mouth, we know incapacitation was designed to help PCs navigate the very intentional enemy progression chart of facing a solo enemy early on being a real challenge and potentially facing that enemy again later on as a minion for something else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I just disagree (strongly) with this one.
Part of the reason Slow is such a staple is not because of the direct incap mechanic, but because of the 2ndary emergent result. The lack of incap means one can cast it from a lower rank slot, either 3 or 6, but never any other. It's not just the good effect, it's that the resource cost of using it goes down as higher R slots become available.
If there's ever 3 foes that can be subject to the same Grease, you can bet I'm considering it. That only happens because R1 Grease still keeps it's non-incap functionality.
Incap breaks normal rules to force the caster to spend their most precious resource, the top R slot, if they want to get any reliable usage out of them. This is imbalanced very much against the heroes, as I've never once seen nor heard of a foe with simulated spent slots.
.
Most importantly, it also seems incredibly rare as a player to get hit with (and fail) a lower-level incap effect.
I honestly do not know of a single time at a table I've seen incap downgrade an effect that was attacking the party. It's possible someone has rolled to save vs a penalized incap, but a lot of the monster incap effects are already "does nothing on save," so you need to first fail a roll that's not % likely.
I played AmbVlts, and I didn't even know ghouls had incap, but I did learn about the elf special resistance, because a party member invoked it.
... we know incapacitation was designed to help PCs navigate the very intentional enemy progression chart of facing a solo enemy early on being a real challenge and potentially facing that enemy again later on as a minion for something else.
Uh, well, instead of me pointing at it as a "bad" unit of design for hurting the game more than helping, I can instead refer to incap as a "design failure," lol.
If their intent was one thing, but in practice the emergent result is another, then that's kinda how one can define a failure as a concept.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Part of it power in these games also is driven by how much you can effect. Let's say Mathmuse is designing a severe encounter with multiple creatures. At level 1 to even level 10, this can be a much rougher encounter than a single boss due to action economy parity. Low level PCs have a limited ability to affect multiple targets which makes these fights much, much tougher. Once you get to higher level the encounter design is similar based on recommended encounter design, but you can affect multiple creatures much easier whether it's damage or effects. A caster goes from casting a single target fear to a single target slow at level 5 to a multitarget slow at level 11 to easily casting a multitarget slow nearly every battle at level 15 plus. It's the same with damage spells.
If you're designing an encounter using the encounter design rules, the number of creatures the PCs can easily deal with changes drastically while the encounter math is still telling you that's a PL+2 severe encounter.
Do I think the designers don't know this? I have a hard time believing that as most of them are experienced and intelligent game designers.
I am confused about the phrase "PL+2 severe encounter." One PL+2 creature is a Moderate-Threat encounter, and two PL+2 creatures are an Extreme-Threat encounter. Maybe Deriven Firelion meant PL+3, but he was talking about multiple creatures in the encounter.
Anyways, encounters with multiple creatures are standard for me. I tend to have 7 players in my latest campaigns and I seldom have fewer than 5 players, so I frequently re-balance the module's encounters by adding more creatures. On the other hand, since the encounter has more PCs, too, it does not require area-of-effect or multi-target spells. Though low-level spellcasters are fond of the two-target Electric Arc cantrip.
My Ironfang Invasion party fought patrols, garrisons, and armies, so they became specialists in taking down multiple foes. My Strength of Thousands party is more normal. The 1st-module, Kindled Magic, threw groups of gremlins or groups of giant insects at the party. The party is heavy in primary spellcasters, since the setting is a school of magic, who prefer to attack at range. Only three of seven PCs will willingly get into melee so that the rest can stand at range: the champion Wilfred, the rogue Roshan, and the kineticist Cara'sseth. The bard Jinx, the bard Stargazer, the wizard Idris, and the magus Zandre prefer further away. Jinx learned the Triple Time composition cantrip at 4th level, so everyone could Stride quickly to keep their distance. Before that, opponents could close in on a squishy spellcaster and beat them unconscious unless the champion could run close enough to prevent damage.
I have a 4th-level group battle chronicled at Virgil Tibbs, Playtest Rune Smith, comment #9. But it is a group of higher-level foes: a 4th-level necromancer, a 6th-level bruiser (she is martial but neither fighter nor rogue), and a 7th-level rogue. The bruiser encounter is marked Low 5, the rogue encounter is marked Moderate 5, and the necromancer I added. I grouped them together and scheduled them one level earlier because I wanted a Severe-Threat encounter for the runesmith playtest.
An interesting group battle of a 5th-level party of 6 leshies (animist, barbarian, exemplar, kineticist, psychic, and swashbuckler) versus 22 2nd-level bandits occurred in my Fistful of Flowers campaign. I had chronicled it at How many 10 minute rests do you take? comment #35 in a conversation with Deriven Firelion. Despite the party being 5th level, I don't think any leshy had an area-of-effect spell besides the animist's emanations such as Garden of Healing and Discomforting Whispers. The battle was not a single Severe-Threat encounter, though. I summarized it as, "This battle could be viewed as a 30-xp Trivial-Threat encounter against the 1st three patrolling bandits, followed by a 30-xp Trivial-Threat Encounter of entering houses of sleeping bandits, immediately followed by a 80-xp Moderate-Threat encounter of the 1st wave of awakened bandits, and finally the 80-xp Moderate-Threat encounter of the 2nd wave. A rest break would have let the two waves combine into a 160-xp Extreme Threat."
Multiple foes are just multiple targets. They have to be few in number if high level, so the big fights are against low level. That does make area-of-effect spells very effective, but the 5th-level leshy barbarian could take a 2nd-level bandit down to just a few hit points in one blow so that another PC could finish them off easily.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's put it that way, the very first PL+2 enemy I ran in Abomination Vaults, which was only at level 3, because I had nerfed all other PL+2 - PL+3 enemies before that to be PL+1 with more minions (due to a recommendation on Reddit), critted our sanctified holy Cloistered Cleric with a Chilling Darkness, which only due to my misreading of the spell didn't massive damage the character from 100% to -100% health. As it was, the crit instantly dropped her to 0 hitpoints from full hitpoints.
At higher levels stupid stuff like this can't happen anymore and Chilling Darkness probably is an outlier, because it was changed in the Remaster from being 100% more effective against celestials to being 100% more effective against everyone who is sanctified holy (which is an insane upgrade to enemies, since a lot of Champions and Clerics will be sanctified holy at many tables), but it really was an eye-opener for me that maybe low levels really need to be treated a bit more carefully than higher levels.
Things like this really show a difference between the GM Core guidelines and some AP designs. A lot of issue with killing off players is coming from AP designs and not the actual guidelines.
Based on the GM core guidelines a creature wouldn't have the ability to do 10d6 damage until about level 9 with a limited use AOE but probably a few levels lower for a single target limited use two action ability.So that's thing about giving creatures spells based on player progression. I think the AP is outside the guidelines using spells like that.
If we were using the guidelines to make the same creature it would never have an ability that could do 10d6 damage to a player even conditionally if it was below level 7.