Pathfinder 2E Another Deadly Session, and It's Getting Old
- Thread starter Retreater
- Start date
8th level as the adventure recommends, with a bonus 8th level character for whom I don't heighten the difficulty. The characters were all built at 8th level as a result of our last TPK, so everyone should be maximized with gear and optimization for 8th level play. (None of that "I took this feat because it was helpful at 3rd level.") Plus characters were created to synergize at a session 0.
TheSword
Warhammer Fantasy Imperial Plenipotentiary
Sounds painful. I’m not a fan of characters dying from a bad dice roll and an average dice roll. Sounds sucky, irrespective of wither the second encounter should have been folded in. I totally understand your frustration at a PC dying and wasting a session from something they could do little about.
My advice if this continues to be a problem. Junk PF2 convert Paizo APs to 5e and make the switch. Or just play one of the many excellent 5e campaigns.
My advice if this continues to be a problem. Junk PF2 convert Paizo APs to 5e and make the switch. Or just play one of the many excellent 5e campaigns.
Unfortunately the group has a "been there, done that" mentality with 5e, and only PF2 has gotten them out of the fantasy d20 system doldrums. Whereas 5e bores them, this is a feeling of hopeless futility.
Honestly, there's not much more that we can do with 5e. There's a bland sameness to every campaign.
Warning: this is going to be long .
Okay first I would like frame this post with this excellent article from The Alexandrian (as pointed out by kenada).
Second I would like to define some terms.
Stream-of-combats style games expect the characters to run a set number of combats in a row. No individual combat is much of a challenge, only a sequence of them, so creative precombat tactics are de-emphasized as they are not needed. The game structure is combat, reset, combat, reset, etc.. Games like D&D 4e and 5e; and pathfinder 1e lens themselves to this kind of play (a very big clue is that they list the number of combats that should be in the stream).
Asymmetrical-Combat games on the other hand, have deadly combats and creative tactics to avoid or trivialize them are emphasized. The game structure is much less formulaic: many would prefer no combat at all. Games like Shadowrun (mirrorshades style), Eclipse Phase, Chronicles of Darkness, and early D&D are this style of game. Notably none of these systems indicate how many combats should be in the stream - because ideally there is no stream.
Pathfinder 2e can be played either way though it is more heavily geared towards Asymmetrical-Combat and those playing in Stream-of-combat mode won’t use all the features (or find them annoying).
The problem you are having is that you are trying to play Stream-of-combats style in an adventure that is setup for Asymmetrical-combat and the adventure writers didn’t mention this to you because to them it is obvious (since that is what hex-crawls traditionally are). Giving an analogy from a different system, Shadowrun, you are doing runs against AAA tier megacorps by barging into buildings with guns drawn and getting smacked down by corpsec backed by HTR teams and trying to figure out why everyone keeps dying on runs.
Side note: this incidentally is what made Kingmaker 1e so easy - it was trying to do asymmetrical-combat in a system heavily geared for stream-of-combats.
So now that we have the problem we need to find the solution. And there are two: either modify the adventure to make it more stream-of-combats or modify your playstyle to make it more in-line with Asymmetrical-Combat.
From your post in the other thread:
Consider the following “random” encounters:
1. A hill giant crashes out of the brush and attacks the party. Roll initiative. Combat ensues.
2. The party comes across a wagon that has been smashed, the horses are dead, and the whole thing reeks of wine. There are large humanoid tracks leading away into the forest and a pained, whimpering sound is coming from just inside the forest on the other side. What does the party do? I can’t tell you because in this scenario the players have agency: they can follow the tracks or check out the whimpering to find the badly injured wine merchant in the forest. Or maybe they just shrug and continue on. Also note that the hill giant is clearly foreshadowed. It is not a surprise: there are multiple ways they can learn what they are up against (identity the tracks, talk to the merchant, stealthy follow the tracks and see the drunken giant, etc.)
(To be continued in my next post, hopefully this doesn’t come across as too preachy)
Edit: typos
Okay first I would like frame this post with this excellent article from The Alexandrian (as pointed out by kenada).
Second I would like to define some terms.
Stream-of-combats style games expect the characters to run a set number of combats in a row. No individual combat is much of a challenge, only a sequence of them, so creative precombat tactics are de-emphasized as they are not needed. The game structure is combat, reset, combat, reset, etc.. Games like D&D 4e and 5e; and pathfinder 1e lens themselves to this kind of play (a very big clue is that they list the number of combats that should be in the stream).
Asymmetrical-Combat games on the other hand, have deadly combats and creative tactics to avoid or trivialize them are emphasized. The game structure is much less formulaic: many would prefer no combat at all. Games like Shadowrun (mirrorshades style), Eclipse Phase, Chronicles of Darkness, and early D&D are this style of game. Notably none of these systems indicate how many combats should be in the stream - because ideally there is no stream.
Pathfinder 2e can be played either way though it is more heavily geared towards Asymmetrical-Combat and those playing in Stream-of-combat mode won’t use all the features (or find them annoying).
The problem you are having is that you are trying to play Stream-of-combats style in an adventure that is setup for Asymmetrical-combat and the adventure writers didn’t mention this to you because to them it is obvious (since that is what hex-crawls traditionally are). Giving an analogy from a different system, Shadowrun, you are doing runs against AAA tier megacorps by barging into buildings with guns drawn and getting smacked down by corpsec backed by HTR teams and trying to figure out why everyone keeps dying on runs.
Side note: this incidentally is what made Kingmaker 1e so easy - it was trying to do asymmetrical-combat in a system heavily geared for stream-of-combats.
So now that we have the problem we need to find the solution. And there are two: either modify the adventure to make it more stream-of-combats or modify your playstyle to make it more in-line with Asymmetrical-Combat.
From your post in the other thread:
I assume you want to do the latter? I can help you with that. The key is to focus on some of the fundamentals of encounters: most especially foreshadowing and player agency. Let me give you an example:
Consider the following “random” encounters:
1. A hill giant crashes out of the brush and attacks the party. Roll initiative. Combat ensues.
2. The party comes across a wagon that has been smashed, the horses are dead, and the whole thing reeks of wine. There are large humanoid tracks leading away into the forest and a pained, whimpering sound is coming from just inside the forest on the other side. What does the party do? I can’t tell you because in this scenario the players have agency: they can follow the tracks or check out the whimpering to find the badly injured wine merchant in the forest. Or maybe they just shrug and continue on. Also note that the hill giant is clearly foreshadowed. It is not a surprise: there are multiple ways they can learn what they are up against (identity the tracks, talk to the merchant, stealthy follow the tracks and see the drunken giant, etc.)
(To be continued in my next post, hopefully this doesn’t come across as too preachy)
Edit: typos
Last edited:
The barbarian, clearly. Just send him down the hall first to check for traps.The problem with nasty traps is that the consequences of failure are often very painful indeed. And failure always remains a distinct possibility (you generally have less than 50% chance of making a DC from a higher-levelled effect). And who do you think is the first one to suffer the trap's effects...?
ronaldsf
Explorer
If it feels tuned too high, perhaps everyone can agree to tune things down a level? There's no shame in doing so. Despite PF2's balance, I found (at least at the lowest levels) that certain party makeups are going to have a harder time. And it's a game at the end of the day.
And I agree with CapnZapp -- I've taken a look at this encounter area and the designer/author clearly had the idea of the party taking extended rests between encounters while every monster sits in their room waiting to be killed. If you want to run a more dynamic/intelligent enemy, you will need to adjust the encounters downward.
PF2's encounter-building guidelines are accurate, BUT they assume individual fights, and Severe encounters assume a party that is not far from full health.
(By the way, I am running Volume 2 also myself. We just had the party's first TPK while they were all Level 7. The last time they TPK'd they were Level 2. They aren't frustrated however and actually enjoy making new characters so I'm a bit fortunate in that regard. FYI I saw that the last encounter area was a meat grinder, and so when the party decided to dally around and do downtime activities, I emptied out some of those monsters and had them re-take the Temple with the gate to Breachill. That was where the TPK happened. This "dynamic" response by the Cinderclaws hopefully will make the last encounter area more reasonable without me having to make adjustments.)
And I agree with CapnZapp -- I've taken a look at this encounter area and the designer/author clearly had the idea of the party taking extended rests between encounters while every monster sits in their room waiting to be killed. If you want to run a more dynamic/intelligent enemy, you will need to adjust the encounters downward.
PF2's encounter-building guidelines are accurate, BUT they assume individual fights, and Severe encounters assume a party that is not far from full health.
(By the way, I am running Volume 2 also myself. We just had the party's first TPK while they were all Level 7. The last time they TPK'd they were Level 2. They aren't frustrated however and actually enjoy making new characters so I'm a bit fortunate in that regard. FYI I saw that the last encounter area was a meat grinder, and so when the party decided to dally around and do downtime activities, I emptied out some of those monsters and had them re-take the Temple with the gate to Breachill. That was where the TPK happened. This "dynamic" response by the Cinderclaws hopefully will make the last encounter area more reasonable without me having to make adjustments.)
We had our first TPK against the Bargheist in the caves below the Citadel in the 1st book. Then again, when they foolishly charged in, guns ablazin', to take on the entire Cinderclaw mining operation in the 2nd book. (They admitted their fault in strategy on that one.)
@!DWolf thanks for the insightful response. I'm fairly accustomed to both OSR-style games as well as the "stream-of-combats" type of game. I think PF2 gives the illusion that it is a "stream-of-combats" style game, not to mention that the newer/casual players come from a that background. I think the group's overall style is closer to that style of game, since they just recently mentioned that they want less tension and stress in a casual game. I don't think they mind the crunch or options. Just that they don't want a game with a really slow pace that means that they have to gather information, retreat, choose their combats wisely, etc.
Right
. What you want to do is to turn down encounters by about one level (keep XP the same). Moderate to low, etc. there is a “weak adjustment” in the rules that should help with that. Alternatively, you could try increasing the parties level by 1 over where they should be, though you have to be careful of the wealth by level guidelines, Xp rewards, and suchlike if you do that. You should also focus on foreshadowing encounters (allowing better combat tactics from the players and making the encounters easier) and maybe houserule/hand wave out of combat healing. I will still make my post on foreshadowing in published adventures though, since while you may know, others reading this thread might not.
Similar Threads
Recent & Upcoming Releases
-
June 16 2026 -
June 16 2026 -
September 16 2026 
Arcana Unleashed(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.
Replies (192) -
September 16 2026 -
October 1 2026 -
October 6 2026 -
January 1 2027
