Pathfinder 2E My Biggest Concern for Pathfinder 2e

[CapnZapp]

I’m trying to understand the scenario where PCs would be expected to fight and win against much higher level enemies.

I think the sentiment is more "I want my players' party to be able to survive a large variety of monsters". Note survive, not necessarily win. As opposed to your hero getting automatically one-shotted by any monster X levels higher than you.

In other words, I think the sentiment is reasonable as long as it isn't narrowed in.

 

[CapnZapp]

From what I understand, the Gamemastery Guide will have information on flattening out the math. People on the Paizo forums have reported that they removed +level during the playtest without any issues, so most of what’s needed is new guidelines on encounter building (since the ones in the “Game Mastering” chapter of the CRB assume the difficulty current scaling).

Personally, I think that's the easy part. Easy as in really obvious, that is.

What I would prefer myself, is a reissued Bestiary with all the math changed. That would be truly useful and convenient, saving me from having to remember each and every single instance of subtracting level. Remember, you can't slip up even once, no matter how much else you have on your DM plate, however tired or distracted you might ever be...

 

[kenada]

I think making that adjustment will be the domain of tools that can do the math automatically.

I think the sentiment is more "I want my players' party to be able to survive a large variety of monsters". Note survive, not necessarily win. As opposed to your hero getting automatically one-shotted by any monster X levels higher than you.

Sure, but “not winning” usually looks like “everyone dies” in D&D and Pathfinder. PCs have few tools they can use reliably to disengage from an enemy once a fight has started.

 

[RSIxidor]

From what I understand, the Gamemastery Guide will have information on flattening out the math. People on the Paizo forums have reported that they removed +level during the playtest without any issues, so most of what’s needed is new guidelines on encounter building (since the ones in the “Game Mastering” chapter of the CRB assume the difficulty current scaling).

I'm interested in this. Wouldn't this also affect the progressive failure/success system in some ways? I really love bounded accuracy, and not inflating numbers so constantly. I might wait on the GM guide before jumping in just to get a complete picture on this... Or I might do all the math and see how well it works.

 

[Lucas Yew]

I rather support fantasy super-heroics, so I'm totally fine with high level characters slaughtering troll armies naked and unarmed, with the high modifiers representing that massive gulf of skill difference. Even better if it's running on a universe in which such incidents are treated as logical common sense...

 

[Parmandur]

My understanding, on the other hand, is that level+4 is the maximum they even offer guidelines on.

Yeah, I think you are right: my mistake!

Seems pretty narrow...

 

[Campbell]

As it stands a given creature stays relevant over a range of 9 levels in a 20 level game. I think that's pretty good. There are also tools in the Bestiary to raise or lower the creature's level by 2 for stronger or weaker versions of the same creature which extends relevance to +- 6 for a useful range of 13 levels.

 

[Parmandur]

As it stands a given creature stays relevant over a range of 9 levels in a 20 level game. I think that's pretty good. There are also tools in the Bestiary to raise or lower the creature's level by 2 for stronger or weaker versions of the same creature which extends relevance to +- 6 for a useful range of 13 levels.

Ahhh, That's what I was thinking of: +-4 Levels for a 9 Level spread.

 

[CapnZapp]

As it stands a given creature stays relevant over a range of 9 levels in a 20 level game. I think that's pretty good. There are also tools in the Bestiary to raise or lower the creature's level by 2 for stronger or weaker versions of the same creature which extends relevance to +- 6 for a useful range of 13 levels.

Saying the monster stays relevant for 13 levels sounds manageable, sounds normal, as if there's no real difference to PF2. But I wager your definition of usefulness is likely a theoretical construct only.

The real take away here is that level bands or ranges are much more narrow in PF2.

Certainly a 5E DM is not used to being told to think twice before having a PL+4 CR monster.

To me the useful thing to say would be use caution, to openly agree PF2 is much more sensitive to level, and that this can trap the unwary GM.

That doesn't make it a worse game. But trying to downplay the difference might.

 

[GrahamWills]

I think we fought a level+4 monster in the play test. At least I recall something that would hit us pretty much every time, and the main point was to avoid taking criticals. It made for some interesting tactical decisions -- my character started using three actions for move - attack - run away (spring-attack style) and the tankiest of us was raising shield all the time.

Haven't read the base book yet, but I would assume there is the usual "how to build an encounter" section that explains how scaling works. Is there?