Pathfinder 2E My Biggest Concern for Pathfinder 2e

[Campbell]

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.

I am not trying to downplay the differences. I legitimately believe that it is a pretty good range. I tend to actually think it is a good thing that as characters raise in levels they get meaningfully more powerful. I also do not look at everything through the prism of Fifth Edition. Not being like Fifth Edition is not a black mark against a game.

As far as it being a trap : this is a different game that works differently. The encounter guidelines are pretty clear about how much of a threat higher level monsters are.

I mean the game tells you how it works and does so in detail. When I started running Fifth Edition I had to change the way I designed both combat and noncombat encounters dramatically. I do not consider that a black mark against Fifth Edition. It is just a different game.

 

[Haffrung]

This also could greatly affect sandbox play...

I assume the developers are aware of this.

5E and Pathfinder 2 are different games with different strengths and weaknesses. The flat math of 5E is better geared towards sandbox play, where you can create a region with orcs, ogres, manticores, hags, and hill giants, and it will be broadly playable by PCs from level 2 to level 9. Pathfinder 2 takes a different approach, where the band of suitable challenge is narrower, but the rewards of optmization and system mastery are greater.

If I were running a sandbox campaign I'd run 5E, while if I were running an story-driven adventure path I'd probably lean towards Pathfinder 2e.

 

[FrogReaver]

In case I didn't make it clear. An enemy 4 levels higher being 4 times as strong is probably about the right spot. Then it can be used as a solo style enemy for a group of 4 lower level PC's.

What I am concerned with is what if that enemy that is 4 levels higher is actually 8 times as strong. Maybe that is the case, maybe it isn't. But if it is the case I'm thinking that narrows the usable monster range to maybe level+3 as an extremely hard solo fight.

 

[Garthanos]

A spell like Ray of Enfeeblement is just as good at 15th level as 1st level and can be cast from a 1st level spell slot.

Can joe the rogue kick it in the nads and induce an enfeeblement and will they stack

 

[Campbell]

Can joe the rogue kick it in the nads and induce an enfeeblement and will they stack

Eventually. At 9th level Rogues get Debilitating Strike which allows them to apply Enfeebled 1 to any flatfooted opponent they do damage to. The Redeemer's (NG Champion) Glimpse of Redemption reaction gives the target a choice. Either the attack they just made on one of the Redeemer's allies does no damage or they are Enfeebled 2 until the end of their next turn. Redeemers get that from first level.

Only the strongest version of any Condition applies, but you can apply multiple conditions that have similar effects to dramatically reduce an enemy's potency.

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

Oh, on its lonesome a +4 critter is definitely a reasonable encounter.

However, give it a couple of +0 helpers and the encounter quickly becomes a death trap for the adventurers (quicker than you'd expect from DMing 5th Edition)

 

[CapnZapp]

I am not trying to downplay the differences. I legitimately believe that it is a pretty good range. I tend to actually think it is a good thing that as characters raise in levels they get meaningfully more powerful. I also do not look at everything through the prism of Fifth Edition. Not being like Fifth Edition is not a black mark against a game.

As far as it being a trap : this is a different game that works differently. The encounter guidelines are pretty clear about how much of a threat higher level monsters are.

I mean the game tells you how it works and does so in detail. When I started running Fifth Edition I had to change the way I designed both combat and noncombat encounters dramatically. I do not consider that a black mark against Fifth Edition. It is just a different game.

Absolutely. I'm just saying that I find it useful for the wider audience to say "the level range is narrow as hell" implicitly comparing it to 5E.

Does this mean it's a bad game? No.

It only means I elect to express myself using words intended to avert any number of unintentional TPKs!

 

[CapnZapp]

In case I didn't make it clear. An enemy 4 levels higher being 4 times as strong is probably about the right spot. Then it can be used as a solo style enemy for a group of 4 lower level PC's.

What I am concerned with is what if that enemy that is 4 levels higher is actually 8 times as strong. Maybe that is the case, maybe it isn't. But if it is the case I'm thinking that narrows the usable monster range to maybe level+3 as an extremely hard solo fight.

There are two variables at play: level and numbers.

On its own, a L+4 monster feels reasonable as an encounter, especially given the death and dying rules. That specifically means that, yes, a crit from the monster will likely KO any character regardless of health, but that this likely only results in "Dying 1".

But absolutely: a CR+4 monster on its own is a piece of delicious cake for a reasonably well-optimized 5th Ed party (certainly if feats are used, and let's not pretend otherwise).

On the other hand, bad luck (or bad play) can certainly result in a Pathfinder L+4 monster eating half the team and sending the rest running for the hills.

But as I said, that's only looking at level. Give the +4 monster a few adds, and the encounter scarily quick becomes something no adventurer escapes from. The reason is of course that the heroes' only chance of defeating that +4 monster is to kill it before it kills them - they have very little of the "hero resilience" (against overleveled foes) 5th edition players are used to... So "wasting" their attacks to clear out the adds could be a fatal mistake, but an understandable one: who wouldn't want to kill off critters that has the potential to damage you but dies off in maybe two solid hits?

Pathfinder 2 certainly is set up to shake the "we win no matter what" complacency that 5th edition have lulled so many players into...!

 

[CapnZapp]

In case I didn't make it clear. An enemy 4 levels higher being 4 times as strong is probably about the right spot.

Since not only level but also numbers enter the equation it isn't quite that simple. You know how people talk about "force multipliers"? I would consider this concept useful here:

On its own, yes, I can tentatively agree a L+4 monster is equal to four L+0 monsters, at least for the purpose of this argument. You gain harder attacks and better defense, but you lose 9 out of 12 actions.

But if you consider a band of goblins led by this ogre (or whatever, don't have the Bestiary on hand) to be a number of L+0's and a L+4, then the main weakness of that L+4 (its action handicap vs a party of 4-5 heroes) disappears, and it ONLY has strengths going for it. The adventurers are trapped in a conundrum; they must focus on the Ogre or it will kill them all, but they must also focus on the Goblins, or sheer numbers will prevail. When the heroes "action budget" isn't big enough, something will break.

I can see this tendency also in 5E of course, in that if a CR+6 boss monster is a challenging (but ultimately not really loseable) fight on its own for my mid-level heroes, that fight can become surprisingly tough by just adding a dozen CR-6 critters. It all boils down to how many actions the adds can "steal" - actions the heroes would have used to whale on the BBEG, but now feel compelled to spend on thinning the herd of low-level adds.

(Note: since levels work both ways, I imagine the idea of using L-4 mooks to supplant a BBEG works less well in Pathfinder 2. That is, I expect the correct response to being swarmed by a group of L-4's is to completely ignore them whenever possible, since they are not likely to cause any serious damage before the team has brought down the BBEG)

 

[Garthanos]

Eventually. At 9th level Rogues get Debilitating Strike which allows them to apply Enfeebled 1 to any flatfooted opponent they do damage to

that is a lot of levels but affects every hit is kind of impressive anyway. I somehow suspect that in 5e you would be waiting till 18th level. In 4e you would be doing it around level 1 but only every so often (maybe at later levels like 6 but once a fight).

Only the strongest version of any Condition applies, but you can apply multiple conditions that have similar effects to dramatically reduce an enemy's potency.

Well some stacking limits is a good thing...