Pathfinder 2E Regarding the complexity of Pathfinder 2

[kenada]

I haven't even considered playing where you neither get Striking runes (as loot or through purchases) nor get Devastating Strikes (per the variant).

What I’m exploring is completely decoupling these things from the expected progression, so GMs can decide if and when they hand them out. If GMs want to drop striking runes and reserve devastating attacks as a divine boon handed out for service to the church, they can do that and understand the implications for building encounters.

I'm saying that I have only found Extreme encounters in later books, not in earlier. (Meaning books 4-6 of a given AP)

Right, which suggests they are being out there because the PCs are expected to be more powerful (or the adventure writers still haven’t gotten the knack of the system yet, but let’s assume the former).

My own theory is that this because the game slowly tilts the balance in favor of the characters. I'm basing this on two things:

1) the book specifically says Difficulty Classes become easier as you level up. I'm thinking this hints towards a general trend.

The game also expects PCs to acquire skill boosts, so that makes sense. If you don’t hand out those items or provide automatic progression, than everything should stay about the same.

2) experience. The heroes feel noticeably more competent and powerful vs level-appropriate foes at high level. At level 15, the Fighter and Cleric got the Scare to Death ability, meaning they can reliably one-shot any foe not shielded by Incapacitation. Level -2 creatures truly are mooks now, whereas at low level, they felt more like the characters equals.

Case in point: the Barbarian just now defeated an opponent of her own level (16) in single combat, something that would be nearly unthinkable at low level. Granted, this Barbarian is probably the game's most extreme damage-dealer there is - I'm not confident any other character could have pulled that off. And the player wasn't exactly unlucky with the dice. And it was a very close call - she sports, what, 230 hp with rage hp, and ended the duel at well below 50 hp. Yadda yadda - doesn't change the fact she pulled it off - she did defeat a named level 16 NPC all by herself, me as the GM holding nothing back: that NPC even "cheated" by biting her before the duel started, inflicting an Enfeebled condition that lasted throughout the fight.

So no, I can't say I think the party's composition plays a role here. I mean, I don't think Paizo expects that to change as heroes level up. (Are you thinking of my half-joking suggestion any Wizard player first roll up a warrior and only at double-digit level switches over to the wizard?)

I’m only concerned about party composition to the extent that it’s affected by itemization.

Itemization: well, I feel confident the game is balanced on the assumption the treasure guidelines are followed, so... Yes, the heroes have access to striking runes and whatnot. I'm basically giving them what the adventure says to give them.

It’s been a while, so I can’t remember whether Paizo tends to overcompensate with treasure under the assumption that PC won’t find all of it. Let’s assume they get exactly the right amount. Based on the assumptions that things get easier as you level (i.e., see above re: DCs), then things should stay about the same relative difficulty if PCs never acquire treasure.

What I'm saying is that I imagine that if this exact party were deprived of their fundamental runes, then monsters would revert to their earlier role. This is because if heroes start to find it easier to hit and damage foes because the overall balance auto-shifts in their favor, removing the potency and striking runes will make the game balance fall back into its earlier state. I don't see any indication that parties with striking runes are meant to be considered non-standard.

Yes, exactly this. I’m not discussing whether this is nonstandard or not. I’m trying to suss out the affect of expected itemization on the guidelines, so that it can be made truly optional while preserving the functionality of the guidelines for building encounters. Essentially, I want to preserve the intuition developed building and running lower level encounters for higher levels when these things are in play.

At levels 1-6 you might want to treat encounters as one category more difficult (so that in place of a Severe encounter, you merely place a Moderate one). The biggest beneficiary of this would easily be level 1 adventurers playing by newcomers to the game, exactly the kind of player you don't want to scare away by repeatedly killing off her character! But even veteran gamers at level~5 would, I think, be only grateful... And at levels 15-20 you can treat encounters as one category less difficult (so in place of a Severe encounter, you can go ahead and pitch an Extreme one). Not saying this advice is scientifically perfect. But it would mean that newcomers would have a better time, since they invariably start at low level. And it would also mean that the tendency I'm spotting in the official APs gets written into the guidelines (=they already do pitch Extreme ones where a Severe one would have been used in earlier installments). Note: I'm not saying you should double dip - which you will if you upgrade the written AP encounters. I'm talking about enshrining the encounter guidelines the AP writers seemingly already follow.

Those ranges correspond very toughly to when you are expected to get striking runes or devastating attacks. I say roughly because the expectation is a few levels sooner for both, but I think the point still works.

What you suggest is the same as what I suggest. When I say to shift to base level for moderate encounters, that’s the same as using severe or low in place if moderate encounters (depending on which way you are shifting). The point of shifting is to preserve the full range of the guidelines as well as the GM’s understand of what they mean.

• level − 1: 30/40/60/80/120
• level (standard): 40/60/80/120/160
• level + 1: 60/80/120/160/240

Again, the point here is to explore the affect itemization has on the guidelines. There’s certainly an argument to be made that things should get easier as PCs gain levels. That was essentially the idea behind my post in the D&D forums here regarding static DCs. I also expect that most people will reward those items in some form if for no reason that players expect them, so this may not be a particularly worthwhile exercise beyond the knowledge gained.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm saying that I have only found Extreme encounters in later books, not in earlier. (Meaning books 4-6 of a given AP)

My own theory is that this because the game slowly tilts the balance in favor of the characters. I'm basing this on two things:

1) the book specifically says Difficulty Classes become easier as you level up. I'm thinking this hints towards a general trend.

This is possible, though I wouldn't assume that the later books in the early APs weren't still stuck with the assumptions I refer to; do you have any idea whether later APs (say, Agents of Edgewatch and on) have the same traits?

 

[CapnZapp]

I don't have a firm grasp of AoE, no.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Then honestly, I still think my premise that the first two were just aberrations is at least viable; the fact that this continued in later chapters just says that once they start an Adventure Path they get the writing in them done in relatively short order.

After all, over CRing D&D 3e or PF1e encounters at higher levels was pretty typical if you didn't want them to be cakewalks. That's the habit the writers would have still been in at that point, even if they intellectually knew it shouldn't work out that way with PF2e.

 

[CapnZapp]

Let me just clearly flag I'm trying to talk about the default game using my own experiences. I'm slowly getting the sense you two aren't really interested, and instead want to theorize ways to bend the game into doing what isn't set out to do. For instance, I have a hard time seeing striking runes as something else than a completely mandatory and integral part of the game, just one that sticks out like a sore thumb since it comes across as a vestige of the Christmas tree.

The notion they left the weapon dice as items because they intend the game to work even without them is simply not something I see even if I try my hardest to squint. (And that's coming from someone that considers himself very open to variant rules and discarding what doesn't work!) Every official Paizo adventure hands out weapon potency and striking runes with a consistency not seen for any other item or item type. The GM guidelines takes treasure and the reliance on items for granted.

There is no discussion of it being optional, other than the obliging and not-really-helpful "you always have the freedom to assign extra treasure for a high-powered game, less treasure for a gritty survival horror adventure, or any amount in between."

I think the rulebook speaks for itself:

• "As the GM, it’s your job to distribute treasure to the player characters."
• "Table 10–9: Party Treasure by Level on the next page shows how much treasure you should give out over the course of a level for a group of four PCs."
• "Published adventures include a suitable amount of treasure throughout the adventure, though you should still monitor the party’s capabilities as the PCs progress through the adventure to make sure they don’t end up behind."
• "The treasure you award to the party should be monitored and adjusted as you play. You might need to give out treasure you hadn’t originally planned for, especially if the group bypasses part of an adventure. Keep an eye on the party’s resources. If they’re running out of consumables or money, or if they’re having trouble in combat because their items aren’t up to the task, you can make adjustments."

Everything here suggests magic items is entirely intended to be integral to character power. "It's your job", not an optional extra. "You should", not you can or may. Give them treasure or they "end up behind".

 

[CapnZapp]

Then honestly, I still think my premise that the first two were just aberrations is at least viable; the fact that this continued in later chapters just says that once they start an Adventure Path they get the writing in them done in relatively short order.

After all, over CRing D&D 3e or PF1e encounters at higher levels was pretty typical if you didn't want them to be cakewalks. That's the habit the writers would have still been in at that point, even if they intellectually knew it shouldn't work out that way with PF2e.

So I checked:

AP #1: one severe encounter on each level, no extreme encounters
AP #2: at least five severe encounters, no extreme ones (though one of the severe encounters is discussed as potentially extreme if the characters are lagging a level, and the advice is given to take it down a notch to avoid that)
AP #3: four severe encounters, one extreme encounter (at level 11)
AP #4: seven severe encounters, one extreme
AP #5: four severe encounters (potentially many more), two extreme ones
AP #6: five severe encounters, three extreme ones
Obviously I might have overlooked something - I simply text searched "severe" and "extreme" in the PDFs.

I'd say my observation holds.

We have two theories to explain why the game comes across as unforgivingly hard, especially at low levels:
a) that the writers are still stuck in PF1 mode, and don't really understand how challenging PF2 fights are.
b) the writers are following the CRB guidelines. The harsh difficulty is due to the CRB guidelines talking about all levels as if they're equal, that is, they assume a level 1 hero finds a level 1 monster just as easy or hard as a level 20 character finds a level 20 monster. But practical experience suggests this is an oversimplification, and the way writers apply an unwritten challenge grading upwards suggest something similar.

I see no indications of a) and every indication of b).

Hope that helps.

 

[Zsong]

I think pathfinder 2E has the problem that any game would have when creating a new edition means creating a completely new game with the same name as another game. That is unfortunately what a new edition has come to be for many games. It’s not an update or refinement of a game people love. It’s a new and different thing that uses the name of a game that people love. If they are going to create a completely new game I wish they would give them different names.

 

[kenada]

Let me just clearly flag I'm trying to talk about the default game using my own experiences. I'm slowly getting the sense you two aren't really interested, and instead want to theorize ways to bend the game into doing what isn't set out to do. For instance, I have a hard time seeing striking runes as something else than a completely mandatory and integral part of the game, just one that sticks out like a sore thumb since it comes across as a vestige of the Christmas tree.

I think we all recognize that we have different views on the game by default. There’s a limit on how interesting it is to continue talking about that. At some point, I want to start poking and prodding the parts that people are saying are problematic.

In this case, I’m using problematic pretty broadly. I don’t think any of us here really have a problem with striking runes except in an abstract sense that they’re a vestige of the magic item Christmas tree from previous editions, which is kind of weird if one assumes they intended to move away from that model.

As an aside, I don’t think they intended to get rid of the Christmas tree so much as mitigate it. After all, there are still apex items and other kinds of fundamental runes and skill-boosting items. You just don’t e.g., have your belt slot tied up because you’re a fighter, and you’re expected to have a level-appropriate belt of giant strength in that slot. Again, that’s why I brought up investiture. You can wear ten belts if that’s your thing, thus mitigating the Christmas tree. But I digress.

As far as we can tell right now, PF2 features fairly solid math. I’m starting to see comments on reddit from people claiming that Age of Ashes was easy, and they had to buff the encounters to make them challenging, so maybe people are starting to figure out how to break it. However, assuming it’s solid, we should be able to reverse engineer the math’s assumptions and make them explicit. When we do that, we can start tweaking and playing with them.

Personally, I’m not really bothered by striking runes. I think they’re more interesting than just a flat boost to damage (“rolling dice is fun”), but that’s about it. I’m going off on this tangent because I wanted to see if it’s possible to determine to make them (and devastating strikes) completely optional. The audience for that is people who do want to eliminate them. If someone is interested in PF2 (for whatever reason), but they like the low item experience they get in another game, it’d be nice to have recommendations for how they can achieve that.

It’s helpful to understand the game as written and intended. That’s how you can identify problems and address them, but I don’t see a lot of value in further constraining myself once those things have been identified, nor am I interested in proselytizing about the problems I perceive with that configuration. What’s the point? I’d rather fix the parts I don’t like or understand the system, so I can provide suggestions to others about the parts they don’t like. Also, some people may like the default, and those problematic elements could be features they’d love.

Anyway, that’s why I’m digging into the math behind striking runes. It’s not a topic I feel super strongly about, so I left it as a tangent here. I don’t think it could really sustain a thread on its own when no one is really interested in digging into it, and I’m not even that interested. Given the lack of traction, I’m fine with just letting the tangent die, but if someone posts about it, I’ve got my work saved here and can reference that in a future discussion.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Let me just clearly flag I'm trying to talk about the default game using my own experiences. I'm slowly getting the sense you two aren't really interested, and instead want to theorize ways to bend the game into doing what isn't set out to do. For instance, I have a hard time seeing striking runes as something else than a completely mandatory and integral part of the game, just one that sticks out like a sore thumb since it comes across as a vestige of the Christmas tree.

I'm not sure where you're getting that from me, unless its simply trying to use it for anyplace but Golarion lands in that category from your perspective. I'm as reasonably happy with the game structurally and mechanically as I'm going to be with any real D&D derivative. If I want magic items to not be a big factor, I'm unlikely to use anything descended from D&D proper.

 

[Thomas Shey]

So I checked:

AP #1: one severe encounter on each level, no extreme encounters
AP #2: at least five severe encounters, no extreme ones (though one of the severe encounters is discussed as potentially extreme if the characters are lagging a level, and the advice is given to take it down a notch to avoid that)
AP #3: four severe encounters, one extreme encounter (at level 11)
AP #4: seven severe encounters, one extreme
AP #5: four severe encounters (potentially many more), two extreme ones
AP #6: five severe encounters, three extreme ones
Obviously I might have overlooked something - I simply text searched "severe" and "extreme" in the PDFs.

I'd say my observation holds.

We have two theories to explain why the game comes across as unforgivingly hard, especially at low levels:
a) that the writers are still stuck in PF1 mode, and don't really understand how challenging PF2 fights are.
b) the writers are following the CRB guidelines. The harsh difficulty is due to the CRB guidelines talking about all levels as if they're equal, that is, they assume a level 1 hero finds a level 1 monster just as easy or hard as a level 20 character finds a level 20 monster. But practical experience suggests this is an oversimplification, and the way writers apply an unwritten challenge grading upwards suggest something similar.

I see no indications of a) and every indication of b).

Hope that helps.

And I see no reason to assume a) isn't just as likely, so here we are.

(Of course both are possible at the same time).