I hope it’s just a tweak like 1E to 2E. But big deal if they radically change it. I still have all my books and play whatever I like.
Paizo A question about Paizo/PF adventure design
I’m trying to wrap my head around your reasoning, but I can’t. Is the criticism that applying intuition from other systems with unreliable encounter-building guidelines results in adverse outcomes in PF2 where its guidelines generally do work?
Where I’m struggling is that the same kind of reasoning could be applied to any of the encounter-building guidelines. If my experience tells me a balor is a fair fight for a 13th level party in 5e, and I throw one at a 13th level party in PF2, then I’ve created something like a triple-extreme encounter in PF2. How is expecting that to work at all reasonable?
Yeah, I'm not really seeing how this is unique feature of PF2e specifically.
Like you wouldn't design encounters same way in Runequest and in D&D for obvious reasons <_< I can see it from perspective of "Oh PF 1e was D&D based, so I assume same logic applies in 2e as well", but even then I think most D&D DMs understand to run non D&D games differently when they GM them.
Like you wouldn't design encounters same way in Runequest and in D&D for obvious reasons <_< I can see it from perspective of "Oh PF 1e was D&D based, so I assume same logic applies in 2e as well", but even then I think most D&D DMs understand to run non D&D games differently when they GM them.
Last edited:
CapnZapp
Legend
Again, technically true - but also downplaying or missing the real point. You can't just rely on your regular old GM skills. You need specific PF2 skills.
It's much easier to go "it makes sense for this squad to flee back to the sergeant" and end up with a TPK in Pathfinder 2 than any other D&D game I can remember.
CapnZapp
Legend
It's presence is pronounced in PF2 - especially coming from 5th Edition (which most PF2 GMs will be).
So I thought to broadcast a simple message. Yes, it is broad and unnuanced - but that's how messages get across.
Don't smush your encounters together.
The encounter-building guidelines work in PF2. As long as you are mindful of them, you can combine encounters and do whatever you want. Expecting the difficulty of a dynamic encounter not to change dynamically is unreasonable.
The message should be: don’t make bad assumptions.
The message should be: don’t make bad assumptions.
To put it another way: I’m looking at running OSE. I could prep encounters like I do PF2, and that would be wrong. I could do it like 5e, and that would also be wrong.
The idea that a system has a problem due to bad assumptions is silly. That it’s because of some hypothetical GM coming from the market-leading system borders on toxic.
The idea that a system has a problem due to bad assumptions is silly. That it’s because of some hypothetical GM coming from the market-leading system borders on toxic.
I agree. Really the problem is that they flipped the curve as far as deadly.
New DM's without experience or guidance are far more likely to kill off their parties at lower levels as a result. In other systems things get swingy and crazy at high levels as the DM struggles to balance things and challenge the party. If you follow encounter design in PF2e things get "safer" at higher levels. It's not intuitive at all.
New DM's without experience or guidance are far more likely to kill off their parties at lower levels as a result. In other systems things get swingy and crazy at high levels as the DM struggles to balance things and challenge the party. If you follow encounter design in PF2e things get "safer" at higher levels. It's not intuitive at all.
CapnZapp
Legend
You could phrase this as:
Don't make the assumptions that work in nearly every other iteration of D&D.
In other words, I'm not attacking the game. I'm observing that the incidence of TPKs due to combined encounters is much higher in PF2. You can't combine encounters in the natural, intuitive way you can in 5th Edition.
