Gorgon Zee
Hero
So, here's stuff I think we can agree on:
If you are playing low-level PF2 scenarios, combing two encounters is going to be very deadly
From a realism point of view, this is 100% the right answer. I fought a junior olympian at martial arts and he could score on me at will -- modeled in pretty much anytime system he defeated me without spending a single resource. But when we fought him 2 on 1, it was pretty much a draw. PF2 is much more realistic than 5E in this respect. Whether that is more or less fun is a preference issue.
Compared to other D&D systems, it doesn't seem as far out of line. I've been playing 4E at epic levels, and I think combining two dangerous encounters there would TPK us more of the time than high-level PF2 combinations would. I'd rate PF2 as slightly safer for combining than 4E, but not much in it. It's been too long since I've played 3x, but I ran AD&D recently and, at least at low-mid levels, it seemed similar. Being outnumbered by ranged attackers in AD&D was very nasty, but melee and spell-casters -- not so bad.
Overall it feels more like 5E is the departure (from what people report). For me, "You can't combine encounters in the natural, intuitive way you can in 5th Edition" runs counter to what I feel is natural. For me, "natural" is that if 4 opponents are a challenge, 8 will probably kill you. For me, "natural" means that if you double the enemies, you quadruple the risk -- saying it doesn't make much difference feels highly unnatural.
In 5E, it seems like the response to an enemy raising the alarm and pulling more guards in is "oh well, I guess we kill them all in one go". In PF2 and 4E it seems more like "oh *****, fall back -- let's find some way to handle this or we will ALL DIE". My preference is for the latter -- at least for the traditional fantasy genre (for pulp games and space opera, the former -- I don't care how many stormtroopers arrive!).
As people have pointed out, this is a problem for APs -- it makes perfect realistic sense that players might cause an extremely deadly situation by combining fights. As a GM, you have a few options:
Our PF2 party for Age of Ashes was pretty well-tuned. At high level we steamrollered all but the extreme combats; we almost never had a full rest except when we hit a level. Apart from a lich who cast two nasty area effect spells on the party before any of us went (half of us crit failed at least one of the saves) the most dangerous time was when we triggered a fight with four groups each of 3 ranged archers at the same time as a high defense solo. We ran away, dodged through tunnels and triggered yet more combats as we tried to get to the archers individually at close range. So no chance for any form of 10-minute healing / re-focus or the like for maybe four rolling encounters. THAT was pretty hairy. But it felt right -- I'm not sure that the 5E approach (added archers would not make much difference) would have made the scene feel right. We screwed up and it made us the underdogs, forcing us to adapt and recover. Quite a memorable day.
- In all D&D variants, low level encounters are more likely to TPK than high level ones
- In all D&D variants, combining two encounters makes them more likely to cause a TPK
- PF2 is designed to be more deadly than 5E
If you are playing low-level PF2 scenarios, combing two encounters is going to be very deadly
From a realism point of view, this is 100% the right answer. I fought a junior olympian at martial arts and he could score on me at will -- modeled in pretty much anytime system he defeated me without spending a single resource. But when we fought him 2 on 1, it was pretty much a draw. PF2 is much more realistic than 5E in this respect. Whether that is more or less fun is a preference issue.
Compared to other D&D systems, it doesn't seem as far out of line. I've been playing 4E at epic levels, and I think combining two dangerous encounters there would TPK us more of the time than high-level PF2 combinations would. I'd rate PF2 as slightly safer for combining than 4E, but not much in it. It's been too long since I've played 3x, but I ran AD&D recently and, at least at low-mid levels, it seemed similar. Being outnumbered by ranged attackers in AD&D was very nasty, but melee and spell-casters -- not so bad.
Overall it feels more like 5E is the departure (from what people report). For me, "You can't combine encounters in the natural, intuitive way you can in 5th Edition" runs counter to what I feel is natural. For me, "natural" is that if 4 opponents are a challenge, 8 will probably kill you. For me, "natural" means that if you double the enemies, you quadruple the risk -- saying it doesn't make much difference feels highly unnatural.
In 5E, it seems like the response to an enemy raising the alarm and pulling more guards in is "oh well, I guess we kill them all in one go". In PF2 and 4E it seems more like "oh *****, fall back -- let's find some way to handle this or we will ALL DIE". My preference is for the latter -- at least for the traditional fantasy genre (for pulp games and space opera, the former -- I don't care how many stormtroopers arrive!).
As people have pointed out, this is a problem for APs -- it makes perfect realistic sense that players might cause an extremely deadly situation by combining fights. As a GM, you have a few options:
- Swap to a more pulp-y system, like 5E
- Have enemies behave unrealistically
- Mitigate by allowing non-combat solutions and making it clear that retreat might often be the best solution.
Our PF2 party for Age of Ashes was pretty well-tuned. At high level we steamrollered all but the extreme combats; we almost never had a full rest except when we hit a level. Apart from a lich who cast two nasty area effect spells on the party before any of us went (half of us crit failed at least one of the saves) the most dangerous time was when we triggered a fight with four groups each of 3 ranged archers at the same time as a high defense solo. We ran away, dodged through tunnels and triggered yet more combats as we tried to get to the archers individually at close range. So no chance for any form of 10-minute healing / re-focus or the like for maybe four rolling encounters. THAT was pretty hairy. But it felt right -- I'm not sure that the 5E approach (added archers would not make much difference) would have made the scene feel right. We screwed up and it made us the underdogs, forcing us to adapt and recover. Quite a memorable day.