Paizo A question about Paizo/PF adventure design

[GrahamWills]

So, here's stuff I think we can agree on:

• 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

So, combining these, it seems pretty obvious statement to say:

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.

A mix of 2 and 3 seems a good option for my GM style. If the party is blatantly foolish, they reap the consequences. If they re just unlucky or the adventure seems weakly written, decrease the intelligence of the guards.

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.

 

[kenada]

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.

Well, what then? Should GMs be able to carry assumptions from game to game regardless of whether that’s reasonable?

More importantly, how do you address problems in a system’s structure without invalidating those assumptions? That seems to be how PF2 got to have this problem. PF1’s math was broken, so Paizo fixed it. Any intuition for dealing with the PF1 guidelines no longer applies. It’s a catch-22.

The only way out I can see is to stop caring. I don’t think that’s wrong. It’s a big part of OSR-style adventuring, so it’s not unprecedented. I’d argue it even brings PF2 more in line with 5e. I’m not sure how well that would be received.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I wouldn't say Pathfinder 2e encounter building needs any unique skills, in theory this is how a 5e encounter was supposed to work as well, a 'Deadly Encounter' is 'Deadly' after all, it just doesn't actually work that way because 5e's encounter guidelines are fundamentally broken. It worked super well in 4e and less well in 3.5e/Pathfinder.

The use case being presented as ubiquitous is specifically a GM who has maladapted to non-functional encounter guidelines in other systems by ignoring the warning labels, who switches systems and takes for granted that not only should they continue to ignore the encounter guidelines, but also actually runs an encounter, sees its difficulty, and then takes for granted that this is how encounters are supposed to feel, without intuiting that less exp used would make their encounters comfier.

That seems like a really, really, specific user problem.

 

[MaskedGuy]

I think the issue is that when you say "I'm just making this big PSA about how everyone should beware" it kiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinda sounds like "I'm saying this system has unique problem and you should just run 5e instead" <_<

Like umm, it sounds like you are making it sound like more unique situation as it is and more scary than it is. As said before, in theory same should apply in 5e as well, only reason it doesn't is that encounter guidelines in 5e aren't accurate. So while it is accurate to warn people who are used to D&D guidelines never working, you are kind of making it sound like its this super big dealio that you should be afraid of rather than something you adjust pretty simply.

 

[CapnZapp]

Let me repost Rot Grub's post from Paizo forums in full, because he's completely on the money describing the issue:

"I am running 5 Paizo adventure paths at the moment (Age of Ashes, Agents of Edgewatch, and 2e conversions of Rise of the Runelords, Shattered Star, and Hell's Rebels). I enjoy Paizo APs for the wealth of story, locations, encounters and other material that I can tailor for my needs.

However, I see a prevalence of "monsters sitting in their room waiting to die" in most dungeons in APs. I like to play monsters with at least a modicum of intelligence, so when they hear that life-and-death struggle in the next room, they will consider joining in or at least check out what's happening.

This is more of a problem in 2nd Edition, where combining encounters makes for Extreme and often even more-difficult encounters when you combine them. And 2e's expectation that the party will take heal between encounters makes the idea that NPCs will stay in their room for 2 hours while their burglars/murderers sit down and "heal up" in the next room all the more unbelievable.

In Age of Ashes as we enter the final encounters of Chapter 2, this has been really prevalent. I chalked it up to growing pains with the new RPG. But as time has gone by, the AP designers seem committed to this pattern of moderate to severe encounters with intelligent enemies being clustered together. (Spoiler for the new Beginner Box: they encounter kobolds early on who are written as being unaware of the party, even though the party had just had a fight about 80 feet away, in an otherwise-silent dungeon no less.)

It's not like the designers are unaware that monsters can respond dynamically to the PCs' actions: there are a number of places, particularly in Age of Ashes volume 2, where the text describes how enemies will respond to a fight breaking out in other areas. (Still, even running as written it can quickly get out of control, as there are about 11(!) encounters, most of them ready to reinforce some of the others, all in a single open-air area. With 2e's tight encounter math this can quickly get deadly even with smart play.) )

It seems as if the designers of 2nd Edition have found a winning formula for making individual fights tense and exciting, but the AP designers are designing dungeons like they used to in 1st Edition, where you could combine encounters without killing the party. You could gather 12 Goblins in 1e, but that Fireball or that Black Tentacles could handle it. Not so in 2e.

So what I do, is when preparing for an area in 2e, I anticipate when encounters will combine and lower the difficulty of individual fights with the expectation that some of them will combine. It keeps the dungeon dynamic, and it rewards the party for finding ways to isolate groups of enemies. 2e at least has the advantage of giving us the tools so we can predict how hard things will get.

Still, I think it would be better if the designers didn't assume that every monster sat in their room waiting to die. The overarching stories in Paizo's APs can be strong; this seems like a story weakness."

paizo.com - Forums / Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: A lot of monsters in Paizo APs sit in their room waiting to die

paizo.com

 

[dave2008]

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.

You need to step back from the ledge a bit. While I generally agree with your thesis, there is all kinds of errors in this paragraph. Comparing hand-to-hand marital arts (assumption) combat to sword and shield and magic combat is extremely flawed. Then of course comparing 1v1 to 1v2 instead 4v4 to 4v8 is another level of flawed abstraction. It isn't even the same on a realism level; however, add magic it goes out the window.

Killing 3 Kobolds or 6 more that entered form another room doesn't take more than one fireball.

 

[dave2008]

I wouldn't say Pathfinder 2e encounter building needs any unique skills, in theory this is how a 5e encounter was supposed to work as well, a 'Deadly Encounter' is 'Deadly' after all, it just doesn't actually work that way because 5e's encounter guidelines are fundamentally broken. It worked super well in 4e and less well in 3.5e/Pathfinder.

Actually that is not how the 5e guidelines are supposed to work. A "deadly" encounter only provides a "chance" of a player death or two. This is also with in the context of an assumed daily attrition model. So these are not intended to be full powered heroes. Now I agree the 5e guidelines and 5e in general is less balanced and accurate on this front. But the guidelines are actually doing different things. Also, the 5e guidelines are very accurate for certain type of group; however, because the system is less constrained / controlled than PF2 it has a much wider set of groups, compared to PF2, that it doesn't work for.

 

[dave2008]

Well, what then? Should GMs be able to carry assumptions from game to game regardless of whether that’s reasonable?

More importantly, how do you address problems in a system’s structure without invalidating those assumptions? That seems to be how PF2 got to have this problem. PF1’s math was broken, so Paizo fixed it. Any intuition for dealing with the PF1 guidelines no longer applies. It’s a catch-22.

The only way out I can see is to stop caring. I don’t think that’s wrong. It’s a big part of OSR-style adventuring, so it’s not unprecedented. I’d argue it even brings PF2 more in line with 5e. I’m not sure how well that would be received.

I really think CapnZapp is speaking less about the game design itself than the official AP design. PF2 gives you the tools to design intelligent adventures, it just seems the APs are not taking full advantage of them.

 

[Retreater]

I guess the best options when designing encounters are to either present them in ways that they can't be combined (rival factions, unintelligent, or spread out too far a distance), or make them easier with the idea to join them together into a Moderate challenge?
We didn't really start to have issues until we tried to play it as more than a game of tactical skirmish encounters. It is like, enjoy the character creation mini game and then fight. Trying to depict an internally realistic world just didn't work for us.

 

[GrahamWills]

While I generally agree with your thesis, there is all kinds of errors in this paragraph. Comparing hand-to-hand marital arts (assumption) combat to sword and shield and magic combat is extremely flawed.

Dave, simply stating you disagree is not an argument. Is this just your gut feeling? The school I trained at also taught 6' staff and Japanese sword combat. That experience taught me that being outnumbered 2v1 is never good. I have been friends with some boffer combat people, and 2v1 is hard to defeat there also.

Perhaps people who have direct experience of 2v1 sword combat might comment -- is Dave's point of view that two skilled people attacking you is not much different from one justified? I'd prefer people with actual experience, but if you've been involved in SCA and feel good about your expertise, it would be helpful.

Then of course comparing 1v1 to 1v2 instead 4v4 to 4v8 is another level of flawed abstraction.

I believe that in typical military strategy the goal is to outnumber your opposition at the point ofcontact. Your statement would have value in the situations where all eight could not focus on the four, yes, but in most gaming environments that is not the case. I'd agree that in some cases it might be different, but typically, not so much.

I'm sure this will trigger your "that's unrealistic" meter, but if you have played any war-games, then both at tactical and strategic level, a 2v1 advantage is extremely significant. I'm tempted to copy in some old Avalon Hill Combat Result Tables, but I think you get the idea -- a 2v1 advantage is always a serious issue, at the individual, group and mass combat levels.

It isn't even the same on a realism level; however, add magic it goes out the window.
Killing 3 Kobolds or 6 more that entered form another room doesn't take more than one fireball.

Apologies -- I made the poor assumption that you had been following the thread. We are not talking about combining two baby challenges and suddenly fearing a TPK. If you read through the thread you will see that we are discussing combining two serious threats -- perhaps looking back at the messages relating to average encounter difficulty in APs might give some context to you.

I think you have played PF2, so you should be aware that a fireball, assuming you can target it only at opponents and not engulf friends (which in my experience as a PF2 caster is by no means even likely), is not going to take out any average opposition.

At 5th level a fireball does an average of 21 points of damage. 5th level opponents have between 60 and 120 hit points and about half of opponents save for half damage, so taking an average of about 16 points, so somewhere between 25% and 10% of their hits. The ones who Crit Fail will be worried (but still not taken out) but the rest will not even be bloodied by the attack. In 3.x and AD&D games it was indeed much more dangerous, but even so, fireballs don't take out serious opposition -- which is what we're discussing.

Finally, I note that you said "enter from another room" which implies that the two groups are not iclustered together -- which is indeed the way many combined encounters work. Or another common situation is that you are melee-engaged with one group when another arrives. In neither situation is it possible to cast a fireball that includes the newcomers.