Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Schmoe" data-source="post: 7989998" data-attributes="member: 913">So this is actually where I think that adventure design has a bigger, non-trivial role to play, in a couple of places.  In a sandbox (as I think of it, there are other interpretations) there is at least geographical distance between many places, and travel time limits how much the party can do in a day.  In addition, construction of each adventure location will naturally cause the party to retreat in certain cases, make multiple sorties in others, or waltz through in others.  Not having the benefit of a lot of play experience, let give a concrete example of what I'm picturing and you can tell me what's wrong with the picture.  Imagine a cave complex of troglodytes.  There are multiple rooms of troglodytes, most with 2-3 trogs, and some with 4-6.  The party is strong enough to where 2-3 trogs is simple, 4-6 is a challenge, 7-9 is really tough, and 10+ forget about it.  The trogs are somewhat organized, and may support each other in some cases, but usually it takes strong leadership to really bring them together.  Furthermore, there's a little bit of movement around the complex so that every 30 minutes or so there's a 50/50 chance that a patrol of 2-3 runs into them.  Patrols always either reinforce a room or bring reinforcements.As the party explores, if they are careful they take multiple smaller rooms independently, never needing to slow down too much for healing.  If they aren't careful, one of the encounters could easily ballon into a real challenge.  If they slow down too much, they may get caught by a patrol and then have a real challenge.  They'll quickly learn that not being careful and going too slow is a losing proposition.  Eventually they'll probably decide to retreat and regroup.If the party retreats, the trogs will discover they have been invaded and might consolidate into a strong base of 10+.  What should they do?  Here they can try divide and conquer tactics, or just avoid the strong base for a while until enough time has passed and the trogs decide the danger is over.  Better hope the party is scouting and playing smartly.I'll acknowledge that PF2 monsters are probably inherently more dangerous, but most of my background is in 3.5e and prior.  In 3.5e, an umber hulk could easily wipe out an entire party 4 levels lower before they had a chance to react (confusion), and yet sandbox adventures still happen.  My experience has been that parties avoid dangerous creatures in sandboxes by a combination of rumors and scouting.  If you see the dragon flying off in the distance, then hide.  If you know there are umber hulks in those caverns, don't go there.  Is there something inherent in PF2 that makes that any different?So they've narrowed the band of possible challenges.  In general I think that could be a good thing, especially with the 5e experience in mind (CR?  Who cares about CR?), but not if it is too rigid.  In your experience, how would a group of L6 characters handle a horde of 50+ orc warriors (CR1)?</blockquote>

Verification