Pathfinder 2E Another Deadly Session, and It's Getting Old

[kenada]

I would say that any system that allows for the creatures to critically hit for more damage and with greater frequency against the characters is adversarial. The +/- 10 makes them happen more often than it would on a natural roll of 20. Criticals are also much more powerful than in any previous edition I can recall. Especially with special attacks like spells and breath weapons.
It happens more frequently with monsters than characters in Adventure Paths because the monsters are typically higher level than the PCs and have greater attack bonuses. I also roll many more attacks for the monsters because they usually don't have good options other than "every action is an attack." Characters cast spells that cut into their action economy. Characters raise shields. There are so few times when a monster should "waste" its action to do something other than a basic attack. So the characters usually have a reduced action economy in practice compared to the (higher level) enemies they face. Fewer die rolls mean less chance for criticals.

Totally random question: are you using group initiative or individual initiative when you run PF2?

 

[Retreater]

Totally random question: are you using group initiative or individual initiative when you run PF2?

Individual initiative for the characters, but I've changed to doing group initiative for monsters of the same type - since the VTT gets very confusing when doing it otherwise. After we had the second TPK doing individual monster initiative, it just didn't feel like it changed the outcome that significantly.

 

[kenada]

Individual initiative for the characters, but I've changed to doing group initiative for monsters of the same type - since the VTT gets very confusing when doing it otherwise. After we had the second TPK doing individual monster initiative, it just didn't feel like it changed the outcome that significantly.

Not a fan of roll20’s initiative tracker either, so I can understand that!

 

[CapnZapp]

I meant "punishing" in the same way someone might say "brutal."

Alrighty then

Does this make it a bad game? No. But it might mean that it's not especially well-balanced for long-term campaign play in a published, highly structured Adventure Path that goes to level 20. And that means that Paizo's bread-and-butter Adventure Path format is being disserviced by some of these mechanics, at least while they continue to use their traditional design paradigms.

Well, in theory this sounds like a logical... logic.

In practice, I haven't found our game to be noticeably more lethal. It sure feels a lot more dangerous than 5E. But actual deaths are still rare.

I am not getting the vibe people are dying so fast that you can't keep up a campaign for long.

 

[CapnZapp]

Totally random question: are you using group initiative or individual initiative when you run PF2?

Individual initiative for the characters, but I've changed to doing group initiative for monsters of the same type - since the VTT gets very confusing when doing it otherwise. After we had the second TPK doing individual monster initiative, it just didn't feel like it changed the outcome that significantly.

Not sure the question was that random... Paizo clearly states (somewhere) that monster group initiative can significantly increase the difficulty of an encounter.

That is, you obviously always run the risk of all monsters rolling well and all heroes rolling badly, meaning all monsters go first, and if they all chomp on the same character, that character is dead with a capital D.

Grouping monster initiative makes that happen significantly more often. It can still happen with individual initiative, just not nearly as often.

Nothing wrong with grouping initiative. Just that the GM needs to be aware.

Simplest solution - make the monsters of a large or dangerous group spread out and find their own individual hero to eat, even if that means some of them just move on their entire turn (bypassing the already ganged-upon first character to reach the others in the back).

When the monsters are meant to be smart or cruel, thus be likely to focus their fire, make the players know this, so they can take appropriate caution.

Or use individual initiative for them. (They're not a group of just three cannibal cultists. They're Joe the Cannibal, Bob Soup-Master and Sue the Flenser, and since they're three distinct NPCs they roll individual initiative!)

 

[Retreater]

In practice, I haven't found our game to be noticeably more lethal. It sure feels a lot more dangerous than 5E. But actual deaths are still rare

We've had 2 TPKs and one half-party-kill in 6 sessions. One was completely the fault of the players' bad tactical decisions. Twice we've lost the "deed holder" of the citadel who is gathering together the rest of the party. So for our group at least, yes, it is very difficult to have any story consistency. We have no connected thread to anyone from the first module or anyone who even met the elves at the start of the second one.

Or use individual initiative for them. (They're not a group of just three cannibal cultists. They're Joe the Cannibal, Bob Soup-Master and Sue the Flenser, and since they're three distinct NPCs they roll individual initiative!)

I'll try to find a way to do individual initiative, but the Roll20 initiative tracker makes it difficult to do. I'm guessing I would need to make separate files of each enemy, give them different names and tokens?
Tactically speaking, I try to not have them gang up all attacks on the same character at least (unless there's no other option.)

 

[kenada]

I'll try to find a way to do individual initiative, but the Roll20 initiative tracker makes it difficult to do. I'm guessing I would need to make separate files of each enemy, give them different names and tokens?
Tactically speaking, I try to not have them gang up all attacks on the same character at least (unless there's no other option.)

Right click the token and choose Add Turn. That will add the individual token to the initiative tracker even if it shares a character sheet and image with other tokens on the map. If you weren’t doing that already, then note this also creates a relationship in the tracker with the token, causing it to highlight when you mouse over it in the initiative list. Additionally, when the creature dies, and you remove the token, it will be removed from the tracker automatically.

 

[kenada]

Not sure the question was that random... Paizo clearly states (somewhere) that monster group initiative can significantly increase the difficulty of an encounter.

No, not entirely random, but it seemed like more of an early discussion question rather than a late one. I basically agree with your take. We switched from group to individual when I saw someone mention it on the official forums and reread the recommendation in the book.

One thing I have noticed when switching from group to individual initiative is that it reduces the downtime when monsters go. I feel like this is better for player engagement, but I have absolutely no idea whether’s that’s really true.

We use Hero Lab Online for managing our session. Once I’m past the clunk of getting monsters onto the stage, it manages the rest automatically. I hit the “start encounter” button then adjust skills used and modifiers to initiative, and away we go. I don’t even have to ask players to roll (something that would to get botched about half the time in roll20).

 

[CapnZapp]

We've had 2 TPKs and one half-party-kill in 6 sessions. One was completely the fault of the players' bad tactical decisions. Twice we've lost the "deed holder" of the citadel who is gathering together the rest of the party. So for our group at least, yes, it is very difficult to have any story consistency. We have no connected thread to anyone from the first module or anyone who even met the elves at the start of the second one.

Can I interest you in my replacement for the weak and fiddly hero points of the core rules?

Pathfinder 2E - variant Hero Points

I believe the RAW rule is strangely generous and stingy - at once. I clearly see the rule being geared towards tournament play where each of the four players gets rewarded by one hero point each during a four-hour session. For my home play, I don't like having to think about meta issues every...

www.enworld.org

 

[CapnZapp]

I'll try to find a way to do individual initiative, but the Roll20 initiative tracker makes it difficult to do. I'm guessing I would need to make separate files of each enemy, give them different names and tokens?
Tactically speaking, I try to not have them gang up all attacks on the same character at least (unless there's no other option.)

I don't know anything about roll20, but assuming an Ogre and a Kobold can have different initiatives, then yeah, don't add three identical monsters. Assuming there's NPCs and not just monstrous beings available, make one a cook, one a beggar and one a pick-pocket. (They're all still Cultists, only you're using "different monsters")

If you can't use individual initiative, you'll need to do more than just settle for ganging up on the same character when there's no option. Make it an option! Have them start in very different locations, coming at the party from different directions. Have one be sleeping and thus waste its first action. Or something.