Pathfinder 2E Balancing encounters (and converting stuff from other editions)

[CapnZapp]

That's only to be expected, I suppose

No...? It was unexpected.

they can instead break high when the party is outnumbered.

They... weren't?

It sounds like PF2 combats are less dependable in terms of intended/expected challenge, to begin with, even than PF1 or 5e, which is saying something. (But, then, in general, D&D(ish) games have never been at all dependable or simple in terms of encounter design, with guidelines either absent or complicated, and prone to delivering unanticipated results...

Another take is that PF2 seems significantly harder to use / convert to than the market leader, 5E

Ultimately, it sounds like a problem that's not new nor unique to PF2, and, thus, probably not much of a problem.

That's your take?

It is literally the opposite of what the poster you're responding to is saying. Sometimes I wonder why you even bother quoting stuff...

(It might be off-putting to new players, or very hypothetical* players with only 4e experience bypassing 5e to go straight to PF2.)

Or... you know, 5E gamers... like the one starting this thread...

 

[Campbell]

The encounter building guidelines are fairly consistent, but they assume a fairly high standard of play. It's largely the case that a moderate encounter is moderate with good play and a severe encounter is severe with good play.

They also largely rate the difficulty of the monster based on the idea that you have figured out or will fairly quickly figure out its puzzle. If you are not targetting the weaknesses of a demon or troll it is more difficult than its level would indicate.

We can talk about if these standards are too high or if the guidelines are misleading.

I personally think they are quite clear if you read the text, but if you are coming from games where deadly is not deadly a prove it response to the descriptions of encounter difficulties is quite understandable.

 

[Tony Vargas]

No...? It was unexpected.

You expected a D&D-like system to have simple, robust, encounter guidelines that gave consistent results regardless of relative player skill?

Doesn't sound like a realistic expectation, to me. When has D&D ever delivered that?

Another take is that PF2 seems significantly harder to use / convert to than the market leader, 5E

You started this thread with an anecdote about an unexpectedly deadly encounter in an early PF2 session. That sounds exactly like 5e HotDQ reports shortly after release.

Since then (fairly quickly, really) it became apparent what HotDQ did wrong. Maybe there's something to be figured out, here, too...

They also largely rate the difficulty of the monster based on the idea that you have figured out or will fairly quickly figure out its puzzle. If you are not targetting the weaknesses of a demon or troll it is more difficult than its level would indicate.

Is that 'puzzle' idea spelled out in PF2? Or is a commonality in monster designs that you've noticed?

And, does it apply to the Capn's Bugbear* Tormentor?









* It hadn't struck me, 'til now, how apropos that was.

 

[kenada]

Thanks, but my personal opinion is to either run with xp or shuck it entirely. That is, to me mucking about with monster xp when you end up getting more xp from other stuff just screams "just do milestones". To be worth the hassle, the xp you gain from encounters need to be "important".

Story XP is pretty common, and PF2 just bakes it into the system as accomplishments. Anyway, the amount of XP from accomplishments works out to about half a level (depending on the difficulty of encounters). There’s no reason you couldn’t run with just XP from encounters, though you may want to tweak the amount required to level depending on how many encounters PCs complete per session. Or not. It’s totally fine to level slowly if that’s what everyone wants.

 

[Campbell]

I have seen commentary from the developers that monsters are balanced assuming you are taking advantage of their weaknesses. As an example all fiends have above average hit points for a monster of their level but have a weakness to good damage.

That being said the Bugbear Tormentor is really not a puzzle box design. It is pretty much in line from what one would expect of a 3rd level Rogue PC. It's special abilities are all directly lifted from the Rogue class.

 

[CapnZapp]

You expected a D&D-like system to have simple, robust, encounter guidelines that gave consistent results regardless of relative player skill?

Doesn't sound like a realistic expectation, to me. When has D&D ever delivered that?

I have played nearly every edition of D&D, so there's no need to get generic and theoretical.

You started this thread with an anecdote about an unexpectedly deadly encounter in an early PF2 session. That sounds exactly like 5e HotDQ reports shortly after release.

Yeah, no. Those groups were either amateurs, or that specific module is still a player killer.

I'm relating the experience of a veteran group interested in minmaxing. We immediately found 5E's problem to be it is easy, too easy, and far easier than what it says on the label.

PF2 is NOTHING like this. It's still early days, but if anything it points to a game where GMs can't afford to be casual in their prep work: either make the encounter real easy or risk halting or stopping the story.

Let me try to explain it like this:

In a purely abstract sense, there is no difference between fighting over-leveled monsters in 5E, and under-leveled ones in PF2.

In practical terms, there's a world of difference between immediately feeling you're Kings of the World (5E) or still trying to avoid any fight that isn't against Giant Rats or Stray Dogs even after leveling...

You can still find a foe you dominate, so this is not a complaint. It's an observation.

You're free to comment on these observations, but I'd appreciate it if you stop quoting me if you have no intention of actually engaging with me, and all you intend to do is question, twist and negate my words for your own audience!

 

[Tony Vargas]

I have played nearly every edition of D&D, so there's no need to get generic and theoretical.

So you're aware of D&D's stellar track record when it comes to easy-to-use, dependable encounter guidelines. Like, there were none the first few eds, Then 3.0 finally introduced formal guidelines where you 'split up' monsters into two CR-2 monsters, repeatedly if necessary, to calculate larger encounters - which was a little goofy, perhaps, but, hey, at least I can still remember how to do it - but they did not give at all dependable results. 3.5's weren't any different. (4e you don't want to discuss). And, 5e's guidelines are, if anything, more complicated to use, and no more dependable.

So, with that experience, why would you form an expectation that PF2 was going to have easy-to-use, dependable encounter design? Why would you harp about it on line as if it were some fatal flaw, when it's just par for the course for this whole category of games?

PF2 is NOTHING like this. It's still early days, but if anything it points to a game where GMs can't afford to be casual in their prep work: either make the encounter real easy or risk halting or stopping the story.

Doesn't sound any different than 5e, or 3.x/PF, or TSR era D&D. They all require the DM be on the ball.

You can still find a foe you dominate, so this is not a complaint. It's an observation.

See, it sounded like a complaint.
So 5e & PF2 encounter guidelines both give unintuitive results - you just find that, for your players, 5e breaks low, while PF2 breaks high.
As sober observation, rather than a shocked complaint, that's interesting. It's indicative of a game tuned to provide more challenge to the players, which seems reasonable considering how experienced the PF1 player base must be by now.

 

[5ekyu]

I have played nearly every edition of D&D, so there's no need to get generic and theoretical.

Yeah, no. Those groups were either amateurs, or that specific module is still a player killer.

I'm relating the experience of a veteran group interested in minmaxing. We immediately found 5E's problem to be it is easy, too easy, and far easier than what it says on the label.

PF2 is NOTHING like this. It's still early days, but if anything it points to a game where GMs can't afford to be casual in their prep work: either make the encounter real easy or risk halting or stopping the story.

Let me try to explain it like this:

In a purely abstract sense, there is no difference between fighting over-leveled monsters in 5E, and under-leveled ones in PF2.

In practical terms, there's a world of difference between immediately feeling you're Kings of the World (5E) or still trying to avoid any fight that isn't against Giant Rats or Stray Dogs even after leveling...

You can still find a foe you dominate, so this is not a complaint. It's an observation.

You're free to comment on these observations, but I'd appreciate it if you stop quoting me if you have no intention of actually engaging with me, and all you intend to do is question, twist and negate my words for your own audience!

"PF2 is NOTHING like this. It's still early days, but if anything it points to a game where GMs can't afford to be casual in their prep work: either make the encounter real easy or risk halting or stopping the story."

All in all this seems consistent with the idea that PF2 is really built to draw in experienced players abpnd GMs, not to draw in novices and newbies. It's the oft-seen over the eras of RPGs "like that other game but more crunch, scratching dome of its itches and a different layout" follow -on.

This is a repeating saga.

If a lot of folks remark about how 5e equal cr is too easy... this game sets its dial different. All the same options are there but it "seems" like it has addressed the issue.

That said we wont know more clearly until we see their core bestiary. The claim to emphasize more puzzle monsters would seem to be a festure that calls for more detailed "monster lore" determination rules, its own sub-system.

Hope they dont just leave that to simple skill checks and meta-gaming player knowledge vs srptatic stat blocks.

Suddenly I remember an old SFB scenario where the space amoebas had a random roll built in for its objective and weakness so that each encounter was different. "The Monater that Ate Sheboygan VII"

So, if they do follow-through on this kinda thing, that will be a draw as well as make the bestiary something very useful for other systems as well.

 

[CapnZapp]

That said we wont know more clearly until we see their core bestiary.

The core Bestiary has been available for a month. All monsters I'm referring to are from the released book.

As for "puzzle monsters" I don't expect that to manifest until we're off the lowest levels.

 

[GameOgre]

D&D 5E is too easy.
Monsters are not balanced verse PC's with:Higher stats from rolling ability scores,Feats,or Magic Items.
Add to that 5E's small math issues,Overpowered classes and races and PC's with all of those things and a strong sense of tactics destroy the game.

Sure DM's can fix it. Repair the damage and run a deadly 5E game but ...it's really such a altered game that most do not recognize it as their 5E.

Pathfinder 2E isn't like that. I am still learning the ropes on running it but I can already tell. Pathfinder 2E is a much more balanced game. The Monsters have clearly been balanced with typical pc's in mind. So it's going to be a much harder system to just dominate.

Also I want to call attention to this issue from the OP's post.

Less than stellar tactics, less than stellar positioning and definitely less than stellar dice rolling


A rpg that let players forget about tactics & positioning and roll like crap and not get hammered into the ground wouldn't be worth playing.

Otherwise why roll dice? You guys kill everything you WIN!

So far I really like Pathfinder 2E's harder nature. I was dissatisfied with having to add pages and pages of 5E house rules and rebalance pc's verse Monsters and all that Jazz.

Now don't get me wrong, Pathfinder's gonna have it's own issues to. I can already tell it's going to end up with too much of Pathfinder 1E's over crunch issues and book fever.