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

[CapnZapp]

It's still early days, but it is starting to feel it will be significantly harder for me as GM to offer challenging (dangerous, exciting) combats that still don't threaten a TPK.

Less than stellar tactics, less than stellar positioning and definitely less than stellar dice rolling meant my party of five heroes got absolutely hammered by one Bugbear Tormentor (a level three creature) and his three goblin wives (each level -1), with two heroes down and one just one point of Dying away from perma-death.

I mean, coming from 5E, I am absolutely astounded how this supposedly not-double-deadly encounter just cuts right through them... o_o I guess even a L-1 creature can do some serious damage when every attack against it misses ;-)

The root cause of this is, I guess, that the baseline to hit chance is more like 50% in PF2 (and that's before MAP), as opposed to easily 60-75% in 5th Edition. You're much more likely to have a bit of bad luck ruin your whole turn (as opposed to merely turn a great turn into an average one).

I also am starting to suspect this will make adventure conversion a bitch, if you can't simply port over the encounters pretty much wholesale and count on heroic "true grit" to persevere should an encounter accidentally become a bit rough.

I mean, if every module requires careful calculations and recalibrations that will considerably narrow the appeal of using old Dungeon modules for your PF2 gaming needs... Perhaps not for serious projects, but for me, the lazy DM that just wants to pick something up.

Guess I just needed to vent the fact a single Level 3 creature almost single-handedly stopped the party's progress dead in its tracks. Not that I mind adversity. I mind having to go easier on them in the future if that is required to not have bad luck stop the story from progressing

PS. Party is: level 3 sorcerer and level 2 ranger, rogue, monk and cleric. (After tonight, the ranger and cleric leveled up)

 

[Kaodi]

I think it may definitely require some understanding of the rules to make challenging but not too challenging encounters. This can go both ways, I think. Luck may allow the PCs to absolutely roll some encounters that should have seemed quite threatening. Some of it is may come down to learning how best to make opponents act "cinematically" without optimizing their attack routine too much. If you focus fire PCs with straight attack, attack, attack turns they may not going to last too long.

 

[CapnZapp]

Of course. One of the skills every DM needs to master is the ability to hide his disappointment when the Cool BBEG goes down without as much as a whimper (The solution is "better luck next time", not using Hand of God to make the BBEG suitably threatening after all)

As for your other observation, I reserve the right for my only monster to target one and the same hero with his only attack (the rogue's Double Feint) especially since "cinematic dispersion" would be against the rules

Other than that, as for

I think it may definitely require some understanding of the rules to make challenging but not too challenging encounters.

Well, my point was the opposite of relativizing every ruleset into the same category. Of course you need "some understanding" of any ruleset you want to utilize. My point here is that PF2 seems to have a much narrower balance point than 5E.

While that is neither good or bad, what could be bad is if the difficulty level of getting it just right is considerably higher, if you feel compelled to spend more time getting it right, if you must get it right as opposed to just throwing stuff against the wall to see what sticks. Or, rather, if the consequence when you don't get it just right (and you will get it not just right eventually) is much harsher.

 

[5ekyu]

Well, to me I take a different approach.

While the OP may be right, and I suspect so as a default scoring that makes even equate to high risk will lead to more chances of crisis endings, I feel any system can let you provide eady or risky engagements - deliberate or by accidrnt.

BUT...

I emphasize scenarios being built to be robust, reactive and resilient.

Key for this is the reactive. Both sides must have reasonable chances to react to changing circumstances with choices etc thst can perhaps drastically change the trends.

Does the nature of combat in PF2 reduce the chances of reversing course once the fight has started to go south? Does it have more swingy high yield results or scaling of features that makes reversing a bad start less possible? Does it have a faster downward slide that cuts down on the chances for realizing "holy crap, we gotta run" mid-fight from working?"

Does it make swingy dice innately more powerful in terms of closing doors on various options?

Obviously, the Three-Rs mostly focus on the story-side options and setup in general, but practically speaking the degree and severity that a "bad start" or a few " bad rolls " can close off options to be reactive is gonna matter for that.

Now, obviously ablot of factors go into making reactive possible.

For those in PF2 actual play, are you seeing any issues with the ability to reverse setbacks or make escapes once things go bad? Do fights that ho bad go quickly to inescapable by dint of rules making recover to flee hard?

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's still early days, but it is starting to feel it will be significantly harder for me as GM to offer challenging (dangerous, exciting) combats that still don't threaten a TPK.
...
I mean, coming from 5E, I am absolutely astounded how this supposedly not-double-deadly encounter just cuts right through them... o_o I guess even a L-1 creature can do some serious damage when every attack against it misses ;-)

Coming from 5e - especially early-days 5e, like HotDQ, that should come as no shock, really.
Though, 5e tends to deliver too-easy-seeming combats until you outnumber the party, then turns suddenly deadly.

I mean, if every module requires careful calculations and recalibrations that will considerably narrow the appeal of using old

Paizo has a pretty impressive record of providing adventures for PF. I'm sure we can expect plenty for PF2.

 

[Campbell]

There is no real way to balance encounters irrespective of player skill in Pathfinder 2. Things like positioning, coordination, timing, and tactical choices make a large impact on your success or failure. This applies for both team PC and team monster.

According to the encounter building guidelines that fight was about halfway between a moderate and severe encounter for your group of player characters. A moderate fight is one which should win soundly with good tactics, but might leave you needing to spend time to recover with poor tactics or poor luck. A severe encounter is one you should win with good play, but bad luck or bad tactics could make things turn south. The Core Rulebook suggests a severe encounter is one in which the PCs might need to think about retreating if things start to turn against them. Severe is close to what Fifth Edition calls deadly. They recommend severe encounters for big moments and boss fights. Extreme encounters are like 50/50 even with good tactics and average luck.

My suggestion would be to use the encounter guidelines and mostly stick to trivial and moderate encounters while your players learn the game and how to work together more. Ramp up difficulty as their skill at the game improves. Moderate encounters really are much more of the legitimately challenging without much risk of a TPK.

There are some other things you can do from the GM side. You might want to moderate monster tactics a bit or explain what you are doing tactically without giving away details about monsters. You can also encourage a bit more reconnaissance and Recall Knowledge rolls so they have a better idea what they are up against before they face it.

 

[CapnZapp]

Paizo has a pretty impressive record of providing adventures for PF. I'm sure we can expect plenty for PF2.

I wasn't talking about new scenarios.

I was talking about the practice where you run your favorite modules in a new system. Whether it is easy or hard to convert can impact a game's popularity.

 

[CapnZapp]

There is no real way to balance encounters irrespective of player skill in Pathfinder 2.

Severe is close to what Fifth Edition calls deadly.

Excuse my crude quoting methods.

This is worrisome.

Are you sure you're not basing that on what the book wants you to say? Because in my experience, everything short of double-deadly in 5E is best characterized as a cakewalk.

Two heroes down? Sure it's early days still, but the contrast to 5E could not be greater. (Again, not complaining here, just relating my experiences)

The advice to stick to trivial encounters (the game's term, not truly trivial): wouldn't this mean slower xp gain (had I run an official module)?

Anyway, the easy advice at this stage for those of us lazy enough to not count xp and encounter budgets would be to stick to monsters of your own level (not higher), and only feature even numbers when every foe is two levels lower than you.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Excuse my crude quoting methods.

This is worrisome.

Are you sure you're not basing that on what the book wants you to say? Because in my experience, everything short of double-deadly in 5E is best characterized as a cakewalk.

Two heroes down? Sure it's early days still, but the contrast to 5E could not be greater. (Again, not complaining here, just relating my experiences)

The advice to stick to trivial encounters (the game's term, not truly trivial): wouldn't this mean slower xp gain (had I run an official module)?

Anyway, the easy advice at this stage for those of us lazy enough to not count xp and encounter budgets would be to stick to monsters of your own level (not higher), and only feature even numbers when every foe is two levels lower than you.

"everything short of double-deadly in 5E is best characterized as a cakewalk." isn't true, unless you're doing like one encounter per day, and even then, it would be very very very swingy. The characters in my guild game are often quite optimized, and get a lot of magic item, all custom, as well as a free first level feat- it results in hard encounters being more or less "moderate" and deadly being the new "hard"

or unless you're strictly using lair actionless solos, i guess.

 

[dave2008]

There is no real way to balance encounters irrespective of player skill in Pathfinder 2. Things like positioning, coordination, timing, and tactical choices make a large impact on your success or failure. This applies for both team PC and team monster.

This reaffirms why I can't DM this game for my group. That is not the type of players they are. I am still interested in playing it, just can't DM unless I find a new group and I don't think I am interested in that.