Pathfinder 2E Challenge and XP are overstated

[cranberry]

So, this past Friday, I GMed Abomination Vaults for 4 level 2 players.

(Trying to avoid spoilers...)

Being 2nd level, they had an easy time with the top level of the Gauntlight, as I expected.

However, they made it to the Otari graveyard, and encountered a 4th level monster. The party made quick work of an encounter that is supposed to be moderate. (The other monsters in the graveyard aren't even worth mentioning...) So, it got me thinking about how the encounter rating and xp are calculated. It compares the party level and size that that of the monster(s), but doesn't seem to take action economy into account - which really made a difference

For example, the party had 12 actions per round (4 PC's x 3 actions) vs. the monster that has only 3. That is a huge advantage. So, I'm thinking of adjusting the xp relative to the action economy.

In this example, the monster has 25% of the action economy (3/12), so xp for the encounter should be 20, not 80.

Alternatively, I could adjust for the the party and monster levels. So the party would have level-actions of: 3 actions x 4 PCs x 2 lvl=24, and the monster 3 actions x 4 lvl =12. so the adjustment would be 12/24 or 50% of normal XP, or 40.

Thought?

 

[payn]

4th level monster is that a moderate challenge? I think we experienced a better challenge when solos were extreme or severe rated.

 

[Koloth]

1 vs Many has always been tricky to balance. Something as simple as a Daze cantrip can render the 1 mostly helpless for a round. Then the rest of the Many do their thing. But give the 1 enough stuff to balance and you risk the AOE that works from the 1 doing a TPK on the Many. Or a series of attacks on a single character of the Many that just totally splats that character.

As far as XP, did the party do anything really inventive or special to defeat the critter or just a variation on rush and bash? Reward more XP if they made the fight easy by planned out tactics or spells(Daze for example) that rendered the critter easy to deal with.

I wouldn't reduce XP because the encounter went easy.

 

[cranberry]

i4th level monster is that a moderate challenge? I think we experienced a better challenge when solos were extreme or severe rated.

That's what an encounter builder indicated. But, I agree it's way off.

PF2 Encounter builder

A PF2 tool to balance encounters

maxiride.github.io

 

[cranberry]

As far as XP, did the party do anything really inventive or special to defeat the critter or just a variation on rush and bash?

No, they just used rage, sudden charge, and guidance. If they just got lucky with dice rolls, I wouldn't adjust the xp, but that didn't happen.

 

[Theory of Games]

So, this past Friday, I GMed Abomination Vaults for 4 level 2 players.

(Trying to avoid spoilers...)

Being 2nd level, they had an easy time with the top level of the Gauntlight, as I expected.

However, they made it to the Otari graveyard, and encountered a 4th level monster. The party made quick work of an encounter that is supposed to be moderate. (The other monsters in the graveyard aren't even worth mentioning...) So, it got me thinking about how the encounter rating and xp are calculated. It compares the party level and size that that of the monster(s), but doesn't seem to take action economy into account - which really made a difference

For example, the party had 12 actions per round (4 PC's x 3 actions) vs. the monster that has only 3. That is a huge advantage. So, I'm thinking of adjusting the xp relative to the action economy.

In this example, the monster has 25% of the action economy (3/12), so xp for the encounter should be 20, not 80.

Alternatively, I could adjust for the the party and monster levels. So the party would have level-actions of: 3 actions x 4 PCs x 2 lvl=24, and the monster 3 actions x 4 lvl =12. so the adjustment would be 12/24 or 50% of normal XP, or 40.

Thought?

This is one of the reasons I passed on PF2e. CR was already a joke then Paizo gives the PCs more actions? I've never - since being a AD&D1e DM - seen so many GM complaints about a system as I've seen about 3, 3.5, 3.75, 4e and 5e. And the complaints almost always focus on CR-based encounter design. It's a tremendous failure that impacts whether GMs remain interested in the system.

I still use old-school methodology: swarm the party with low-HD threats or throw something big at them that has high AC, a lot of HP and does an ishload of DPR.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

It takes action economy into account, but in a statistical sense. The higher AC and Saves and HP of an above level creature make it less likely to die fast, while its higher attack bonuses make it hit like it got multiple hits. But either is mitigated by good tactics and party-favorable rolls because you can obviously just roll high and clean it's clock.

 

[Theory of Games]

Monsters & evil NPCs can also use good tactics along with the GM rolling well. What's important with encounter design is making sure it's as engaging as the GM intends. Regrettably, CR RAW isn't the answer.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Monsters & evil NPCs can also use good tactics along with the GM rolling well. What's important with encounter design is making sure it's as engaging as the GM intends. Regrettably, CR RAW isn't the answer.

I really wouldn't say that's true, its been really reliable for us across like 6 years of play.