Pathfinder 2E High Level Play

[CapnZapp]

Isn’t that the gist of the complaint? You don’t want NPCs built like monsters, so don’t. Create them all as very low level characters except for their specialty. That eliminates the “beggar has has significantly more hit points, and significantly better attacks” scenario while still allowing said beggar to be a good source of information on the street (because their Society skill is very high). The reason for pointing to the GMG was to show that such an approach isn’t unprecedented.

Not sure if we're misunderstanding each other.

I'm merely pointing out that the GMG approach you mention is still used only highly selectively.

The solution is exactly what you suggest except Paizo didn't do this. That I can do it isn't really a solution for anybody else...

 

[CapnZapp]

Do PF2 statblocks even list XP?

EDIT: I just checked, they do not. Nothing to see here, please move on!

The reason they do not is because there is no single given number to list.

One and the same Basilisk (or Cloaker, or Harpy etc) gives 160 XP* if defeated by a party of level 1 heroes. Once the party is level 5, it gives 40 XP*. When the party is level 9, it gives 10 XP*.

*) to each of the four heroes

 

[CapnZapp]

For exampe (assuming CapnZapp’s absolute XP scale): If the PCs are out looking for bum fights, they only get 2 XP for every beggar they kill. If they best the beggar in a trivia challenge regarding fortified wines, then they get 10 XP.

Well...

This requires clarity. Kenada is mixing beggars with merchants here. Unfortunately both can yield a 10 XP reward, so let's be more precise.

First off, Kenada references my scheme found here: Pathfinder 2E - Absolute XP

Now, defeating a level 1 creature gives 2 XP, completing a level 1 challenge or quest gives 10 XP.

Second, the official beggar is not a level 1 creature (as we've all assumed so far). It is a level -1 creature. Just sayin'...

Defeating a level 4 creature also happens to give 10 XP. Defeating a level -1 creature gives 1 XP (because I don't want to give out half of an xp).

So if you are accosted by a level 1 creature, say an escaped prisoner, and manages to beat him off, or turn him in to the city guard, or leave him lifeless in the gutter, you and your friends gain 2 XP each. But if your quest is to find out which of the prisoners knows the real identity of the king, and that is a level 1 quest, you gain 10 XP.

If you manage to escape with a bottle of Booger Swamp White Wine guarded by four merchants shooting crossbow bolts at you, you gain 1 XP for each. If on the other hand you're challenged by a merchant, not to single combat, but to a game involving Mercantile Lore, you gain 10 XP. But if you are on a quest to replace valuable wines with cheap fakes during a wine tasting without anyone knowing, and that constitutes a level 4 quest, then you'd get 50 XP.

Hope that clears up everything!

 

[kenada]

Thanks for clarifying! I was using a hypothetical beggar NPC that was created for the purpose of illustrating the example and messed up the XP values.

Not sure if we're misunderstanding each other.

I'm merely pointing out that the GMG approach you mention is still used only highly selectively.

The solution is exactly what you suggest except Paizo didn't do this. That I can do it isn't really a solution for anybody else...

But it provides for the “set of creation tables intended for NPCs” you wanted. Given these additional constraints, no solution is possible because by definition it can’t and won’t be applied everywhere.

As a compromise, how about the following approach: take the idea from the GMG, and apply it universally. Do that by creating a standard template for NPCs. These stats would be used for all NPCs (regardless of what is printed) except where it concerns their specialty. Fighting bums? Use the template. Seducing guards? Use the template. Getting the king drunk? Use the template. Negotiating with the kingdom’s top diplomat? Use the diplomat’s stats.

 

[dave2008]

The reason they do not is because there is no single given number to list.

One and the same Basilisk (or Cloaker, or Harpy etc) gives 160 XP* if defeated by a party of level 1 heroes. Once the party is level 5, it gives 40 XP*. When the party is level 9, it gives 10 XP*.

*) to each of the four heroes

Yep, I figured it out as I was posting. If I had just thought a moment more about your original posts, it wouldn't have been a question at all. A case of typing before I was thinking.

 

[Disgruntled Hobbit]

GMed campaign up to 17, the players are a little stronger, and can shut enemies down much more easily, but the enemies can be more dangerous too with powerful magic. The math holds, players can opt to keep their turns simple, although they have the option to make them more elaborate.

Your players can nuke things that are lower level than them at every level, but its here that this comes to include things like swarms of adult dragons. In the same way they once struggled with kobolds and then moved on to frying them in large quantities, the dragons they faced as mid level bosses can now be swatted aside in short order.

That sounds both good and bad.
If the math is identical and the play is similar, don't that mean you could just use level 7 characters and a swarm of young adult dragons and just describe them as being Large or Huge?

Their spells are bigger and badder too, and high level feats for Martials are deliberately more and more superhuman, slicing your way through crowds in an instant, or leaping high into the air. Druids can transform into Dragons and eventually ACTUAL KAIJU, as well.

Is transforming into a dragon more effective at that level than transforming into a bear at low levels?

When I think about high level play in 3rd Ed I'm picturing games where all the heroes can fly, are immune to fire, can shoot lightning and teleport cross the continent for afternoon tea. Stuff that 5e don't do well cause of attunement. Or 4th Ed which has similar hard math but you ended the game with powers that said "once per day, when you die_____."

 

[Campbell]

I would say the math is similar, but the sorts of things high level characters can do dramatically ups the ante. Stuff like a Barbarian growing Dragon Wings when they rage. Stuff like high level Rogues possibly being so good at Deception they are immune to Detection and Scrying effects. Stuff like Fighters hitting flying enemies so hard with their sword they come down to earth. Plus like all that magic stuff.

 

[dave2008]

I would say the math is similar, but the sorts of things high level characters can do dramatically ups the ante. Stuff like a Barbarian growing Dragon Wings when they rage. Stuff like high level Rogues possibly being so good at Deception they are immune to Detection and Scrying effects. Stuff like Fighters hitting flying enemies so hard with their sword they come down to earth. Plus like all that magic stuff.

Ya, that reminds of the stuff people supposedly hated about 4e. I see it both ways. I prefer more grounded games (unless I am specifically running epic / immortal stuff), but I get that people like the gonzo abilities too.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

That sounds both good and bad.
If the math is identical and the play is similar, don't that mean you could just use level 7 characters and a swarm of young adult dragons and just describe them as being Large or Huge?

The higher level Dragon has more abilities that do crazy things, your players have more abilities that do crazy things, the battle still feels different. The game has layers, so even if one layer has the same relative values, the design of a different layer means that it feels different. This can be because of spells (one high level dragon fight I ran had the Dragon dropping a 10th level Massacre spell on the party as the end looked inevitable for it, low level draconic spellcasters would never be able to do that) or innate abilities, Ancient Red Dragons have innate magic that lets them manipulate fire effects, and a reaction to redirect fire effects.

They're also bigger, have longer reach, and higher level monsters reach into higher numerical categories more often since players have more tools to deal with it-- there's literally a chart with extreme/high/moderate/low AC for every level, higher level monsters lean more heavily on the high/extreme column, for instance.

In practice it feels pretty good, because the statblock being an actual stable thing means that the players know they're moving on to objectively nastier monsters.

 

[Disgruntled Hobbit]

The higher level Dragon has more abilities that do crazy things, your players have more abilities that do crazy things, the battle still feels different. The game has layers, so even if one layer has the same relative values, the design of a different layer means that it feels different. This can be because of spells (one high level dragon fight I ran had the Dragon dropping a 10th level Massacre spell on the party as the end looked inevitable for it, low level draconic spellcasters would never be able to do that) or innate abilities, Ancient Red Dragons have innate magic that lets them manipulate fire effects, and a reaction to redirect fire effects.

That doesn't sound very different. "The ancient red dragon uses a 10th level spell that deals damage and almost kills the party" isn't all that different than "the young red dragon uses a 4th level spell that deals damage and almost kills the party

They're also bigger, have longer reach

It ain't hard to use a young red's statblock but make it colossal and increase it's reach by 10 feet.