Pathfinder 2E High Level Play

[Disgruntled Hobbit]

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.

That does sound cool and paints a clearer picture.

 

[CapnZapp]

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_____."

You clearly want 3E levels of gonzo, and 3E is still available for you to use.

Meanwhile, significantly curtailing these excesses of high level play in 3E/PF1 has been the main goal of all three main editions published since...

Regards

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

I would agree with Disgruntled and say that from a 3E perspective, no, high level characters can't do "dramatically" different things.

Let's be honest. The point of PF2 is to not allow imbalanced hijinks. Even 5E comes out as gonzo in comparison.

 

[CapnZapp]

That doesn't sound very different.

That is because it isn't.

"Different" means many things at once. Where you see being able to explode entire cities, Paizo sees a clear risk of one tactic being fundamentally far stronger than another.

If PF2 does only one thing, it is "there's no way to trivialize a fight". There's no cheese.

Yes, that means that just like level 4 players have no way to defeat a bear but to engage it in a "fair fight", level 20 characters have no overpowered imbalanced ways to not have to fight a level 20 beastie using the constraints of a "fair fight".

At level 20 facing a monster your own level is easier than it was at level 4, but that's just about it. Make it a level 22 creature and the math, the arena, the actions available, and the challenge will be comparable.

Why? Because if it was incomparable there would be no way to ensure balance.

---

Let's take an example. The Scare to Death ability (feat). It allows you to spend a single action and quite literally scare a monster to death. By that I mean just that. It goes from full health to being dead in an instant. You spend only a single action to do this. This sounds like 3E-style gonzo right?

Yes.

And no.

That's because Paizo has carefully calibrated and restricted the ability in a way that is distinctly unlike the unlimited 3rd edition.

First off, it only works on critters your own level and lower (because Incapacitation). This is important, since it promises that GMs won't see their cool BBEGs go down to "trickery" (unless you start rolling only 1s on your dice of course)

Secondly, if you do the math, you end up with maybe a 20% success rate. 30% tops. If the monster has 300 hp, that means that your ability on average kills 60 or 80 hit points worth of monster. But a regular attack does that too! If the regular attack does 50 damage but has a 25% shot at scoring a critical for 100 hp damage, the average does fall into the 60-80 range (62.5 to be exact). Note: this compares the feat to your first attack. Compared to your third attack, it is clearly better. But so is everything else.

So in that purely mathematical statistical sense the ability can be defended as "balanced". That's not what proponents of 3rd edition usually want. In 3E there are loads and loads of abilities that completely short-circuit the intended defenses of monsters.

Now, you might think this is the case here. If your initial Intimidation check scores a crit, the monster has to make a literal save or die Fortitude save, but will often fail on even rolling a 19. But that does not change the fact that you will not score that critical more than maybe 20-30% of the time.

That said, narratively the ability still comes off as jarring. Or "cool" depending on your POV. By POV I mean the game is clearly thinking of it being used in a regular dungeon fight where one quick monster death matters little. But in a more civilized campaign, let's say there's a gladiator arena. I find it hard to imagine gladiators wanting to go up against a hero with a proven track record of one-shotting his opponent (no matter their defenses) once every four bouts. You circle your opponent, the tension is rising... and then he lifts an eyebrow, and you drop dead from fright! (Another example of how singularly focused at standard dungeon delving Pathfinder 2 really is)

This should tell you if PF2 is a game for you.

If you consider this to put a lid on high-level heroics, and want build choices to make or break combats, stick with 3E (or PF1). If you consider this a huge boon, since now your high-level monsters are assured some measure of a "fair fight", and one group of min-maxed heroes aren't decisively more potent than another, at the cost of fundamentally restricting high-level game play to the same bounds as low-level game play, then PF2 is definitely the game for you.

Fundamentally, the only reason Scare to Death is restricted to level 15 is to offer more "high level hijinks". But the ability is still on a leash. It's not like 3E at all, where a careful combination of various abilities could shatter the math entirely. There is no balance-related reason the Scare to Death feat couldn't be offered at level 4, for example.

Z

Disclaimer: I have only GMd one campaign from 1 to 20, so there can be more examples than this.

 

[dave2008]

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



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

How about we take a different approach: what are you looking for in high level play?

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

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



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

There's no 4th level Massacre (which is 9th level my bad) the spell can actually instantly finish off PCs, and has a stakes mechanic where if it doesn't kill, it recoils back, hitting the same creatures again, as well as the caster. It feels way more epic than just dropping a fireball or something on them would have at low level (in my experience anyway, I've run those lower level Dragon fights with the same party when they were around 7.) If that doesn't feel different, I'm not sure what to tell you, because it just fundamentally is different in actual play. It only seems similar if you abstract it, and that just isn't how the game is played-- 'we fought a tough monster and the party almost died' is a pretty apt description of a boss encounter at any level of any well designed game in this genre.

 

[CapnZapp]

There's no 4th level Massacre (which is 9th level my bad) the spell can actually instantly finish off PCs, and has a stakes mechanic where if it doesn't kill, it recoils back, hitting the same creatures again, as well as the caster.

Sure, but if you compare the PF2 version to the PF1 version you see clear differences.

PF1: Massacre – d20PFSRD
PF2: Massacre - Spells - Archives of Nethys: Pathfinder 2nd Edition Database

How you want to characterize the difference is up to you. If you go "The PF2 version is way more balanced" play PF2. If you go "The PF1 version is way more epic" play PF1.

(The PF2 spell might come across as very similar to a superficial comparison, but as soon as you dive deeper you realize the PF2 spell is WAY more likely to not kill anyone and thus blow up in your face.)

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Zapp, are we doing your usual again today?

Edit: I realize this might be a little unclear, I didn't say anything about Pathfinder 1e, so I don't appreciate the random 'just asking questions' routine about a point I didn't make, and you're already morphing this thread into one of your usual rants about your dislike of the game's balanced math, and it doesn't seem to be much improved from the repetition.

 

[Disgruntled Hobbit]

If you consider this to put a lid on high-level heroics, and want build choices to make or break combats, stick with 3E (or PF1). If you consider this a huge boon, since now your high-level monsters are assured some measure of a "fair fight", and one group of min-maxed heroes aren't decisively more potent than another, at the cost of fundamentally restricting high-level game play to the same bounds as low-level game play, then PF2 is definitely the game for you.

I just remember someone from Paizo talking about high level gains at a Paizo Con I attended and discussing how high level adventures should encourage crazy naughty word and not just have dungeons that had a mess of restrictions to prevent teleporting. He was discussing corridors covered in knives where you had to fly to continue or rooms you could only reach by teleporting or areas where you needed a minimum amount of fire resistance not to instantly be turned to ash.
Wondered how that worked in Pathfinder 2nd Ed.

That and playing some SHADOWS OF THE DEMON LORD where you hit cap at level 10 but start the campaign saving the world. It reminded me that you don't need to have a level in the teens to go epic. But just having a story where ya saved the world didn't make the heroes "epic."

 

[CapnZapp]

I just remember someone from Paizo talking about high level gains at a Paizo Con I attended and discussing how high level adventures should encourage crazy naughty word and not just have dungeons that had a mess of restrictions to prevent teleporting. He was discussing corridors covered in knives where you had to fly to continue or rooms you could only reach by teleporting or areas where you needed a minimum amount of fire resistance not to instantly be turned to ash.
Wondered how that worked in Pathfinder 2nd Ed.

Well, my answer would be "I don't think so".

Why? Not because "we can't let have the players too much fun".

But because "our adventure paths must work for all sorts of parties". So far I haven't encountered any AP you couldn't complete with a party of four Barbarians, say.

And yes, this is a distinct difference to what you're describing. What you're describing, in fact, is Monte Cook 3E adventures. There you simply die if you don't bring a real superstar of a hero to the party. Meaning a high-level Wizard of course!