Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2e: Actual Play Experience

[The-Magic-Sword]

Well, without level to proficiency, you would have to increase the level gap between a "boss" and a party, much like you do in 5E.

A Vampire Count, for instance, is a pretty common choice for a "boss monster". If we look at select abilities, we have:

Armor Class 27
Melee Claw +18
Dominate DC 26

Without level to profiency, the monster is brought down to earth, as it were (it's level 9)
Armor Class 18
Melee Claw +9
Dominate DC 17

Does this mean it is now suitable for low-level heroes? Well, no, since it still got 110 hit points with fast healing 10 and resistance 10 (against weapon attacks from low-level heroes). This is still insurmountable.

Very very roughly I would say the variant doubles the level range. If an encounter previously was deemed of "severe" difficulty when it was three levels over the party level, I would now deem an encounter six levels over the party as severe.



So yes, the dynamic changes. Single powerful creatures lose some of their edge. On the other hand, large numbers of previously trivially easy foes gain some edge.

I really don't see any game-breaking issues here (and I certainly don't see any magical hidden properties of the game that simply doesn't work without level to proficiency), but again, I haven't tried the variant.

I do see adventure-path-breaking issues, however. It isn't as simple as "previously hard BBEG fights now become easy" and "previously easy mook fights now become hard", since that would imply the overall challenge hasn't changed and therefore that you don't really need to modify published APs.

While the overall challenge might not change on average, the extremes disappear*: When the easy and hard fights disappear, fun loses out. So you do need to modify published APs.
*) mostly; there might be previously hard fights against lots of mooks that now become impossible

So, the game breaking issue is basically what it was in 5e (of which I played since 2015-2016 right up until the release of PF 2e, so this comes from extensive personal experiences with the system) is that the HP and stuff isn't really enough to make the solo boss a threat unless the level gap is absolutely massive, or you use legendary actions + resistances to emulate the differences provided by level in systems with +level, i.e. spells and other control effects are generally less likely to take hold, the boss can do way more damage.

Level 9-11 parties should not be able to take down Solo Balors, but in 5e, with a reasonably optimized party, thats not even really much of a challenge. Its theoretically possible to balance a bounded accuracy, no +level experience such that it doesn't have that flaw, but 5e doesn't quite have the numbers tuned for that, and it does create a scenario where solo's have to be specially crafted with a band aid fix to their math.

 

[dave2008]

Level 9-11 parties should not be able to take down Solo Balors, but in 5e, with a reasonably optimized party, thats not even really much of a challenge. Its theoretically possible to balance a bounded accuracy, no +level experience such that it doesn't have that flaw, but 5e doesn't quite have the numbers tuned for that, and it does create a scenario where solo's have to be specially crafted with a band aid fix to their math.

Actually, it is incredibly easy to solve this issue in 5e. The exact numbers vary of course based on party dynamics and environment, but simply increase AC and damage and 5e monsters can be terrifying. Personally I recommend +1 to AC per tier and doubling damage, but that is to much for some. I would go ahead and add the bonus to all saves too.

Also, why shouldn't a level 9-11 party not be able to take down a balor? I ran just such a battle in 4e and it was great. 6 lvl 10 PCs in a climatic battle against balor. It was awesome. I actually liked that battle so much I tried something similar in 5e; however, it resulted in a TPK. So maybe a lvl 10 party can do it in 5e, but mine couldn't!

 

[CapnZapp]

So, the game breaking issue is basically what it was in 5e (of which I played since 2015-2016 right up until the release of PF 2e, so this comes from extensive personal experiences with the system) is that the HP and stuff isn't really enough to make the solo boss a threat unless the level gap is absolutely massive, or you use legendary actions + resistances to emulate the differences provided by level in systems with +level, i.e. spells and other control effects are generally less likely to take hold, the boss can do way more damage.

Level 9-11 parties should not be able to take down Solo Balors, but in 5e, with a reasonably optimized party, thats not even really much of a challenge. Its theoretically possible to balance a bounded accuracy, no +level experience such that it doesn't have that flaw, but 5e doesn't quite have the numbers tuned for that, and it does create a scenario where solo's have to be specially crafted with a band aid fix to their math.

Sorry, could you summarize your position? Feels like you're vaguely ranting against 5E... I thought we were discussing level without proficiency in PF2?

 

[kenada]

I got the PDF for my subscription last week. We’re evaluating whether to adopt the “proficiency without level” variant for my hexcrawl sandbox campaign. We’ll know for sure in a few weeks at our next session when we roll up characters and go adventuring. (We’ll also be using point buy ability score variant with 25 instead of 15 flexible points, but that only has a slight impact on your starting scores and shouldn’t matter for seeing how “proficiency without level” feels at the table.)

Before suggesting to my group we switch, I looked at the numbers. Using the expected rate of progression for skill increases, you stay right around 50~60% (for the most part) chance of success assuming a +3 in the associated skill. The same goes for attack rolls against the AC guidelines from the monster creation chapter. I didn’t look at save DCs, but them to follow the same trend. I ran a mock combat using the party that TPK’d against the monster that TPK’d it, and it felt like it was more solidly a moderate encounter (versus the nearly severe encounter it was before).

So, the game breaking issue is basically what it was in 5e (of which I played since 2015-2016 right up until the release of PF 2e, so this comes from extensive personal experiences with the system) is that the HP and stuff isn't really enough to make the solo boss a threat unless the level gap is absolutely massive, or you use legendary actions + resistances to emulate the differences provided by level in systems with +level, i.e. spells and other control effects are generally less likely to take hold, the boss can do way more damage.

Level 9-11 parties should not be able to take down Solo Balors, but in 5e, with a reasonably optimized party, thats not even really much of a challenge. Its theoretically possible to balance a bounded accuracy, no +level experience such that it doesn't have that flaw, but 5e doesn't quite have the numbers tuned for that, and it does create a scenario where solo's have to be specially crafted with a band aid fix to their math.

Surely that’s working as intended rather than game-breaking? Paizo provides a replacement table (4-18: Creature XP [No Level]) for encounter budgeting. It’s absolutely expected that you need higher-level monsters to provide an equivalent challenge. That’s the point. You adopt this variant because you want lower-level creatures to be more dangerous to higher level ones (both lower-level ones to PCs and PCs to higher-level ones). If you don’t want that, then it doesn’t make any sense to use this variant.

 

[CapnZapp]

Actually, it is incredibly easy to solve this issue in 5e. The exact numbers vary of course based on party dynamics and environment, but simply increase AC and damage and 5e monsters can be terrifying. Personally I recommend +1 to AC per tier and doubling damage, but that is to much for some. I would go ahead and add the bonus to all saves too.

Also, why shouldn't a level 9-11 party not be able to take down a balor? I ran just such a battle in 4e and it was great. 6 lvl 10 PCs in a climatic battle against balor. It was awesome. I actually liked that battle so much I tried something similar in 5e; however, it resulted in a TPK. So maybe a lvl 10 party can do it in 5e, but mine couldn't!

With love and respect to Dave, please disregard this advice entirely

I mean, if you desire "proficiency without level" (or "bounded accuracy" or whatevs), you probably do so because you want to tell different stories than ones where a BBEG can single-handedly toss around the heroes.

You want to tell more grounded stories.

Stories where the evil necromancer goes down like a wimp if you can reach him, but if you can't he's incredibly terrifying because of the sheer numbers of undead servants that stand between you and him. (The spellcaster is individually less frightening; endless hordes of low-level skeletons are more frightening.) Stories where heroes remain in touch with the common man for much longer. Stories where heroes indeed become heroic, but not because they're insulated by game mechanics, more because they simply choose to risk their lives. Stories maybe based on Icelandic sagas, where individual courage gets you very far... but not quite all they way; where a single high-level hero previously could mow his way through the entire army and then kill the throne pretender, now he courageously stands alone, kills a dozen enemy champions, but then goes down after a thousand wounds, only to have songs written about him, respected even by his most bitter enemies.

So the solution is to simply treat it as a solution rather than a problem

In other, and shorter, words:

Surely that’s working as intended rather than game-breaking?

 

[CapnZapp]

Personally I recommend +1 to AC per tier and doubling damage, but that is to much for some. I would go ahead and add the bonus to all saves too.

I trust you realize how close this is to Paizo's implementation of "unbounded accuracy" in PF2?

"Give the monster +4", say, is, after all, just a simpler way of saying "the heroes add +10 for being level 10 but the monster adds +14 for being level 14".

Doubling damage; well, since a PF2 BBEG can often hit with all three actions, which no hero PC can expect to do... Add the PF2 rules for critical damage, and I'd say you're nearly there!

 

[dave2008]

I trust you realize how close this is to Paizo's implementation of "unbounded accuracy" in PF2?

"Give the monster +4", say, is, after all, just a simpler way of saying "the heroes add +10 for being level 10 but the monster adds +14 for being level 14".

Doubling damage; well, since a PF2 BBEG can often hit with all three actions, which no hero PC can expect to do... Add the PF2 rules for critical damage, and I'd say you're nearly there!

Well, the intent would be to use it just for certain monsters, probably "solo" types. Not a general rule for all monsters. That is why I called it "Legendary Might" in the 5e thread.

 

[CapnZapp]

Well, the intent would be to use it just for certain monsters, probably "solo" types. Not a general rule for all monsters. That is why I called it "Legendary Might" in the 5e thread.

In practice, PF2 does use it "only" for "certain monsters".

At least, in that just about any monster becomes a fearsome solo if used when 3 or 4 levels above the party level.

Its actions become "legendary" by default, simply by (nearly) always succeeding, coupled with PF2's implementation of criticals. And you can call it a "solo", because you can never use more than one - two L+4 monsters would TPK every party every time, or close to it.

So the decision is left up to each adventure writer.

As a random example, if one campaign features an alghollthu master when the heroes are level 4 and a veiled master when the heroes are level 10, then aboleths are fearsome masterminds (solo creatures) in that campaign. Another campaign might feature alghollthu masters when the heroes are level 9 and veiled masters at level 16-18. In that campaign, aboleths are more like the hired goons to the real villain.

No stats are changed. The only difference is the timing of the monster's introduction.

 

[dave2008]

In practice, PF2 does use it "only" for "certain monsters".

At least, in that just about any monster becomes a fearsome solo if used when 3 or 4 levels above the party level.

Its actions become "legendary" by default, simply by (nearly) always succeeding, coupled with PF2's implementation of criticals. And you can call it a "solo", because you can never use more than one - two L+4 monsters would TPK every party every time, or close to it.

So the decision is left up to each adventure writer.

As a random example, if one campaign features an alghollthu master when the heroes are level 4 and a veiled master when the heroes are level 10, then aboleths are fearsome masterminds (solo creatures) in that campaign. Another campaign might feature alghollthu masters when the heroes are level 9 and veiled masters at level 16-18. In that campaign, aboleths are more like the hired goons to the real villain.

No stats are changed. The only difference is the timing of the monster's introduction.

Yes, that is what I would prefer to avoid. I would rather a set of dials I can tune the monster than have to tune the adventure. Similar to how 4e had the swarm/minion/standard/elite/solo sliding scale. The idea of the "legendary monster" template (I know bad name because of 5e) would be you can chose to use it or not. It is purposefully not backed in.

 

[CapnZapp]

Yes, that is what I would prefer to avoid. I would rather a set of dials I can tune the monster than have to tune the adventure.

Not sure what you want to avoid?

You would never pitch a level 10 party against a level 8 "legendary aboleth" anyway? Since such a low-level creature would never come across as especially legendary, I mean.

Maybe you meant to say "as the game's creator I want to be able to decide which monsters get to have legendary versions; the adventure writers shouldn't get to influence this"?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not denying that Paizo's approach comes cost free. (I mean, I actually like bounded accurac!) The cost of having a ruleset that "autosoloifies" (first time I've used that adverb ever, honest!) high-level monsters is of course that it "automookifies" low-level monsters to the point of utterly trivializing them in a very short while.