Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2e: Actual Play Experience

[dave2008]

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.

That is what I would like to avoid. A narrow range of automatic solos and mooks.

If you take the +level out of PF2e, but you want a tough solo that is the party's level or 1-3 above the party, how do you do it. You could have separate monsters (like 4e's elite & solo) or a simple template that adjust the dials. I like both ideas really and wish PF2e and 5e had implemented some version of those concepts.

 

[kenada]

If you take the +level out of PF2e, but you want a tough solo that is the party's level or 1-3 above the party, how do you do it. You could have separate monsters (like 4e's elite & solo) or a simple template that adjust the dials. I like both ideas really and wish PF2e and 5e had implemented some version of those concepts.

I’m trying to understand this, but I can’t. If you have a creature that’s several levels higher, but not high enough to be a boss, and you want to make it into a “boss” creature, then you just boost its stats until it is in that range. The creature building guidelines make this very simple. You just use the stats from the higher levels instead of the current one. Even if you apply some template to make it ‘legendary’, you still end up with an effectively higher level version.

Level means a lot in PF2, but it also doesn’t mean much of anything. What I mean by that is level matters a lot for encounter building and creature creation, but it doesn’t directly determine statistics. Even if you build an NPC like a PC, you still need to make sure it has appropriate stats for its level (as a creature rather than its class).

I don’t think PF2 needs the distinction between types of creatures. Like CapnZapp said, you’d use creatures of different levels for that. PF2 makes that work due to the way crits work. It’s how a higher level creature can be a boss for one party and a minion for a different (higher level than it) party.

Edit: There a few places where level does matter. It affects the DCs to Recall Knowledge to identify a creature (bleh), and the Incapacitation trait is based on whether the target is higher level than you.

 

[dave2008]

I’m trying to understand this, but I can’t. If you have a creature that’s several levels higher, but not high enough to be a boss, and you want to make it into a “boss” creature, then you just boost its stats until it is in that range. The creature building guidelines make this very simple. You just use the stats from the higher levels instead of the current one. Even if you apply some template to make it ‘legendary’, you still end up with an effectively higher level version.

Level means a lot in PF2, but it also doesn’t mean much of anything. What I mean by that is level matters a lot for encounter building and creature creation, but it doesn’t directly determine statistics. Even if you build an NPC like a PC, you still need to make sure it has appropriate stats for its level (as a creature rather than its class).

I don’t think PF2 needs the distinction between types of creatures. Like CapnZapp said, you’d use creatures of different levels for that. PF2 makes that work due to the way crits work. It’s how a higher level creature can be a boss for one party and a minion for a different (higher level than it) party.

Edit: There a few places where level does matter. It affects the DCs to Recall Knowledge to identify a creature (bleh), and the Incapacitation trait is based on whether the target is higher level than you.

Before I try to explain anything, are you familiar at all with D&D 4e and their monster design?

 

[kenada]

Before I try to explain anything, are you familiar at all with D&D 4e and their monster design?

Yes, but PF2 is not 4e. My understanding of 4e is higher level creatures don’t work very well as solo encounters in 4e for various reasons (poor action economy, too many hit points especially pre-MM3)—hence the need for solo (and elite) versions. Higher level creatures in PF2 don’t share those problems.

You suggest giving creatures more stats and advantages, but they already have that. Crit provides a dynamic scaling factor. Higher level creatures naturally do more damage to lower level ones. They are also harder to hit and harder to incapacitate (due to the Incapacitation trait).

It’s not clear at this point that PF2 shares the problems 4e has with using creatures of different (particularly higher) levels to build encounters, so I’m having trouble understanding why prefer an ad hoc scaling factor to using the tools already built into the system.

 

[dave2008]

Yes, but PF2 is not 4e. My understanding of 4e is higher level creatures don’t work very well as solo encounters in 4e for various reasons (poor action economy, too many hit points especially pre-MM3)—hence the need for solo (and elite) versions. Higher level creatures in PF2 don’t share those problems.

You suggest giving creatures more stats and advantages, but they already have that. Crit provides a dynamic scaling factor. Higher level creatures naturally do more damage to lower level ones. They are also harder to hit and harder to incapacitate (due to the Incapacitation trait).

It’s not clear at this point that PF2 shares the problems 4e has with using creatures of different (particularly higher) levels to build encounters, so I’m having trouble understanding why prefer an ad hoc scaling factor to using the tools already built into the system.

OK, you have a fundamental ignorance or misunderstanding of what I am talking about. I, personally, like the idea that monsters can vary in strength across two axis. The level-axis (let's all it the X-axis) is what everyone is familiar with: as a monster goes up in level (CR or HD on other editions) the monster get's tougher. That difference can be dialed up or down, it can use increasing bonus, or hit points or both. Both PF2e & 5e do this in different ways. What 4e did, and what I would like PF2e and 5e to do, was to introduce the Y-axis. So in PF2e is case, a monster along the Y-axis would get tougher or weaker, but share the same basic math as the standard monster. Let's look at an example: the Ogre
The lvl 3 Ogre Warrior has an AC 17, HP 50, +12 to hit, 12 avg damage; the lvl 7 Ogre Boss has AC 25, HP 130, +19 to hit, 16 dmg.

That's great, the Boss is a lot tougher. I have no issue with that. However, what I like about 4e is you could also have the lvl 3 Ogre Elite Warrior: AC 17, HP 100; +12 to hit; 16 dmg (or whatever). Basically the Ogre is tougher, but primarily on the damage and HP scale. The elite tag lets me know at glance, this monster is with about 2x the non-elite version and it provides an option that isn't reliant on hitting, missing, and criticals.

Look, I have no issue with the PF2e approach. It is tried and true, I just like more options and the 4e approach could get you the best of both worlds. You can keep your deadly +4 lvl Boss, and have slightly tougher +0 lvl (but more XP) elites. Basically, level becomes and indicator of hit and be hit probability and only part of the overall difficulty equation. It just has more flexibility which I like, with a bit more complexity which I find acceptable, YMMV.

 

[CapnZapp]

Just to add: while stock PF2 does have the built-in Elite/Solo upgrade, all that's gone when you take level out of proficiency.

And it is, or at least was, proficiency without level we were discussing

 

[kenada]

It should be sufficient to ignore the first set of changes (attack, saves, etc) when using the weak and elite adjustments. The other ones aren’t dependent on proficiency.

OK, you have a fundamental ignorance or misunderstanding of what I am talking about.

You’re right, I did; though I did preface my response by saying I was having trouble understanding.

I think I understand what you’re saying now. You want to assess damage and toughness separately from attack and defense. Given that encounter budgeting is built around the idea that two monsters are equivalent to one monster of their level + 2, you could probably just double the hit points, apply the elite adjustment modulo proficiency-related changes (attack, defense, etc), and call it a day. Tag it as “elite” and double the XP value for budgeting purposes.

 

[CapnZapp]

It should be sufficient to ignore the first set of changes (attack, saves, etc) when using the weak and elite adjustments. The other ones aren’t dependent on proficiency.

Sorry what? (Is this a reply to me?)

There's no reason to meddle with the weak/elite package just because you take level out of proficiency. The +2 to attacks etc can simply be called upgrading the proficiency rank.

 

[kenada]

Sorry what? (Is this a reply to me?)

Er, yeah. Sorry, didn’t think I needed to quote right after your post.

There's no reason to meddle with the weak/elite package just because you take level out of proficiency. The +2 to attacks etc can simply be called upgrading the proficiency rank.

You could do that, but it seems like it would be a bigger increase than just a single level. Without level to proficiency, the creature building guidelines in the GMG suggest +2 is typically a 4–5 level increase, assuming you want the creature to remain in the same scales (a moderate attack remains a moderate attack, etc). If changing scales is okay, then that might be fine, but I’d be concerned I just threw my monster’s balance out of wack.

 

[CapnZapp]

I was just talking in general. Adding +2 can't be a big deal when the original rules would routinely add +1 to +4 just because the monster was higher level than you.