Pathfinder 2E Problems with percieved overpowered encounters in Pathfinder 1e+2e?

[Kaodi]

The common wisdom too seems to be that in PF2 characters tend to become more survivable around level 5 because of how scaling works.

 

[Thomas Shey]

PF1 classic and PF2 are very different beasts. In PF1, the players can usually punch above their weight with some planning, optimization, and strategy. Its far more inconsistent based on groups and CR challenges. Wild west I guess you can call it. PF2 is designed to be more consistent. A CR challenge is a CR challenge regardless of party. Tactics matter more than optimization and strategy.

7 players is very difficult to account for in any system, IME. It's likely the adjustments the GM had to make were off or there was little guidance for that size of party. Paizo material usually assumes a 4 player party.

And to reinforce this, a comment I make frequently: PF2e assumes the party will be using competent tactics. Its not a game that's forgiving to people who aren't at least working at it some. This can be a problem to new players (because some things they're used to just aren't as workable and some things that are useful won't look sexy), or players who are used to just bulling through problems.

I'd missed that there were 7 players. If the GM upped the encounter to account for that with a single opponent--that's probably a problem; it requires even more than usual everyone being on their game, and there's a little more diceyness to the whole thing. It should still be manageable, but I'm not sure I'd do that with new players.

 

[Thomas Shey]

A previous comment was that we probably hurt ourselves by having played too much D&D and PF1, and thus expecting that PF2 would be similar. Quite true. Also a comment I got on another forum, was that Pathfinder-scenarios are perfectly balanced, IF (and that is a big IF) you play min/maxed characters. That is stretching it a bit imo, but not too far from the truth.

I don't think this is really true. It will, however, penalize you if you go out of your way to make odd choices (low Int wizards and similar perverse decisions) to a degree that has not been typical throughout the D&D sphere. But mediocre builds that don't tight the screws until they creak are still functional as long as you pay attention to what you're doing.

 

[grankless]

Sure there is.

PF2 SRD

pf2.d20pfsrd.com

FYI for any idle browsers - this website is massively out of date and names things in confusing ways because they can't use official names. Always use either Archives of Nethys, the official reference website, or Pathfinder 2 | easy Actions Library | Beta as an alternative.

Having run Malevolence: it's a pretty alright adventure, but having run it for newbies before, I wouldn't again. It has a high number of above-level solo encounters that makes it kind of samey. The numbers can get grating sometimes! But your GM seems to have inflated the saves somewhat.

 

[Kichwas]

A previous comment was that we probably hurt ourselves by having played too much D&D and PF1, and thus expecting that PF2 would be similar. Quite true. Also a comment I got on another forum, was that Pathfinder-scenarios are perfectly balanced, IF (and that is a big IF) you play min/maxed characters. That is stretching it a bit imo, but not too far from the truth.

I don't think this is really true. It will, however, penalize you if you go out of your way to make odd choices (low Int wizards and similar perverse decisions) to a degree that has not been typical throughout the D&D sphere. But mediocre builds that don't tight the screws until they creak are still functional as long as you pay attention to what you're doing.

Agreeing with Thomas here.

You don't need min/max. It's actually hard to min/max PF2E. The balance protects against "most" bad decisions. There are a few catches to that, but they're not pitfalls people fall into all that often.

Making your characters as a team is NOT min/maxing. It's just building a group comp. I can't be the only person who's ever played an MMO here. But to me it just makes sense to build for a team who's abilities compliment each other. Which is a LOT more lenient than any MMO lets you be - even Guild Wars 2.

Most problems won't come from the team comp, but from the team playstyle. A Leeroy Jenkins player can wipe you. A "Mr Solo" PC can cause big problems. A player playing in the frontline who is timid, or who doesn't use tactical options will cause problems. "Main character syndrome" which is often talked about on 'D&D horror stories" can break a PF2E group much faster than it will break a D&D one. In D&D it destroys the social dynamic and fun of everyone else - in PF2E is ALSO gets the group killed.

But you can more or less get 4 people, pick 4 classes at random, and pick your feats and abilities at random and be mostly OK. You WILL have healing issues if no one landed on that - but good team play can help there.

 

[Lojaan]

Agreeing with Thomas here.

You don't need min/max. It's actually hard to min/max PF2E. The balance protects against "most" bad decisions. There are a few catches to that, but they're not pitfalls people fall into all that often.

Making your characters as a team is NOT min/maxing. It's just building a group comp. I can't be the only person who's ever played an MMO here. But to me it just makes sense to build for a team who's abilities compliment each other. Which is a LOT more lenient than any MMO lets you be - even Guild Wars 2.

Most problems won't come from the team comp, but from the team playstyle. A Leeroy Jenkins player can wipe you. A "Mr Solo" PC can cause big problems. A player playing in the frontline who is timid, or who doesn't use tactical options will cause problems. "Main character syndrome" which is often talked about on 'D&D horror stories" can break a PF2E group much faster than it will break a D&D one. In D&D it destroys the social dynamic and fun of everyone else - in PF2E is ALSO gets the group killed.

But you can more or less get 4 people, pick 4 classes at random, and pick your feats and abilities at random and be mostly OK. You WILL have healing issues if no one landed on that - but good team play can help there.

This is spot on. Id like to add that if you play PF2 the same way you play 5e, odds are you are going to have a very tough time.

5e is basically everyone doing their own thing. Maybe occasionally helping each other by flanking or healing, but mostly it's each character taking their turn to do their cool thing. And it's sooooooooo easy. Drop to 0? Don't worry - there are probably 2 or even 3 other characters who can bring you back with a bonus action from 60' by spending a 1st level spell slot, with no repercussions.

A creative DM can make combat challenging but the default settings is easy. This is intentional. 5e is all about getting new players into the hobby. It's supposed to be easy. There is no shame in that.

PF2 is different. The default setting is "challenging". 5e DMs transitioning their groups to PF2 do well to reduce the severity of the encounters until everyone gets a hang of the system, then slowly increase them to the point where people are comfortable. There is no shame in this. The encounter building system actually works as intended so it is also pretty easy to do too.

Some people won't enjoy it, but for me personally, I don't think I could ever go back to 5e. After you get the hang of PF2 combat, 5e just feels really slow and, well, boring. But each to their own.

 

[payn]

You don't need min/max. It's actually hard to min/max PF2E. The balance protects against "most" bad decisions. There are a few catches to that, but they're not pitfalls people fall into all that often.

Actually, right out the gate with stat allocation is a giant trap. If you dont stick with 1-2 different stat arrays, particularly maxing your main stat, life is going to be absolute hell for that PC. The more you even out the stats the less viable the PC. PF2 went with the 4E design of pump 1-2 stats and forget the rest design. Fine if you like that, but I prefer MAD design so found it disappointing. Especially, since they had their seemingly organic PC stat design which you basically wave away after the first time you make a PC.

 

[Staffan]

Actually, right out the gate with stat allocation is a giant trap. If you dont stick with 1-2 different stat arrays, particularly maxing your main stat, life is going to be absolute hell for that PC. The more you even out the stats the less viable the PC. PF2 went with the 4E design of pump 1-2 stats and forget the rest design. Fine if you like that, but I prefer MAD design so found it disappointing. Especially, since they had their seemingly organic PC stat design which you basically wave away after the first time you make a PC.

As an aside, this is one reason I've kind of soured on having attributes/ability scores in the first place and come to prefer the The Troubleshooters solution where Strength, Agility, Endurance, Charm, and Willpower are skills just like any other and where they don't have any bearing on other skills. So there's no correlation between being an acrobat, being a pickpocket, and being a sniper.

Would take a lot of work to implement in a D&D-like game though.

 

[payn]

As an aside, this is one reason I've kind of soured on having attributes/ability scores in the first place and come to prefer the The Troubleshooters solution where Strength, Agility, Endurance, Charm, and Willpower are skills just like any other and where they don't have any bearing on other skills. So there's no correlation between being an acrobat, being a pickpocket, and being a sniper.

Would take a lot of work to implement in a D&D-like game though.

The stats dont bother me as long as I got choice in my characters abilities. For example, you can build strength and/or Dex fighters and rangers in PF1. You can even build a melee spec caster who drops their primary to diversify their stats. Of course, you need to be able to optimize to make these viable. The greatest feature of 3E/PF1 is also its biggest pitfall. The gap between optimized and not can fit in the Grand Canyon.

So far, two answer have come about. One is bounded accuracy and keeping the game within a certain viable range like 5E. This narrows the gap, but does not eliminate it. The other, is to silo options and limit choice so the game operates in a particular place such as 4E/PF2. I prefer the first choice as I can still diversify stats, multiclass, and archetype. I guess im all about the choice.

Note, this does not mean that I think 4E/PF2 are designed poorly. They are actually very sound, but not to my subjective liking. Free archetype and proficiency without level go a long way towards making PF2 a better game for me.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Actually, right out the gate with stat allocation is a giant trap. If you dont stick with 1-2 different stat arrays, particularly maxing your main stat, life is going to be absolute hell for that PC. The more you even out the stats the less viable the PC. PF2 went with the 4E design of pump 1-2 stats and forget the rest design. Fine if you like that, but I prefer MAD design so found it disappointing. Especially, since they had their seemingly organic PC stat design which you basically wave away after the first time you make a PC.

See, I don't fully agree with this. I do understand that there is typically a good amount of focusing in a build, but when you hit level 5 you're always getting 4 ability boosts. Having a +1 in a Stat is generally not great for a primary stat, but as a backup skill stat it can still be useful. If you keep that skill up along with the ability, it'll track close to 50/50 with leveled DCs.

The bigger problem here in that regard is not stats, but something @Staffan has mentioned previously, that most classes don't have quite enough skills to keep everything at their maximum. Now my argument would be that all skill checks shouldn't always be leveled with the characters, but I'm also not writing APs here.