Pathfinder 2E Tell me about PF2E for Sandboxing

[The-Magic-Sword]

I tried searching reddit for it but didn’t see anything compelling. Yes, you need to tweak things like Treat Wounds, and Assurance needs tweaked as well. The suggested simple DCs are also crap and should be changed. The encounter-building stuff works fine though.

Well, I did find a thread with some dubious claims regarding how everyone agrees it breaks the game’s math or how it more harshly punishes characters that aren’t optimized. See above for some of the actual issues, but I’d go with people’s actual experiences (which are usually positive) versus theorcrafting.

here was the post where they discussed their experience with it incidentally

 

[kenada]

here was the post where they discussed their experience with it incidentally

Thanks. I searched the PF2 subreddit but not the PF one. That’s a lot more reasonable, and it’s based on actual experience.

I think some of his problems were due to expectations, and he alluded to that. Lower level creatures are supposed to be more dangerous, so it makes sense they would not go down as easy to a fireball. The boss discussion is more interesting.

As I understand it, the boss did more damage because of its higher level and was suitably dangerous, but it also had commensurately more hit points, which dragged down the pacing of the fight. I can see how some groups would prefer that for cinematic fights, but it’s legitimately a problem.

I’ve done +4 fights against a single creature but not +5. I thought the pacing felt okay, but I gave up on the core progression early in my campaign, so I have no feel for whether that would feel off. I also admit I take a (probably) anachronistic view towards combat, so that colors my perception as well.

 

[kenada]

Fair, I'll try and make a point to try it for myself sometime, it would solve the only remaining issue for my game style.

I think you’re being reasonable, and the power scaling is a fair preference to have. It might be worth trying, but I expect you’ll run into similar problems to the post you linked.

 

[Nilbog]

There's a couple of options, one is that there's a proficiency without level option that just drops level to 0 on everything, but ive heard that isn't very good (I wonder how it would play with half level.) You can also use the tables in the GMG to translate everything manually (I actually have a plugin in the VTT I use, Foundry, that does this for me) to whatever level you please by finding the number it has at whatever level it is on the table, and then checking the corresponding category for its new level. Finally, you could work around it by accepting it as a reality of the game world that there's some foes you just can't touch until you're ready.

May I ask what plugin it is you use? I use foundry vtt and would be interested in this functionality

Thank you

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

May I ask what plugin it is you use? I use foundry vtt and would be interested in this functionality

Thank you

Pf2e toolbox : )

 

[Nilbog]

Pf2e toolbox : )

Thank you very much

 

[Thomas Shey]

Assuming that means “designed for 6th level characters”:

• Core: 3rd level characters will die. 8th level characters will have an easy time.
• Proficiency without Level: 3rd level characters will probably die. 8th level character will have an easy (but more challenging than core) time.

The primary difference between core and PwL for the 3rd level party is that some of the fights are technically doable. However, you’re still looking at a deadly- to extreme-threat for the 3rd level party for what are just a moderate-threat or easier for the 6th level party.

Yeah.

I mean, the reality is that once you have a system where the levels actually provide serious differences in ability, you just can't sit here and expect things to go well if the differential gets at all large. The only reason a three level difference in expected wasn't automatically a killer in D&D3 (or probably PF1e) was that there was so much ability to cook the books in character builds that a given character might well be significantly more powerful that was assumed for their level. If you were actually up against what the game assumed was a typical set of 3rd level characters, the result was almost certainly going to be the same there, too; it just that the maths on games like D&D 4e and PF 2e are tight enough the gap between an average character and a strongly constructed one are no where near as profound as they could be in 3e era D&D or its direct derivatives.

I mean, honestly, I'm not sure quite how well things would go for encounters actually put together for 6th level OD&D characters would go for 3rd level ones; just the difference in the spellcasters having access to third level spells as compared to only 2nd level ones doesn't make me sanguine about it. I do know back in my OD&D days, that the only reason random encounters in the wilderness were not death sentences sometimes was that we habitually played with two character per player, so a lot of random encounters were actually pretty undertuned for the party, and thus some of the bigger ones were ones were either manageable, or possible to disengage from without TPKs at least.

 

[Reynard]

The power curve is earlier editions wasn't really as steep. Orcs remained worthwhile foes for quite a while. 5E tried to flatten that curve a little compared to 3.x, so I guess I kind of assumed PF2 would do the same.

There isn't anything inherently wrong with having to sign post the regions of whatever, but it seems like you would end up with a lot of unusable content in a sandbox once the party out levels the Swamp of Doom or whatever.

 

[kenada]

It wasn’t an accident. Paizo wants high-level adventurers to be super heroes compared to their lower-level foes. If a 10th level swordsman is waylaid by a group of 1st level bandits, they should stand absolutely no chance. It’s the aesthetic they want for their adventures. You’re not supposed to be fighting those weaker creatures. You’re supposed to be taking on even bigger threats as you advance in level (with destroying the occasional mob of lower-level enemies being a reminder of how strong you are now).

Proficiency without Level flattens that curve. Lower-level enemies stay threats for longer. That was the “problem” in the link shared above. In core, a wizard could obliterate a group of lower-level creatures with a fireball, but Proficiency without Level helped make them a little more likely to survive.

The reality is that PF2 isn’t designed for sandbox play out of the box. If you look at what Paizo writes about in the CRB and the GMG, there’s an assumption that you’re doing story-based campaigns. Even when you’re hexploring, there’s still an underlying story. You’ve got your encounters, and what the GMG calls a “sandbox” is just letting the PCs decide how they go about doing them. If you want to do a traditional sandbox (where PCs have agency, and you have the world react to their exercising it), then you’ll need to make some adjustments and be mindful of what the system assumes.

Here are some things that come to mind:

• Proficiency without Level helps tamp down the power curve.
• Consider having multiple characters per player or multiple parties. That allows lower-level characters to continue delving into those Swamps of Doom while higher-level ones push into new frontiers.
• Have new problems crop up when the PCs aren’t around for a while. If there’s no one there to rein in the goblins, maybe they eventually band together and procure combat ogres, so now you need those higher-level PCs back to deal with the problem.
• Allow areas to be depleted or cleared. @!DWolf discusses this a bit in the exploration thread linked above with his island-based exploration game.
• Adjust the XP curve. I increased the XP it took to gain levels at higher levels, so PCs naturally slowed down advancement.
• Impose a level cap. You could do this across your setting (like I did). You could also impose a cap that PCs can break through by accomplishing or finding something in a given region.

Admittedly, the last idea (level cap unlocks) is a bit game-y and has metaphysical implications for a setting. It could also start feeling rote if the PCs have to do it several times over the course of a campaign (like climbing towers to survey an area in an open world video game), so maybe only do it once or twice (if at all).

 

[Thomas Shey]

The power curve is earlier editions wasn't really as steep. Orcs remained worthwhile foes for quite a while. 5E tried to flatten that curve a little compared to 3.x, so I guess I kind of assumed PF2 would do the same.

It may not have been, but it was still steep enough. As I said, in particular the difference between a third level spellcaster and a sixth level one could be pretty dramatic in practice.