Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
A question about Paizo/PF adventure design
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="GrahamWills" data-source="post: 8137710" data-attributes="member: 75787"><p>So, here's stuff I think we can agree on:</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">In all D&D variants, low level encounters are more likely to TPK than high level ones</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">In all D&D variants, combining two encounters makes them more likely to cause a TPK</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">PF2 is designed to be more deadly than 5E</li> </ul><p>So, combining these, it seems pretty obvious statement to say:</p><p></p><p><strong>If you are playing low-level PF2 scenarios, combing two encounters is going to be very deadly</strong></p><p></p><p>From a realism point of view, this is 100% the right answer. I fought a junior olympian at martial arts and he could score on me at will -- modeled in pretty much anytime system he defeated me without spending a single resource. But when we fought him 2 on 1, it was pretty much a draw. PF2 is much more realistic than 5E in this respect. Whether that is more or less fun is a preference issue. </p><p></p><p>Compared to other D&D systems, it doesn't seem as far out of line. I've been playing 4E at epic levels, and I think combining two dangerous encounters there would TPK us more of the time than high-level PF2 combinations would. I'd rate PF2 as slightly safer for combining than 4E, but not much in it. It's been too long since I've played 3x, but I ran AD&D recently and, at least at low-mid levels, it seemed similar. Being outnumbered by ranged attackers in AD&D was very nasty, but melee and spell-casters -- not so bad.</p><p></p><p>Overall it feels more like 5E is the departure (from what people report). For me, "You can't combine encounters in the natural, intuitive way you can in 5th Edition" runs counter to what I feel is natural. For me, "natural" is that if 4 opponents are a challenge, 8 will probably kill you. For me, "natural" means that if you double the enemies, you quadruple the risk -- saying it doesn't make much difference feels highly <u>un</u>natural.</p><p></p><p>In 5E, it seems like the response to an enemy raising the alarm and pulling more guards in is "oh well, I guess we kill them all in one go". In PF2 and 4E it seems more like "oh *****, fall back -- let's find some way to handle this or we will ALL DIE". My preference is for the latter -- at least for the traditional fantasy genre (for pulp games and space opera, the former -- I don't care how many stormtroopers arrive!). </p><p></p><p>As people have pointed out, this is a problem for APs -- it makes perfect realistic sense that players might cause an extremely deadly situation by combining fights. As a GM, you have a few options:</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Swap to a more pulp-y system, like 5E</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Have enemies behave unrealistically</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Mitigate by allowing non-combat solutions and making it clear that retreat might often be the best solution.</li> </ul><p>A mix of 2 and 3 seems a good option for my GM style. If the party is blatantly foolish, they reap the consequences. If they re just unlucky or the adventure seems weakly written, decrease the intelligence of the guards.</p><p></p><p>Our PF2 party for Age of Ashes was pretty well-tuned. At high level we steamrollered all but the extreme combats; we almost never had a full rest except when we hit a level. Apart from a lich who cast two nasty area effect spells on the party before any of us went (half of us crit failed at least one of the saves) the most dangerous time was when we triggered a fight with four groups each of 3 ranged archers at the same time as a high defense solo. We ran away, dodged through tunnels and triggered yet more combats as we tried to get to the archers individually at close range. So no chance for any form of 10-minute healing / re-focus or the like for maybe four rolling encounters. THAT was pretty hairy. But it felt right -- I'm not sure that the 5E approach (added archers would not make much difference) would have made the scene feel right. We screwed up and it made us the underdogs, forcing us to adapt and recover. Quite a memorable day.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="GrahamWills, post: 8137710, member: 75787"] So, here's stuff I think we can agree on: [LIST] [*]In all D&D variants, low level encounters are more likely to TPK than high level ones [*]In all D&D variants, combining two encounters makes them more likely to cause a TPK [*]PF2 is designed to be more deadly than 5E [/LIST] So, combining these, it seems pretty obvious statement to say: [B]If you are playing low-level PF2 scenarios, combing two encounters is going to be very deadly[/B] From a realism point of view, this is 100% the right answer. I fought a junior olympian at martial arts and he could score on me at will -- modeled in pretty much anytime system he defeated me without spending a single resource. But when we fought him 2 on 1, it was pretty much a draw. PF2 is much more realistic than 5E in this respect. Whether that is more or less fun is a preference issue. Compared to other D&D systems, it doesn't seem as far out of line. I've been playing 4E at epic levels, and I think combining two dangerous encounters there would TPK us more of the time than high-level PF2 combinations would. I'd rate PF2 as slightly safer for combining than 4E, but not much in it. It's been too long since I've played 3x, but I ran AD&D recently and, at least at low-mid levels, it seemed similar. Being outnumbered by ranged attackers in AD&D was very nasty, but melee and spell-casters -- not so bad. Overall it feels more like 5E is the departure (from what people report). For me, "You can't combine encounters in the natural, intuitive way you can in 5th Edition" runs counter to what I feel is natural. For me, "natural" is that if 4 opponents are a challenge, 8 will probably kill you. For me, "natural" means that if you double the enemies, you quadruple the risk -- saying it doesn't make much difference feels highly [U]un[/U]natural. In 5E, it seems like the response to an enemy raising the alarm and pulling more guards in is "oh well, I guess we kill them all in one go". In PF2 and 4E it seems more like "oh *****, fall back -- let's find some way to handle this or we will ALL DIE". My preference is for the latter -- at least for the traditional fantasy genre (for pulp games and space opera, the former -- I don't care how many stormtroopers arrive!). As people have pointed out, this is a problem for APs -- it makes perfect realistic sense that players might cause an extremely deadly situation by combining fights. As a GM, you have a few options: [LIST] [*]Swap to a more pulp-y system, like 5E [*]Have enemies behave unrealistically [*]Mitigate by allowing non-combat solutions and making it clear that retreat might often be the best solution. [/LIST] A mix of 2 and 3 seems a good option for my GM style. If the party is blatantly foolish, they reap the consequences. If they re just unlucky or the adventure seems weakly written, decrease the intelligence of the guards. Our PF2 party for Age of Ashes was pretty well-tuned. At high level we steamrollered all but the extreme combats; we almost never had a full rest except when we hit a level. Apart from a lich who cast two nasty area effect spells on the party before any of us went (half of us crit failed at least one of the saves) the most dangerous time was when we triggered a fight with four groups each of 3 ranged archers at the same time as a high defense solo. We ran away, dodged through tunnels and triggered yet more combats as we tried to get to the archers individually at close range. So no chance for any form of 10-minute healing / re-focus or the like for maybe four rolling encounters. THAT was pretty hairy. But it felt right -- I'm not sure that the 5E approach (added archers would not make much difference) would have made the scene feel right. We screwed up and it made us the underdogs, forcing us to adapt and recover. Quite a memorable day. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
A question about Paizo/PF adventure design
Top