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

[Kichwas]

Obviously, I can't speak to the stats the DM had behind the screen, but the SRD

This is PF2E, so no SRD. This is the critter the OPs group faced:

Gibbering Mouther - Monsters - Archives of Nethys: Pathfinder 2nd Edition Database

Amorphous blobs of yammering mouths and oozing, fleshy sludge, gibbering mouthers are among the strangest creatures found either aboveground or below. Perpetually ravenous, these aberrations are always seeking their next meals, ever eating but never sated. With a nominal intelligence, gibbering...

2e.aonprd.com

Here's the confusion ability in PF2E terms:

Gibbering (auditory, aura, emotion, enchantment, incapacitation, mental, occult) Each creature that begins its turn within 60 feet of a gibbering mouther must attempt a DC 19 Will save. On a failure, they are confused for 1 round. On a success, they are temporarily immune for 1 minute.

A level 3 champion, ranger, and rogue with a +0 Wisdom has a +7 roll on that save as they are Expert in Will saves. So these classes actually had good odds. However none of them are classes where you'd likely put ability points into Wisdom. A cleric with a likely +4 Wisdom would have a +11 Will save as Clerics are also expert in Will.

Alchemist is only Trained in Will saves. Not sure if anyone else has this unlucky fate, but if we look at an alchemist with a +0 Wis, then at level 3 that poor sod has a +5 on that save - the worst possible situation in the game RAW unless you use the 'pre-errata' version of ability score generation, in which case you might be able to find an ancestry with a minus to Wisdom, and get that save to be as low as +4.

So that DC 19 is rough, but it's not asking you roll a 19+, it's asking you to roll a 12+ with a Champion that has no wisdom.

 

[Kichwas]

PS: In my first campaign my group got put up against this same creature when we were just dinging level 2. SO we'd hit level 2 but had yet to take a rest to get daily spell prep and thus new spells. 3 of 5 PCs died.

For us... it was going down a tunnel after the 'module' we were in was over, for about 10 repeats of the GM saying "you go down and down for another 10 minutes and it just seems to keep going going deeper." The clue that said "turn back now" was essentially spammed at us several times but we ignored it.

 

[billd91]

This is PF2E, so no SRD.

Sure there is.

PF2 SRD

 

[nevin]

both Pathfinder and pathfinder 2e assume in thier CR's that the party is going to function like an elite military unit. In 1e player modifiers get insanely high and some GM's tend to over compensate when giving difficulties for things because the number's freak them out. In 2e it's so finely tuned any DM mistake can easily make the encounter a walk in the park or a complete wipe if they start adjusting number's or don't understand how important a +1 is.

 

[nevin]

PS: In my first campaign my group got put up against this same creature when we were just dinging level 2. SO we'd hit level 2 but had yet to take a rest to get daily spell prep and thus new spells. 3 of 5 PCs died.

For us... it was going down a tunnel after the 'module' we were in was over, for about 10 repeats of the GM saying "you go down and down for another 10 minutes and it just seems to keep going going deeper." The clue that said "turn back now" was essentially spammed at us several times but we ignored it.

this is a PF and DND problem in general. DM's that expect "hero's " to run away and turn back often kill thier parties. Been that way since 1 edition DND

 

[Kichwas]

this is a PF and DND problem in general. DM's that expect "hero's " to run away and turn back often kill thier parties. Been that way since 1 edition DND

Yeah but... the GM's expectation in that encounter wasn't too far off for the PF2E mindset. I'm not sure on the players - it was one of our first sessions together. The 'problem' was only that people misread the clues. I was thinking we were headed into the thick of it, but was then trying to tell myself this isn't the old days where the monster CR = the dungeon level. Except it sort of was.

PF2E 'scales itself' very differently than everything I hear about 5E. I think the more a person plays PF2E, the more they will be ready to anticipate that a TPK could be waiting in the lobby on the next floor the moment you get off the elevator - so come out packing or keep the door shut.

PF2E is not as lethal as tRPGs were when I started in 80/81 (did a one-shot of S1 in 80 but barely knew it was D&D), but it expects a mindset of 'this is dangerous.' PF2E is not afraid to kill off overly eager PCs.

Back in '81 we always joked that before proceeding down that hall you strap the least popular PC to the end of a 50 foot rope and have them go ahead by that distance. If the rope goes slack we turn back and run (we only actually did this once, but every group I joined in the 80s had that joke). Of course we were 10 year olds back then - but we also kept a pile of blank character sheets on hand somewhere on the table.

both Pathfinder and pathfinder 2e assume in thier CR's that the party is going to function like an elite military unit. In 1e player modifiers get insanely high and some GM's tend to over compensate when giving difficulties for things because the number's freak them out. In 2e it's so finely tuned any DM mistake can easily make the encounter a walk in the park or a complete wipe if they start adjusting number's or don't understand how important a +1 is.

Yep.

If you do follow the encounter guidelines of PF2E it should work out.

Notice that we have someone saying a fight that they all survived was too rough. BUT THEY ALL SURVIVED.

PF2E calls that 'working as intended'. To a PF2E designer, this means the players and the GM got to enjoy the thrill of an exciting encounter where it could have gone wrong, but they pulled it off nonetheless.

PF2E does not award participation ribbons. You struggle, and you either win or you don't. The 'game' is actually still in the game engine. It's not just a roleplaying chat group with dice. It's a game with roleplaying. I have not played nor read 5E - I can only comment based on how people who no longer like it describe it to me. They describe it as not offering diverse play or challenge, among other things like balance. If they are right - then PF2E is not at all like what they describe.

 

[Ulfgeir]

I'm not sure I understand this? If I read that as I read it, it appears you feel that because it was a one-shot your group should have started at level 1 and not 3. That is probably the opposite of your intended statement.

BUT... For a first experience with the system one shot or not, I would recommend level 1 just to get yourself eased in to the mechanics. However level 1 is typically the deadliest level at least in the low range.

No, you are reading that wrong. I intended to say that for a 1-shot, we didn't expect to start at lvl 1.

The fun thing with this scenario as well, was that the GM was the one who made 3 of the 4 characters, after he asked us what we wanted to play. He had done at least 1 more, but those players where not present, and thus not their characters either. The only that did his own character from the ground was the player fo the Rogue. Normally that player will find all the power-gaming stuff if he has more time. Now he literally did it just before we started playing.

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.

 

[Ulfgeir]

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.

Notice I said, normally we are 7 players. Here we were only 4. But yes, it is a problem. Especially in games that revolves about fighting stuff.

 

[Staffan]

Single boss fights in PF2E actually feel like boss fights.

Yes and no.

In computer games, boss fights generally revolve around skilled play: react to the boss using special abilities by either using your own defenses or getting out of the way, deal with party members getting debuffs before they hurt too much, move out of damaging zones, and things like that. But you generally don't have to worry about probabilities. If you're casting Flame Shock on the boss, they're going to take some damage right now and then they're going to get a damage over time debuff. You do the thing, and the thing happens.

But in PF2, a "boss" is just a regular monster that's higher level. You will have a hard time dealing with them, just because your stuff is less likely to work and their stuff more. They hit like a truck, both because they're doing higher-level base damage and because they'll crit much more. That's still challenging, but to me it doesn't feel "boss fight" challenging – probably because the challenge is mostly down to rolling well on the dice.

This is an inherent part of PF2's design. While PF2 has taken quite a few cues from 4e, designating monsters as minions/normal/elite/solos is not one of them. A "solo" is just a higher-level monster that's on its own, not a monster with abilities specifically designed to fight one-against-four and thus act out of turn and things like that. If you meet a similar monster a few levels down the line, it might just be a speed bump.

 

[payn]

Yes and no.

In computer games, boss fights generally revolve around skilled play: react to the boss using special abilities by either using your own defenses or getting out of the way, deal with party members getting debuffs before they hurt too much, move out of damaging zones, and things like that. But you generally don't have to worry about probabilities. If you're casting Flame Shock on the boss, they're going to take some damage right now and then they're going to get a damage over time debuff. You do the thing, and the thing happens.

But in PF2, a "boss" is just a regular monster that's higher level. You will have a hard time dealing with them, just because your stuff is less likely to work and their stuff more. They hit like a truck, both because they're doing higher-level base damage and because they'll crit much more. That's still challenging, but to me it doesn't feel "boss fight" challenging – probably because the challenge is mostly down to rolling well on the dice.

This is an inherent part of PF2's design. While PF2 has taken quite a few cues from 4e, designating monsters as minions/normal/elite/solos is not one of them. A "solo" is just a higher-level monster that's on its own, not a monster with abilities specifically designed to fight one-against-four and thus act out of turn and things like that. If you meet a similar monster a few levels down the line, it might just be a speed bump.

It's true that boss fights can feel a bit nail-biting dangerous where you kill them with a thousand paper cuts. The PCs desperately try out combos and annoying little tid bits to slow the boss down enough to kill it. Meanwhile, it wallops the PCs if they are not extremely careful. This sort of tactical experience is a bit much for me. Especially, as a caster who has half their book negated by higher level challenge. Though, I can certainly see it as a more equal experience across classes than it was in past editions.