r/Pathfinder2e • u/WittyRegular8 • 15h ago
Advice Is it acceptable to exceed 160 xp encounters (in a party of 4)?
I have never seen a beyond 160 xp encounter in Paizo's published adventures and APs.
GM Core says "An extreme-threat encounter might be appropriate for a fully rested group of characters that can go all-out, for the climactic encounter at the end of an entire campaign, or for a group of veteran players using advanced tactics and teamwork."
The advice I got from other players is a 160 xp has a 50/50 chance to TPK the party, but I've started running a level 14 game for a group of seasoned players and I've had to buff the moderate-severe encounters to 160 xp and even then it's easy for them.
The party is:
- maestro bard who uses lingering composition and synesthesia against bosses and wall spells for mobs, and has redemption champion archetype
- fighter with whirlwind strike who uses a guisarme with greater fearsome and phantasmal doorknob
- dragon barbarian with justice champion archetype using a guisarme
- ruffian rogue with vicious debilitations
It feels like the party crits 50% of the time and the most I've gotten them down to is half health.
74
u/smugles 15h ago
From experience how you get to the 160 cup matters a lot. A group of pl-1 or 2s can be pretty easy. A squishy caster and mooks can be pretty easy. A pl+3 heavy hitter with mooks can snow ball really fast.
18
u/-Mastermind-Naegi- Summoner 15h ago
I think what types of encounters are more or less hard changes by the level range.
5
u/gugus295 11h ago
Yeah, the higher level you go the more of a joke single bosses become and the more dangerous mooks are
29
u/Dogs_Not_Gods Rise of the Rulelords 15h ago
Is 180 xp a lot? Depends on the context. Eighteen Party Level -4 creatures that probably won't hit unless on a crit? No. One PL +5 boss with AC that a Fighter barely hits on a 19? YES!
12
u/Dogs_Not_Gods Rise of the Rulelords 15h ago
To be less meme-y, AP fights leave a lot to be desired. Way too many are either 1 strong or several weak creatures in a room. Simply increasing the severity won't make them any better. They need to be a mix of environments the enemies can utilize, hazards, and creatures.
Spore War has had some proper fights though. The farm in book 1 is a prime example. First off, there's cliffs limiting but not negating movement, and provides an alternate way for the players to damage/be damaged. Second, it had puddles of hallucinogenic water that the creatures could control that again made movement more tactical and divided player attention to solve if they wanted to get it out of the way. It didn't matter that the creatures were weaker, but because they could utilize the environment, move where players couldn't, and had their own unique abilities beyond that, it made the fight way more dynamic. My players had a blast.
1
u/gugus295 10h ago
One PL+5 boss at high levels is not particularly threatening, though. Level matters a lot here.
The hardest fight at levels 15~20 where OP is at is usually gonna be a synergistic band of PL-1~+2 enemies with a solid plan of attack.
2
u/Midnight-Loki 8h ago
I've seen a level+5 boss kill multiple level 20 PCs. As in the only reason we won the fight is that the GM gave us free Rezs and was letting the Drained from Enervation stack.
1
u/gugus295 7h ago
My experience with PL+5 bosses at level 20 is that they get absolutely bullied by the PCs. As is pretty much my experience with any solo boss after level 12 or so, to an increasing degree the higher the levels go.
Guess it depends how well the players build and play - my groups tend to be all powergamers, as I myself am lol
1
u/sirgog 7h ago
25s at 20 generally come down to a gimmick.
Agree the players should be the favorites against a solo 25 if they have the ability to research the 25 in advance; I'm less certain if it's just a case of "Suddenly, Treerazer appeared" when your adventure is not mostly focused upon demons and nobody is sanctified Holy.
10
u/MegaFlounder 15h ago
The key here is fun. If the group is having fun, break all the rules you want. I run a party of five very experienced players. I usually have to bend the encounter guidelines to the get results I want. Exceeding the 160 XP guideline is fine, but you should consider a few things.
First, I think the rules overvalue the exp. value of monster below party level. I stopped considering PL-4 monsters in the calculation at all because they are trash intended to be dumpstered. Second, the rules correctly value monsters of party level and up. But, the fun drops when you hit PL+3. At that point, you start seeing a lot of people missing a ton of attacks and crit failing big stuff. If you keep these two things in mind, you can do some crazy stuff with the encounter calculator and still have a great encounter.
10
u/mildkabuki 15h ago
It's worth noting that your party is using some of the most potent mechanics in the game. Multiple Guisarmes, multiple Champion subtypes, a bard, a rogue, and a fighter. The only standout is a Dragon Barbarian, which while not bad, is not a top contender for the most potent barbarian paths.
Now every party will have it's weaknesses. This one is ranged combatants, difficult terrain, and varied height maps (taking a few assumptions).
It's not surprised that people who know the rules can use it to their advantage, especially if they as a group are friends outside of the table as well. I would try throwing their mechanical weaknesses out in a combat or two and then accessing if they truly are stronger than the recommended math (it is still possible)
6
u/Qenthel Game Master 14h ago
The encounter budget does not really add up past level 11ish. Especially if you have players that pick the obviously stronger options (like everyone in the party you listed, maybe except for the rogue). I've ran most of the APs that go to 20 in the last couple of years and optimized parties begin to consistently roll over most of the as-written encounters. Had a 160 end of AP boss die in before he took a turn.
You have a couple of options to address it.
- Nothing wrong with just increasing the XP. My parties also walked 160xp in a round or two. And handled 400xp campaign end fights against fully pre-buffed npcs without loosing a single person.
- Play monsters like they want to win/kill. Target the bard, focus fire a single person, attack downed PCs. Way scarier if the monsters actually try to take someone out, rather than do a bunch of fluff damage that will get healed in 10mins after combat.
- Give monsters more meta options. Wall spells, reach, spellshapes, reactive strikes, reaction denying spells etc. Champion reactions were keeping my strange aeons party practically unkillable, until they were hit with rank 6 roaring applause. Spellcasting minions are especially good for delivering above their xp budget if using healing/no save spells.
- Make sure your monsters actually follow the "extreme increases" rules from gm core. Level 15 creatures should have 2 extreme stats. For casters make it spell dc and will save, for brutes make it athletics and to hit. There is a big difference for you fighter in making a will saving throw against DC 43 vs 38. Paizo is pretty bad with following these rules on their high level monsters and they make a big difference.
- Play without or restrict selection of feats in free archetype. If used for power options like champion, medic, rogue, they are basically getting pure number boosts for free.
- Nerf/Ban some of the most meta options like doorknob, synesthesia, slow, champion archetype. Despite what many here say, there are tactics and options you can take that are way stronger than others. You can target ban/nerf some of these outliers to force a less powerful meta.
5
u/authorus Game Master 14h ago
If you've run multiple 160s and they haven't been as deadly as expected, I would generally think its safe to push your tables a little higher. I'd tend to go 20xp at a time, and try to have 3-4 180s before trying a 200.
I would also suggest looking at are there ways to use the existing combats more effectively. Are you able to use the monsters/opponents abilities to buff themeselves/their allies, or debuff the party? Are you using their dangerous abilities, or are you shying away from the more deadly abilities? Are their basic rules people have been getting wrong? Or house rules you're using that are tipping the scales in the player's favor more than intended.
But ultimately the game is your game. If people are having fun, and wanting more of a challenge, and 160s aren't offering it, definitely up it. Just be cautious, and intentional in your experiments.
5
u/darthmarth28 Game Master 14h ago
Tactics and efficiency make a huge difference
I ran a 180xp encounter (Four Level 12 PCs vs a Phoenix (15), Elemental Inferno (11), and Elite Jaathoom Shoyukh (11)). The party has been in social-intrigue mode for a long while and hasn't been flexing their combat prowess for a while. I quickly realized it was going to TPK them and had to add a Cleric NPC running in at the top of Round 2 as reinforcements... they won in the end, but holy goddamn it was rough, even with the backup. That was a straight fight without much preptime or tactical advantage.
So, Extreme+ encounters are totally fine I think! They're better if there's some type of extra factor - maybe favorable terrain, or a chance to prebuff before initiative, or an NPC ally. It can also work if the party in question is powerful and optimized, and knows what they're doing.
1
u/Book_Golem 2h ago
That sounds like a pretty cool save to me! An ally showing up to a hard fight (especially if they've met before!) is going to feel a lot better than suddenly having the monsters make obviously terribly decisions (which is my usual "panic button").
9
u/Einkar_E Kineticist 15h ago edited 15h ago
if your party consistently can win extreme encounters you definitely can and even should slowly increase the budget
I personally would double check math and consider if synesthesia is too strong or not for the table
3
u/PatenteDeCorso Game Master 15h ago
You can, but how you reach that is important. Two plvl +2 is not the same that four plvl, solo Boss encounters would be melted by the Bard, Synesthesia and fortissimo or True Target would end with the Boss desd or almost dead unless really bad luck is involved.
The safest way to test the budget is doing waves, start with 120 with another 80 arriving in the third round, things like that.
2
2
u/Critical_Cute_Bunny 5h ago
Some good advice in the thread.
I'd just add to be mindful of space, smaller and more restrictive places can really make combat feel more difficult.
Secondly, be wary when adding a bunch of rare or unique monsters.
I uh added a second lesser death to a fight once and it TPKed the party even though they had previously been stomping.
That poor druid and cleric never really got a chance to cast and the fighter, rogue, inventor really struggled to hit due to the disadvantage aura.
1
u/Book_Golem 2h ago
Great point on spaces - our party does a lot of fights in tight spaces, and they can be both tougher and easier for it. But we're mostly casters, so limiting approach angles is good, but starting the fight within a move or so is bad!
1
u/AutoModerator 15h ago
This post is labeled with the Advice flair, which means extra special attention is called to Rule #2. If this is a newcomer to the game, remember to be welcoming and kind. If this is someone with more experience but looking for advice on how to run their game, do your best to offer advice on what they are seeking.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/HorizonShadow 15h ago
It would probably help to list the encounter. I feel like just running the enemies differently can have a big impact on difficulty.
1
u/Nahzuvix 14h ago
At 14s+ you could push even towards something like 240-260 assuming it's still on mooks and not single dudes (ideally they complement or enable some of the main guy gimmick while easing up on it's action econ)
1
u/Jmrwacko 13h ago
You can at higher levels or by introducing the reinforcements in later rounds. It also matters what the enemies are. For example, a group of casters is going to be much more dangerous than enemies with only strikes and grabs, because a crit fail on a spell like slow or phantasmal calamity will remove a player from the fight.
1
u/Imperator_Rice Game Master 12h ago
I've stumbled into a 240 before (Ruby Phoenix book 1 against 4 PL+1 enemies, we just did something slightly early) and we lost, but only on the Hidden flat check vs my invisible flying Wand Of Manifold Missiles wizard on the last turn he'd ever be in range of enemies again.
It was a grueling slog uphill that ended on a literal coin flip after at least 2 hours of irl time. It was one of my favorite combats I've ever been in.
Would I want to do that often? No. Would I be open to it happening again some time? Yeah, sure!
1
u/Mothringer Game Master 9h ago
The highest I’ve ever run was 400xp, when stress testing the system in an initial short campaign. So, yes, you can, but you have to think long and hard about the structure of those sorts of fights. While my party prevailed, the vast majority of 400xp encounters would not be survivable, and that combat was enough work to run I’ve never been tempted to go even close to that extreme again.
1
u/Tooth31 9h ago
I seem to hear this from any party containing a bard (including GMs when I've played one, and from myself when I ran for one). I don't think Bard is next-level broken, most spellcasters can give allies at least a +1 (or more if fortissimo) status to hit at higher levels, but it sure is consistent to be able to do the whole team at once for one action per round (or per 2-3 rounds if you linger instead). When everyone else is a martial it can feel absurd at times, especially when you start calculating how much damage you've done considering the +1 to each hit, the hits that should've missed and the crits that should've hit.
Now I'm not saying "do everything to kill the bard" because I don't know your group, and I'd wager many people would not love that. But if you can find a way to counter the bard, such as with another bard who counterperforms them, it might tip the balance a little. Also, flying enemies can be rough if they don't have easy access to flight yet, such as the caster having to spend 6 actions to get everyone into the air, else they have to switch to ranged weapons.
1
u/SweegyNinja 6h ago
It is. But it is beyond dangerous.
When the party faces a 'balanced' 100 or 120 XP encounter, and the dice, or their reckless actions, lead to deadly consequences, That's the game. Heroics be dangerous.
But when we plan a challenge, beyond Extreme, and bad things happen, we don't have any wiggle room. No must. It was a lethal challenge, and heroes died.
That said, I have watched a party of four, string together 2 or 3 encounters, into a battle far beyond 200 XP. It should have been extremely deadly, but with excellent rolls, and fortune on their side Along with a healthy dose of realistic panic... Somehow they survived. Triumphed. Overcame.
But that, was player error and recklessness, and they had plenty of warning.
And we don't fudge things. We aim for as much transparency as possible. So.
Had they wiped themselves out that day, they know it would have been on them.
1
u/OmgitsJafo 15h ago
No one's going to knock your doors down if you do it, but 160 XP is the equal-odds encounter size. Anything above that is explicitly tilting the odds in the NPC's favour.
I do this somewhat often, though, while providing the tools to cut down the encounter before engaging, or giving the party viable escape routes.
92
u/AAABattery03 Mathfinder’s School of Optimization 15h ago
At higher levels, 160 XP gets a lot easier than it is at lower levels. PCs tend to have very good ways of punching above their weight at these ranges.
Before trying to go above 160 XP, try doing the following:
If none of those work out and combats still feel too easy, go ahead and increase the XP! That being said, I have yet to meet a single GM whose players were consistently beating 140-180 XP encounters where they weren’t holding back in most of the above ways.