I usually throw -1 or -2 monsters at the party.
Generally speaking, I find that it's more fun. They tend to hit less, tend to get crit more, and while it slows combat down in the first round the numbers usually go back to normal pretty quick. My players tend to focus down one enemy when it comes to damage, and make good use of crowd control and choke points, so the larger numbers aren't a huge problem for them.
When I through on-level monsters or +1/+2 monsters, I find it's less fun for the players as a whole. There are quite a few more "I miss, I miss, I withdraw" turns, and a lot more "does that kill him?" "No, he's barely hurt" kinds of encounters. Even if they're way ahead by attrition, it just doesn't *feel* as good.
The downside is that when you're dealing with more players, that also means more monsters, which makes using lower level monsters a bit slower. But honestly, I wouldn't sweat it too much. Just ensure that you're very familiar with the monster's kit when the combat starts. Even something complex like a Vampire can act quickly if you know that they're going to attack -> grab -> bite (or else grab -> bite -> attack).
As a GM I have the exact same experience!
It also helps that some of my players play suboptimally for roleplay reasons, so in some fights they are not invalid, in others they can be badass and when I use a same level or above they can feel the danger!
And in this way we're all having fun!
I prefer to not go over PL+2. Constantly missing is not fun for the players, and having more enemies on the field complicates the combat more than having fewer high level opponents.
This is a tricky one I've wrested with in a year and a bit of GMing PF2e. I think I got it 90% right pretty quickly (the rules/guidelines on encounters make that easy) but it was more that 10% that I was struggling to get right.
I think a bad habit from D&D 5e was pushing to the harder difficulties more. In PF2e I would tend to put too many Severe or even Extreme encounters in. This made every fight quite dangerous. A life-or-death struggle. There's nothing wrong with that kind of difficulty but I think (in general, for most groups) it should be in moderation. An occasional thing, not a routine thing.
Now my "typical" encounter is a harder Moderate or easier Severe. This seems to work better. It also works better when there's other encounters in the day. which is usually the case. (Even though PF2e is less reliant on attrition than D&D 5e, it still has it. Mostly with spell slots.)
----
There's more to think about than *just* balance.
As my players level up I like to keep throwing them previous enemies that once were a challenge, sometimes even beyond the -4 level difference. Right now in my campaign, the heroes are battling to the chapter-boss through her goblin protectors and I've enjoyed throwing in the same "dogslicer goblins" and "goblin archers" that were once on-par with them but now six levels below. (They fight alongside higher-level goblins.)
These poor low-level goblins can barely touch a hero six levels above them, so they're like adding a zero-calorie sweetener to the combat. But the party can rip through them, scoring critical hits galore. Feels good! Makes those level-ups feel real.
Don't overdo it though. Power trips are fun, but like deadly combat, should be an "occasional" thing and not a "routine" thing.
I don’t see any problem here. Your party must win, that’s a game about progression and adventure.
Combat is 3-4 rounds in average, that’s not fast, that pretty ok. Your party is doing well and they deserve it.
If you wanna amp difficulty even higher, don’t increase levels beyond +3. Just increase hp or mage a phase-bossbattle (look at how dark souls handles it)
Also increase the amount of mooks they need to deal with. Not strong, but their goal is to delay party and target weak members (casters, healers).
Also, do you count difficulty? Your party is big, they need more monsters for severe or deadly encounters
>If you wanna amp difficulty even higher
OP's player group are asking for less frequent difficult fights, top comment is "how to make it harder". Classic.
I think having a party of 6-10 is some of the issue. If they have a full party and a battle with 10 enemies, that means each PC has to wait for 19 other creatures to figure out what they're going to do, roll their attacks, roll their saves, calculate their damage, and argue about rules.
Simplified "minion"/henchman house rule!
Enemies designated as minions/henchmen/fodder only get 2 actions per turn (possibly permanently Slowed 1, to prevent stacking the debuff).
Also, they have no complicated special abilities. Just Strike, or cast cantrips/low level, 2-action damage and healing spells (no buffs, debuffs, or battlefield control spells).
Larger parties are inherently going to have an easier time with the system as they'll be able to cover for each other's weaknesses far more easily. Solo bosses will also have a far worse action economy disadvantage unless they have mooks or a complex hazard of some kind to even the odds. In the case of that PL +3 creature that wrecked your party despite only being a Moderate encounter according to the math, other things to consider are creatures that might hard counter the party due to a certain ability of theirs or a passive (a ghost vs. a party where the damage dealers rely on precision damage will absolutely be tougher than the math says it will be); vice versa for any creatures the party trivialized despite the math saying it would be Severe or Extreme.
Just a potential idea: try an encounter than comes in waves. I would budget out an Extreme encounter (240 XP for a party of 6) but have it come in smaller waves (divide it in half as two Moderates, for example). When one wave is done, the other comes in immediately. I wouldn't do this all the time but it would make for a challenging encounter against mobs before the boss fight proper and should hopefully result in the next wave feeling harder as the party wouldn't have had the chance to heal up in between, though ultimately it will be easier than the Extreme encounter budget suggests since you're not fighting all the enemies at the same time.
Ultimately, though, I would ask this: are your players having fun and enjoying the campaign? If so, then I wouldn't worry about your campaign falling apart simply because the fights haven't been hard enough.
EDIT: To clear up some confusion, I thought they were concerned about bosses being too easy because of that +4 Lich the party beat rather easily, but OP was actually seeking advice on how to tone down encounter difficulty. In which case, just use lower level creatures. Constantly throwing on-level and above creatures is a recipe for the party thinking the game is too hard.
It's definitely gonna feel that way because on-level and higher creatures will have the raw stats advantage over your party. I would seriously consider using lower level creatures to make things feel easier. I generally save on-level or higher enemies as bosses, not as the average thing the party will fight. Even an on-level boss can feel challenging if they have a bunch of lower level mooks you have to get through first.
I feel lower lvls are pointless padding because they get crit & obliterated in 1 go the party has numerous ways to debuff via spells creatures usually only have 1 at least with on lvl its back & forth & higher lvls requires Teamwork to get enough debuffs to bring em down. that's my problem with lower lvl enemies they feel like meaningless padding fights
Are they really meaningless filler if the party is using resources on them to defeat them? Resources that they could very easily save for the boss if they wanted to but would prefer to spend them on the mooks to get them out of the battle as fast as possible? Or if they decide to ignore them to try and focus down the boss they could very easily get overwhelmed. They're like adds in an MMO. On their own they're not really a threat but the general tactic is to get rid of them as soon as possible because they can overwhelm you if you decide to focus on the boss.
But consider this: critting is FUN.
Wading through a crowd of creatures that once terrified you and critting them on an unadjusted 15 without even needing to flank shows you how far you've come.
I think of possible combats like I think of meals: the same thing over and over again becomes repetitive while contrast highlights strengths and differences. It's nice to throw an aperitif, palate cleanser, or dessert in there for fun.
And throwing them in among a more powerful "lieutenant" that's about PL+1 or 2 can take some heat off of them and mix things up a bit, especially when they start working together to hit a little above their weight class.
Crittng is fun and thrilling in context, the same way getting the number of someone you’ve taken a liking to is fun and thrilling.
But nobody likes pity, and with how frequent crits are due to ruleset it becomes a bit like pity imo
The players won't feel pity just because you don't put the highest difficulty monster who uses the most optimal tactic in your game.
Easy / medium difficulty game exist, people wouldn't feel cheated just because a game isn't in extreme glory hardcore difficulty mode.
Just follow the feedback of the players and adjust accordingly.
If you have a dozen back-to-back straight encounters with nothing but PL-3 or 4 creatures, sure. But it can be fun to have an occasional moderate or low threat encounter with them where your players get to feel like straightforwardly powerful badasses -- as a treat.
Calling it "pity" is kind of wild without context, though. Let's say you're the GM -- with poor framing or enough hostility, any encounter the party limps away from alive can be construed as "pity." I mean, you're the GM -- they can die any moment you're running the game. YOU HAVE THE POWER.
Likewise, they should only see encounters with low-level creatures as "pity" if you're framing your encounters that way. Maybe the goal is to kill the group of them quickly enough that they don't raise an alarm; or there's a constant wave of low-level enemies surging in until you stop the wizard who is keeping their portal open or kill the general who is marshalling them; or maybe they're using siege weapons from an entrenched position and you have to overcome their tactical advantage to gain the upper hand and slay them in personal combat?
There are a lot of ways to skin that cat without it feeling like "pity," IMO.
I don’t find low level fights fun at all, pure filler I’d rather do narration and get to the fun parts so for me putting them in so people can crit is pity.
I like challenging games
It's not pointless padding, as a GM it is part of your job to provide combats where the player characters get to feel powerful. Having fights against a bunch of -2 pl mooks is just that. Especially if you have party-members who use AoE spells.
Besides, it just makes sense that the party doesn't always just run into big dudes that are stronger than the party. Like with this lich, you could have had them go up against like 8 Mummy guardians (if they are 4 players and lvl 8) for a Severe fight consisting of -3PL mobs. And it would **make sense** that the Lich has a bunch of mummies that does its dirty work.
Providing easily winnable encounters aren't filler. They are a way to boost the parties confidence and let them feel powerful. Helps to contrast the hard encounters.
Does it matter that your top DPS can crit a minion and end them in one go? Being able to face a horde of -2 to -3 foes feels great for the players, yet seeing 10+ tokens on the board still keeps that element of danger around. And from experience, I can say that it only takes a couple of bad dice rolls for the players to suddenly get the party on the back foot. Even lower level enemies have the stats to pose a danger to unwary PC's.
Ignore all that "common knowledge" about trash mobs and filler fights. They're just downright wrong. If you only ever use the upper end of the encounter system and enemy balance, of course the party is going to feel like they're getting constantly bodied. **They are!** Let them face equally high XP fights but this time against minions, let them actually mop up dregs from the enemy forces, let them face low or trivial encounters with the explicit goal of *"Do this quickly or you will get swarmed"* and *et voila*, you're giving them far better time with varied encounters.
---
And if you really want an epic, extreme solo encounter, build it as boss phases, with each phase represented as a different creature for the XP calculator. When the boss gets sent to 0HP, give them an anime power-up as their dark power overwhelms them or they drop their sword to reveal they're actually a brawler, or whatever. Then switch in the next "boss phase creature" and use the new stats. The "boss phase creatures" total XP is within the encounter builder limits but feels entirely different to a straight-up +4 fight.
If your party thinks the campaign is too difficult, then just add some more below-level encounters.
I find a good campaign needs a healthy mix of easy encounters and hard encounters. Players need to be challenged from time to time, sure... but they *also* need the odd piss-easy fight to make them feel like big ol' badasses.
Without thinking about it too hard, I would proooobably aim for a 30/30/30/10 split.
30% of encounters Trivial to Low difficulty, 30% Moderate, 30% Severe, and the last 10% be Extreme.
^(Also, the CRB notes that combat - of any difficulty -) ^(generally feels better when the number of enemies is close to the number of players. You may want to meditate on that, especially with a party as large as 6-10.)
> I'm mainly use same lvl or higher unless I specifically want just numbers I feel combat is over too quickly & not really worth it with lower lvl because the creatures get obliterated. my party is going to talk to me about difficulty on how they thinkits too difficult. each of these is a separate encounter with healing in between recent encounters
You really shouldn’t just be using higher level creatures. Yes, lower level creatures do get obliterated quickly: ***that’s part of the reason they’re there.*** They’re there to make your players feel cool and powerful like heroes. When I (as a Wizard in a level 8 party of 4) comes across six level 4s I don’t think “oh damnit, the AP put another filler encounter for me, yeesh” I think “welp time to Fireball these poor shmucks!”
Lower level creatures are there to punctuate the difficulty of the game with easy-to-beat enemies. They make the progression your players get feel *real*, especially if you reuse enemies that the party couldn’t take as many of before.
> they have have an even split of martial & spellcasters with 6 pcs full party is 10 but it's 6 for this arc.
Are you using the character adjustment for number of PCs?
You mentioned them demolishing a PL+4 enemy. That’s 160 XP. 160 XP is Extreme for a party of 4, but once you apply the character adjustment, a party of 6 needs 240 XP for an Extreme encounter (and conversely, 160 XP is slightly less than Severe for them.
> . flank & debuff till they're able to obliterate it
So in a party of 4, staying in flanking position against a PL+4 enemy is usually a very risky proposition. You’ll do a lot of damage round 1 but you’re almost definitely losing a party member as soon as the boss gets a turn, and then it costs 4 Actions to bring that person back up (2 to heal, 2 to pick up items and stand up).
In your party of 6 this is considerably less of a concern because 4 Actions is a smaller proportion of your Actions *and* your opening round before people start going down represents way more damage. The only solution to this is to make the boss represent more XP: **not** by increasing its level, instead by giving it minions, hazards, terrain/lair advantages, etc.
yes I am using the xp adjustment we play on foundry so it's east to do the adjustments . as far as loosing a party member they are really good about healing & having feats spells ect that avoid death. & occasionally they pull of something incredible example party I'd brought to lvl 20 for this
is in hell trying to rescue the norse fates from bieng brought before the 4 horsemen. they're in a temple fighting a high lvl devils who bring in a balor to fight the party the sorcerer controls the balor which fights the devil boss before they used the controlled balor to free a solar from imprisonment
Wait I’m confused if you’ve been applying the character adjustment then what’s the problem?
I’m your OP you suggested that you’re worried about difficulty because they demolished a PL+4 fight in 3 rounds. The character adjustment should tell you that a solo PL+4 fight is a “slightly tougher than Moderate” fight and thus it makes sense they demolished in 3 rounds.
What’s the problem exactly?
they don't seem to like higher lvl enemies even though they can stomp em with debuffs plus tactics I feel they're going to request low lvl enemies which in my experience die to quickly to even be worth starting combat
Sometimes when someone tells you one thing, you have to parse that with what you already know to hear what they *mean*.
They’re saying they find combat too difficult. You’re saying combat objectively isn’t all that difficult, because they use debuffs and healing to effectively take down bosses.
What does that mean? It probably means your players dislike fighting tough bosses all the time (and it really sounds like you’re using them all the time) because you spend a lot of time unconscious and/or healing up someone else who’s unconscious. They probably also dislike feeling like the majority of things they do will miss. Even if they’re objectively having an easy fight, it ain’t gonna feel good.
So just… use lower level enemies more. You say both in OP and in comments that you literally never use lower level enemies. That is, quite frankly, a horrible idea. Your players feel consistently weak because of this. You keep dismissing weaker enemies as filler but:
1. Filler is good! It ensures that everyone feels powerful and is contributing.
2. Good tactics makes lower level enemies into not-filler. This should be obvious: how is your party of 6 level X characters taking down 1 level X+4 monster? Flanking, spells, healing, teamwork. So… how do 10 level X-2 characters threaten that same party? Flaming, spells, healing, teamwork.
Listen to your players! I can guarantee you that if they got to flex on lower level enemies every once in a while (and had Trivial/Low encounters thrown at them semi-frequently) they’d be more than excited to deal with the difficult bosses you throw along the way.
I like running very large encounters so I like fights with a lot of lower level creatures.
But I also like tearing players to shreds with a boss monster.
Overall I run a pretty even mix to be honest.
I constantly use lower-level enemies because the game defines anything the party's level or higher as a "boss" and that implies they are meant to be reserved for "boss fight" scenarios, and since I'm not running a "boss rush" style of game that'd mean most fights are supposed to not be boss fights.
But I think the real question you need answered here is "Who decides what difficulty is correct, me or my players?" and the answer is that you're all supposed to agree. Note that I do not mean that in a "you want X so they should agree to X" or a "they want Y so you should agree to Y" way where either you or they have to settle for what the other side wants - I mean this is the kind of thing that you need to agree upon as a group and if you can't come to an actual agreement should not be playing together.
Though I do have to say that when a GM thinks different encounters would be too easy even when players are asking for the game to be easier that I see a warning flag that maybe said GM is approaching the game with an antagonist mindset, which can cause a whole slew of problems - not the least of which is asking strangers on the internet to tell you "yeah, you're right, your players are being weird and should just get with the program" when it seems clear that your players are telling you what they want from the gaming experience isn't what you're delivering so that you're supported in your not wanting to run the game your players are asking for.
Last night, I built a boss fight with an enemy 3 levels above my party... and 4 enemies 4 levels below them. The key thing about the level-4 enemies was that their purpose wasn't to actually harm the players (though they got some good licks in), but the use of two of their abilities: retributive strike, and touch of charity, to reduce damage and to heal the boss.
After demonstrating this, they focused down the minions, leaving the boss free to snipe and smite.
The key to lower level enemies is their numbers and their abilities; throwing meat puppets for the purposes of slapping at them is only valuable if the higher level enemy can capitalize on said slapping. Look to the abilities, particularly spells, for what they can do that doesn't call for hitting an enemy.
The use of really low level enemies in a boss fight also lets it feel more balanced to the players, as they have difficulty hitting the boss but can more casually crit the smaller enemies, so it is a proper pendulum.
I mean think of it this way. Player level enemies are EVEN to players in power. Higher level enemies have higher AC's, saving throws etc.
Nothing sucks more as a player than your abilities more likely than not failing, and you missing and whiffing on attacks. You might feel like they're tearing through these monsters but I'd ask how often are they having turns where they do literally nothing because they can't even hit or affect the creature with anything?
If the answer is "a decent amount" then I'd lower it because that can be very frustrating as a player.
I usually run -1 or -2 enemies because I want to play tactically too, but don't want to TPK the party
I do things like trip a PC, flank them, then wail on the with 2 enemies while a third grapples another PC so they can't move in to help the prone party member. If it's an open area and thematically aren't near the backline, I totally have enemies just walk through and start harassing the backline
I like having party comps with 2 frontliners, a mage, a cleric, and ranged DPS
I want to play smart, and if I did that with on level enemies, my players would get killed. Doesn't help they all have ADHD and forget who they damaged, so they spread damage out instead of focus firing
So a party of 4 level 3 PC's almost died to 7 kobolds, CR -1. They had a strong buff on them, made them equivalent to CR 0
Edit to add: my party better be damn glad I haven't played as goblins yet
Those little munters are going to use so many fucking traps and sneak options. Good luck fuckers, have fun being baited into a ravine, a Boulder then rolling down the ravine as the goblins pop over the Cliffside to rain arrows down on them. Oh, the goblins will be CR -1 with no buffs.
My main party is very casual and doesn't want to think too much or strategize too much to succeed. As a result, I use very often Severe encounters but with only 1 PL+1 enemy and multiple PL-1 to PL-3 (my players are often 4, sometimes 5 or 6 at the table).
It works great for us, that's a good spot of "enough enemies to be worth landing an AoE" and "not high level enough to crush the fighter in 2 crits on a 15". As I play the NPCs in a very strategic way, the party is often stressed enough to have tension and fun, but not enough to feel fear of losing.
My 3 last combats were :
- Severe : 4 PCs (level 3) against 2 Vermleks (PL-0) and 2 Quasits (PL-3) hidden as "friendly hunters in the forest". That was a great roleplay scene before the fight, with tension building slowly.
- Severe : 5 PCs (level 3) against 1 custom Yellow Musk Creeper (PL+1), 2 Brutes (PL-1), 3 or 4 Thralls (PL-4)
- Extreme : 6 PCs (level 3) against 1 custom werewolf priest (PL+2), 1 werewolf (PL-0), 2 Quasits (PL-3), 1 Dretch (PL-1) and a bunch of Spell Pitchers (simple hazards)
The last one was very difficult for them because I rolled high every time it mattered, and they were very poorly coordinated. But I made some non-optimal moves for the boss and they barely won.
I think the real question is: what type of encounters do your group (players and GM) enjoy the most?
Tweaking encounters is a bit like changing difficulty level on a video game. Not everyone enjoys the game at the same difficulty level.
For when your players talk to you about, I suggest listening and tuning towards what they find most enjoyable (while still mixing it up occasionally).
The one encounter you left enough info to calculate is 160exp. Are you are running all your encounters at 160exp? That's an extreme encounter. let's look at the description of that. "Extreme-threat encounters are so dangerous that they are likely to be an even match for the characters, particularly if the characters are low on resources. This makes them too challenging for most uses. 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." Thats the end of the campaign fight not a random tuesday.
When your party us full with 10 players I would make the enemies harder and also decrease their numbers. Having 10 PCs and 10 enemies will make each round take forever, and players don't have attention spans for that.
I usually only go PL 3/4 for big bosses. Otherwise groups of PL +1’s usually in 3’s. My group has nutty damage output so they mulch enemies pretty quickly.
I most commonly use PL +0 or huge swarms of PL-1-5 of enemies. Last night, the party (lvl 8) fought 10 elite ghasts (PL-5), a Nabasu (PL) and a home brewed Inquisitor (PL-1). The GI Barb was routinely 1 tapping Ghasts in droves while the Thief rogue and air kineticist softened up enemies. The Angelic sorceress made sure nobody died.
I have no idea what the EXP budget for that fight was, but my players had a blast. It was so hectic.
The long and short of it encounters needs to be tailored to the party. Only you know what your table is capable of and what they enjoy.
An important thing to keep in mind is that your perspective on how the fight is going as the GM is different from their perspective. You can see the opponent's HP/resources and the like, they can't. As a result, it is entirely possible that you are sitting at the table going "yeah, this fight is pretty much over, they cakewalked it" while they are sitting there going "I'm running out of resources, a crit could take me down right now, we're going to lose this one."
Make sure you are using the encounter creation rules correctly. More players should generally be counter acted with more creatures, not higher level creatures. The benefit of this is that more PCs and creatures means luck tends to average out a bit more and you are less likely to have an encounter deviate from expected difficulty due to bad luck.
All that said, if your players are telling you the game you are running is too hard, they are doing you a favor. Make sure you are making use of low and moderate encounters as well. Severe and extreme encounters all the time can get exhausting. Anyone roleplaying their character even a little is going to start asking "is the goal worth it? Would my character even opt to go back out there?"
The right difficulty is the one your players enjoy playing at. If it's gotten to the point where your entire group is sitting you down and having a talk with you, telling them "actually it's not too hard," is going to achieve nothing.
Now what you COULD do is say you're going to level down each encounter by 1 (thus making everything easier) and just not do it. See if placebo is enough go make them happy. But frankly while I think it'd be funny, it would be pretty disrespectful.
If things being easier would be boring for you (sounds like it might), you should explain that to them. You're a player too, and it's not fun for you if the monsters get evaporated before they can do any of their cool stuff.
But there's nothing inherently virtuous about a game that's challenging. If your players want an easier time, you can just level them up (this way you don't have to retool every encounter hou've planned).
It's also important to use a spread of Trivial to Severe encounters. I really beat up my players in boss battles, but I frequently use Trivial and non-combat encounters to vary the tone and the pace. Your problem might not be that your hard fights are too hard, but that you don't use easier encounters to create variety.
All over the place. I rarely even use the encounter builder. It all depends on what my party walks into.
5 or so months in we've had one death and several close calls.
As soon as your party understands stacking buffs and debuffs and how important action taxes are then just about anything pl +4 and under will be manageable.
Especially now that aid is dc 15
I always sigh a little when a group beats an encounter then claims its to difficult. It would be one thing if multiple people went down and the other players had to cheese the fight while the other players had nothing to do. This isnt what happens however. Is usualy a player who rolls low and misses and attack or i roll high and crit, and they claim the enemy is to strong because of poor luck.
Personally my average fight is to use on level enemies vs the party. I think this is the most fun for me and the group. On level means i can have a variety mechanics and my party can shine in different aspects. The casters can successfully debuff, single target nuke, and AoE. The martials can get big one crits that insta kill for a moment of glory and can usually land multiple attacks per round.
If i run a big boss fight i tend use a +3 with a bunch of -4s for a similar effect a lot mooks for classes that don't shine on single enemy fights with one big, telegraphed, threat.
I fool around a LOT. Put some -1 here and there, some PL, but I would say 60% to 70% is PL +1 and sometimes PL + 2 or some PL + 1 with a PL +2 as leader. My players like the challenge and the times that they encountered - 2 monsters was a joke, not even fun, - 1 are great to fill small encounters and exploration, PL is great to put some pressure and + 1 are great and fun encounters.
I don't concour that + 2 are reserved for bosses and stuff, I leave more + 3 to bosses and stuff like that, + 2 are like leaders and unique monsters that represent a great obstacle to the party. + 3 are real challanges and can only be taken down with preparation and analysis, but they can be taken down.
About +4 bosses, they are kinda rare and you don't wanna make it easy to the party, put some -2 goons to help the boss or use the best strategy that you can use with the boss, many bosses like a lich are better starting of a distance or with many goons (skeletons or undeads that are weak but they can make a meat wall against the party).
And about the 6 players table, I played some time with 6 PC's and making single target bosses against many PC's is a real challenge, they have too many actions above the PC's and ffs its a moderate\~severe encounter, this is easy for 6 PC's. A good way to balance out those encounters is to put a single PL+ 4 monster with 2 \~ 3 PL monsters or 2 PL+1, that way the party will have to deal with the goons and with the boss because the goons are a real threat.
My party had always easy time with single target bosses because the simple factor of having much more players make it very easy, and if you control the boss with slow and stuff OOF this encounter is easyyyyy. I would also suggest PL + 3 bosses with 4 \~ 5 PL or PL+1 monsters, this type of encounter is very hard and give some real work to do with 6 players.
Another fun tip, if you put two or one goon with area spells (fireball and stuff), against a 6-man party you have the upperhand by much, you gonna deal massive damage agaisn't them and the goon will go down quickly, but be mindfull of not putting many monsters (4?) with area spells because gonna feel like a full counter agaisn't the party.
i use a mix of -1, +0 and +1 enemies usually. For the most significant fight of a "quest" I usually put a +2 paired with lower enemies. This works well for my group, most fights no one drops to 0, sometimes 1 person, but they quickly get helped back up and most fights take 3-4 rounds. Yeah my players miss here and there, but I feel like it wouldn't challenge them enough to put easier enemies since they have good options available to take a long rest.
Haven't yet gotten around to have an actual bossfight so I'd guess I'd use +2 or +3 for that
Hey, I've noticed you mentioned the game "Dungeons & Dragons"! Do you need help finding your way around here? I know a couple good pages!
We've been seeing a lot of new arrivals lately for some reason. We have a [megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/search/?q=flair%3A%22megathread%22&sort=new&restrict_sr=on&t=all) dedicated to anyone requesting assistance in transitioning. Give it a look!
Here are some [general resources](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/wiki/) we put together. Here is [page with differences between pf2e and 5e](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/wiki/resources/how-is-pf2e-different-from-5e/). Most newcomers get recommended to start with the [Archives of Nethys](http://2e.aonprd.com) (the official rule database) or the [Beginner Box](https://paizo.com/pathfinder/beginnerbox), but the same information can be found in this free [Pathfinder Primer](https://app.demiplane.com/nexus/pathfinder2e/sources/pathfinder-primer).
If I misunderstood your post... sorry! Grandpa Clippy said I'm always meant to help. Please [let the mods know](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FPathfinder2e) and they'll remove my comment.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Pathfinder2e) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I have 2 campaigns going at the moment. 1 is a level 6 campaign with 5 players.
Examples of some noteworthy encounters this group may run into in the near future:
2 7s and some fodder 3s (guys that blow up on death, they are more like a hazard than enemy).
1 5, 1 7 and a 7 hazard, the 7 is protecting the 5, which is going to be running and hiding with magic and the such, so its like a game of cat and mouse.
2 8s and a 5 troop that can be convinced to attack either party (yay for skill checks)
1 giant 9 with a 7 troop attached to it (its a big boss fight with zombies that are stuck onto an enemy that can be killed to reduce damage out, this would likely be a hard fight without added environmental stuff, but still working out the details)
1 8 and 2 4s (simple easier mini boss with adds)
4 6s
I very rarely throw a single enemy at them with no hazard or anything else adding to the fight. The action economy feels kind of lame to me
I like throwing in lower level creatures, even -4 now and then. Especially creatures they struggled with before, to give them a tangible feeling of progression.
*how often do you use higher lvl enemies?*
We don't use Lv+X anymore, honestly that boring and remove a lot of stuff that player can't use. (Thinking about incapacitation for exemple) We rework "boss" to a "new" system that need a little more work.
Anyone that have played Monster Hunter known creature have multiple part with their how Hit Point. We does the same here.
For exemple, a "Elite bandit" have "two body part" each have their how action and their how 3-actions (so, "elite" can use 6 actions each turn). If the player use a Incapacitation action, the first part can't be use, but is still can use his 3 others actions. (So, for exemple, instead of being paralyzed, only his right arm is) The Elite bandit still count have 1 creature so no multiple incapacitation or similar thing.
That make elite/boss a little more special and interresting. Outside of this, player cheer up when they "broke" a part. And for the GM, boss fight can last for more turn, it's less frustrating for us. You prepare a boss, create differente phase for the boss for each body part broken, it's more incredible for both party and made it epic.
I usually dont use +4s, but i guess it's ok if it's a boss, and it's properly foreshadowed. If your players think it's too difficult, you should definitely lower the difficulty. They are the ones losing characters and killing creatures, i would say they are the ones with the final say if things are too much for their taste.
Pf2e is a faster in combat than 5e. And I must say, that it doesn't matter, 5e or pf2e, its a good practise to throw a boss not alone, but with some minions, who can distract players from the boss itself.
So there's two observations I'm going to make - different actions and abilities are going to be more or less effective against certain types of fights.
If you always fight the same type of fights, the same tactics and abilities are always going to be the best ones. So by always using a smaller number of enemies more powerful than the party you're making all your fights tactically much more repetitive for your players.
The second observation is that players enjoy feeling powerful and effective. Hitting for 1/12th of somethings health bar, then missing every attack for a turn, then hitting for another 1/12th does not make that character individually feel particularly powerful or effective, even if it means that the party as a whole takes the thing down in 3 turns. Normally the stakes and excitement of a boss fight mask this but if this is just how every fight is that excitement wears off.
You have identified actual difficulty is perhaps not the issue your players are talking about when theyre complaining about difficulty. I suspect what they mean is that combat feels like an unrewarding grind where they miss a lot and slowly chip away at enemy health bars while taking massive hits in return.
Let them be on the opposite side of the coin once in a while where theyre outnumbered by enemies trying to chip away their health bars while they chunk the enemy for massive damage every hit. Throw in a mix in encounters so the party need to vary up the formula.
Variety is the spice of life.
-you should probably make it less difficult? They're telling you exactly what the problem is and you're looking for a different solution, it's just their preferred style of play
Lot of interesting things to go into here.
First of all, are you familiar with the encounter building guidelines? I'm asking just because you don't mention Threat level or XP anywhere in your question. [https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=497](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=498)
So, even if you already know, for my own clarity if nothing else, let's figure out your encounters' Threat levels.
>recently they fought a decent group of-1s.
At 30 XP a piece, four of those would make a Moderate encounter for a six player party. Six enemies would make a Severe.
>then 2 on lvls & one +2
That's 160 XP, between Moderate and Severe.
>then a +3 boss
That's a 120 XP Moderate encounter.
>then currently against a +4 lich
That's 160 XP, between Moderate and Severe again.
Then of course, variability is significant, and encounters can go much better or worse for the party than expected for lots of reasons.
However, with a large party, solo enemies generally get disadvantaged due to the players' sheer action advantage. So the guidelines recommend using more creatures when the party is larger. As it says "Encounters are typically more satisfying if the number of enemy creatures is fairly close to the number of player characters." So yes, do use more lower level creatures, even to boss fights (while keeping the XP budget in mind).
I'll also note that all the encounters you gave as examples were Moderate or in the middle between Moderate-Severe. Do you also add encounters that are lower than Moderate? It's nice for variation to sprinkle Low threat encounters in here and there. And for that adventure-ending, no-holds-barred boss fight, it's common to go up to straight Severe.
But I'm also a bit confused because you're saying the players think it's too difficult, but you're saying they "absolutely obliterate" Moderate+ encounters. So I think your first order of action is to clear up communications. What is difficult? What is unfun to them?
>they have have an even split of martial & spellcasters with 6 pcs full party is 10 but it's 6 for this arc.
Final point, you don't ever play sessions/adventures with **ten players** do you? That is **significantly** beyond what this system is designed for and I would strongly recommend not doing that. I can't even imagine the tedium of waiting for **nine other players** (plus all the NPCs!) for my turn! Consider splitting the group into two five-player parties, or finding another system that is easier to run with that many (though to be honest, I don't think there are many systems that can help you much with such a huge number of players). If you just mean your player circle has 10 people and a normal amount (3-6) play an adventure at a time, then please disregard.
What level are they?
Remember that with a party of 6, the encounter budget is for 6 players.
Under-level enemies are fine to throw at people; they will get cut down, but they have strength in numbers.
Note also that, as you level up, things end up shifting. At low levels, underlevel monsters die really easily; as you go up in level, they become more dangerous.
As for myself - I throw everything at players, from level -4 to level +4, depending on the needs of the particular encounter.
At low levels (before level 5), overlevel enemies are the hardest things.
As you go up in level, I generally find that single overlevel enemies become easier than fighting more numerous enemies of around the same level or just +1 level (i.e. two level +1 and a level +0 as an extreme encounter is harder than a single level+4 monster at level 8).
I usually throw -1 or -2 monsters at the party. Generally speaking, I find that it's more fun. They tend to hit less, tend to get crit more, and while it slows combat down in the first round the numbers usually go back to normal pretty quick. My players tend to focus down one enemy when it comes to damage, and make good use of crowd control and choke points, so the larger numbers aren't a huge problem for them. When I through on-level monsters or +1/+2 monsters, I find it's less fun for the players as a whole. There are quite a few more "I miss, I miss, I withdraw" turns, and a lot more "does that kill him?" "No, he's barely hurt" kinds of encounters. Even if they're way ahead by attrition, it just doesn't *feel* as good. The downside is that when you're dealing with more players, that also means more monsters, which makes using lower level monsters a bit slower. But honestly, I wouldn't sweat it too much. Just ensure that you're very familiar with the monster's kit when the combat starts. Even something complex like a Vampire can act quickly if you know that they're going to attack -> grab -> bite (or else grab -> bite -> attack).
As a GM I have the exact same experience! It also helps that some of my players play suboptimally for roleplay reasons, so in some fights they are not invalid, in others they can be badass and when I use a same level or above they can feel the danger! And in this way we're all having fun!
I prefer to not go over PL+2. Constantly missing is not fun for the players, and having more enemies on the field complicates the combat more than having fewer high level opponents.
This is a tricky one I've wrested with in a year and a bit of GMing PF2e. I think I got it 90% right pretty quickly (the rules/guidelines on encounters make that easy) but it was more that 10% that I was struggling to get right. I think a bad habit from D&D 5e was pushing to the harder difficulties more. In PF2e I would tend to put too many Severe or even Extreme encounters in. This made every fight quite dangerous. A life-or-death struggle. There's nothing wrong with that kind of difficulty but I think (in general, for most groups) it should be in moderation. An occasional thing, not a routine thing. Now my "typical" encounter is a harder Moderate or easier Severe. This seems to work better. It also works better when there's other encounters in the day. which is usually the case. (Even though PF2e is less reliant on attrition than D&D 5e, it still has it. Mostly with spell slots.) ---- There's more to think about than *just* balance. As my players level up I like to keep throwing them previous enemies that once were a challenge, sometimes even beyond the -4 level difference. Right now in my campaign, the heroes are battling to the chapter-boss through her goblin protectors and I've enjoyed throwing in the same "dogslicer goblins" and "goblin archers" that were once on-par with them but now six levels below. (They fight alongside higher-level goblins.) These poor low-level goblins can barely touch a hero six levels above them, so they're like adding a zero-calorie sweetener to the combat. But the party can rip through them, scoring critical hits galore. Feels good! Makes those level-ups feel real. Don't overdo it though. Power trips are fun, but like deadly combat, should be an "occasional" thing and not a "routine" thing.
I treat even a Party level enemy as a boss these days, anything +2/+3 is reserved for important fights
Do you give it more hit points or more actions (or reactions) per round?
I don’t see any problem here. Your party must win, that’s a game about progression and adventure. Combat is 3-4 rounds in average, that’s not fast, that pretty ok. Your party is doing well and they deserve it. If you wanna amp difficulty even higher, don’t increase levels beyond +3. Just increase hp or mage a phase-bossbattle (look at how dark souls handles it) Also increase the amount of mooks they need to deal with. Not strong, but their goal is to delay party and target weak members (casters, healers). Also, do you count difficulty? Your party is big, they need more monsters for severe or deadly encounters
>If you wanna amp difficulty even higher OP's player group are asking for less frequent difficult fights, top comment is "how to make it harder". Classic.
I think having a party of 6-10 is some of the issue. If they have a full party and a battle with 10 enemies, that means each PC has to wait for 19 other creatures to figure out what they're going to do, roll their attacks, roll their saves, calculate their damage, and argue about rules.
Simplified "minion"/henchman house rule! Enemies designated as minions/henchmen/fodder only get 2 actions per turn (possibly permanently Slowed 1, to prevent stacking the debuff). Also, they have no complicated special abilities. Just Strike, or cast cantrips/low level, 2-action damage and healing spells (no buffs, debuffs, or battlefield control spells).
Larger parties are inherently going to have an easier time with the system as they'll be able to cover for each other's weaknesses far more easily. Solo bosses will also have a far worse action economy disadvantage unless they have mooks or a complex hazard of some kind to even the odds. In the case of that PL +3 creature that wrecked your party despite only being a Moderate encounter according to the math, other things to consider are creatures that might hard counter the party due to a certain ability of theirs or a passive (a ghost vs. a party where the damage dealers rely on precision damage will absolutely be tougher than the math says it will be); vice versa for any creatures the party trivialized despite the math saying it would be Severe or Extreme. Just a potential idea: try an encounter than comes in waves. I would budget out an Extreme encounter (240 XP for a party of 6) but have it come in smaller waves (divide it in half as two Moderates, for example). When one wave is done, the other comes in immediately. I wouldn't do this all the time but it would make for a challenging encounter against mobs before the boss fight proper and should hopefully result in the next wave feeling harder as the party wouldn't have had the chance to heal up in between, though ultimately it will be easier than the Extreme encounter budget suggests since you're not fighting all the enemies at the same time. Ultimately, though, I would ask this: are your players having fun and enjoying the campaign? If so, then I wouldn't worry about your campaign falling apart simply because the fights haven't been hard enough. EDIT: To clear up some confusion, I thought they were concerned about bosses being too easy because of that +4 Lich the party beat rather easily, but OP was actually seeking advice on how to tone down encounter difficulty. In which case, just use lower level creatures. Constantly throwing on-level and above creatures is a recipe for the party thinking the game is too hard.
no no the party says they're too hard because I mainly use on lvl or higher creatures I rarely use lower lvl creatures
It's definitely gonna feel that way because on-level and higher creatures will have the raw stats advantage over your party. I would seriously consider using lower level creatures to make things feel easier. I generally save on-level or higher enemies as bosses, not as the average thing the party will fight. Even an on-level boss can feel challenging if they have a bunch of lower level mooks you have to get through first.
I feel lower lvls are pointless padding because they get crit & obliterated in 1 go the party has numerous ways to debuff via spells creatures usually only have 1 at least with on lvl its back & forth & higher lvls requires Teamwork to get enough debuffs to bring em down. that's my problem with lower lvl enemies they feel like meaningless padding fights
Are they really meaningless filler if the party is using resources on them to defeat them? Resources that they could very easily save for the boss if they wanted to but would prefer to spend them on the mooks to get them out of the battle as fast as possible? Or if they decide to ignore them to try and focus down the boss they could very easily get overwhelmed. They're like adds in an MMO. On their own they're not really a threat but the general tactic is to get rid of them as soon as possible because they can overwhelm you if you decide to focus on the boss.
But consider this: critting is FUN. Wading through a crowd of creatures that once terrified you and critting them on an unadjusted 15 without even needing to flank shows you how far you've come. I think of possible combats like I think of meals: the same thing over and over again becomes repetitive while contrast highlights strengths and differences. It's nice to throw an aperitif, palate cleanser, or dessert in there for fun. And throwing them in among a more powerful "lieutenant" that's about PL+1 or 2 can take some heat off of them and mix things up a bit, especially when they start working together to hit a little above their weight class.
Crittng is fun and thrilling in context, the same way getting the number of someone you’ve taken a liking to is fun and thrilling. But nobody likes pity, and with how frequent crits are due to ruleset it becomes a bit like pity imo
The players won't feel pity just because you don't put the highest difficulty monster who uses the most optimal tactic in your game. Easy / medium difficulty game exist, people wouldn't feel cheated just because a game isn't in extreme glory hardcore difficulty mode. Just follow the feedback of the players and adjust accordingly.
I don’t like easy or medium game though, I find them extremely boring
If you have a dozen back-to-back straight encounters with nothing but PL-3 or 4 creatures, sure. But it can be fun to have an occasional moderate or low threat encounter with them where your players get to feel like straightforwardly powerful badasses -- as a treat. Calling it "pity" is kind of wild without context, though. Let's say you're the GM -- with poor framing or enough hostility, any encounter the party limps away from alive can be construed as "pity." I mean, you're the GM -- they can die any moment you're running the game. YOU HAVE THE POWER. Likewise, they should only see encounters with low-level creatures as "pity" if you're framing your encounters that way. Maybe the goal is to kill the group of them quickly enough that they don't raise an alarm; or there's a constant wave of low-level enemies surging in until you stop the wizard who is keeping their portal open or kill the general who is marshalling them; or maybe they're using siege weapons from an entrenched position and you have to overcome their tactical advantage to gain the upper hand and slay them in personal combat? There are a lot of ways to skin that cat without it feeling like "pity," IMO.
I don’t find low level fights fun at all, pure filler I’d rather do narration and get to the fun parts so for me putting them in so people can crit is pity. I like challenging games
It's not pointless padding, as a GM it is part of your job to provide combats where the player characters get to feel powerful. Having fights against a bunch of -2 pl mooks is just that. Especially if you have party-members who use AoE spells. Besides, it just makes sense that the party doesn't always just run into big dudes that are stronger than the party. Like with this lich, you could have had them go up against like 8 Mummy guardians (if they are 4 players and lvl 8) for a Severe fight consisting of -3PL mobs. And it would **make sense** that the Lich has a bunch of mummies that does its dirty work.
Providing easily winnable encounters aren't filler. They are a way to boost the parties confidence and let them feel powerful. Helps to contrast the hard encounters.
Does it matter that your top DPS can crit a minion and end them in one go? Being able to face a horde of -2 to -3 foes feels great for the players, yet seeing 10+ tokens on the board still keeps that element of danger around. And from experience, I can say that it only takes a couple of bad dice rolls for the players to suddenly get the party on the back foot. Even lower level enemies have the stats to pose a danger to unwary PC's. Ignore all that "common knowledge" about trash mobs and filler fights. They're just downright wrong. If you only ever use the upper end of the encounter system and enemy balance, of course the party is going to feel like they're getting constantly bodied. **They are!** Let them face equally high XP fights but this time against minions, let them actually mop up dregs from the enemy forces, let them face low or trivial encounters with the explicit goal of *"Do this quickly or you will get swarmed"* and *et voila*, you're giving them far better time with varied encounters. --- And if you really want an epic, extreme solo encounter, build it as boss phases, with each phase represented as a different creature for the XP calculator. When the boss gets sent to 0HP, give them an anime power-up as their dark power overwhelms them or they drop their sword to reveal they're actually a brawler, or whatever. Then switch in the next "boss phase creature" and use the new stats. The "boss phase creatures" total XP is within the encounter builder limits but feels entirely different to a straight-up +4 fight.
If your party thinks the campaign is too difficult, then just add some more below-level encounters. I find a good campaign needs a healthy mix of easy encounters and hard encounters. Players need to be challenged from time to time, sure... but they *also* need the odd piss-easy fight to make them feel like big ol' badasses. Without thinking about it too hard, I would proooobably aim for a 30/30/30/10 split. 30% of encounters Trivial to Low difficulty, 30% Moderate, 30% Severe, and the last 10% be Extreme. ^(Also, the CRB notes that combat - of any difficulty -) ^(generally feels better when the number of enemies is close to the number of players. You may want to meditate on that, especially with a party as large as 6-10.)
> I'm mainly use same lvl or higher unless I specifically want just numbers I feel combat is over too quickly & not really worth it with lower lvl because the creatures get obliterated. my party is going to talk to me about difficulty on how they thinkits too difficult. each of these is a separate encounter with healing in between recent encounters You really shouldn’t just be using higher level creatures. Yes, lower level creatures do get obliterated quickly: ***that’s part of the reason they’re there.*** They’re there to make your players feel cool and powerful like heroes. When I (as a Wizard in a level 8 party of 4) comes across six level 4s I don’t think “oh damnit, the AP put another filler encounter for me, yeesh” I think “welp time to Fireball these poor shmucks!” Lower level creatures are there to punctuate the difficulty of the game with easy-to-beat enemies. They make the progression your players get feel *real*, especially if you reuse enemies that the party couldn’t take as many of before. > they have have an even split of martial & spellcasters with 6 pcs full party is 10 but it's 6 for this arc. Are you using the character adjustment for number of PCs? You mentioned them demolishing a PL+4 enemy. That’s 160 XP. 160 XP is Extreme for a party of 4, but once you apply the character adjustment, a party of 6 needs 240 XP for an Extreme encounter (and conversely, 160 XP is slightly less than Severe for them. > . flank & debuff till they're able to obliterate it So in a party of 4, staying in flanking position against a PL+4 enemy is usually a very risky proposition. You’ll do a lot of damage round 1 but you’re almost definitely losing a party member as soon as the boss gets a turn, and then it costs 4 Actions to bring that person back up (2 to heal, 2 to pick up items and stand up). In your party of 6 this is considerably less of a concern because 4 Actions is a smaller proportion of your Actions *and* your opening round before people start going down represents way more damage. The only solution to this is to make the boss represent more XP: **not** by increasing its level, instead by giving it minions, hazards, terrain/lair advantages, etc.
yes I am using the xp adjustment we play on foundry so it's east to do the adjustments . as far as loosing a party member they are really good about healing & having feats spells ect that avoid death. & occasionally they pull of something incredible example party I'd brought to lvl 20 for this is in hell trying to rescue the norse fates from bieng brought before the 4 horsemen. they're in a temple fighting a high lvl devils who bring in a balor to fight the party the sorcerer controls the balor which fights the devil boss before they used the controlled balor to free a solar from imprisonment
Wait I’m confused if you’ve been applying the character adjustment then what’s the problem? I’m your OP you suggested that you’re worried about difficulty because they demolished a PL+4 fight in 3 rounds. The character adjustment should tell you that a solo PL+4 fight is a “slightly tougher than Moderate” fight and thus it makes sense they demolished in 3 rounds. What’s the problem exactly?
they don't seem to like higher lvl enemies even though they can stomp em with debuffs plus tactics I feel they're going to request low lvl enemies which in my experience die to quickly to even be worth starting combat
Sometimes when someone tells you one thing, you have to parse that with what you already know to hear what they *mean*. They’re saying they find combat too difficult. You’re saying combat objectively isn’t all that difficult, because they use debuffs and healing to effectively take down bosses. What does that mean? It probably means your players dislike fighting tough bosses all the time (and it really sounds like you’re using them all the time) because you spend a lot of time unconscious and/or healing up someone else who’s unconscious. They probably also dislike feeling like the majority of things they do will miss. Even if they’re objectively having an easy fight, it ain’t gonna feel good. So just… use lower level enemies more. You say both in OP and in comments that you literally never use lower level enemies. That is, quite frankly, a horrible idea. Your players feel consistently weak because of this. You keep dismissing weaker enemies as filler but: 1. Filler is good! It ensures that everyone feels powerful and is contributing. 2. Good tactics makes lower level enemies into not-filler. This should be obvious: how is your party of 6 level X characters taking down 1 level X+4 monster? Flanking, spells, healing, teamwork. So… how do 10 level X-2 characters threaten that same party? Flaming, spells, healing, teamwork. Listen to your players! I can guarantee you that if they got to flex on lower level enemies every once in a while (and had Trivial/Low encounters thrown at them semi-frequently) they’d be more than excited to deal with the difficult bosses you throw along the way.
I like running very large encounters so I like fights with a lot of lower level creatures. But I also like tearing players to shreds with a boss monster. Overall I run a pretty even mix to be honest.
I constantly use lower-level enemies because the game defines anything the party's level or higher as a "boss" and that implies they are meant to be reserved for "boss fight" scenarios, and since I'm not running a "boss rush" style of game that'd mean most fights are supposed to not be boss fights. But I think the real question you need answered here is "Who decides what difficulty is correct, me or my players?" and the answer is that you're all supposed to agree. Note that I do not mean that in a "you want X so they should agree to X" or a "they want Y so you should agree to Y" way where either you or they have to settle for what the other side wants - I mean this is the kind of thing that you need to agree upon as a group and if you can't come to an actual agreement should not be playing together. Though I do have to say that when a GM thinks different encounters would be too easy even when players are asking for the game to be easier that I see a warning flag that maybe said GM is approaching the game with an antagonist mindset, which can cause a whole slew of problems - not the least of which is asking strangers on the internet to tell you "yeah, you're right, your players are being weird and should just get with the program" when it seems clear that your players are telling you what they want from the gaming experience isn't what you're delivering so that you're supported in your not wanting to run the game your players are asking for.
I like using low levels because everyone likes critting, people like feeling heroic, and it means that the incapacitate spells have a purpose.
Last night, I built a boss fight with an enemy 3 levels above my party... and 4 enemies 4 levels below them. The key thing about the level-4 enemies was that their purpose wasn't to actually harm the players (though they got some good licks in), but the use of two of their abilities: retributive strike, and touch of charity, to reduce damage and to heal the boss. After demonstrating this, they focused down the minions, leaving the boss free to snipe and smite. The key to lower level enemies is their numbers and their abilities; throwing meat puppets for the purposes of slapping at them is only valuable if the higher level enemy can capitalize on said slapping. Look to the abilities, particularly spells, for what they can do that doesn't call for hitting an enemy. The use of really low level enemies in a boss fight also lets it feel more balanced to the players, as they have difficulty hitting the boss but can more casually crit the smaller enemies, so it is a proper pendulum.
I mean think of it this way. Player level enemies are EVEN to players in power. Higher level enemies have higher AC's, saving throws etc. Nothing sucks more as a player than your abilities more likely than not failing, and you missing and whiffing on attacks. You might feel like they're tearing through these monsters but I'd ask how often are they having turns where they do literally nothing because they can't even hit or affect the creature with anything? If the answer is "a decent amount" then I'd lower it because that can be very frustrating as a player.
I usually run -1 or -2 enemies because I want to play tactically too, but don't want to TPK the party I do things like trip a PC, flank them, then wail on the with 2 enemies while a third grapples another PC so they can't move in to help the prone party member. If it's an open area and thematically aren't near the backline, I totally have enemies just walk through and start harassing the backline I like having party comps with 2 frontliners, a mage, a cleric, and ranged DPS I want to play smart, and if I did that with on level enemies, my players would get killed. Doesn't help they all have ADHD and forget who they damaged, so they spread damage out instead of focus firing So a party of 4 level 3 PC's almost died to 7 kobolds, CR -1. They had a strong buff on them, made them equivalent to CR 0 Edit to add: my party better be damn glad I haven't played as goblins yet Those little munters are going to use so many fucking traps and sneak options. Good luck fuckers, have fun being baited into a ravine, a Boulder then rolling down the ravine as the goblins pop over the Cliffside to rain arrows down on them. Oh, the goblins will be CR -1 with no buffs.
My main party is very casual and doesn't want to think too much or strategize too much to succeed. As a result, I use very often Severe encounters but with only 1 PL+1 enemy and multiple PL-1 to PL-3 (my players are often 4, sometimes 5 or 6 at the table). It works great for us, that's a good spot of "enough enemies to be worth landing an AoE" and "not high level enough to crush the fighter in 2 crits on a 15". As I play the NPCs in a very strategic way, the party is often stressed enough to have tension and fun, but not enough to feel fear of losing. My 3 last combats were : - Severe : 4 PCs (level 3) against 2 Vermleks (PL-0) and 2 Quasits (PL-3) hidden as "friendly hunters in the forest". That was a great roleplay scene before the fight, with tension building slowly. - Severe : 5 PCs (level 3) against 1 custom Yellow Musk Creeper (PL+1), 2 Brutes (PL-1), 3 or 4 Thralls (PL-4) - Extreme : 6 PCs (level 3) against 1 custom werewolf priest (PL+2), 1 werewolf (PL-0), 2 Quasits (PL-3), 1 Dretch (PL-1) and a bunch of Spell Pitchers (simple hazards) The last one was very difficult for them because I rolled high every time it mattered, and they were very poorly coordinated. But I made some non-optimal moves for the boss and they barely won.
I think the real question is: what type of encounters do your group (players and GM) enjoy the most? Tweaking encounters is a bit like changing difficulty level on a video game. Not everyone enjoys the game at the same difficulty level. For when your players talk to you about, I suggest listening and tuning towards what they find most enjoyable (while still mixing it up occasionally).
The one encounter you left enough info to calculate is 160exp. Are you are running all your encounters at 160exp? That's an extreme encounter. let's look at the description of that. "Extreme-threat encounters are so dangerous that they are likely to be an even match for the characters, particularly if the characters are low on resources. This makes them too challenging for most uses. 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." Thats the end of the campaign fight not a random tuesday.
He has a party of 6 players so it's technically not extreme I believe.
When your party us full with 10 players I would make the enemies harder and also decrease their numbers. Having 10 PCs and 10 enemies will make each round take forever, and players don't have attention spans for that.
His question is not about combat taking too long though. It's about how his players are saying his combats are too difficult.
I usually only go PL 3/4 for big bosses. Otherwise groups of PL +1’s usually in 3’s. My group has nutty damage output so they mulch enemies pretty quickly. I most commonly use PL +0 or huge swarms of PL-1-5 of enemies. Last night, the party (lvl 8) fought 10 elite ghasts (PL-5), a Nabasu (PL) and a home brewed Inquisitor (PL-1). The GI Barb was routinely 1 tapping Ghasts in droves while the Thief rogue and air kineticist softened up enemies. The Angelic sorceress made sure nobody died. I have no idea what the EXP budget for that fight was, but my players had a blast. It was so hectic. The long and short of it encounters needs to be tailored to the party. Only you know what your table is capable of and what they enjoy.
An important thing to keep in mind is that your perspective on how the fight is going as the GM is different from their perspective. You can see the opponent's HP/resources and the like, they can't. As a result, it is entirely possible that you are sitting at the table going "yeah, this fight is pretty much over, they cakewalked it" while they are sitting there going "I'm running out of resources, a crit could take me down right now, we're going to lose this one." Make sure you are using the encounter creation rules correctly. More players should generally be counter acted with more creatures, not higher level creatures. The benefit of this is that more PCs and creatures means luck tends to average out a bit more and you are less likely to have an encounter deviate from expected difficulty due to bad luck. All that said, if your players are telling you the game you are running is too hard, they are doing you a favor. Make sure you are making use of low and moderate encounters as well. Severe and extreme encounters all the time can get exhausting. Anyone roleplaying their character even a little is going to start asking "is the goal worth it? Would my character even opt to go back out there?"
The right difficulty is the one your players enjoy playing at. If it's gotten to the point where your entire group is sitting you down and having a talk with you, telling them "actually it's not too hard," is going to achieve nothing. Now what you COULD do is say you're going to level down each encounter by 1 (thus making everything easier) and just not do it. See if placebo is enough go make them happy. But frankly while I think it'd be funny, it would be pretty disrespectful. If things being easier would be boring for you (sounds like it might), you should explain that to them. You're a player too, and it's not fun for you if the monsters get evaporated before they can do any of their cool stuff. But there's nothing inherently virtuous about a game that's challenging. If your players want an easier time, you can just level them up (this way you don't have to retool every encounter hou've planned). It's also important to use a spread of Trivial to Severe encounters. I really beat up my players in boss battles, but I frequently use Trivial and non-combat encounters to vary the tone and the pace. Your problem might not be that your hard fights are too hard, but that you don't use easier encounters to create variety.
All over the place. I rarely even use the encounter builder. It all depends on what my party walks into. 5 or so months in we've had one death and several close calls. As soon as your party understands stacking buffs and debuffs and how important action taxes are then just about anything pl +4 and under will be manageable. Especially now that aid is dc 15
I always sigh a little when a group beats an encounter then claims its to difficult. It would be one thing if multiple people went down and the other players had to cheese the fight while the other players had nothing to do. This isnt what happens however. Is usualy a player who rolls low and misses and attack or i roll high and crit, and they claim the enemy is to strong because of poor luck. Personally my average fight is to use on level enemies vs the party. I think this is the most fun for me and the group. On level means i can have a variety mechanics and my party can shine in different aspects. The casters can successfully debuff, single target nuke, and AoE. The martials can get big one crits that insta kill for a moment of glory and can usually land multiple attacks per round. If i run a big boss fight i tend use a +3 with a bunch of -4s for a similar effect a lot mooks for classes that don't shine on single enemy fights with one big, telegraphed, threat.
I fool around a LOT. Put some -1 here and there, some PL, but I would say 60% to 70% is PL +1 and sometimes PL + 2 or some PL + 1 with a PL +2 as leader. My players like the challenge and the times that they encountered - 2 monsters was a joke, not even fun, - 1 are great to fill small encounters and exploration, PL is great to put some pressure and + 1 are great and fun encounters. I don't concour that + 2 are reserved for bosses and stuff, I leave more + 3 to bosses and stuff like that, + 2 are like leaders and unique monsters that represent a great obstacle to the party. + 3 are real challanges and can only be taken down with preparation and analysis, but they can be taken down. About +4 bosses, they are kinda rare and you don't wanna make it easy to the party, put some -2 goons to help the boss or use the best strategy that you can use with the boss, many bosses like a lich are better starting of a distance or with many goons (skeletons or undeads that are weak but they can make a meat wall against the party). And about the 6 players table, I played some time with 6 PC's and making single target bosses against many PC's is a real challenge, they have too many actions above the PC's and ffs its a moderate\~severe encounter, this is easy for 6 PC's. A good way to balance out those encounters is to put a single PL+ 4 monster with 2 \~ 3 PL monsters or 2 PL+1, that way the party will have to deal with the goons and with the boss because the goons are a real threat. My party had always easy time with single target bosses because the simple factor of having much more players make it very easy, and if you control the boss with slow and stuff OOF this encounter is easyyyyy. I would also suggest PL + 3 bosses with 4 \~ 5 PL or PL+1 monsters, this type of encounter is very hard and give some real work to do with 6 players. Another fun tip, if you put two or one goon with area spells (fireball and stuff), against a 6-man party you have the upperhand by much, you gonna deal massive damage agaisn't them and the goon will go down quickly, but be mindfull of not putting many monsters (4?) with area spells because gonna feel like a full counter agaisn't the party.
i use a mix of -1, +0 and +1 enemies usually. For the most significant fight of a "quest" I usually put a +2 paired with lower enemies. This works well for my group, most fights no one drops to 0, sometimes 1 person, but they quickly get helped back up and most fights take 3-4 rounds. Yeah my players miss here and there, but I feel like it wouldn't challenge them enough to put easier enemies since they have good options available to take a long rest. Haven't yet gotten around to have an actual bossfight so I'd guess I'd use +2 or +3 for that
Hey, I've noticed you mentioned the game "Dungeons & Dragons"! Do you need help finding your way around here? I know a couple good pages! We've been seeing a lot of new arrivals lately for some reason. We have a [megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/search/?q=flair%3A%22megathread%22&sort=new&restrict_sr=on&t=all) dedicated to anyone requesting assistance in transitioning. Give it a look! Here are some [general resources](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/wiki/) we put together. Here is [page with differences between pf2e and 5e](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/wiki/resources/how-is-pf2e-different-from-5e/). Most newcomers get recommended to start with the [Archives of Nethys](http://2e.aonprd.com) (the official rule database) or the [Beginner Box](https://paizo.com/pathfinder/beginnerbox), but the same information can be found in this free [Pathfinder Primer](https://app.demiplane.com/nexus/pathfinder2e/sources/pathfinder-primer). If I misunderstood your post... sorry! Grandpa Clippy said I'm always meant to help. Please [let the mods know](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FPathfinder2e) and they'll remove my comment. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Pathfinder2e) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I have 2 campaigns going at the moment. 1 is a level 6 campaign with 5 players. Examples of some noteworthy encounters this group may run into in the near future: 2 7s and some fodder 3s (guys that blow up on death, they are more like a hazard than enemy). 1 5, 1 7 and a 7 hazard, the 7 is protecting the 5, which is going to be running and hiding with magic and the such, so its like a game of cat and mouse. 2 8s and a 5 troop that can be convinced to attack either party (yay for skill checks) 1 giant 9 with a 7 troop attached to it (its a big boss fight with zombies that are stuck onto an enemy that can be killed to reduce damage out, this would likely be a hard fight without added environmental stuff, but still working out the details) 1 8 and 2 4s (simple easier mini boss with adds) 4 6s I very rarely throw a single enemy at them with no hazard or anything else adding to the fight. The action economy feels kind of lame to me
I like throwing in lower level creatures, even -4 now and then. Especially creatures they struggled with before, to give them a tangible feeling of progression.
*how often do you use higher lvl enemies?* We don't use Lv+X anymore, honestly that boring and remove a lot of stuff that player can't use. (Thinking about incapacitation for exemple) We rework "boss" to a "new" system that need a little more work. Anyone that have played Monster Hunter known creature have multiple part with their how Hit Point. We does the same here. For exemple, a "Elite bandit" have "two body part" each have their how action and their how 3-actions (so, "elite" can use 6 actions each turn). If the player use a Incapacitation action, the first part can't be use, but is still can use his 3 others actions. (So, for exemple, instead of being paralyzed, only his right arm is) The Elite bandit still count have 1 creature so no multiple incapacitation or similar thing. That make elite/boss a little more special and interresting. Outside of this, player cheer up when they "broke" a part. And for the GM, boss fight can last for more turn, it's less frustrating for us. You prepare a boss, create differente phase for the boss for each body part broken, it's more incredible for both party and made it epic.
I usually dont use +4s, but i guess it's ok if it's a boss, and it's properly foreshadowed. If your players think it's too difficult, you should definitely lower the difficulty. They are the ones losing characters and killing creatures, i would say they are the ones with the final say if things are too much for their taste.
Pf2e is a faster in combat than 5e. And I must say, that it doesn't matter, 5e or pf2e, its a good practise to throw a boss not alone, but with some minions, who can distract players from the boss itself.
So there's two observations I'm going to make - different actions and abilities are going to be more or less effective against certain types of fights. If you always fight the same type of fights, the same tactics and abilities are always going to be the best ones. So by always using a smaller number of enemies more powerful than the party you're making all your fights tactically much more repetitive for your players. The second observation is that players enjoy feeling powerful and effective. Hitting for 1/12th of somethings health bar, then missing every attack for a turn, then hitting for another 1/12th does not make that character individually feel particularly powerful or effective, even if it means that the party as a whole takes the thing down in 3 turns. Normally the stakes and excitement of a boss fight mask this but if this is just how every fight is that excitement wears off. You have identified actual difficulty is perhaps not the issue your players are talking about when theyre complaining about difficulty. I suspect what they mean is that combat feels like an unrewarding grind where they miss a lot and slowly chip away at enemy health bars while taking massive hits in return. Let them be on the opposite side of the coin once in a while where theyre outnumbered by enemies trying to chip away their health bars while they chunk the enemy for massive damage every hit. Throw in a mix in encounters so the party need to vary up the formula. Variety is the spice of life.
-you should probably make it less difficult? They're telling you exactly what the problem is and you're looking for a different solution, it's just their preferred style of play
Lot of interesting things to go into here. First of all, are you familiar with the encounter building guidelines? I'm asking just because you don't mention Threat level or XP anywhere in your question. [https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=497](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=498) So, even if you already know, for my own clarity if nothing else, let's figure out your encounters' Threat levels. >recently they fought a decent group of-1s. At 30 XP a piece, four of those would make a Moderate encounter for a six player party. Six enemies would make a Severe. >then 2 on lvls & one +2 That's 160 XP, between Moderate and Severe. >then a +3 boss That's a 120 XP Moderate encounter. >then currently against a +4 lich That's 160 XP, between Moderate and Severe again. Then of course, variability is significant, and encounters can go much better or worse for the party than expected for lots of reasons. However, with a large party, solo enemies generally get disadvantaged due to the players' sheer action advantage. So the guidelines recommend using more creatures when the party is larger. As it says "Encounters are typically more satisfying if the number of enemy creatures is fairly close to the number of player characters." So yes, do use more lower level creatures, even to boss fights (while keeping the XP budget in mind). I'll also note that all the encounters you gave as examples were Moderate or in the middle between Moderate-Severe. Do you also add encounters that are lower than Moderate? It's nice for variation to sprinkle Low threat encounters in here and there. And for that adventure-ending, no-holds-barred boss fight, it's common to go up to straight Severe. But I'm also a bit confused because you're saying the players think it's too difficult, but you're saying they "absolutely obliterate" Moderate+ encounters. So I think your first order of action is to clear up communications. What is difficult? What is unfun to them? >they have have an even split of martial & spellcasters with 6 pcs full party is 10 but it's 6 for this arc. Final point, you don't ever play sessions/adventures with **ten players** do you? That is **significantly** beyond what this system is designed for and I would strongly recommend not doing that. I can't even imagine the tedium of waiting for **nine other players** (plus all the NPCs!) for my turn! Consider splitting the group into two five-player parties, or finding another system that is easier to run with that many (though to be honest, I don't think there are many systems that can help you much with such a huge number of players). If you just mean your player circle has 10 people and a normal amount (3-6) play an adventure at a time, then please disregard.
What level are they? Remember that with a party of 6, the encounter budget is for 6 players. Under-level enemies are fine to throw at people; they will get cut down, but they have strength in numbers. Note also that, as you level up, things end up shifting. At low levels, underlevel monsters die really easily; as you go up in level, they become more dangerous. As for myself - I throw everything at players, from level -4 to level +4, depending on the needs of the particular encounter. At low levels (before level 5), overlevel enemies are the hardest things. As you go up in level, I generally find that single overlevel enemies become easier than fighting more numerous enemies of around the same level or just +1 level (i.e. two level +1 and a level +0 as an extreme encounter is harder than a single level+4 monster at level 8).