How often do pathfinder games do the thing like “The soldiers in the first area attack at +4, but these basically identical soldiers two plot beats later attack at +12, because you’re higher level and I want the math to be challenging”? Because I’ve always disliked that in games. That’s more of a video game trope, but I’ve seen it leak into tabletop games before. I liked the idea of bounded accuracy, and how a goblin is always a goblin. You don’t need to make mega-goblins to fight the higher level party, because even the little ones can still hit and wear you down.
Either you send mega-goblins, or you send MORE goblins.
A lower level party might fight 3 goblins fair and square, so 4 levels later they confront 6 goblins and 2 lieutenants.
The idea that the same enemy stays a challenge despite the level increase is actually what I despise in D&D. My character has grown in power, why is the rat from the beginning still able to down me?
My character has grown in power, why is the rat from the beginning still able to down me?
I read an article online somewhere about bounded accuracy, and it brought a question like that as a litmus test for if you like the idea. Should a novice archer, no matter how lucky they are, be able to shoot the ominous black knight? For a scratch? Or a lucky hit in the throat?
D&D 3e says no. You can only hit them on a natural 20. I think PF2e also says no in the same way.
D&D 5e tried to say yes, the archer should be able to hit the knight. The knight’s armor is probably ~22, and the archer is rolling at +5, so there’s decent odds. But he certainly won’t be able to kill him, because HP is what scales up with power.
Other systems are more deadly.
Personally, I don’t like the “these goblins can’t even touch me anymore” mode that much. I prefer less superhero heroics, where a goblin with a knife can be a real threat
How often do pathfinder games do the thing like “The soldiers in the first area attack at +4, but these basically identical soldiers two plot beats later attack at +12, because you’re higher level and I want the math to be challenging”? Because I’ve always disliked that in games. That’s more of a video game trope, but I’ve seen it leak into tabletop games before. I liked the idea of bounded accuracy, and how a goblin is always a goblin. You don’t need to make mega-goblins to fight the higher level party, because even the little ones can still hit and wear you down.
Either you send mega-goblins, or you send MORE goblins.
A lower level party might fight 3 goblins fair and square, so 4 levels later they confront 6 goblins and 2 lieutenants.
The idea that the same enemy stays a challenge despite the level increase is actually what I despise in D&D. My character has grown in power, why is the rat from the beginning still able to down me?
I read an article online somewhere about bounded accuracy, and it brought a question like that as a litmus test for if you like the idea. Should a novice archer, no matter how lucky they are, be able to shoot the ominous black knight? For a scratch? Or a lucky hit in the throat?
D&D 3e says no. You can only hit them on a natural 20. I think PF2e also says no in the same way.
D&D 5e tried to say yes, the archer should be able to hit the knight. The knight’s armor is probably ~22, and the archer is rolling at +5, so there’s decent odds. But he certainly won’t be able to kill him, because HP is what scales up with power.
Other systems are more deadly.
Personally, I don’t like the “these goblins can’t even touch me anymore” mode that much. I prefer less superhero heroics, where a goblin with a knife can be a real threat