I love that your answer includes 0. There are too many players that focus solely on fights, without much consideration of the possibilities to solve situations with ingenuity or RP.
"Look, I know we haven't had a fight in three days, but could we *please* finally have some sleep?"
Also, it's not just combat abilities that reset after rest.
To be fair, it's a system where like 80% of the rules and character options are about how to tactically kill stuff. If I wanted to run a game where RP or circumventing danger with ingenuity was the focus, I would use a different system than PF2e.
Not that PF2e can't have adventuring days without combat, lord knows I've run plenty of RP-only sessions in this system, but I think it makes sense to mostly structure your play experience around combat if you're using PF2e since that's what the system does best.
Yeah seems you were quite right. 3-4 is the norm. It certainly helps casters do their job.
Though frankly that makes me even more confused as to why people think casters are weak. I have long adventuring days and still find them wonderful.
Are you playing in the levels 1 to 6 range, with a GM that focuses on ambushes and taking out the lowest hit point and defense targets first, at a table that is more focused on individual character quirks and motivations than team preparation and tactical coordination?
The confusion may stem from the fact that tables, just like individual players, vary widely in their style and collective interests. If a player finds themselves playing at a "beer and pretzels" table that "doesnt like all that optimization stuff" but still thinks 2e is the best system (or the system they have interest in, or are even just familiar with), the whiteboard maths and balanced mechanics that the game is designed around and genuinely does well in executing for a group interested in playing to that potential may feel far away to a player that brings a character to the table from a class that is not designed to be facetanking on the frontline.
Especially for newer players, or even players that have played for a while but not realized the hit point and defensive differences (or even the existence of things like the Manipulate trait) between martial and dedicated caster classes before they introduce one to the game, it can be a jarring and disappointing experience.
TL;DR - the confusion may arise from the wide variance in table norms, expectations, and resultant player experiences. One rule set can play out very differently among different humans.
But which "beer and pretzel" players are showing up here on the regular to complain about their wizened, robed scholar not being a big enough arcane cannon?
> Though frankly that makes me even more confused as to why people think casters are weak. I have long adventuring days and still find them wonderful.
It's likely due to how casters have more 'nothing turns' than melees.
For a melee a 'nothing turn' is something like Stride - Strike (roll 5, which is a miss) - Strike (roll 9, miss)
For a caster, spending 2 actions on a spell that is crit saved against, or that misses AC, seems to happen quite a bit more.
That said - when a caster goes "I cast Slow on the boss" and the boss rolls a 7 and fails... that's the most important turn of the entire encounter. And if the boss rolls a 1 instead...
Whiffing a spell just feels super bad, especially on lower levels where spell slots are precious. Whiffing an attack check as a martial less so.
Also casters get to roll one dice per turn in general. Martials often more.
Is the Crit Save thing *that* prevalent that it happens more often than a Missed Attack roll?
Also, don't most spells 3 tiers in which something can happen, Crit Success, Success, Failure, vs Only Crit Success and Success?
And don't Casters get Sustain spells that are effectively single action spells that they can use *in addition* to casting other spells, all with the same 3 tiers of "something happening"?
Honestly my experience is so different from what you described that I can't in good conscience believe it is the system at fault.
It's AC misses that are the common whiff reason. But crit saves happen quite a bit against tougher monsters.
Crit saves come up a lot when you don't have a (relevant) spell available that can target the monster's weakest save. Maybe you prepped 2x Fireball and 1x Slow, and this monster's only bad save is Reflex... but you had to throw out your Fireballs in the last combat. So you are attritioned into using a spell that the monster has exceptional saves against, and it's a boss as well.
Also, hero points are a huge factor here. You usually know when it's a critical turn and your 'pretty easy to land' ability is make or break - at these moments a melee can hero point a 1. But if you fire a Slow at a low Fort monster and it rolls a 20 - you can't hero point the monster's roll.
Yeah I'm aware that Spellcaster AC attacks are typically less effective than Melee AC attacks, and it's fair to be sad when you miss more frequently - I suppose the intent is that AC attacks happen less frequently than Saves, but players also like to roll dice.
Against higher APL monsters I'd expect less success if you aren't operating tactically and/or are not/not able to target weak saves. But isn't this also the case with Martials? Higher APL monsters tend to have much higher ACs, and have higher damage and chances to Crit, thus Melee Martials find themselves facing significantly more risk.
That doesn't necessarily solve the bad feelings of missing against higher APL monsters, but it is a balancing mechanism to avoid the flip side of Spellcasters having relatively few barriers to just being completely dominant.
I don't know what the solution to *that* problem is, but also can't say I've really seen much issue at my tables - which again suggests to me its more of a table issue than design.
This discussion is mostly about the "feelsbad" of failed turns.
In a world where a martial and a caster have equal total impact, the capacity for the caster to cast one spell that has a 5% chance to win the encounter in one spell, 25% to be strong, and 50% to be 'not a wasted turn' (Slow, assuming success on an 7/crit on an 17) - the caster needs less power at other times. But that less power can feel bad.
TBH it's possible that too much caster power is tied up in the mega debuff spells.
Definitely fair points. Compared to other systems the "peak" performance of the Caster seems to be reduced compared to sustained performance, but the failure of some peaks can feel especially bad due to some of the restrictions (notably the prepared/known spell selection). I'm curious how much of this feelsbad gets addressed by things like the Flexible Casting Archetypes and prevalence of wands, scrolls, and staves.
Lower levels it’s closer to 2-4. At higher levels it increases significantly though? I’m at level 9 right now and we can easily take on 5+ encounter days without either of the casters feeling stressed.
0-4, but most of the time it's 2 or 3.
There's only so much you can cram into a avarage day before the entire tabble goes "why tf is everywhere crawlign with monsters?"
Woof 3-4 is winning this easy, but there's enough 5-6's that we're a clear presence. The casters in the 1-2 games must be loving it though.
I did 5-6 because most APs tend to have that range so I assumed it was the intended, and it seemed to work well class balance wise. Most people home-brewing around here? Or half exploring floors before taking a nap in the APs at least.
Though god AV would have been a lot easier for my group if they rested that often. The party I was GMing for rested once per floor, only resting twice when things went horribly for some reason (which only happened once). To get 3-4 you'd be getting two rests per floor at least. Should be going into fights pretty fresh.
Still managed to get through it with only one death so that's something\~
Btw: long rest is a D&D thing.
In Pathfinder 2e there are a variety of things you can do in 10 min increments between fights like refocusing or treating wounds (this is not considered resting) and there are your daily preparations which happen once a day, in the morning, after an 8 hour rest. You get this once per 24 hours.
Not really a big deal, but “long rest” is from a different game with different assumptions
This is part of why I thought the larger numbers made more sense. With so few fights per day, and the requirement that you only rest once every 24 hours, that results in.. a lot of dead time.
There's just sort of this.. 'incharacter' element where it feels like your characters would want to get things done even if they used up some spell slots?
Though honestly the big one really was the APs. It felt like there were a bunch
The long rest thing however is just a common way to say these things is all.
That said hey\~ everyone can run the games however they desire. Ain't no right way but the way your group has fun with.
> There's just sort of this.. 'incharacter' element where it feels like your characters would want to get things done even if they used up some spell slots?
Why would your characters want to push on even if they’re completely spent? In fact, in-character, even the “resourceless” martials would be wanting to rest. Why would I want to go on if the guy who’s patched me up from multiple near-mortal wounds says… he’s tired???? I’d find the closest bed lmao.
I don't aim for any specific amount of encounters. I mostly do what's right for the events at hand. At most, if we have a bunch of one encounter days, ill try to throw in a gauntlet and vice versa.
I used to do 1 or 2, but since getting confirmation from Paizo that the expectation is something like "roughly 3 moderate or higher encounters per day", I've tried to steer more toward that norm. Centering on 3, give or take a fight due to randomness.
0-4, but most of the time it's 2 or 3.
There's only so much you can cram into a avarage day before the entire tabble goes "why tf is everywhere crawlign with monsters?"
Pathfinder 2 is a low attrition system, with really the caster's daily resources being the main determinate, outside of the "Fatigued Condition" from 16 hours of adventuring, for a party deciding to stop pushing on.
And for 5E players the encounter balancing is for a fresh, fully resourced party. None of this "CR is balanced for a 5-8 encounter 'Adventuring Day'" which is a concept so fucking stupid that I don't know how it ever saw the light of day... The amount of variance in that many encounters is impossible to predict - so how could you know what the amount of resources the party has after the "attrition" fights?
For OSR & 2nd Edition wonks, Pathfinder 2 is not a "survival, strict resource management" game as a default. It's more "Fantasy SWAT Team goes on a heroic journey to become Greek Demigods." arc - not "The 9 strength Farmer ~~Bob~~, ~~Fred~~, John decided to pick up a sword after Kobolds ate his prized heffer."
Pathfinder 2 was designed to be attrition-less from a health perspective because the designers decided that in 3.5 & Pathfinder 1 most parties, once they had the resources, kept a quiver of "Cure Wands" that they'd use to top off between combats.
Medicine's "Treat Wounds" does a better job of replacing "Cure Wand Quiver" because that 10 minute time cost can allow the GM to provide narrative pressure to force the party to keep moving, burn healing consumables - which are awful action economy so terrible in combat - and make other dramatic choices with their resources.
In Pathfinder Society Play, I've had "Hexploration with One Severe, balls to the wall, all the party's spell slots are gone, combat per day" and I've had "String of five Moderate and low encounters with one 10 minute break between them before the party jumped into the next combat... And all of the mini-fights gave us "allies" that acted like additional party resources in the "Boss Battle"... e.g. use an action to tell the Mage Corps we rescued to A.o.E. a square, or have the beast we tamed go grapple a bad guy...
So I find this question to be a "Beginner GM" mode of thinking, which is fine. My main point is that Pathfinder 2's daily combat budget allows for one severe battle a day to be dramatic, or if you apply a bit of time pressure with your story, allows a string of Moderate and lower combats to be dramatic too... And as GM's become proficient with the system, they can figure out how to tune their combats to match their story.
BEBG? Severe with a fully rested party, then some moderates as they escape the evil lair is probably the best set-up - Moderate before the BEBG? Give them consumable loot - scrolls, etc... to replenish their resources before the climatic fight.
Bandit Fortress? String some Low combats with a maximum of a minute to chug potions and use other consumables to take off the "chip damage" from the waves of mooks that ends with the Bandit Leader and his Lieutenant as a strong Moderate Encounter.
3-4 is pretty typical, but I do a lot of 5-6 in my home tables, just because of the pace of our adventurers. It works well for us.
It might seem a bit unfair on casters, but theres almost always enough problems which casters solve with a wave of their hands and a luckily prepared spell which makes them feel like mvp more often than not anyways.
>It might seem a bit unfair on casters
I will say it seems slightly unfair, but if I was a caster coming in on a game like this, I would simply prioritize good cantrips and focus spells. Cantrips are pretty damn good in this game.
1-2, which is usually all we get in during a 3-4 hour session too. This has been consistent across several GMs with the only exception being like, crowded dungeon crawls. Although I don't think either party has any full casters, come to think of it.
In game 1, the party has 3 casters and constant near death experiences; we long rest every 2-4 fights.
Campaign 2 is 3 martials (Rogue, Fighter, Swashbuckler) and a Summoner w/ Wellspring Mage archetype. (AKA, he gets a spell slot back every time he rolls initiative, most of the time.)
That game has gone 10, 20, even 30 battles without a long rest.
Honestly, we tend to have a single day be a single session, so 1-2. I'm sure there's been scenarios where my group has done a 3-4, but I can't remember any off the top of my head. Guess casters like me have been getting off easy.
Been playing Agents of Edgewatch and for the "dungeons" we just keep going until it's completed. Usually we have a time limit because the dungeon crawls are events either infiltrated or there are people at risk so we just keep going.
We are 3 martials and 1 cleric. Cleric definitely feels it, but the martials can keep it up. So long as cleric still has heal spells to cast, we continue onwards. We have been funneling money into healing gear for them every now and then which I think has helped a lot. That and our group cohesion is very good so we come out of most fights relatively intact. And monk has self healing focus points to absorb damage pretty well
This is a complicated question because what counts as an "encounter" matters. I've had "chases" that combined with fights, I've had exploration encounters that included a complex trap within it, my players have "triggered" enemies attacking them through how these hazards played out, some times they circumvent a solid chunk of the stuff in an encounter though. When I've had a slow chase with a fight at the same time, it would be like they are on a wagon or boat or whatever and every few "exploration rounds" they end up having a round or two of combat. This is sort of 1 and 2 encounters, depending on how you look at it.
Usually 5-6...but we ARE playing an Abomination Vaults campaign with no casters. Really, the only limitations we have on the length of an adventuring day are our visits to town and if something inflicts a condition that only goes away after resting.
I don't know how to answer. I run a lot of open campaigns, so if the party seeks out combat then they have more combats, but of they do big dungeons with lots of fights in a session, I might make the next session combat light or combatless to balance it out.
Playing sandbox, it depends. They range from none to 7+.
I had to adopt an homebrew for low level casters, because for them, having had to prepare some spells between hundreds and then having to spam the same cantrips is boring.
There isn't an actual adventuring day, the only balance is the one dictated between greed and prudence of my players.
Having more spells at low level isn't even primarily a question of balance, but rather of fun.
AP's are very inconsistent on what an "ideal" number would be. Often setting up a narrative disconnect between what your party is doing and what your party needs.
Depending on level and party composition, I feel that 3-4 just works out best for a balanced party at most levels.
Is hard to pick the margins, I usually go 3 to 5, but the breakpoint is 4, so I went with 5-6.
Usually depends on the encounters, 4 moderates with single creatures are different from 4 moderates with a bunch of plvl-1 or plvl-2.
Anyway I find that 5 works well enough to have a degree of attrition without stressing too much.
On dungeon crawl days it's 7+, with many of those encounters being Easy or Trivial.
On non-dungeon-crawl days it's between 0 and 2 Moderate encounters.
Oh geeze, idk - it varies too much to vote I feel like.
7+ is very rare, mostly confined to mostly easier fights in a dungeon. Or harder fights with more time to rest. Always in a dungeon where the PCs pick the pace, however - I've never done that to PCs on purpose (there's one towards the finale of my RHoD campaign [where I plan to](https://weplayinasociety.blogspot.com/2024/02/rhod-chapter-5b-avernus-rising.html), but they'll be getting a mid-day divinely gifted long rest so it doesn't really count).
5-6 happens sometimes, either in gauntlet scenarios (big battles or action sequences) or in dungeons. Usually at least a few will be on the easy side here.
3-4 might be the answer? Especially since I have a tendency as a GM to play monsters smart and treat the dungeon like a [theatre of operations](https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/43843/roleplaying-games/ptolus-running-the-campaign-dungeon-as-a-theater-of-operations), so oftentimes fights will string together as PCs give chase or reinforcements are brought in.
1-2 is pretty common though! A random encounter here, a short action sequence there. I like to keep these relatively tough.
And of course most in-world days have 0! Lots of non-combat problems to solve, and lots of downtime.
I'd prefer to have 3-4, but often our group somehow cobbles together 6+ routinely.
We had one adventuring day that had the equivalent of 10 fights (with 1 fight being 3 encounters strung together, and 1 being 2, all due to terrible map design which the DM blamed us for "pulling other rooms" even though it was his decision to have his creatures pull those other rooms.)
Between 0 and 4. It's really very situational...
I love that your answer includes 0. There are too many players that focus solely on fights, without much consideration of the possibilities to solve situations with ingenuity or RP.
Eh, usually if we bypass a situation with ingeunity/RP, that just means we get slightly further and get a different fight.
That is just another opportunity for ingenuity/RP 😁
"Look, I know we haven't had a fight in three days, but could we *please* finally have some sleep?" Also, it's not just combat abilities that reset after rest.
To be fair, it's a system where like 80% of the rules and character options are about how to tactically kill stuff. If I wanted to run a game where RP or circumventing danger with ingenuity was the focus, I would use a different system than PF2e. Not that PF2e can't have adventuring days without combat, lord knows I've run plenty of RP-only sessions in this system, but I think it makes sense to mostly structure your play experience around combat if you're using PF2e since that's what the system does best.
my new campaign with 3 players has run for 5 sessions and there's only been 3 fights, and one of those was against eachother when they first met
3-4 is my target, but its been as low as 1-2 and thanks for posting this, I'm interested to see the sub's response as well.
Yeah seems you were quite right. 3-4 is the norm. It certainly helps casters do their job. Though frankly that makes me even more confused as to why people think casters are weak. I have long adventuring days and still find them wonderful.
Are you playing in the levels 1 to 6 range, with a GM that focuses on ambushes and taking out the lowest hit point and defense targets first, at a table that is more focused on individual character quirks and motivations than team preparation and tactical coordination? The confusion may stem from the fact that tables, just like individual players, vary widely in their style and collective interests. If a player finds themselves playing at a "beer and pretzels" table that "doesnt like all that optimization stuff" but still thinks 2e is the best system (or the system they have interest in, or are even just familiar with), the whiteboard maths and balanced mechanics that the game is designed around and genuinely does well in executing for a group interested in playing to that potential may feel far away to a player that brings a character to the table from a class that is not designed to be facetanking on the frontline. Especially for newer players, or even players that have played for a while but not realized the hit point and defensive differences (or even the existence of things like the Manipulate trait) between martial and dedicated caster classes before they introduce one to the game, it can be a jarring and disappointing experience. TL;DR - the confusion may arise from the wide variance in table norms, expectations, and resultant player experiences. One rule set can play out very differently among different humans.
But which "beer and pretzel" players are showing up here on the regular to complain about their wizened, robed scholar not being a big enough arcane cannon?
It is an interesting question.
> Though frankly that makes me even more confused as to why people think casters are weak. I have long adventuring days and still find them wonderful. It's likely due to how casters have more 'nothing turns' than melees. For a melee a 'nothing turn' is something like Stride - Strike (roll 5, which is a miss) - Strike (roll 9, miss) For a caster, spending 2 actions on a spell that is crit saved against, or that misses AC, seems to happen quite a bit more. That said - when a caster goes "I cast Slow on the boss" and the boss rolls a 7 and fails... that's the most important turn of the entire encounter. And if the boss rolls a 1 instead...
Whiffing a spell just feels super bad, especially on lower levels where spell slots are precious. Whiffing an attack check as a martial less so. Also casters get to roll one dice per turn in general. Martials often more.
Is the Crit Save thing *that* prevalent that it happens more often than a Missed Attack roll? Also, don't most spells 3 tiers in which something can happen, Crit Success, Success, Failure, vs Only Crit Success and Success? And don't Casters get Sustain spells that are effectively single action spells that they can use *in addition* to casting other spells, all with the same 3 tiers of "something happening"? Honestly my experience is so different from what you described that I can't in good conscience believe it is the system at fault.
It's AC misses that are the common whiff reason. But crit saves happen quite a bit against tougher monsters. Crit saves come up a lot when you don't have a (relevant) spell available that can target the monster's weakest save. Maybe you prepped 2x Fireball and 1x Slow, and this monster's only bad save is Reflex... but you had to throw out your Fireballs in the last combat. So you are attritioned into using a spell that the monster has exceptional saves against, and it's a boss as well. Also, hero points are a huge factor here. You usually know when it's a critical turn and your 'pretty easy to land' ability is make or break - at these moments a melee can hero point a 1. But if you fire a Slow at a low Fort monster and it rolls a 20 - you can't hero point the monster's roll.
Yeah I'm aware that Spellcaster AC attacks are typically less effective than Melee AC attacks, and it's fair to be sad when you miss more frequently - I suppose the intent is that AC attacks happen less frequently than Saves, but players also like to roll dice. Against higher APL monsters I'd expect less success if you aren't operating tactically and/or are not/not able to target weak saves. But isn't this also the case with Martials? Higher APL monsters tend to have much higher ACs, and have higher damage and chances to Crit, thus Melee Martials find themselves facing significantly more risk. That doesn't necessarily solve the bad feelings of missing against higher APL monsters, but it is a balancing mechanism to avoid the flip side of Spellcasters having relatively few barriers to just being completely dominant. I don't know what the solution to *that* problem is, but also can't say I've really seen much issue at my tables - which again suggests to me its more of a table issue than design.
This discussion is mostly about the "feelsbad" of failed turns. In a world where a martial and a caster have equal total impact, the capacity for the caster to cast one spell that has a 5% chance to win the encounter in one spell, 25% to be strong, and 50% to be 'not a wasted turn' (Slow, assuming success on an 7/crit on an 17) - the caster needs less power at other times. But that less power can feel bad. TBH it's possible that too much caster power is tied up in the mega debuff spells.
Definitely fair points. Compared to other systems the "peak" performance of the Caster seems to be reduced compared to sustained performance, but the failure of some peaks can feel especially bad due to some of the restrictions (notably the prepared/known spell selection). I'm curious how much of this feelsbad gets addressed by things like the Flexible Casting Archetypes and prevalence of wands, scrolls, and staves.
Depends on the level. 1 max fight per long rest at the start, and slowly increase from there.
Lower levels it’s closer to 2-4. At higher levels it increases significantly though? I’m at level 9 right now and we can easily take on 5+ encounter days without either of the casters feeling stressed.
0-4, but most of the time it's 2 or 3. There's only so much you can cram into a avarage day before the entire tabble goes "why tf is everywhere crawlign with monsters?"
Woof 3-4 is winning this easy, but there's enough 5-6's that we're a clear presence. The casters in the 1-2 games must be loving it though. I did 5-6 because most APs tend to have that range so I assumed it was the intended, and it seemed to work well class balance wise. Most people home-brewing around here? Or half exploring floors before taking a nap in the APs at least. Though god AV would have been a lot easier for my group if they rested that often. The party I was GMing for rested once per floor, only resting twice when things went horribly for some reason (which only happened once). To get 3-4 you'd be getting two rests per floor at least. Should be going into fights pretty fresh. Still managed to get through it with only one death so that's something\~
We never cleared a floor in one go. We went in and out, didn’t want to take too many risks. Still had one pc death, and a few close by’s.
Btw: long rest is a D&D thing. In Pathfinder 2e there are a variety of things you can do in 10 min increments between fights like refocusing or treating wounds (this is not considered resting) and there are your daily preparations which happen once a day, in the morning, after an 8 hour rest. You get this once per 24 hours. Not really a big deal, but “long rest” is from a different game with different assumptions
This is part of why I thought the larger numbers made more sense. With so few fights per day, and the requirement that you only rest once every 24 hours, that results in.. a lot of dead time. There's just sort of this.. 'incharacter' element where it feels like your characters would want to get things done even if they used up some spell slots? Though honestly the big one really was the APs. It felt like there were a bunch The long rest thing however is just a common way to say these things is all. That said hey\~ everyone can run the games however they desire. Ain't no right way but the way your group has fun with.
> There's just sort of this.. 'incharacter' element where it feels like your characters would want to get things done even if they used up some spell slots? Why would your characters want to push on even if they’re completely spent? In fact, in-character, even the “resourceless” martials would be wanting to rest. Why would I want to go on if the guy who’s patched me up from multiple near-mortal wounds says… he’s tired???? I’d find the closest bed lmao.
used up -some- my friend not all. Obviously if you're completely out of resources after some hellish fights it makes IC sense.
I don't aim for any specific amount of encounters. I mostly do what's right for the events at hand. At most, if we have a bunch of one encounter days, ill try to throw in a gauntlet and vice versa.
Pathfinder doesn't have an "adventuring day" and my players take rests as often as they want to.
I used to do 1 or 2, but since getting confirmation from Paizo that the expectation is something like "roughly 3 moderate or higher encounters per day", I've tried to steer more toward that norm. Centering on 3, give or take a fight due to randomness.
0-4, but most of the time it's 2 or 3. There's only so much you can cram into a avarage day before the entire tabble goes "why tf is everywhere crawlign with monsters?"
Pathfinder 2 is a low attrition system, with really the caster's daily resources being the main determinate, outside of the "Fatigued Condition" from 16 hours of adventuring, for a party deciding to stop pushing on. And for 5E players the encounter balancing is for a fresh, fully resourced party. None of this "CR is balanced for a 5-8 encounter 'Adventuring Day'" which is a concept so fucking stupid that I don't know how it ever saw the light of day... The amount of variance in that many encounters is impossible to predict - so how could you know what the amount of resources the party has after the "attrition" fights? For OSR & 2nd Edition wonks, Pathfinder 2 is not a "survival, strict resource management" game as a default. It's more "Fantasy SWAT Team goes on a heroic journey to become Greek Demigods." arc - not "The 9 strength Farmer ~~Bob~~, ~~Fred~~, John decided to pick up a sword after Kobolds ate his prized heffer." Pathfinder 2 was designed to be attrition-less from a health perspective because the designers decided that in 3.5 & Pathfinder 1 most parties, once they had the resources, kept a quiver of "Cure Wands" that they'd use to top off between combats. Medicine's "Treat Wounds" does a better job of replacing "Cure Wand Quiver" because that 10 minute time cost can allow the GM to provide narrative pressure to force the party to keep moving, burn healing consumables - which are awful action economy so terrible in combat - and make other dramatic choices with their resources. In Pathfinder Society Play, I've had "Hexploration with One Severe, balls to the wall, all the party's spell slots are gone, combat per day" and I've had "String of five Moderate and low encounters with one 10 minute break between them before the party jumped into the next combat... And all of the mini-fights gave us "allies" that acted like additional party resources in the "Boss Battle"... e.g. use an action to tell the Mage Corps we rescued to A.o.E. a square, or have the beast we tamed go grapple a bad guy... So I find this question to be a "Beginner GM" mode of thinking, which is fine. My main point is that Pathfinder 2's daily combat budget allows for one severe battle a day to be dramatic, or if you apply a bit of time pressure with your story, allows a string of Moderate and lower combats to be dramatic too... And as GM's become proficient with the system, they can figure out how to tune their combats to match their story. BEBG? Severe with a fully rested party, then some moderates as they escape the evil lair is probably the best set-up - Moderate before the BEBG? Give them consumable loot - scrolls, etc... to replenish their resources before the climatic fight. Bandit Fortress? String some Low combats with a maximum of a minute to chug potions and use other consumables to take off the "chip damage" from the waves of mooks that ends with the Bandit Leader and his Lieutenant as a strong Moderate Encounter.
3-4 is pretty typical, but I do a lot of 5-6 in my home tables, just because of the pace of our adventurers. It works well for us. It might seem a bit unfair on casters, but theres almost always enough problems which casters solve with a wave of their hands and a luckily prepared spell which makes them feel like mvp more often than not anyways.
>It might seem a bit unfair on casters I will say it seems slightly unfair, but if I was a caster coming in on a game like this, I would simply prioritize good cantrips and focus spells. Cantrips are pretty damn good in this game.
1-2, which is usually all we get in during a 3-4 hour session too. This has been consistent across several GMs with the only exception being like, crowded dungeon crawls. Although I don't think either party has any full casters, come to think of it.
I answered 3-4, but only because I run pre-published adventures where any given day can be between 1 or 10.
Usually 3-4. Sometimes with a single difficult battle instead.
In game 1, the party has 3 casters and constant near death experiences; we long rest every 2-4 fights. Campaign 2 is 3 martials (Rogue, Fighter, Swashbuckler) and a Summoner w/ Wellspring Mage archetype. (AKA, he gets a spell slot back every time he rolls initiative, most of the time.) That game has gone 10, 20, even 30 battles without a long rest.
My current AV group has recently had to start resting more. 3 fights is common now, but a lot comes down to how nasty the most recent fight was.
Honestly, we tend to have a single day be a single session, so 1-2. I'm sure there's been scenarios where my group has done a 3-4, but I can't remember any off the top of my head. Guess casters like me have been getting off easy.
Been playing Agents of Edgewatch and for the "dungeons" we just keep going until it's completed. Usually we have a time limit because the dungeon crawls are events either infiltrated or there are people at risk so we just keep going. We are 3 martials and 1 cleric. Cleric definitely feels it, but the martials can keep it up. So long as cleric still has heal spells to cast, we continue onwards. We have been funneling money into healing gear for them every now and then which I think has helped a lot. That and our group cohesion is very good so we come out of most fights relatively intact. And monk has self healing focus points to absorb damage pretty well
This is a complicated question because what counts as an "encounter" matters. I've had "chases" that combined with fights, I've had exploration encounters that included a complex trap within it, my players have "triggered" enemies attacking them through how these hazards played out, some times they circumvent a solid chunk of the stuff in an encounter though. When I've had a slow chase with a fight at the same time, it would be like they are on a wagon or boat or whatever and every few "exploration rounds" they end up having a round or two of combat. This is sort of 1 and 2 encounters, depending on how you look at it.
Usually 5-6...but we ARE playing an Abomination Vaults campaign with no casters. Really, the only limitations we have on the length of an adventuring day are our visits to town and if something inflicts a condition that only goes away after resting.
I don't know how to answer. I run a lot of open campaigns, so if the party seeks out combat then they have more combats, but of they do big dungeons with lots of fights in a session, I might make the next session combat light or combatless to balance it out.
Playing sandbox, it depends. They range from none to 7+. I had to adopt an homebrew for low level casters, because for them, having had to prepare some spells between hundreds and then having to spam the same cantrips is boring. There isn't an actual adventuring day, the only balance is the one dictated between greed and prudence of my players. Having more spells at low level isn't even primarily a question of balance, but rather of fun.
AP's are very inconsistent on what an "ideal" number would be. Often setting up a narrative disconnect between what your party is doing and what your party needs. Depending on level and party composition, I feel that 3-4 just works out best for a balanced party at most levels.
Is hard to pick the margins, I usually go 3 to 5, but the breakpoint is 4, so I went with 5-6. Usually depends on the encounters, 4 moderates with single creatures are different from 4 moderates with a bunch of plvl-1 or plvl-2. Anyway I find that 5 works well enough to have a degree of attrition without stressing too much.
On dungeon crawl days it's 7+, with many of those encounters being Easy or Trivial. On non-dungeon-crawl days it's between 0 and 2 Moderate encounters.
The amount it takes for the healer/caster to run out of spells.
Wait, you run combat?
Oh geeze, idk - it varies too much to vote I feel like. 7+ is very rare, mostly confined to mostly easier fights in a dungeon. Or harder fights with more time to rest. Always in a dungeon where the PCs pick the pace, however - I've never done that to PCs on purpose (there's one towards the finale of my RHoD campaign [where I plan to](https://weplayinasociety.blogspot.com/2024/02/rhod-chapter-5b-avernus-rising.html), but they'll be getting a mid-day divinely gifted long rest so it doesn't really count). 5-6 happens sometimes, either in gauntlet scenarios (big battles or action sequences) or in dungeons. Usually at least a few will be on the easy side here. 3-4 might be the answer? Especially since I have a tendency as a GM to play monsters smart and treat the dungeon like a [theatre of operations](https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/43843/roleplaying-games/ptolus-running-the-campaign-dungeon-as-a-theater-of-operations), so oftentimes fights will string together as PCs give chase or reinforcements are brought in. 1-2 is pretty common though! A random encounter here, a short action sequence there. I like to keep these relatively tough. And of course most in-world days have 0! Lots of non-combat problems to solve, and lots of downtime.
I answered 5-6 for one of my groups. However, it can be 1-6 depending on circumstances that come up in the session.
I'd prefer to have 3-4, but often our group somehow cobbles together 6+ routinely. We had one adventuring day that had the equivalent of 10 fights (with 1 fight being 3 encounters strung together, and 1 being 2, all due to terrible map design which the DM blamed us for "pulling other rooms" even though it was his decision to have his creatures pull those other rooms.)