Attack the Stat Block

Friday, May 18, 2018

In Monday's monster blog, Mark told you about some of the changes we made to monsters to make them more engaging and easy to run. So how did we turn all that into something you can use? Well, we put a lot of thought into making a new monster stat block that would be more concise, while remaining flexible enough that we can still keep a similar level of complexity for some of our most powerful and iconic monsters.

But let's start small. Well... big, but also small. You'll see.

So Now There's Ogres, Okay?

Oh no... what's that smell? It's like a gym bag ate roadkill!

Ogre Creature 3

Chaotic, Evil, Giant, Humanoid, Large

Perception +5, darkvision

Languages Giant

Skills +1; Acrobatics +4, Athletics +9

Str +5, Dex -1, Con +2, Int -2, Wis +0, Cha -2

Items hide armor, 6 javelins, ogre hook


AC 16, TAC 14; Fort +8, Ref +3, Will +5

HP 60


Speed 25 feet

[[A]] Melee ogre hook +10 (deadly 1d10, reach 10 feet, trip), Damage 1d10+7 piercing

[[A]] Ranged javelin +8 (thrown 30 feet), Damage 1d6+7

Ah, of course. It's an ogre! This is an example of one of the simplest stat blocks in the playtest. Ogres are big bruisers, and they don't have a whole lot of special actions to use. They play a role as big challenges for low-level groups and in groups as minions for higher-level threats, so having them be simple makes plenty of sense for how they're used in the game. You might notice that this stat block is shorter than a Pathfinder First Edition stat block. We think this will give us more room for other text in our bestiaries and adventures. Some elements went away because of rules simplifications, while other pieces of information, like organization and environment, will appear in the monster's text instead of in the stat block.

We don’t have art of ogres or redcaps yet, but check out this illustration by Wayne Reynolds of a bugbear!

Quick reminder: the [[A]] symbol is code for "action," and it will have a special icon in the actual Pathfinder Playtest Rulebook and other products. You'll also see an [[R]] later to represent a reaction.

You can see how a stat block leads off with the creature's name and level, followed by its traits. These traits include its alignment and size. The top section of the stat block continues with the first stats you'll typically use, since you'll be determining whether the PCs and monsters can see one another (requiring you to use Perception), or the party might start out with an interaction (meaning you'll use the monster's languages and skills). The skills entry first lists a number you can use (in addition to the relevant ability modifier) for any skills the monster doesn't have listed, followed by a list of all the skills the monster has a different modifier for. So if you needed to roll an Acrobatics check for the ogre, you'll roll 1d20 and add 4, which is much better than its base modifier plus its Dex modifier (a total of +0).

You'll also notice the monster gives just its ability score modifiers instead of scores. This lets you make calculations more quickly, and since monsters don't increase their scores the same way PCs do, listing those is unnecessary. Monsters with items also list those up top.

There's a line to show where the monster's defenses start. Our ogre's pretty straightforward, with just ACs, saves, and Hit Points.

The next line separates the statistics and actions the monster can use on its turn. Here, that's Speed and the ogre's Strikes: an ogre hook and javelins! Even though the ogre doesn't have any special actions, it does have some special options due to its ogre hook. In parentheses, you can see the ogre hook's traits: deadly 1d10 (making it deal 1d10 more damage on a critical hit—ow!), a reach of 10 feet (letting the ogre attack past the first space), and trip (which lets the ogre trip using its hook instead of its body). Just as in Pathfinder First Edition, the reach comes from the ogre's size—the hook itself isn't long enough to increase reach.

So you can see the stat block is organized so that you're looking at the middle section when it's not the monster's turn, and at the bottom section on its turn. We think that will make it easier to use at the table, but we'd love to hear your feedback as you run these monsters during the playtest!

Blood and Boots

So how about a stat block that has a bit more going on? Here's a redcap: the nasty, brutal little fey with oversized scythes. This is a moderately complex monster. We won't be showing you any liches or pit fiends today, but the redcap will demonstrate how we present a few special abilities.

Redcap Creature 5

Evil, Fey, Small

Perception +10, low-light vision

Languages Aklo, Common, Giant, Sylvan

Skills +5; Acrobatics +13, Athletics +13, Deception +13, Intimidation +11, Nature +11, Stealth +13

Str +4, Dex +4, Con +4, Int +3, Wis +1, Cha +2

Items red cap, expert Medium scythe, iron boots

Red Cap (arcane, necromancy) A redcap's shapeless woolen hat is dyed with the blood of its victims. If the redcap loses its cap, it no longer benefits from fast healing and takes a -4 conditional penalty to its damage rolls. It can create a new cap in 10 minutes, but that cap doesn't grant its powers until the redcap has turned it red with Blood Soak. A cap has no benefit for creatures other than redcaps.


AC 20, TAC 19; Fort +8, Ref +11, Will +9

HP 55, fast healing 10; Weaknesses cold iron 5, irreligious

Irreligious (emotion, fear, mental) If a redcap sees a creature brandish a holy symbol of a good deity or use one for the Material Casting of a divine spell, the redcap must attempt a DC 17 Will save. On a failure, the redcap is frightened 4 and fleeing for 1 round; on a success, it's frightened 2; on a critical success, it's unaffected. To brandish a holy symbol, a creature must Interact to brandish it for 1 round (similar to Raising a Shield). Once a redcap has to attempt a save against a brandished holy symbol, it is bolstered against brandished holy symbols for the next 10 minutes.


Speed 50 feet

[[A]] Melee scythe +13 (deadly 1d10, trip), Damage 2d10+4 slashing
boot +13 (agile, versatile B), Damage 2d4+8 piercing

[[A]] Blood Soak (manipulate) The redcap dips its cap in the blood of a slain foe. The foe must have died in the last minute, and the redcap must have helped kill it. The redcap gains a +4 conditional bonus on damage rolls for 1 minute.

[[R]] Deadly Cleave

Trigger The redcap drops a creature to 0 Hit Points with a scythe Strike.

Effect The redcap makes another scythe Strike against a different creature, using the same multiple attack penalty as the scythe Strike that triggered this reaction. This counts toward its multiple attack penalty.

[[A]] Stomp The redcap Strides up to half its Speed and makes a boot Strike at any point during that movement. If the boot Strike hits a prone creature, it deals an extra 2d6 persistent bleed damage.

You can see here that the redcap has an ability to represent its blood-soaked hat, and that appears in the top section because it affects all of its statistics. You'll also notice the weakness to cold iron that comes from being a fey creature. One of the nice things about the new system of building monsters is that we can just give monsters the statistics we want them to have instead of sometimes building them in strange ways to get their statistics to be good. For instance, in Pathfinder First Edition, a fey might have had far more Hit Dice than expected to get its statistics high enough, which led to odd results from abilities that counted Hit Dice. Now, the redcap gets statistics that are suitable for its level and how it's used.

You can see the Irreligious ability is an example of a special ability that will come up when it's not the monster's turn. A redcap can be scared off by symbols of divinity!

In the bottom section, you see two special actions and a reaction. The reaction appears down here because the trigger is most likely to occur during the recap's own turn. You'll also see how some of the basic actions of the game end up being used in other actions. For instance, Stomp tells you that the redcap uses Stride and Strike. An ability like this lets you know any ways in which these actions operate differently than using them normally.

Spell It Out

How about just one more example for today? Let's look at how innate spells work. These are much like spell-like abilities from Pathfinder First Edition, but they function more like spells than they used to. The only difference between these and other spells is that the number of times the monster can cast them is based on the monster itself rather than on a spellcasting class. Innate spell entries look much like prepared spells, with a couple extra categories of usability. Here are some we stole from the efreeti:

Innate Arcane Spells DC 22, attack +17; Constant detect magic; 5th illusory object; 4th gaseous form, invisibility (×2); At Will plane shift (7th, to Elemental Planes, Astral Plane, or Material Plane only); Cantrips produce flame (4th)

The spell DC is listed right there, along with the attack bonus for touch attacks since the efreeti has produce flame. Illusory object is presented the same way a prepared 5th-level spell would be, as are gaseous form and the two spell slots of invisibility. Anything that doesn't come in a level entry is cast at its lowest level unless a level appears in parentheses. You can see that happening with the produce flame cantrip, which the efreeti casts as a 4th-level spell. Its detect magic is level 1, but that's a constant ability that functions all the time for the efreeti. The other special way a creature can use innate spells is with at-will spells. These are spells the monster can cast as many times as it wants even though they aren't normally cantrips. The efreeti can cast plane shift any number of times, but the parentheses tell you that it's the 7th-level version and that it can go only to certain planes.

What do you think of this take on monster presentation? Do you think it'll be easy to use these stat blocks in your game?

Logan Bonner
Designer

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Pathfinder Playtest Wayne Reynolds
501 to 550 of 623 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>

I wonder if spell resistance is still a thing and if so how it works?


Asgetrion wrote:
Hmmm... so channeling does not qualify as "brandishing your holy symbol"?

Channeling works as the Heal spell. If you do the three-action area heal, that has a material component, which Clerics substitute out for presenting their holy symbol. That triggers the second condition of the redcap’s weakness, and it needs to make a save. If any domain spells have a material component, they’d work too.

Dark Archive

QuidEst wrote:
Asgetrion wrote:
Hmmm... so channeling does not qualify as "brandishing your holy symbol"?
Channeling works as the Heal spell. If you do the three-action area heal, that has a material component, which Clerics substitute out for presenting their holy symbol. That triggers the second condition of the redcap’s weakness, and it needs to make a save. If any domain spells have a material component, they’d work too.

Hmmm, yeah, I forgot that it works that way now. I have to say I'm not happy with the new cleric, especially how channeling has been cut and how you need to memorize all healing spells now. I really liked how variant (domain-based) channeling worked in PF1, not to mention how channeling uses enabled a lot of other cool things, too.


Dragon78 wrote:
I wonder if spell resistance is still a thing and if so how it works?

Me too, very interested to see how they handle magic/spell resistance, maybe it will be tied to the 4 tiers of success system.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Asgetrion wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Asgetrion wrote:
Hmmm... so channeling does not qualify as "brandishing your holy symbol"?
Channeling works as the Heal spell. If you do the three-action area heal, that has a material component, which Clerics substitute out for presenting their holy symbol. That triggers the second condition of the redcap’s weakness, and it needs to make a save. If any domain spells have a material component, they’d work too.
Hmmm, yeah, I forgot that it works that way now. I have to say I'm not happy with the new cleric, especially how channeling has been cut and how you need to memorize all healing spells now. I really liked how variant (domain-based) channeling worked in PF1, not to mention how channeling uses enabled a lot of other cool things, too.

They get a new mechanic that lets them replicate not only a channeling (with Selective for free), but also an improved version of channeling (both living and dead).


Weather Report wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:
I wonder if spell resistance is still a thing and if so how it works?
Me too, very interested to see how they handle magic/spell resistance, maybe it will be tied to the 4 tiers of success system.

One easy solution for Spell Resistance would definitely be to integrate the tiered save system. You could have SR 2 as a +2 bonus to all saves against magical effects. Alternately and more powerfully, "Lesser" SR could be as Evasion for all saves against a magical effect, while "Greater" SR could be as Improved Evasion for all saves against a magical effect.

Or they could just keep the old system. That's... okay, just not ideal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Asgetrion wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Asgetrion wrote:
Hmmm... so channeling does not qualify as "brandishing your holy symbol"?
Channeling works as the Heal spell. If you do the three-action area heal, that has a material component, which Clerics substitute out for presenting their holy symbol. That triggers the second condition of the redcap’s weakness, and it needs to make a save. If any domain spells have a material component, they’d work too.
Hmmm, yeah, I forgot that it works that way now. I have to say I'm not happy with the new cleric, especially how channeling has been cut and how you need to memorize all healing spells now. I really liked how variant (domain-based) channeling worked in PF1, not to mention how channeling uses enabled a lot of other cool things, too.

Keep in mind that variant channeling and alternate uses for it weren’t core. PF2 will also get improvements over time. The huge variety in channeling options, though, was probably a result of Cleric not getting much else. Now they can just directly give Cleric options rather than hacking channeling.


Fuzzypaws wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:
I wonder if spell resistance is still a thing and if so how it works?
Me too, very interested to see how they handle magic/spell resistance, maybe it will be tied to the 4 tiers of success system.
One easy solution for Spell Resistance would definitely be to integrate the tiered save system. You could have SR 2 as a +2 bonus to all saves against magical effects. Alternately and more powerfully, "Lesser" SR could be as Evasion for all saves against a magical effect, while "Greater" SR could be as Improved Evasion for all saves against a magical effect.

Yeah, or maybe be able to reverse the spell back on the caster with a CS, that sort of thing.


Thank you for using the [[R]] and [[A]]. I'm imagining the [[]]s will be replaced by a clean, shaded block of some type--but the R and A standing out there make so much sense.

...and will be so easy to teach. "Here, do you see this? What's in front of the [R] are [R]eactions." So easy, and so easy to remember. They'll get it the first time, because it uses the first letter of the name of the action.

Memory through association is a powerful thing.

A nice, clean shaded block (maybe the light tan used on PF background page designs?) makes it stand out "just enough."


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I like the new format of the stat block, especially breaking it out into three sections for before combat, during the monster's turn and during a player's turn. This should make combat faster to run, especially for encounters that I did not plan ahead of time.

One thing I will miss though is the monster's organization and environment being listed in the block. I loved seeing at a glance what the collective nouns for monsters were! Of course, I can read the body of text to get this info, but I feel like something small but important will be lost with this seemingly minor change.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

In general, I like the streamlining, though I hope that it'll be relatively simple to reverse-engineer monsters to add class levels, give them different equipment, etc. (And not just as combatants, either. My PCs end up making friends with all sorts.)

My main concern is, as others have brought up, the icons. I realize this is probably a pretty niche issue, but my brain just...doesn't parse icons/symbols well. I can read text extremely quickly; with symbols, I have to pause and figure out what they mean (even if it's a symbol I'm familiar with). I'm not visually impaired (technically speaking, anyway...my eyesight is rubbish but my glasses work fine), but I cannot remember what most non-word symbols mean for the life of me.

(E.g.:
Laundry tag: *indecipherable hieroglyphics*
Me: ...cold water, tumble dry it is.)

I CAN adapt by going back to look up what they mean every time I read/use a stat block, if necessary...but I'd really rather not have to. (Honestly, I'd probably end up ignoring the symbols entirely and going by placement alone, which could backfire if things are ever rearranged for some reason.)

Designer

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Meraki wrote:

In general, I like the streamlining, though I hope that it'll be relatively simple to reverse-engineer monsters to add class levels

Adding classes to a monster should actually be a snap, without requiring any kind of reverse-engineering to do it, but it requires using certain features we haven't previewed yet, so bug me about it in a month or so. That said, as others in the thread have guessed, we aren't going to go into detail about custom monsters for the playtest because we would like you guys to stress test the 250+ that we've already built so we can get those right first.


Meraki wrote:

In general, I like the streamlining, though I hope that it'll be relatively simple to reverse-engineer monsters to add class levels, give them different equipment, etc. (And not just as combatants, either. My PCs end up making friends with all sorts.)

My main concern is, as others have brought up, the icons. I realize this is probably a pretty niche issue, but my brain just...doesn't parse icons/symbols well. I can read text extremely quickly; with symbols, I have to pause and figure out what they mean (even if it's a symbol I'm familiar with). I'm not visually impaired (technically speaking, anyway...my eyesight is rubbish but my glasses work fine), but I cannot remember what most non-word symbols mean for the life of me.

(E.g.:
Laundry tag: *indecipherable hieroglyphics*
Me: ...cold water, tumble dry it is.)

I CAN adapt by going back to look up what they mean every time I read/use a stat block, if necessary...but I'd really rather not have to. (Honestly, I'd probably end up ignoring the symbols entirely and going by placement alone, which could backfire if things are ever rearranged for some reason.)

Yeah, I am disappointed in the icon thing, and they are pimping them, in the wizard blog they are calling them "snazzy". I don't dig them for several reasons, as I have said in other threads. I guess I will just have to wait until I get my playtest CRB and check them out.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

With Pathfinder 2 might we see a change in how monsters are organized within a given Bestiary with sections for Monsters, familiars, animals, npcs, etc?

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

From the examples, I don't foresee icons as being used for comprehension. You don't really need to know that the [[A]] symbol means the melee attack is an action. It is useful for scanning the stat block for outliers. As long as [[R]] is easily distinguishable from [[A]], you can quickly spot that one of the Redcap's abilities is not like the others.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
Meraki wrote:

In general, I like the streamlining, though I hope that it'll be relatively simple to reverse-engineer monsters to add class levels

Adding classes to a monster should actually be a snap, without requiring any kind of reverse-engineering to do it, but it requires using certain features we haven't previewed yet, so bug me about it in a month or so. That said, as others in the thread have guessed, we aren't going to go into detail about custom monsters for the playtest because we would like you guys to stress test the 250+ that we've already built so we can get those right first.

Thanks, Mark! Yeah, I figured it wouldn't be much of a factor in the playtest, if at all, but I'm glad to know it can be done. (I have a fondness for weirdly-classed monsters.)

Dark Archive

james014Aura wrote:
Asgetrion wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Asgetrion wrote:
Hmmm... so channeling does not qualify as "brandishing your holy symbol"?
Channeling works as the Heal spell. If you do the three-action area heal, that has a material component, which Clerics substitute out for presenting their holy symbol. That triggers the second condition of the redcap’s weakness, and it needs to make a save. If any domain spells have a material component, they’d work too.
Hmmm, yeah, I forgot that it works that way now. I have to say I'm not happy with the new cleric, especially how channeling has been cut and how you need to memorize all healing spells now. I really liked how variant (domain-based) channeling worked in PF1, not to mention how channeling uses enabled a lot of other cool things, too.
They get a new mechanic that lets them replicate not only a channeling (with Selective for free), but also an improved version of channeling (both living and dead).

Ah, my bad. Do they really get Selective channeling for free as well? As far as affecting both living and dead with the same use, it proved problematic 10 years ago during the first playtest; I remain skeptical that it would work any better now.

Dark Archive

QuidEst wrote:
Asgetrion wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Asgetrion wrote:
Hmmm... so channeling does not qualify as "brandishing your holy symbol"?
Channeling works as the Heal spell. If you do the three-action area heal, that has a material component, which Clerics substitute out for presenting their holy symbol. That triggers the second condition of the redcap’s weakness, and it needs to make a save. If any domain spells have a material component, they’d work too.
Hmmm, yeah, I forgot that it works that way now. I have to say I'm not happy with the new cleric, especially how channeling has been cut and how you need to memorize all healing spells now. I really liked how variant (domain-based) channeling worked in PF1, not to mention how channeling uses enabled a lot of other cool things, too.
Keep in mind that variant channeling and alternate uses for it weren’t core. PF2 will also get improvements over time. The huge variety in channeling options, though, was probably a result of Cleric not getting much else. Now they can just directly give Cleric options rather than hacking channeling.

Maybe -- I personally liked the "channeling hacks" and subdomains, and I see clerics being "diminished" by restricting them to a single domain. I don't think a few feat choices will make two clerics of the same deity feel different in the same way subdomains did. Although it's naturally too early to say; we'll see how it works when the book comes out.

I *do* think it's silly if clerics won't ever get another domain without burning a feat. Domains should be in the job description, that's what the deities are (in game mechanics) all about.


Asgetrion wrote:

Maybe -- I personally liked the "channeling hacks" and subdomains, and I see clerics being "diminished" by restricting them to a single domain. I don't think a few feat choices will make two clerics of the same deity feel different in the same way subdomains did. Although it's naturally too early to say; we'll see how it works when the book comes out.

I *do* think it's silly if clerics won't ever get another domain without burning a feat. Domains should be in the job description, that's what the deities are (in game mechanics) all about.

Sure- Cleric is already getting some channeling hacks, in the form of special metamagic and feats. There's even a capstone centered around it. For space reasons, the core book probably can't afford to do a whole bunch of deity-distinguishing tricks, but I think one of the goals is to eventually make it possible to build a Cleric of a specific deity out of deity and domain specific options. (The old core book didn't have subdomains or much by way of channeling tricks.)

Cleric is getting all these feats added on, though. If Cleric were to get both domains to start, balance would probably dictate that they not get that starter feat. They're already getting armor and weapon proficiencies, casting, and maybe five or six castings of a spell to heal yourself or somebody else half their health with one action.


Asgetrion wrote:
Ah, my bad. Do they really get Selective channeling for free as well? As far as affecting both living and dead with the same use, it proved problematic 10 years ago during the first playtest; I remain skeptical that it would work any better now.

Not selective like the old feat, where you can exclude some creatures from your burst. But you can use the V+S (2 action) version of heal on a single target at range if need be.


I love this, it's great to see the lessons worked out from STF showing up here. Also the explanation of the stat block (middle is players turn, bottom is Redcaps turn) is fantastically simple I'm wetting myself with joy.

And I can't wait to curbstomp my players with the red cap. That sounds PAINful.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Asgetrion wrote:


Maybe -- I personally liked the "channeling hacks" and subdomains, and I see clerics being "diminished" by restricting them to a single domain. I don't think a few feat choices will make two clerics of the same deity feel different in the same way subdomains did. Although it's naturally too early to say; we'll see how it works when the book comes out.

I *do* think it's silly if clerics won't ever get another domain without burning a feat. Domains should be in the job description, that's what the deities are (in game mechanics) all about.

I quite like that Clerics don't necessarily represent the entirety of a deity. Its a fairly common thing in fantasy (or pantheonistic religions in the real world) to venerate a specific aspect of a God.

I also think it will massively differentiate Clerics of the same God. You can have a Cleric with only one domain and minorly, whose feats have gone into lots of other things. Or one who has all the domains at a base level and then feats on other things. Or one who has got two at an advanced level. Or someone whose entire Cleric career involved understating all aspects of their God as much as possible and has all domains at advanced power and not much else.

Dark Archive

QuidEst wrote:
Asgetrion wrote:

Maybe -- I personally liked the "channeling hacks" and subdomains, and I see clerics being "diminished" by restricting them to a single domain. I don't think a few feat choices will make two clerics of the same deity feel different in the same way subdomains did. Although it's naturally too early to say; we'll see how it works when the book comes out.

I *do* think it's silly if clerics won't ever get another domain without burning a feat. Domains should be in the job description, that's what the deities are (in game mechanics) all about.

Sure- Cleric is already getting some channeling hacks, in the form of special metamagic and feats. There's even a capstone centered around it. For space reasons, the core book probably can't afford to do a whole bunch of deity-distinguishing tricks, but I think one of the goals is to eventually make it possible to build a Cleric of a specific deity out of deity and domain specific options. (The old core book didn't have subdomains or much by way of channeling tricks.)

Cleric is getting all these feats added on, though. If Cleric were to get both domains to start, balance would probably dictate that they not get that starter feat. They're already getting armor and weapon proficiencies, casting, and maybe five or six castings of a spell to heal yourself or somebody else half their health with one action.

Correct, subdomains were introduced in APG, but even in the core rulebook you could choose 2 out of 5 domains granted by your deity. With subdomains (6 for each deity) you could really "finetune" your cleric. It remains to be seen how much the feats let you do that, but I remain hopeful. No matter how much information we get in previews or designer comments, it's still only glimpses into the mechanics. :)


Asgetrion wrote:
Correct, subdomains were introduced in APG, but even in the core rulebook you could choose 2 out of 5 domains granted by your deity. With subdomains (6 for each deity) you could really "finetune" your cleric. It remains to be seen how much the feats let you do that, but I remain hopeful. No matter how much information we get in previews or designer comments, it's still only glimpses into the mechanics. :)

Before, you got 2 out of 5. Now you can get 1, 2, or 3 out of 4. In PF1, though, alignment domains ate into how many distinctive domains a deity got, leaving corner deities with only a trio of distinctive domains.

PF2's APG and beyond look very promising, though! They can expand the core domains well beyond two powers at their leisure (making each domain more customizable), and subdomains will instead be full domains of their own right.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I just realized the statblocks lack something I had assumed would be baked in: iterative attack values. Using the Unchained Action Economy, I'm a little bummed that Hero Lab can't display iterative to hit bonuses until BAB reaches the point where I could throw out iterative attacks in the old system. But if I'm able to do an attack routine of +7/+5/-3 at low levels, I don't see why that shouldn't be listed on the page so I don't have to run the numbers every time.

I assumed this would be patched in PF2, especially given the Agile weapon trait making exceptions to the normal iterative values, and my understanding that buffs which raise to hit values will be rarer. So I thought it would look something like:

[[A]] Melee scythe +13/+8/+3 (deadly 1d10, trip), Damage 2d10+4 slashing
boot +13/+9/+5 (agile, versatile B), Damage 2d4+8 piercing

As a note, as I was writing that the boot numbers I realized I had made a mistake with the scythe values and listed +13/+7/+2. Which I think reinforces my concern that calculating this stuff on the fly won't be efficient or fun for lots of people.

Devs, have you experimented with listing full attack sequences in stat blocks? Are they going to be listed for PC character sheets but not monster stat blocks? Did the additional visual clutter they introduced outweigh the benefit of having to do less mental math?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:

I just realized the statblocks lack something I had assumed would be baked in: iterative attack values. Using the Unchained Action Economy, I'm a little bummed that Hero Lab can't display iterative to hit bonuses until BAB reaches the point where I could throw out iterative attacks in the old system. But if I'm able to do an attack routine of +7/+5/-3 at low levels, I don't see why that shouldn't be listed on the page so I don't have to run the numbers every time.

I assumed this would be patched in PF2, especially given the Agile weapon trait making exceptions to the normal iterative values, and my understanding that buffs which raise to hit values will be rarer. So I thought it would look something like:

[[A]] Melee scythe +13/+8/+3 (deadly 1d10, trip), Damage 2d10+4 slashing
boot +13/+9/+5 (agile, versatile B), Damage 2d4+8 piercing

As a note, as I was writing that the boot numbers I realized I had made a mistake with the scythe values and listed +13/+7/+2. Which I think reinforces my concern that calculating this stuff on the fly won't be efficient or fun for lots of people.

Devs, have you experimented with listing full attack sequences in stat blocks? Are they going to be listed for PC character sheets but not monster stat blocks? Did the additional visual clutter they introduced outweigh the benefit of having to do less mental math?

Listing the attack bonus in that way would imply the redcap can make three scythe attacks as a single action, which they can't. As long as the iterative rule applies to monsters as well as players this time, it can just stand as a universal rule and not need to be called out in every stat block.

And if the enemy has a weapon trait like Agile, that is just going to be called out in the weapon listing in their stat block.


Fuzzypaws wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:

I just realized the statblocks lack something I had assumed would be baked in: iterative attack values. Using the Unchained Action Economy, I'm a little bummed that Hero Lab can't display iterative to hit bonuses until BAB reaches the point where I could throw out iterative attacks in the old system. But if I'm able to do an attack routine of +7/+5/-3 at low levels, I don't see why that shouldn't be listed on the page so I don't have to run the numbers every time.

I assumed this would be patched in PF2, especially given the Agile weapon trait making exceptions to the normal iterative values, and my understanding that buffs which raise to hit values will be rarer. So I thought it would look something like:

[[A]] Melee scythe +13/+8/+3 (deadly 1d10, trip), Damage 2d10+4 slashing
boot +13/+9/+5 (agile, versatile B), Damage 2d4+8 piercing

As a note, as I was writing that the boot numbers I realized I had made a mistake with the scythe values and listed +13/+7/+2. Which I think reinforces my concern that calculating this stuff on the fly won't be efficient or fun for lots of people.

Devs, have you experimented with listing full attack sequences in stat blocks? Are they going to be listed for PC character sheets but not monster stat blocks? Did the additional visual clutter they introduced outweigh the benefit of having to do less mental math?

Listing the attack bonus in that way would imply the redcap can make three scythe attacks as a single action, which they can't. As long as the iterative rule applies to monsters as well as players this time, it can just stand as a universal rule and not need to be called out in every stat block.

And if the enemy has a weapon trait like Agile, that is just going to be called out in the weapon listing in their stat block.

I'm not sure how likely it is for DMs to be confused, but I can see a potential downside in that listing out the iteratives assumes all three actions are the same actions. For instance, if our ogre threw her javelin, moved to the fighter, then whacked him with her Ogre hook, the Ogre hook as the second attack is at a -5. If they listed the iteratives, it would need to be done in a way to make it obvious you're supposed to use the middle +5 instead of the leading +10. That said, I can see the same confusion happening with the statblock as it is now.

To build on Captain's suggestion, perhaps instead of the +10 being where it is, separate it out to its own line?
[[A]] Melee [[+10]] [[+5]] [[+0]]
Ogre hook (deadly 1d10, reach 10 feet, trip), Damage 1d10+7 piercing

Maybe even move damage to the same line, so the two pieces of information you need most are in one spot and crystal clear.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

There is also the issue of a creature wielding multiple weapons -- for example, a particular foe might hit once with a club and then twice with a claw in order to score maximum damage with the first attack and reduce the attack penalties on subsequent attacks by using an agile weapon.

Of course, it might be useful to give the attack bonuses for just such a sequence of actions if it is the creature's most likely attack sequence.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Fuzzypaws wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:

I just realized the statblocks lack something I had assumed would be baked in: iterative attack values. Using the Unchained Action Economy, I'm a little bummed that Hero Lab can't display iterative to hit bonuses until BAB reaches the point where I could throw out iterative attacks in the old system. But if I'm able to do an attack routine of +7/+5/-3 at low levels, I don't see why that shouldn't be listed on the page so I don't have to run the numbers every time.

I assumed this would be patched in PF2, especially given the Agile weapon trait making exceptions to the normal iterative values, and my understanding that buffs which raise to hit values will be rarer. So I thought it would look something like:

[[A]] Melee scythe +13/+8/+3 (deadly 1d10, trip), Damage 2d10+4 slashing
boot +13/+9/+5 (agile, versatile B), Damage 2d4+8 piercing

As a note, as I was writing that the boot numbers I realized I had made a mistake with the scythe values and listed +13/+7/+2. Which I think reinforces my concern that calculating this stuff on the fly won't be efficient or fun for lots of people.

Devs, have you experimented with listing full attack sequences in stat blocks? Are they going to be listed for PC character sheets but not monster stat blocks? Did the additional visual clutter they introduced outweigh the benefit of having to do less mental math?

Listing the attack bonus in that way would imply the redcap can make three scythe attacks as a single action, which they can't. As long as the iterative rule applies to monsters as well as players this time, it can just stand as a universal rule and not need to be called out in every stat block.

And if the enemy has a weapon trait like Agile, that is just going to be called out in the weapon listing in their stat block.

Surely players could be taught to understand that each iterative attack is it's own action though? Don't we basically do that in PF1? (OK, so there it is one full round action, but I think my point stands.) Looking at the redcap example. it calls out that the weapon is agile but doesn't list what that means. So someone needs to go look it up, then crunch the numbers accordingly.

Is this any better than just making a general rule for formatting that attacks always have 3 listed values based on how many strike actions have been used that turn? We already have stuff that needs to be understood like that in there: see the agnostic skill value or the reflex DC or the unique way Reactions are formatted.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

With how actions work I rather they just leave iteratives to the universal rule section or some such rather than posting a -5 attack and -10 attack and all the variants for each attack and weapon on every single creature.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
David knott 242 wrote:

There is also the issue of a creature wielding multiple weapons -- for example, a particular foe might hit once with a club and then twice with a claw in order to score maximum damage with the first attack and reduce the attack penalties on subsequent attacks by using an agile weapon.

Of course, it might be useful to give the attack bonuses for just such a sequence of actions if it is the creature's most likely attack sequence.

Yeah, to use the Redcap example, it's "full attack" should usually be Scythe > Boot > Boot, barring circumstances where it looks like a Deadly Cleave might go off. But a DM might not notice the Agile property and just have the Redcap use Scythe > Scythe > Scythe every time. Spelling out the attack values helps make this clearer.

I ran into this problem with Universal Monster Abilities. An AP might print a statblock for me, but there would be a one word ability squirreled away in there that is easy to overlook and lacks a definition on the page and then DRASTICALLY changes a battle. Ever overlook natural invisibility on a poltergeist, or realize too late that the Unnatural Aura should have prevented the tiger from pouncing on an enemy? Because I have, and it sucks. This is also a thing that happens with unique variant monsters. I get their individual stats and special abilities, but very little emphasis on the abilities they share with other members of their species.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I've been pretty optimistic about the content put out for Second Edition so far, but these simplified stat blocks... I hate them. Please break out the AC, at the very least. I can't count how many times that information has been critical, especially in APs where it's hard to tell if the stat block represents having already cast spells per the creature's tactics. Has this wizard already cast his Mage Armor spell in this stat block or not? Is this counting in the fighter's shield bonus? If this attack bypasses natural armor, how much of the AC does it bypass? If this whip doesn't effect creatures with x AC points from armor, does it effect this creature?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:

There is also the issue of a creature wielding multiple weapons -- for example, a particular foe might hit once with a club and then twice with a claw in order to score maximum damage with the first attack and reduce the attack penalties on subsequent attacks by using an agile weapon.

Of course, it might be useful to give the attack bonuses for just such a sequence of actions if it is the creature's most likely attack sequence.

Yeah, to use the Redcap example, it's "full attack" should usually be Scythe > Boot > Boot, barring circumstances where it looks like a Deadly Cleave might go off. But a DM might not notice the Agile property and just have the Redcap use Scythe > Scythe > Scythe every time. Spelling out the attack values helps make this clearer.

I ran into this problem with Universal Monster Abilities. An AP might print a statblock for me, but there would be a one word ability squirreled away in there that is easy to overlook and lacks a definition on the page and then DRASTICALLY changes a battle. Ever overlook natural invisibility on a poltergeist, or realize too late that the Unnatural Aura should have prevented the tiger from pouncing on an enemy? Because I have, and it sucks. This is also a thing that happens with unique variant monsters. I get their individual stats and special abilities, but very little emphasis on the abilities they share with other members of their species.

Yeah, I would much rather have the attack sequences in there (e.g., scythe attack bonus, boot attack bonus) with the penalties calculated in. Otherwise it adds a bunch of extra in-round calculations.

(edit: Meant to make that a quote.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Perhaps the 'default' should be the -5 for each previous attack action, and weapons/attacks that are more agile could have a special property included:

[[A]] Melee ogre hook +10 (deadly 1d10, reach 10 feet, trip), Damage 1d10+7 piercing
[[A]] Melee scimitar +10 (deadly 1d6, quick 2) Damage 1d6+7 slashing

quick is a weapon property that reduces the iterative penalty by this amount per action, so the above scimitar attack would iterate at +10/+7/+4, while the ogre hook would be at +10/+5/0

Mixing it up could be ogre hook +10/scimitar +7/ogre hook +2.

I don't think there's a 'clean' way to do this - the iterative penalties are difficult to track to begin with, throw in that they are different for different weapons is more confusing to represent.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I definitely do not want them to waste a hundred pages worth of space in the bestiary filling out attack matrices for every creature with more than one attack. That would be awful. It would also make the stat blocks cluttered and gross. What is so hard about applying a universal rule that applies to everyone, PCs and monsters alike?

As for abilities like Agile, that will be second nature in short order. The same as how I wouldn't expect a monster block in PF1 to explain the Trip or Reach property on a weapon. It's already explained in the CRB, there's no need to redefine a common property every time it appears when people will have internalized it after a couple days.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Fuzzypaws wrote:

I definitely do not want them to waste a hundred pages worth of space in the bestiary filling out attack matrices for every creature with more than one attack. That would be awful. It would also make the stat blocks cluttered and gross. What is so hard about applying a universal rule that applies to everyone, PCs and monsters alike?

As for abilities like Agile, that will be second nature in short order. The same as how I wouldn't expect a monster block in PF1 to explain the Trip or Reach property on a weapon. It's already explained in the CRB, there's no need to redefine a common property every time it appears when people will have internalized it after a couple days.

I was suggesting that they might give the individual bonuses for each possible (as they did with the stat blocks in this blog) but add the most likely sequence of attacks as a full attack example -- but it should clearly be defined somewhere as an example, not the only possible series of attacks. Of course, this suggestion assumes that there should very seldom be any reason to deviate from the default attack sequence except by cutting it short.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Fuzzypaws wrote:

I definitely do not want them to waste a hundred pages worth of space in the bestiary filling out attack matrices for every creature with more than one attack. That would be awful. It would also make the stat blocks cluttered and gross. What is so hard about applying a universal rule that applies to everyone, PCs and monsters alike?

As for abilities like Agile, that will be second nature in short order. The same as how I wouldn't expect a monster block in PF1 to explain the Trip or Reach property on a weapon. It's already explained in the CRB, there's no need to redefine a common property every time it appears when people will have internalized it after a couple days.

I don't think you need matrices, just iterative values. That probably wouldn't significantly take up more print space, because it would just go in the same line.

It WOULD make the stat block more crowded, though. I'm mostly just curious if it was tested and what the results were. It felt like an obvious choice to me but it might have been tested and sucked.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:

I definitely do not want them to waste a hundred pages worth of space in the bestiary filling out attack matrices for every creature with more than one attack. That would be awful. It would also make the stat blocks cluttered and gross. What is so hard about applying a universal rule that applies to everyone, PCs and monsters alike?

As for abilities like Agile, that will be second nature in short order. The same as how I wouldn't expect a monster block in PF1 to explain the Trip or Reach property on a weapon. It's already explained in the CRB, there's no need to redefine a common property every time it appears when people will have internalized it after a couple days.

I don't think you need matrices, just iterative values. That probably wouldn't significantly take up more print space, because it would just go in the same line.

It WOULD make the stat block more crowded, though. I'm mostly just curious if it was tested and what the results were. It felt like an obvious choice to me but it might have been tested and sucked.

How would you represent conditional iterative values?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
KingOfAnything wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:

I definitely do not want them to waste a hundred pages worth of space in the bestiary filling out attack matrices for every creature with more than one attack. That would be awful. It would also make the stat blocks cluttered and gross. What is so hard about applying a universal rule that applies to everyone, PCs and monsters alike?

As for abilities like Agile, that will be second nature in short order. The same as how I wouldn't expect a monster block in PF1 to explain the Trip or Reach property on a weapon. It's already explained in the CRB, there's no need to redefine a common property every time it appears when people will have internalized it after a couple days.

I don't think you need matrices, just iterative values. That probably wouldn't significantly take up more print space, because it would just go in the same line.

It WOULD make the stat block more crowded, though. I'm mostly just curious if it was tested and what the results were. It felt like an obvious choice to me but it might have been tested and sucked.

How would you represent conditional iterative values?

Well, thus far the "conditional iterative values" seem to be based on how many attacks you've used, regardless of what weapons you used to do them. So I'd just list it like I did in my original Redcap example.

If there will be other things we don't know about yet which impact the math, then I dunno.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:

I definitely do not want them to waste a hundred pages worth of space in the bestiary filling out attack matrices for every creature with more than one attack. That would be awful. It would also make the stat blocks cluttered and gross. What is so hard about applying a universal rule that applies to everyone, PCs and monsters alike?

As for abilities like Agile, that will be second nature in short order. The same as how I wouldn't expect a monster block in PF1 to explain the Trip or Reach property on a weapon. It's already explained in the CRB, there's no need to redefine a common property every time it appears when people will have internalized it after a couple days.

I don't think you need matrices, just iterative values. That probably wouldn't significantly take up more print space, because it would just go in the same line.

It WOULD make the stat block more crowded, though. I'm mostly just curious if it was tested and what the results were. It felt like an obvious choice to me but it might have been tested and sucked.

How would you represent conditional iterative values?

Well, thus far the "conditional iterative values" seem to be based on how many attacks you've used, regardless of what weapons you used to do them. So I'd just list it like I did in my original Redcap example.

If there will be other things we don't know about yet which impact the math, then I dunno.

Your iterative penalty can depend on whether you attack the same target multiple times or if you spread out your attacks to multiple targets.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
KingOfAnything wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:

I definitely do not want them to waste a hundred pages worth of space in the bestiary filling out attack matrices for every creature with more than one attack. That would be awful. It would also make the stat blocks cluttered and gross. What is so hard about applying a universal rule that applies to everyone, PCs and monsters alike?

As for abilities like Agile, that will be second nature in short order. The same as how I wouldn't expect a monster block in PF1 to explain the Trip or Reach property on a weapon. It's already explained in the CRB, there's no need to redefine a common property every time it appears when people will have internalized it after a couple days.

I don't think you need matrices, just iterative values. That probably wouldn't significantly take up more print space, because it would just go in the same line.

It WOULD make the stat block more crowded, though. I'm mostly just curious if it was tested and what the results were. It felt like an obvious choice to me but it might have been tested and sucked.

How would you represent conditional iterative values?

Well, thus far the "conditional iterative values" seem to be based on how many attacks you've used, regardless of what weapons you used to do them. So I'd just list it like I did in my original Redcap example.

If there will be other things we don't know about yet which impact the math, then I dunno.

Your iterative penalty can depend on whether you attack the same target multiple times or if you spread out your attacks to multiple targets.

Ooooh, right. I was forgetting about that. Hmm. I guess iterative attacks are probably out then.


You know what might be cool? Just ditching the iterative penalty altogether for NPCs and monsters. Rebalance the damage so that it's calculated as if every strike is done at the monster's full attack bonus. This "bonus" would only apply if they're built using NPC rules. If built using PC rules, then regular damage and iterative attack penalties would be applied.

I know many don't like the idea of monsters and NPCs using different math than PCs, but this might be an area where ease of play would provide enough benefits to offset players crying foul. Especially if its pointed out that a monster using a scythe does less damage per strike than a PC, albeit a bit more often.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:

You know what might be cool? Just ditching the iterative penalty altogether for NPCs and monsters. Rebalance the damage so that it's calculated as if every strike is done at the monster's full attack bonus. This "bonus" would only apply if they're built using NPC rules. If built using PC rules, then regular damage and iterative attack penalties would be applied.

I know many don't like the idea of monsters and NPCs using different math than PCs, but this might be an area where ease of play would provide enough benefits to offset players crying foul. Especially if its pointed out that a monster using a scythe does less damage per strike than a PC, albeit a bit more often.

I think you'd run the risk of creating an "automatically best" strategy for monsters then. If each attack had equal expected value for damage done, any given monster is going to be hard pressed to justify not standing in place and using its three actions to make three attacks.

The declining return from iterative attacks will make some secondary powers appealing for its second/third actions. That in turn will make different monsters more memorable and probably result in more dynamic combats.


KingOfAnything wrote:
Your iterative penalty can depend on whether you attack the same target multiple times or if you spread out your attacks to multiple targets.

Really, I thought it just depended on weapon type (agile or not)?)


AnimatedPaper wrote:

You know what might be cool? Just ditching the iterative penalty altogether for NPCs and monsters. Rebalance the damage so that it's calculated as if every strike is done at the monster's full attack bonus. This "bonus" would only apply if they're built using NPC rules. If built using PC rules, then regular damage and iterative attack penalties would be applied.

I desperately wanted them to drop iterative penalties, but with the new 4-tiered success system, it seems like it will work.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Weather Report wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
Your iterative penalty can depend on whether you attack the same target multiple times or if you spread out your attacks to multiple targets.
Really, I thought it just depended on weapon type (agile or not)?)

Yup. For example to emulate the sweeping nature of scimitar attacks they get a reduced iterative penalty when attacking different targets.


Malk_Content wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
Your iterative penalty can depend on whether you attack the same target multiple times or if you spread out your attacks to multiple targets.
Really, I thought it just depended on weapon type (agile or not)?)
Yup. For example to emulate the sweeping nature of scimitar attacks they get a reduced iterative penalty when attacking different targets.

Ah, so not just agile, but other weapon properties reduce iterative penalties in different ways, cool, though there is a slight concern from the DMing angle, if you are running a group of foes with mixed weapon types, could be a lot to keep track of.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Weather Report wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:

You know what might be cool? Just ditching the iterative penalty altogether for NPCs and monsters. Rebalance the damage so that it's calculated as if every strike is done at the monster's full attack bonus. This "bonus" would only apply if they're built using NPC rules. If built using PC rules, then regular damage and iterative attack penalties would be applied.

I desperately wanted them to drop iterative penalties, but with the new 4-tiered success system, it seems like it will work.

People keep saying they don't like the iterative penalties. But they are the exact same penalties as PF1 for iteratives.


Tallow wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
I desperately wanted them to drop iterative penalties, but with the new 4-tiered success system, it seems like it will work.
People keep saying they don't like the iterative penalties. But they are the exact same penalties as PF1 for iteratives.

Something being in PF1 is not justification for it being a good mechanic. Frankly, if PF1 was the gold standard then why make PF2?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
CraziFuzzy wrote:
Tallow wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
I desperately wanted them to drop iterative penalties, but with the new 4-tiered success system, it seems like it will work.
People keep saying they don't like the iterative penalties. But they are the exact same penalties as PF1 for iteratives.
Something being in PF1 is not justification for it being a good mechanic. Frankly, if PF1 was the gold standard then why make PF2?

Aiming for Platinum baby!

501 to 550 of 623 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Attack the Stat Block All Messageboards