The math doesn't work


Monsters and Hazards


11 people marked this as a favorite.

It's disconcerting, bad, and wrong, that the same math I use to determine my player stats gets completely thrown out the window for monsters and, especially NPCs. I included examples from this elsewhere, but basically most monsters to-hit bonuses are ~2 above what they should be, and their ACs are ~2 below what they should be. I honestly can't decide if it was intentional to go this route, or it was an oversight, but it's a *huge* turn-off for me.

What's most upsetting is that this can be simply fixed. The issue stems from the problems that because of armor bonuses to AC, to-hit bonuses don't naturally keep up with them. This can probably be highlighted by pitting two average-ish characters against one another at level 1. A medium armor character with a shield will have an AC of 19 (+1 level, +2 shield, +4 armor, +2 dex) and a to-hit of +5 (+1 level, +4 str/dex). This gives the first attack a 30% chance of hitting, and things basically never get better. Flurries of misses are unfun.

I... don't even know what to say here. Have AC be computed as 8+armor+stat... I feel this should have been pretty obvious just looking at the underlying system. It'd simplify monster building and NPC creation.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

It's intentional, there was a blog about them putting monster abilities and stats where they want them to be for the monster and not caring bout the math adhering to some formula.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I like monsters not being tied to stats as hard.

But... 100% AC formula should start at 8, not 10.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lyee wrote:

I like monsters not being tied to stats as hard.

But... 100% AC formula should start at 8, not 10.

I don't mind that they're not (though it'd be nice to be able to justify to-hit/AC somehow), but it'd be nice to be able to generate an NPC villian like I would a PC and have it make sense... Starting AC at 8 would fix that.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

One of my least favorite things about Starfinder is how unpleasant player vs. player combat is, and that problem stems largely from the tanky PCs/glass cannon NPCs thing Starfinder does. I thought the devs had mentioned that PC and NPC math wouldn't be different in PF2, it's disappointing to see that this isn't the case.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Brew Bird wrote:
One of my least favorite things about Starfinder is how unpleasant player vs. player combat is, and that problem stems largely from the tanky PCs/glass cannon NPCs thing Starfinder does. I thought the devs had mentioned that PC and NPC math wouldn't be different in PF2, it's disappointing to see that this isn't the case.

They didn’t say that- they said you could still build NPCs using the PC rules.


QuidEst wrote:
Brew Bird wrote:
One of my least favorite things about Starfinder is how unpleasant player vs. player combat is, and that problem stems largely from the tanky PCs/glass cannon NPCs thing Starfinder does. I thought the devs had mentioned that PC and NPC math wouldn't be different in PF2, it's disappointing to see that this isn't the case.
They didn’t say that- they said you could still build NPCs using the PC rules.

And they also said that option wouldn't be available in the playtest, because they already know it works and it doesn't need testing.

So once the actual rules come out, there will be one or more options, and building NPCs like PCs is gaurunteed to be one of the options.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bookrat wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Brew Bird wrote:
One of my least favorite things about Starfinder is how unpleasant player vs. player combat is, and that problem stems largely from the tanky PCs/glass cannon NPCs thing Starfinder does. I thought the devs had mentioned that PC and NPC math wouldn't be different in PF2, it's disappointing to see that this isn't the case.
They didn’t say that- they said you could still build NPCs using the PC rules.

And they also said that option wouldn't be available in the playtest, because they already know it works and it doesn't need testing.

So once the actual rules come out, there will be one or more options, and building NPCs like PCs is gaurunteed to be one of the options.

The problem is... it doesn't work. It's provable. The fact that monsters have to have bonuses that don't agree with their stats proves it, as does what I've said about AC relative to to-hit bonus above.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Hmm, I think this thread title would be better if it was just "AC math would be better if it started from 8 and not 10". I mean, currently it makes you think its going to be another complaining thread(so folks might actually avoid reading it), but this is actually really reasonable thread


1 person marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:
Brew Bird wrote:
One of my least favorite things about Starfinder is how unpleasant player vs. player combat is, and that problem stems largely from the tanky PCs/glass cannon NPCs thing Starfinder does. I thought the devs had mentioned that PC and NPC math wouldn't be different in PF2, it's disappointing to see that this isn't the case.
They didn’t say that- they said you could still build NPCs using the PC rules.

I was under the impression that it was said that NPCs could be built like PCs because the math was close enough that they'd turn out right, though I could very well have read into things that weren't there.

While it's obviously "possible", the issue for me is that different math makes PC vs PC feel noticeably different than standard combat encounters. My group does PVP a lot, and when we tried it in Starfinder, we very quickly noticed that it was far less satisfying. Only one attack with a fairly low chance to hit every round (since against high ACs, full-attacks are statistically worse) made for a many boring rounds of misses. If PF2 follows suit with the Tank PC/Striker NPC thing, then we'd have this same problem. Making an NPC with PC rules would be possible, but it would make for a boring or drawn-out encounter.

I know I'm speaking a bit too soon about this. I've yet to playtest and am just looking at numbers, and there may well be factors that aren't being properly accounted for. Based on first impressions though, I'm a little worried.

When my group gets to playing the game (which will be pretty soon), I hope to have more meaningful feedback.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Being well aware that the standard way to design monsters is roughly "come up with a concept, write down some numbers that seem right for what it's supposed to be, then try to find existing mechanics to retroactively justify those numbers, and if there aren't any make up some new ones", I genuinely do not understand this idea that monsters need to use the same rules as PCs, since they never did we just tried to make it look like they did.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Being well aware that the standard way to design monsters is roughly "come up with a concept, write down some numbers that seem right for what it's supposed to be, then try to find existing mechanics to retroactively justify those numbers, and if there aren't any make up some new ones", I genuinely do not understand this idea that monsters need to use the same rules as PCs, since they never did we just tried to make it look like they did.

This is pretty important factor, and one I fully understand myself (and as a fan of both PF1, 4e, and 5e to some degree) only 1 of those even does the facade of "derived math" it still feels... nicer somehow, but it certainly isn't an actual factor for me, but since I still feel it i can see how some people might think its pretty important


+5 vs. a 19 AC is fine because 4 PCs are swinging (spellcasting, whatnot) at the target.
Plus they should flank and maybe impose conditions too.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

When they say stuff like "PCs and NPCs using the same rules" it should mean something on a scale such as...

"BAB scaling consistently based on number and size of Hit Dice for every single creature in game" (PF1),

...in stark contrast to...

"PC attack bonus scales based on {(1/2 of level) / (1+ number of HD/4 rounded up)}, while NPCs and monsters based on {(full level) / (CR/4 rounded up, minimum 2)}" (4E / 5E).

For them (including me), the latter is either an utter disaster or an unelegant artifact of pre-d20 System clunkiness, etc.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Lucas Yew wrote:

When they say stuff like "PCs and NPCs using the same rules" it should mean something on a scale such as...

"BAB scaling consistently based on number and size of Hit Dice for every single creature in game" (PF1),

...in stark contrast to...

"PC attack bonus scales based on {(1/2 of level) / (1+ number of HD/4 rounded up)}, while NPCs and monsters based on {(full level) / (CR/4 rounded up, minimum 2)}" (4E / 5E).

For them (including me), the latter is either an utter disaster or an unelegant artifact of pre-d20 System clunkiness, etc.

This is exactly what I mean when I say "the same math". Perhaps a better term might be "the same benchmarks". I realize that monsters don't necessarily follow the same rules PCs do, but I'm of the opinion that an NPC with class levels generally should. In order for this to work properly, PC stats need to be about the same place as monster stats, or at least be considered reasonable for a monster. Otherwise you have the Starfinder situation, where PC-built NPCs run differently than those built off a stat array.

There are definitely benefits to having different benchmarks for PCs and NPCs. Starfinder's approach balances out the power of mind control, as well as reducing the need for dedicated healers. The way my group plays Pathfinder, however, these issues that NPC/PC imbalance seeks to solve don't come up often enough to outweigh the drawbacks.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Completely agree with these last two posts. My goal isn't to have an overly complex system, I don't mind them basing things off level, but even if it's not written, being able to say "this NPCs AC is due to his expert proficiency, armor, and dexterity". This allows me to create my own NPCs in a predictable way, and easily add class levels to monsters/NPCs without having to worry.

A quick example, I was looking at a Level 1 Wolf, and he's got a +7 to hit with a Str +1, Dex +2. Even if this is a finesse attack, his attack stat is at most +2, which means he needs to derive a +5 from his proficiency, literally impossible. If it was a +5, then I could at least say "he's Master with his bite". That's still a stretch, but it jives a bit more because animals *might* actually be really good with their natural attacks.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the point is to give the monsters the stat that make sense, not the stat that add up to the math.

So, for example, if it does not make sense than an elephant is really good at climbing because of its huge strength, then you put them less climbing, and be done with it.

Similarly, just because a cow is stronger than a wolf, it does not mean it should be better at attacking.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The last two posts sum up excellently what I rambled on with non-native English.

No "Super Legendary" proficiency or the likes of such horrors, unless special feats are explained at the stat blocks' bottom for justification. Better yet, the devs should release said special feats to the players as Uncommon and rarer feats (a perfect opportunity for abusing the Rarity system), and/or give them further prerequisites like "working only within 1km ("Hah!") of your team's base or something similar.


It seems (though I have not been thorough on this) that creatures with high attack bonuses do less damage. I suspect there's a formula at play that combines the two. I also suspect PCs (and all the many mechanics behind them) are (being) tuned to hit the same benchmarks. Monsters simply get to be extreme because they don't have to operate in a system as resistant to exploitation.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:

I think the point is to give the monsters the stat that make sense, not the stat that add up to the math.

So, for example, if it does not make sense than an elephant is really good at climbing because of its huge strength, then you put them less climbing, and be done with it.

Similarly, just because a cow is stronger than a wolf, it does not mean it should be better at attacking.

I dunno, I think if the numbers don't add up it doesn't make sense. Makes a lot of things harder and my terrible new GMs that jump into homebrew dont even have basic math to reign in their madness.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Yeah I'm trying to figure out how the Goblin Warrior's to hit is +6. Where does that come from with a Dex of 16? He's level 0. So is that +3 from being legendary with a dogslicer?

The Commando is level 1 and has a +7 so I understand where the +1 came from.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think these monsters (even some using PC races) are being built from a different direction. Whereas PCs are built from a (somewhat rigorous) system that builds from the ground up, many monsters seem to be built from a complex system (if there is one!) that works backward from target numbers.

One example I saw was a CR 3 martial creature w/ the same attack bonus as a CR 1 Commando. But it does x3 damage. Not sure how consistent that pattern is.

Example CR 0
A. Broom +7 1d4 (+dust)
Fire Beetle +6 1d4 (disappointing...)
Dog +5 1d4 (+1d4 w/ 2 allies)
Goblin +7 1d6
Halfling +6 1d4-1 (+1d4 Sneak)
Orc +5 1d6+2
Pig +6 1d6
Skeleton +6 1d6
Zombie +6 1d6+2 (Slowed I, but also severe grab then next round bite, but that can easily be avoided by consistent backpedaling/kiting, all imagery which I love BTW)

So most of these have high attacks, but low damage. Higher attack keeps them in the game longer, as does the low-attack Orc's ferocity ability.
If the templates are any indicator, to match a 1st level PC the creatures would get a +2/+2 att./damage, so +9/1d4+2 to +7/1d6+4 vs. PCs +5/1d12+6 (raging Barb).
Since a +3 attack difference means about +50% damage (for 1st attack), the upgraded Orc's +2 advantage vs. a Barb (and w/ agile for a +3 advantage on the 2nd attack) seems to balance out w/ two swings.
+7/+3 1d6+4 (7.5) vs. +5/+0 1d12+6 (12.5).
(Funnily enough the upgraded Orc is quite better than the normal CR 1 Orc.)

So while we who understand PCs wonder how a monster can get attack numbers so high, a hypothetical monster-builder might wonder how PCs can get damage numbers so high.

PCs really benefit from tactics more...
We can also see that Guard Dogs need allies to meet standards (compare to Orc w/ +3 damage).
Not sure how the Beetle balances out, but it does dazzle & have h.p. to survive a modest hit.
Also not sure if the toughness of the creatures was a factor, though I'm leaning that way.
Cheers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Castilliano wrote:

PCs really benefit from tactics more...

We can also see that Guard Dogs need allies to meet standards (compare to Orc w/ +3 damage).
Not sure how the Beetle balances out, but it does dazzle & have h.p. to survive a modest hit.
Also not sure if the toughness of the creatures was a factor, though I'm leaning that way.
Cheers.

Honestly, while i haven't played much, this really hasn't been my experience in the playtest. I've more noticed it's more beneficial (playing a battle cleric) to walk up and hit something rather than waiting around for a flank or readying. Spells seem lackluster (Bless, for example, requires 2 actions, then an additional action every turn to maintain, giving only a +1 to hit), so even casting most things outside of straight-up offensive spells seem bad.

Still, underlying this, I don't mind enemies being built *slightly* different, but if it could be *closer* to how PCs were built, then I'd be happier. Having a base AC of 8 (and reducing all monster attack values by 2) would go a long way towards this.


tivadar27 wrote:
Castilliano wrote:

PCs really benefit from tactics more...

We can also see that Guard Dogs need allies to meet standards (compare to Orc w/ +3 damage).
Not sure how the Beetle balances out, but it does dazzle & have h.p. to survive a modest hit.
Also not sure if the toughness of the creatures was a factor, though I'm leaning that way.
Cheers.

Honestly, while i haven't played much, this really hasn't been my experience in the playtest. I've more noticed it's more beneficial (playing a battle cleric) to walk up and hit something rather than waiting around for a flank or readying. Spells seem lackluster (Bless, for example, requires 2 actions, then an additional action every turn to maintain, giving only a +1 to hit), so even casting most things outside of straight-up offensive spells seem bad.

Still, underlying this, I don't mind enemies being built *slightly* different, but if it could be *closer* to how PCs were built, then I'd be happier. Having a base AC of 8 (and reducing all monster attack values by 2) would go a long way towards this.

In PF2, with it being easy to land that first hit (and monsters can generally come to you and swing twice anyway), it doesn't pay to wait to earn the first full attack.

So you're right, that PF1 basic tactic can be shelved (as likely can waiting for buffs like Haste & Bless to go up), but arguably positioning becomes more important because focused fire adds up really quick. Letting enemies flank you is like giving them Improved Crit. And ditto for you if you flank.
And it does pay off more for PCs to flank w/ their higher damage (and abilities tied to crits too). That's assuming offense relates to attack x damage (et al).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
tivadar27 wrote:
It's disconcerting, bad, and wrong, that the same math I use to determine my player stats gets completely thrown out the window for monsters and, especially NPCs.

I don't have a problem with them making attack and AC more or less static at certain levels, but I think the attack and skill bonuses are too high, and you've already mentioned AC as well.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Monsters being built with same mechanics as characters is one thing that I think many of us accepted we wouldn't get. But we were also promised that a creature made with PC rules would roughly loook like a level equivalent monster, this is where they really went off the rails.

Monster numbers are just high, higher attack than the fighter, higher perception than the rogue can handle, awesome at their untrained skils... Just SUPER NUMBERS and they scale at the same rate PCs do or faster, so all they do is stay on the treadmill when they level up.

Monsters do have kinda low AC (sometimes) to compensate for their superiority at everything else, but that just means that a PC would not work as a monster. It's not just the AC that's kinda whack, monsters don't resemble proper characters very much. The Cleric, for example, has lower to-hit than ANY monster of their level in the bestiary, so they would make for a poor enemy.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

As is discussed with Mark Seifter in the thread I made, at least some of the skill problem (and thus likely the Perception problem) is a legitimate error and will likely be corrected.

Attacks and AC are intentionally this way, and discussion on them should continue, but the skills thing is largely a separate issue (not a solved issue, mind you, but a separate one).

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Game Master Rules / Monsters and Hazards / The math doesn't work All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Monsters and Hazards