Attack Bonuses are too high for level 0 creatures


Monsters and Hazards


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I just got through two playtests sessions and I find that they attack bonuses on level 0 creatures are too high in general.

Attack bonuses should not be +6. I’m talking about most level 0 creatures, for example Skeleton Guardian. It makes no sense considering:

1) You reduced all armor AC by 50% in PF2, our ACs are not good.

2) There is no UMD wand buffing with Mage Armor or Shield anymore.

3) The crit rules make crits happen a LOT more often, especially with larger attack bonuses.

4) In terms of backward compatibility with PF1, the same creatures in PF1 have attack bonuses in the range of +2 to +3. Example: Skeleton again. If this continues, we won’t be able to use PF1 scenarios, modules, and Aps with PF2. Basically, failed backward compatibility.

5) Healing is now a scarce resource.

6) Even if you don’t kill the party, you’ve injured them enough that they won’t have the resources to continue adventuring without resting 8 hours. Yawn. Sorry, not fun.

With these high attack bonuses you’re making the game too deadly.And it makes the game dreadfully boring when the "heroes" need to rest 8 after fighting only 5 skeletons!

I had a party of Valeros, Fumbus, Ezren, and Merisiel, and we almost TPKed to 5 Skeleton Guardians. Fumbus, Ezren, and Merisiel were all down and Valeros was at 8 hp with a broken shield. Valeros basically soloed the encounter after everyone else got chewed up. I didn't even crit once and got unlucky rolls (no crits on any 2nd or 3rd attacks, and there were many). Yes they survived but they’re at 1 hp now and can’t possible continue.

This was in Silent Tide. So technically, they fail the scenario. A scenario so easy in PF1 that it can literally be soloed. I’m afraid now to convert other scenarios.

This also happened another 2 times with other encounters. This did not happen when the attack bonuses were only +2 to +3.

I wonder if this is a high level problem too?

You asked us if we’re still able to tell the same stories in PF2 that we could in PF1, the answer is currently a resounding “NO”. You need to fix things like this.


They've already stated that it's not going to be backwards compatible really.

Scarab Sages

Not mechanically compatible,but It'd be nice to use old stuff with new mechanics - but that doesn't look possible as we're seeing here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't especially mind this so far. Honestly, low level monster attack bonuses were way too low in PF1. A decently optimized PC was basically pointless to attack.

Now, the stuff like goblins and skeletons will hit more often, but probably only crit on 19 or 20, and only on a 20 if shields are raised. And that's only on the first attack. The iteratives can only ever crit on a 20. (This assumes a decently tanky PC, who will be somewhere in the 15-17 ac most likely.) So the monsters can hit and are a threat, but have low damage.

Meanwhile they have crap hit points. If you aren't dealing with resistance your PCs probably one shot these guys. Doesn't seem like a bad place to be.

I may change my tune as I move forward though.

Paizo Employee Designer

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

I don't especially mind this so far. Honestly, low level monster attack bonuses were way too low in PF1. A decently optimized PC was basically pointless to attack.

Now, the stuff like goblins and skeletons will hit more often, but probably only crit on 19 or 20, and only on a 20 if shields are raised. And that's only on the first attack. The iteratives can only ever crit on a 20. (This assumes a decently tanky PC, who will be somewhere in the 15-17 ac most likely.) So the monsters can hit and are a threat, but have low damage.

Meanwhile they have crap hit points. If you aren't dealing with resistance your PCs probably one shot these guys. Doesn't seem like a bad place to be.

I may change my tune as I move forward though.

It's also worth noting that 5 level 0s is halfway between a high and severe threat for a level 1 group, so we'd expect it to be pretty challenging. In this particular case, the iconics other than Valeros in this quartet don't really pack the skeletons' weaknesses, so it'll be just a stitch harder for them than another group as well.


Captain Morgan wrote:

I don't especially mind this so far. Honestly, low level monster attack bonuses were way too low in PF1. A decently optimized PC was basically pointless to attack.

Now, the stuff like goblins and skeletons will hit more often, but probably only crit on 19 or 20, and only on a 20 if shields are raised. And that's only on the first attack. The iteratives can only ever crit on a 20. (This assumes a decently tanky PC, who will be somewhere in the 15-17 ac most likely.) So the monsters can hit and are a threat, but have low damage.

Meanwhile they have crap hit points. If you aren't dealing with resistance your PCs probably one shot these guys. Doesn't seem like a bad place to be.

I may change my tune as I move forward though.

This has been my experience with the monsters so far. My players have been reliably taking down monsters in one hit, and doing more than double an individual monster's HP in one hit in about 10% of cases. The fighter in chainmail is also holding up well against monster attacks, especially with a cleric to keep him topped off.

They haven't encountered the tougher goblins, the skeletons, or Drakus yet, though.


12 people marked this as a favorite.

I started looking at Doomsday Dawn this morning to prepare for running it, at when I checked the stats of the monsters in the Playtest Bestiary, I found that their attack and skill bonuses were huge. Level 0 and Level 1 monsters have bonuses as good or better than the highest that a 1st Level PC could achieve.

I get that they don't want to use a full character creation process for making monsters and just assign the stats that they think they should have, but these arbitrarily-chosen stats are ridiculous.

Every Level 0 monster I've looked at so far has a +6 attack bonus.

Keep in mind that the highest attack bonus that a 1st level PC can have (Fighter with STR 18 and expert proficiency) is +6.

The player who's made a Fighter is not going to feel very cool or heroic when he realizes that every single 0th level goblin is just as good a swordsman as he is.

Inexplicably just as good, because that goblin has way lower stats, is lower level, has no expert proficiency... he just has a random +3 bonus to attack for no reason.

It's the same for skills. That 0th level goblin has a Stealth just as good as what a maxed-out 1st level PC could have.

You really don't feel like a hero when the weakest monster in the game is just as good as what you do as you are.

Guys, you created this proficiency system to balance things by level. It's kind of cool. So why are you not using it for the bad guys, too?

With these huge attack bonuses (45% of hitting even against a character with really good AC) and three attacks every round, PCs are going to be getting the snot repeatedly beaten out of them and need constant healing to stay upright. Which sounds pretty much exactly like what made playing 4E a miserable experience.


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

I don't especially mind this so far. Honestly, low level monster attack bonuses were way too low in PF1. A decently optimized PC was basically pointless to attack.

Now, the stuff like goblins and skeletons will hit more often, but probably only crit on 19 or 20, and only on a 20 if shields are raised. And that's only on the first attack. The iteratives can only ever crit on a 20. (This assumes a decently tanky PC, who will be somewhere in the 15-17 ac most likely.) So the monsters can hit and are a threat, but have low damage.

Meanwhile they have crap hit points. If you aren't dealing with resistance your PCs probably one shot these guys. Doesn't seem like a bad place to be.

I may change my tune as I move forward though.

It's also worth noting that 5 level 0s is halfway between a high and severe threat for a level 1 group, so we'd expect it to be pretty challenging. In this particular case, the iconics other than Valeros in this quartet don't really pack the skeletons' weaknesses, so it'll be just a stitch harder for them than another group as well.

There is a lot of confusion on that, players really didn't understand how the threat levels in PF1 were supposed to work.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:
They've already stated that it's not going to be backwards compatible really.

I think that's really too bad, considering the great PF1 content that exists.

One of the reasons PF1 was so successful was because it was very backward compatible with 3.5 and 3.0.

Now I have to reduce my mooks by 50% and have to calculate everything to get the same challenge level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
It's also worth noting that 5 level 0s is halfway between a high and severe threat for a level 1 group, so we'd expect it to be pretty challenging. In this particular case, the iconics other than Valeros in this quartet don't really pack the skeletons' weaknesses, so it'll be just a stitch harder for them than another group as well.

Yep I noticed that. Part of the problem was Silent Tide had 5 skeletons in the scenario and part was I had a 5th player coming with would have made it only "high". As it was, it was near extreme, which is close to a TPK, which is exactly what almost happened, so that encounter building chart is correct.

Seems crappy that there are no mooks for level 1-2 characters, skeletons are now better than PCs, I should have had only 3 skeletons in that encounter.

Paizo Employee Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason S wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
It's also worth noting that 5 level 0s is halfway between a high and severe threat for a level 1 group, so we'd expect it to be pretty challenging. In this particular case, the iconics other than Valeros in this quartet don't really pack the skeletons' weaknesses, so it'll be just a stitch harder for them than another group as well.

Yep I noticed that. Part of the problem was Silent Tide had 5 skeletons in the scenario and part was I had a 5th player coming with would have made it only "high". As it was, it was near extreme, which is close to a TPK, which is exactly what almost happened, so that encounter building chart is correct.

Seems crappy that there are no mooks for level 1-2 characters, skeletons are now better than PCs, I should have had only 3 skeletons in that encounter.

Level 0 foes are generally supposed to be noticeably weaker than a PC; maybe about 2 of them per PC as an even match (typically this is due to lackluster damage and HP, though zombies are very special and have their own weaknesses). But there could be situations that adjust those numbers up or down. Skeletons in particular have a very nasty set of resists with particularly low HP, so they are potentially either the most challenging or least challenging possible level 0s depending on what you bring to bear. We've actually had the most playtest data ever against skeleton and zombie mixed groups due to the demo, and the High Threat encounter of 2 zombies/2 skeletons vs 4 PCs seems to be working out pretty well, if anything a bit easy for a High unless the GM's dice are hot. Then again, having a mixed group is kinder to the party with low bludgeoning/acid/force/positive because they can't just send the bludgeoner to the skeletons and focus the rest on zombies.

Paizo Employee Designer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason S wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
They've already stated that it's not going to be backwards compatible really.

I think that's really too bad, considering the great PF1 content that exists.

One of the reasons PF1 was so successful was because it was very backward compatible with 3.5 and 3.0.

Now I have to reduce my mooks by 50% and have to calculate everything to get the same challenge level.

To the extent of taking an encounter from PF1 and running it in PF2 with just switching the monsters and creating PF2 versions of the unique foes, that should work out almost every time (only a single exception and very relevant to this discussion: CR 1/3 or lower monsters, like skeletons, you have to be careful because level 0s are used in numbers that equate to CR 1/2). I've been doing this for both Shattered Star and War for the Crown and have never needed to adjust the encounters other than the CR 1/3 or lower ones.


Mark Seifter wrote:
To the extent of taking an encounter from PF1 and running it in PF2 with just switching the monsters and creating PF2 versions of the unique foes, that should work out almost every time (only a single exception and very relevant to this discussion: CR 1/3 or lower monsters, like skeletons, you have to be careful because level 0s are used in numbers that equate to CR 1/2). I've been doing this for both Shattered Star and War for the Crown and have never needed to adjust the encounters other than the CR 1/3 or lower ones.

OK, thanks for explaining that CR 1/3 conversions can be problematic. I'll keep my eye on conversions in other scenarios, especially the encounter building chart, and I hope you're right.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree, first playtest session went down horribly. My players had bad luck, but they were kind of depressed seing that mere goblins had better to hit bonuses than the barbarian or the paladin that were fairly maxed (18 strenght). The paladin was also dispaointed with the shield as a side effect because it didn't matter very much with the bonuses they had (+10 for darkus...) and in the end didn't even try to use it as he prefered to take a chance to hit a little more.

The value is too high, but I could roll with it if it made sense, but the +6 bonus of goblins come from nowhere, +3 dex, and ? I really am one to think that the same rules should apply to everyone and this is very disapointing.
The issue is the same with skills, monsters have absurdly high skills for no reason, i can accept the occasional big score in a specific skill because it would make sense considering the creature, but all monsters, even with lower levels are better than optimized pcs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ystear Fearis wrote:
I agree, first playtest session went down horribly. My players had bad luck, but they were kind of depressed seing that mere goblins had better to hit bonuses than the barbarian or the paladin that were fairly maxed (18 strenght).

Yeah, the PCs need easy creatures to beat up too. The stats feel too high.

I started the session with some level 0 thugs, which was great. If I started it with the skeletons, it would have left my group flat.

HUMAN THUG CREATURE (Level 0)
Perception +1
Languages Common
Skills –1; Athletics +2, Intimidation +1
Str +1, Dex +0, Con +1, Int -1, Wis -1, Cha +0
Items spiked gauntlet, sap, leather armor, light crossbow with 6 bolts
AC 11, TAC 10; Fort +1, Ref +0, Will -1
HP 7
Speed 25 feet
Melee spiked gauntlet +2 (agile, free-hand), Damage 1d4+1 piercing
Melee sap +2 (agile, non-lethal), Damage 1d6+1 bludgeon
Ranged light crossbow +1 (120 feet, reload 1), Damage 1d8 piercing
Rage The thug gains a +2 conditional bonus to melee damage rolls (+1 for agile weapons), a –1 penalty to AC, and number of temporary Hit Points equal to your level plus your Constitution modifier, for 3 rounds followed by 1 round of fatigue.

To start PF2, I thought this was a much more appropriate way compared to +6 attack goblins, and especially Skeleton Guardians.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

Given the circumstances of the first Doomsday Dawn adventure, you wouldn't think that retreating to sleep for 8 hours would be an option. If the players wipe out a couple rooms and then go for a nap, you'd think the bad guys would relocate or try to raid them back or even just all group up together for safety. "You can go rest and come back fresh" thinking kind of operates on the assumption that monsters just stay in their rooms waiting for adventurers to come along. I'd prefer my players be able to clear a dungeon in a day of hard fighting then be constantly bloodied and burning through healing resources and have to stop for the day after a couple of fights.

Which brings us back to the larger issue of per-day abilities and how they're problematic for the narrative, but the ship's probably sailed on that one.


Jason S wrote:

I just got through two playtests sessions and I find that they attack bonuses on level 0 creatures are too high in general.

Attack bonuses should not be +6. I’m talking about most level 0 creatures, for example Skeleton Guardian. It makes no sense considering:

1) You reduced all armor AC by 50% in PF2, our ACs are not good.

2) There is no UMD wand buffing with Mage Armor or Shield anymore.

Yes, Trick Magic Item is a feat, it requires training in a skill related (Arcana, Nature, Occult, or Religion). Basically UMD but limted to one type for Mage armor and Shield choices are Arcana or Occult.

I'd add the Weak template (lowers level by 1) listed in Bestiary (lowers AC/Saves/Hit/Dam by 2), also lowers HP.
This is important since fighting multiple Level -1 is more balanced than multiple level 0's for Level 1 characters for Encounter Budget (though you get less XP).

Heck, Shield is a cantrip so available to most PCs (Elfs, Humans, Gnomes).

I will say Bobcats will straight up kill commoners though.

Shadow Lodge

Our party's barbarian did a fine job of taking out the ooze, goblins, and centipedes. She did take quite a bit of damage in the process, but a good chunk of that was from unlucky saves against centipede poison rather than attacks proper. Admittedly, she took 3 primary and 3 secondary attacks from centipedes in the first round and was hit 3-4 times, but I would still not have expected 3 failed saves given she had a +3-5 Fort.

The cleric took something like 5-7 primary attacks and 4-6 secondary attacks from centipedes and got hit at most twice.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

Sorry Mark, I usually love your posts and appreciate your defense of some of the mechanics, but I don't thinkt he community is buying this one that much.

There is no creature in the entire bestiary that hits less than an unoptimized fighter. This doesn't just seem to be level 1, but ALL levels. Simply put, there are no weak mook creatures AT ALL! Even the lv0 guys have a good chance of eaisly killing PCs. At later levels you can just use lower CR creatures to make easy challenges but this is impossible at 1, making encounters a lot deadlier than intended.

Quote from the Bestiary: "Level 0 creatures are weaker than normal, counting as a “party level – 2” creature for a 1st-level party"

Each of those lv0 creatures would be worth 20 XP. This means that pitting them in equal numbers with the PCs is a "Hard" encoutner that may kill them or force them to rest. 6 of them is pretty much a TPK.
PF1 had a lot of encounters versus swarms of low level stuff at early levels and it was fun, the players enjoyed kicking butt! Now it feels like the players can only beat something by outnumbering them, as if they were kobolds (Not 2E kobolds, those would murder the party easily I bet).

On the other hand, lv2 monsters vs a lv4 party already starts to feel like it should (But somehow they still can hit better than the Cleric).
Level 0 monsters should be just weaker than level 1 characters, not pretty much superior in both attack and skills just because of the low HP. We had this in Starfinder where a party of NPCs was superior to the party of PCs pretty much everytime.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I just noticed Doomsday Dawn has a similar encounter with Skeleton Guards.

The Doomsday Dawn encounter is much easier, you have a chokepoint, someone with a shield can just sit there and basically solo the fight. If you don't have someone with a shield or a cleric, it could be tough.

But basically you're not getting negative feedback from that encounter because of the chokepoint. Without the chokepoint, it's a completely different encounter.

In my playtest there was no chokepoint, and the skeletons (who were former assassins) got to choose from a number of targets. Ezren at AC 13 or even Fumbus at AC 15 get hurt very quickly from flanking skeletons.

Things play out different with these creatures when they can utilize their attack power.

I feel the same as everyone else, you don't want every creature to be better at attacking than your best martial characters.


Jason S wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
They've already stated that it's not going to be backwards compatible really.

I think that's really too bad, considering the great PF1 content that exists.

One of the reasons PF1 was so successful was because it was very backward compatible with 3.5 and 3.0.

Now I have to reduce my mooks by 50% and have to calculate everything to get the same challenge level.

I disagree with this, mostly because being a follow-up to an edition they didn't outright create doesn't really give Paizo a unique identity. Really, all this means is that Paizo is a group of homebrewers, and aren't much different than, say, the 3PP of other games. In reality, PF1 was a giant homebrew of 3.X (and PFS a giant homebrew of PF1), which was successful due to 4E's "flop," no clear line of gaming progression, and Paizo building a stability beam overtop the 3.X one (which was crumbling with the construction of 4E), a foundation that the gamers could fall back on (mostly) safely.

If 4E was successful, Pathfinder may not have been created, and by relation, Paizo as a company either would not have existed, would not be as successful as they are, or would have went a vastly different direction than what they did. In addition, a 5E may not have been made (at least not as soon as it was made), and if it was made, would be vastly different from what it is now.

Last I checked, Paizo wanted to be their own unique gaming company, separate from (even if related to) other companies, like WotC, and simply being homebrewers of previous editions sparked when a future edition flops isn't really going to get them the recognition they feel they need to have.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jason S wrote:

I just got through two playtests sessions and I find that they attack bonuses on level 0 creatures are too high in general.

Attack bonuses should not be +6. I’m talking about most level 0 creatures, for example Skeleton Guardian. It makes no sense considering:

1) You reduced all armor AC by 50% in PF2, our ACs are not good.

2) There is no UMD wand buffing with Mage Armor or Shield anymore.

3) The crit rules make crits happen a LOT more often, especially with larger attack bonuses.

4) In terms of backward compatibility with PF1, the same creatures in PF1 have attack bonuses in the range of +2 to +3. Example: Skeleton again. If this continues, we won’t be able to use PF1 scenarios, modules, and Aps with PF2. Basically, failed backward compatibility.

5) Healing is now a scarce resource.

6) Even if you don’t kill the party, you’ve injured them enough that they won’t have the resources to continue adventuring without resting 8 hours. Yawn. Sorry, not fun.

Rebuttal time.

1. This is an exaggeration. In PF1, Level 1 PCs with average starting wealth would have, at best, a 20 AC value (4 Dexterity + 4 Armor + 2 Heavy Shield). Most monsters of the same level would have a bonus of +6 or +7 to hit (+5 modifier + 1 BAB + 1 Masterwork/Enhancement). At best, that creature needs a 13+ to hit (a 65% chance to miss), and most creatures at level 1 aren't anywhere near that strong. Cutting down both numbers a bit, the scale doesn't change (minus some Dexterity/Armor/Shield and some modifiers/weapons), which means the most optimal character, without buffs or anything, will avoid strong enemies ~2/3 of the time. Any other time, the monsters won't do much more than 1D6+2 damage or so, and characters usually have 9-10 HP. Unless your GM is a dick and is throwing Greataxe Orcs or Wraiths at you, you're not really in any major threat.

In PF2, it's reasonable for a Fighter character to have 15/17 AC, and using a Longsword. A Rogue would probably have more AC constantly, being in the 17 range and wielding two weapons or something. Is it reduced? Yes. But is it 50%? Hardly. Even then, enemies should likewise have lower AC as well.

2. Of course there isn't, they're cantrips now. The Shield Cantrip is actually pretty useful, letting players have Shields without paying for money or anything, and Mage Armor was mostly worthless unless you wore little to no armor (which is a Monk-specific problem), or you were fighting Incorporeals (in which case the Wizard was better at it than any Martial character!). Even then, getting Wands of these items were costly, something that most, if not all, level 1 PCs couldn't realistically afford. I honestly wouldn't expect it until level 3 at the absolute earliest. Until then, you're SoL.

3. Not necessarily. If bonuses are scaling in an appropriate manner, this balance should only change slightly (if at all), usually in the face of getting multiple bonuses. For example, if I'm a Fighter of 3rd level compared to 1st level, I'll have Master proficiency in (typically) my weapon of choice, meaning I'll be +2 ahead of the curve compared to everyone else who isn't a Fighter or doesn't have Master proficiency. I might also have a +1 Weapon, or a Weapon of Expert quality; who knows?

The only reasons for these "wishy-washy" criticals happening more or less often would be if features improve my abilities, or certain enemies have better scalings in some things compared to others. And since monster design is pure freeform GM FIAT, the GM can make a given creature as powerful/weak as he wants. So, if you're finding the skeletons are too strong, then it's time to tone down the power level of your campaign to compensate.

4. Failed backward compatibility isn't really a thing, because this wasn't a primary design goal of PF2. I wouldn't expect PF2 and PF1 to be compatible because they are largely different engines with different rules, abilities, and so on. Converting Rise of the Runelords, or Return of the Runelords, for examples, would be practically impossible due to the different guidelines and rules of the two not meshing hardly whatsoever.

5. Healing is only scarce in the lower levels, and this has been true since PF1. You would be very lucky to have a Potion of Cure Light Wounds starting out, since that takes anywhere from 1/4 to 2/3 your starting wealth. In PF2, it takes 1/5 your starting wealth regardless, meaning you're more likely to have healing to work with in PF2 compared to PF1, starting out. Of course, Resonance can change this, but that's its own issue.

6. The 15 minute adventuring day has been around since PF1, so this isn't anything new. Part of the challenge (and risks) of adventuring is determining what kind of limit your characters have. Do we press on and risk it all to finish the quest proper, or do we rest (which is a risk all its own, I might add), and continue forward safely? If the game didn't want the players to make this choice, they could have made a "Hit Points are restored at the end of each combat" clause in the rules, but clearly they don't want that videogame-y aspect to their rules.

Seriously, it's more of the same. "Fighter out of hit points? Could keep going if we heal him. Wizard and Cleric are out of spells? Time to rest." The only thing I will agree with is that it's more difficult to do the first part than it is to do the 2nd part (since cantrips are better and scale now, but healing is more demanding the higher level you are).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Maybe a solution would have 2 categories of monsters below first level:

Level 0 monsters become “level 1/2” or something similar. Something akin to what we have now in terms of power (ie. little less power than a level 1 mook).

Create a second category to emcompass monsters weaker than current level 0 monsters. Those could be called Level 0 now. They include those 1/3 and 1/4 CRs. That would only be threatening in bigger numbers.

Paizo Employee Customer Service & Community Manager

I removed a post and replies to it. If you want to post your own feedback of the playtest you are welcome to do so in a new thread. If you want to discuss the results of someone else's feedback in a thread, you are also welcome to do that. However, posting dismissive followups to someone else's feedback is not something that encourages healthy dialogue and meaningful discussion.


I think they did it do keep the level 0s relevant a bit longer, to make them usable against characters as they level to 4ish. Without a +6, they would severely struggle to even touch a 4th level character's AC. That makes them less than useful for encounter crafting. They deal what, a d6 damage. Sure, their crits are nasty, but PCs do have a decent amount more HP than before.

It seems to be a better solution than giving those mooks more HP with their pitiful damage. Now they deal some damage, potentially sporadic stinging damage, and still fall like paper.

Talking about nasty crits, put my friends two man team though my 4th level P2 arena yesturday and in one turn a single skeleton archer rolled two 20s on the -5 and -10 attack and had the Wizard terrified for his life having lost most of his hitpoints. It should have been a trivial encounter, and ended up being steamrolled after that, but deadly shortbows made it interesting.

Paizo Employee Designer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Zman0 wrote:

I think they did it do keep the level 0s relevant a bit longer, to make them usable against characters as they level to 4ish. Without a +6, they would severely struggle to even touch a 4th level character's AC. That makes them less than useful for encounter crafting. They deal what, a d6 damage. Sure, their crits are nasty, but PCs do have a decent amount more HP than before.

It seems to be a better solution than giving those mooks more HP with their pitiful damage. Now they deal some damage, potentially sporadic stinging damage, and still fall like paper.

Talking about nasty crits, put my friends two man team though my 4th level P2 arena yesturday and in one turn a single skeleton archer rolled two 20s on the -5 and -10 attack and had the Wizard terrified for his life having lost most of his hitpoints. It should have been a trivial encounter, and ended up being steamrolled after that, but deadly shortbows made it interesting.

This is a good insight. We absolutely could have lowered the level 0 accuracy a few points and gave them better damage per hit and had it work out fine against 1st-level characters (indeed, that's where the numbers began long ago), but giving them a bit more accuracy in exchange for lower damage made them more usable for a little longer while being a bit less swingy in those cases (for instance, vs a 4th-level AC 22 character, a +6 to hit is 50% more damage than a +4 to hit for the same damage, and it no longer receives half of its total damage from that natural 20 critical hit, making it less swingy). After a lot of playtests in this level range, we found this to work best for level 0 and 1 monsters (though of course, NPCs you build with the PC rules will still work finer with the lower accuracy and much higher damage). Once you hit level 2 or so, you'll find even the top-tier combatant monsters have closer damage and accuracy to a fighter. Especially at level 2 and 3.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Once you hit level 2 or so, you'll find even the top-tier combatant monsters have closer damage and accuracy to a fighter.

The rest sounds accurate, but this does not appear to be true, from what I can tell.

I was looking at level 7 monsters, and their attack bonus seems to be in the vicinity of +17, while level 7 PCs hit more like +14 (+7 level, +4 Str, +2 Master Proficiency +1 magic weapon). Their AC is about three points lower than a maximal Fighter of that level, mind you, but their attack remains notably higher and their damage on par.

The same seems to be true for higher level monsters as well.

Paizo Employee Designer

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Once you hit level 2 or so, you'll find even the top-tier combatant monsters have closer damage and accuracy to a fighter.

The rest sounds accurate, but this does not appear to be true, from what I can tell.

I was looking at level 7 monsters, and their attack bonus seems to be in the vicinity of +17, while level 7 PCs hit more like +14 (+7 level, +4 Str, +2 Master Proficiency +1 magic weapon). Their AC is about three points lower than a maximal Fighter of that level, mind you, but their attack remains notably higher and their damage on par.

The same seems to be true for higher level monsters as well.

It depends on the level whether they'll match up precisely. For instance, level 2 or 3 monsters, where I was looking after the 0s and 1s, do so. So do level 20 monsters. But if I recall, monster progressions are a little smoothed so that they don't jump as suddenly in various categories at the same time (which would make those cut-off levels really dangerous for bosses that crossed the thresholds), so it won't be universally the case.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
It depends on the level whether they'll match up precisely. For instance, level 2 or 3 monsters, where I was looking after the 0s and 1s, do so. So do level 20 monsters. But if I recall, monster progressions are a little smoothed so that they don't jump as suddenly in various categories at the same time (which would make those cut-off levels really dangerous for bosses that crossed the thresholds), so it won't be universally the case.

That's very interesting information to possess. And an entirely reasonable way to do things, IMO. Thanks, Mark! :)

So let's examine what's up with level 6 monsters.

Going by level, level 2 monsters seem to have +8, which is right on par with a Fighter (assuming an Expert weapon). Level 6, as noted, is +17 (having risen by +9 over four levels) and seems 3 points ahead. Level 10 is +20, and right on par again (but has only risen by +3 over 4 levels), level 14 is right about +26, which is on par with a Fighter of the same level (and +6 over 4 levels), while 18th level is +32 or so, and right about on par with a Fighter of equivalent level (and, again, +6 over 4 levels).

So my takeaway from that is that the progression is mostly quite good and seems to do what you're aiming for...but seems to be too fast in the very early levels. Every four levels gives about +6...except for the four between 2nd and 6th, which add an overly quick +9, while the levels between 6th and 10th add only +3.

That might be an anomaly to look into fixing. It seems unnecessary to make the monsters work at 4th-6th, and results in some weirdness. Indeed, running into a level 6 at 4th level (something that actually happens in chapter 2 of Doomsday Dawn, so I'm not pulling the scenario out of thin air...indeed, looking at that encounter is what drew me to 6th level monsters) seems super lethal.

I know the PC I've seen made for that chapter has only AC 19-20, and a +17 is gonna crit vs. him on an 12 or 13. And even a maximal AC 22 character gets crit on a 15+. That's a little overly vicious as compared to, say, an 8th level character vs. a 10th level foe (where, by my math, the crit chances drop by something like half comparatively).

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Okay, I appear to have screwed up my last post completely. I seem to have been confusing the +17 common among 7th level monsters, with the +15 common among 6th level ones (which remains +2 above a Fighter of the same level, for the record). I even know how this happened (I was originally planning to analyze 6th level monsters in my post before that, then changed it...I apparently momentarily forgot that I changed it), but it remains my bad. My apologies for the error.

That's still a higher jump there than between other levels (+7 over four levels, with only a +5 over the next four), and could maybe stand some fixing, but it's not nearly as extreme of one.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Zman0 wrote:

I think they did it do keep the level 0s relevant a bit longer, to make them usable against characters as they level to 4ish. Without a +6, they would severely struggle to even touch a 4th level character's AC. That makes them less than useful for encounter crafting. They deal what, a d6 damage. Sure, their crits are nasty, but PCs do have a decent amount more HP than before.

It seems to be a better solution than giving those mooks more HP with their pitiful damage. Now they deal some damage, potentially sporadic stinging damage, and still fall like paper.

Talking about nasty crits, put my friends two man team though my 4th level P2 arena yesturday and in one turn a single skeleton archer rolled two 20s on the -5 and -10 attack and had the Wizard terrified for his life having lost most of his hitpoints. It should have been a trivial encounter, and ended up being steamrolled after that, but deadly shortbows made it interesting.

This is a good insight. We absolutely could have lowered the level 0 accuracy a few points and gave them better damage per hit and had it work out fine against 1st-level characters (indeed, that's where the numbers began long ago), but giving them a bit more accuracy in exchange for lower damage made them more usable for a little longer while being a bit less swingy in those cases (for instance, vs a 4th-level AC 22 character, a +6 to hit is 50% more damage than a +4 to hit for the same damage, and it no longer receives half of its total damage from that natural 20 critical hit, making it less swingy). After a lot of playtests in this level range, we found this to work best for level 0 and 1 monsters (though of course, NPCs you build with the PC rules will still work finer with the lower accuracy and much higher damage). Once you hit level 2 or so, you'll find even the top-tier combatant monsters have closer damage and accuracy to a fighter. Especially at level 2 and 3.

Thank you. I'll take a compliment from one of the designers. When I first read your post I thought, "Man, that is very well said and smacks of design insight..." Then I looked back and saw "Designer". Ha!

Since, I might have your attention. Can we please have some official support for a Bounded version without +lvl to proficiency etc. A rules sidebar, a Static DC table, and guidelines on how to modify DC's found elsewhere would be perfect. But, throw the people, like myself, that do not want to play the bigger numbers game a bone. At the least, a Variant rule sidebar would be amazing with the above information. In the Bestiary a more spread out encounter guidelines table to +/- 8 works. I'd love to see the Bound values after the normal ones, but even that isn't needed. Just give us some kind official recognition instead of being a straight up houserule.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
1. This is an exaggeration.

I said: You reduced all armor AC by 50% in PF2, our ACs are not good.

OK, I’ll check some old characters.
PF1 2H Fighter (Breastplate, 12 Dex) = AC 17; PF2 Version = AC 16
PF1 2H Fighter (Full Plate, 12 Dex) = AC 20 (more if buffed with shield AC 24); PF2 Version = AC 18
Dex Monk: Fully buffed = AC 25; PF2 Version = AC 17

AC is less by 1 or 2 AC, more if you consider UMD. Stuff like flanking is now a big deal, so a decrease of 1 or 2 AC is a big deal.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Most monsters of the same level would have a bonus of +6 or +7 to hit

That’s not true.

Every level 0 PF2 monster has +6 to hit.

Iconic PF1 monsters: skeletons +0, zombies +4, most NPCs +3, orc +5, goblins +2.

A difference of +1/2 is huge in this game, a +4 or +6 difference is massive.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
2. Of course there isn't, they're cantrips now. The Shield Cantrip is actually pretty useful, letting players have Shields without paying for money or anything, and Mage Armor was mostly worthless unless you wore little to no armor (which is a Monk-specific problem), or you were fighting Incorporeals (in which case the Wizard was better at it than any Martial character!). Even then, getting Wands of these items were costly, something that most, if not all, level 1 PCs couldn't realistically afford. I honestly wouldn't expect it until level 3 at the absolute earliest. Until then, you're SoL.

I said: 2) There is no UMD wand buffing with Mage Armor or Shield anymore.

PF2 Shield is weak compared to PF1 Shield and cannot be used in the same way.

In PF1, PCs with UMD could use Shield to buff themselves before battle. Martials could easily get into the 20-30 AC range if they knew a big fight was coming. +4 AC was huge.

Level 1 wands are very easy to purchase, especially in PFS. 750g is affordable and to a monk, 1 hour of +4 AC for Mage Armor is worth it.
I know, because I did it. My monk is level 13 now and didn’t even use 50 charges yet. 1 hour is a long time when you can usually clear in 1 hour.

Shield and UMD was a factor, even if your group didn’t use it.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
3. Not necessarily. If bonuses are scaling in an appropriate manner, this balance should only change slightly (if at all), usually in the face of getting multiple bonuses.

I said: 3) The crit rules make crits happen a LOT more often, especially with larger attack bonuses.

My play test experiences disagree. In the 1st encounter my PCs crit their enemies 4 times. The PCs crit failed skill checks 10+ times. One character drowned. And that was only the 1st encounter!

In the second encounter, they got crit 3 times.

In the third encounter, same thing.

Fourth encounter they were doing the criting, at least 2 times.

It was pretty much the same in my 2nd and 3rd playtest sessions.

In PF1, it’s common to have no crits in a session, let alone an encounter.

PF2 should consider removing autocrits, it would make the game less swingy.

Again I'm surprised you would argue about this, either you don't play a lot of PF1 or you haven't playtested PF2 much.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
So, if you're finding the skeletons are too strong, then it's time to tone down the power level of your campaign to compensate.

All level 0 creatures have +6 to attack. There is no toning down, unless you are houseruling, which I am close to doing, if I don't just turn back and stay with PF1.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


4. Failed backward compatibility isn't really a thing, because this wasn't a primary design goal of PF2. I wouldn't expect PF2 and PF1 to be compatible because they are largely different engines with different rules, abilities, and so on. Converting Rise of the Runelords, or Return of the Runelords, for examples, would be practically impossible due to the different guidelines and rules of the two not meshing hardly whatsoever.

Did you read the thread? Mark disagrees, he said it's somewhat backwards compatible, so we’ll see.

It would be much better for Paizo if it was partially backward compatible.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


5. Healing is only scarce in the lower levels, and this has been true since PF1. You would be very lucky to have a Potion of Cure Light Wounds starting out, since that takes anywhere from 1/4 to 2/3 your starting wealth. In PF2, it takes 1/5 your starting wealth regardless, meaning you're more likely to have healing to work with in PF2 compared to PF1, starting out. Of course, Resonance can change this, but that's its own issue.

No, healing wasn’t scarce in PF1. You could have UMD or anyone with CLW on their spell list and you could buy a wand of cure light wounds. They were cheap, 750g (or basically free in PFS). You didn’t need a healer. Again, I think you’re just not familiar with this style of play or how effective it is.

In PF2, so far it looks like you’ll need a dedicated healer.

Honestly, can’t believe you’re arguing about this.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


6. The 15 minute adventuring day has been around since PF1, so this isn't anything new. Part of the challenge (and risks) of adventuring is determining what kind of limit your characters have. Do we press on and risk it all to finish the quest proper, or do we rest (which is a risk all its own, I might add), and continue forward safely? If the game didn't want the players to make this choice, they could have made a "Hit Points are restored at the end of each combat" clause in the rules, but clearly they don't want that videogame-y aspect to their rules.

I said: 6) Even if you don’t kill the party, you’ve injured them enough that they won’t have the resources to continue adventuring without resting 8 hours. Yawn. Sorry, not fun.

I don’t think you understand.

In PF1, even without a healer or any healing, it’s quite possible to do 4-6 encounters. With a wand of CLW, more.

In my playtests so far, I’ve had several encounters were we just need to stop, and rest for several days. Sometimes after a single encounter.

Doing a single encounter with 4 goblins or 6 centipedes and immediately needing to rest for days is not what I’m looking for in an RPG.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


Seriously, it's more of the same. "Fighter out of hit points? Could keep going if we heal him. Wizard and Cleric are out of spells? Time to rest."

Clearly it’s not the same, or I wouldn’t be posting. Or the many other people posting about the same thing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think this edition is really meant to support enemies remaining relevant for more than 2 levels. The way the engine works you really need monsters to be as close to APL as possible to ensure things go smoothly. It doesn't take too long before one side becomes unhittable and crits like 40% of the time.

So I'm not sure how long you want to keep lv0 monsters relevant for compared to everyone else. At level 4 you're past Goblin Warriors, and at 8 the level 4 guys are more irrelevant than the goblins were at 4.

I think maybe the Encounter difficulties section might need to be reconsidered if monsters of equivalent level than you can kick your butt most of the time unless you're max optimized, then just 50% of the time. So is a PC considered his Level for encounter-building purposes? Because it feels like (level-1), without PC Gear/stats then it's at least that low, if not lower. So what is the baseline for PC CR?

Or maybe it's just jarring because in PF1, level appropiate encounters were a lot easier than they seem now. Monsters with same attack bonuses would be much higher CR than their PF2 level indicates.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

The problem with every monster having an attack bonus that is better than your best martial PC and defenses that are too low is that the monsters are all glass cannons.
For example, if the party wins initiative then they can probably destroy enough of the monsters before they can act.

If the creatures win initiative or they have range, their offense takes effect and they can hurt the party badly. Rocket tag at level 1.

I think that’s what we’re seeing in some playtests and definitely in mine.

To me, a level 0 monster's attack bonus should be reduced to +4.

I really don't care if level 4 characters find level 0 creatures challenging or not, the level 0 monsters can still hit and quite frankly they probably shouldn't be fighting level 0 creatures at that point anyway.

I’ve playtested 15 hours now and the result is always the same, I’m thinking of houseruling it already, which is really bad, but better than losing players. Getting dropped like this is getting unbearable.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Zman0 wrote:
I think they did it do keep the level 0s relevant a bit longer, to make them usable against characters as they level to 4ish. Without a +6, they would severely struggle to even touch a 4th level character's AC.

This is a fantastic design ambition imho. As a GM designing encounters in PF1 adding mooks is a tricky business. Either you have them unable to hit the better protected PCs or their CR gets too high and there's no room for them alongside their boss to get the action economy balance you want. Thank you Mark for confirming this as one of your intentions.

Alongside the level 1 rocket tag issue if the GM wins initiative and rolls high, as some have been reporting in the playtest, my worry is that players benchmark their power against the monsters they face. The fact that many monsters PCs meet have better attack bonuses than the players could ever achieve can be demotivating and make players feel inadequate. It is kind of silly, but players do it all the time, at least in my experience.

Perhaps there's a middle ground that achieves the same design aim whilst avoiding some of the unintended consequences?

For example (pulling numbers out of a hat): lower the average +attack for monsters by 2. Then increase their hit points slightly to compensate. Then provide a mook template for GMs to tweak the creatures when they are used in numbers against PCs that retains their CR (now level) whilst improving their +attack. The functional equivalent of moving CON into STR in most cases.

This would only be needed for monsters suitable for use as mooks. The lower level monsters that traditionally play the role of boss are less of an issue (looking at you Manticore).

(Shhhh, don't tell my players but I do this in PF 1 when the encounter calls for it and I've found it to work well. I like to pretend i'm crushing their egos but really they are my heroes too and I want them to feel heroic).

PS: love the simplified monster design. More flexibility and flavour with much less GM prep time. Full support for that from this GM.

PPS: troop templates ;)

Paizo Employee Designer

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Okay, I appear to have screwed up my last post completely. I seem to have been confusing the +17 common among 7th level monsters, with the +15 common among 6th level ones (which remains +2 above a Fighter of the same level, for the record). I even know how this happened (I was originally planning to analyze 6th level monsters in my post before that, then changed it...I apparently momentarily forgot that I changed it), but it remains my bad. My apologies for the error.

That's still a higher jump there than between other levels (+7 over four levels, with only a +5 over the next four), and could maybe stand some fixing, but it's not nearly as extreme of one.

I did a check and our underlying benchmarks were mostly correct this time, but the smoothing smoothed down too much in that region (I think because of trying to smooth towards the closest level, but it's been a while). It seems like one of the monster bonuses should move from 6 to 10. This would lower accuracy by 1 from 6 to 9. Adding that to a very slight adjustment of the item benchmarks that were at most 1 level off (other than skill items) due to crafting changes, which might tinker with some of the other numbers by at most 1 (wouldn't affect 6, maybe 7 for accuracy), it should lead to a situation where, even after smoothing, even the top monsters can't go more than 1 above the fighter at any level.

Now the real fun question is: Did you do a thorough analysis across many levels to find level 13 for skills and level 7 for accuracy to use to compare (which turned out to be the convergent off level both times), or did you happen upon them due to circumstances?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Yossarian wrote:
As a GM designing encounters in PF1 adding mooks is a tricky business. Either you have them unable to hit the better protected PCs or their CR gets too high and there's no room for them alongside their boss to get the action economy balance you want.

As someone who's GMed a fair amount of SWSE and PF1, as well as other RPGs, in my experience the mooks aren't supposed to be a genuine threat to the PCs. That's why they're mooks. In a fight with a more powerful boss, they're mostly there to divide the PCs attention so that they don't overwhelm the boss too quickly though sheer number of actions and to let those with AoE or multi-target attacks a chance to use them. In a fight without a boss, they're there to let the PCs feel like heroes by taking out a numerically-superior foe and maybe consume some resources. I don't expect them to have a 50/50 chance of hitting the PCs, because then they wouldn't be mooks, they'd be equals. Even a 20% chance, across multiple mooks, means that there's a decent risk of someone getting hit and the players will want to clear them out quickly. All the more so now that every single one is getting three attacks. That's a lot of chances to roll a 20.

(SWSE made using mooks even easier by letting stormtroopers Aid Another each other without needing to roll, so multiple stormtroopers could form up like Voltron to make one attack with a higher bonus instead of multiple attacks with low ones.)

A game where even the weakest enemy I throw my players up against is going to have just as good an attack as their very best and roughly a 50/50 chance to hit even the best ACs among them... that just doesn't feel very "heroic fantasy" to me.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I’m guessing “heroic fantasy” is one those markers that’s fairly subjective and can be applied quite broadly. Think 5e - where a throng of orcs remains a threat to life and limb at level 1 or level 10. Some would argue it still remains heroic fantasy. Exchange the description “heroic fantasy” for “PF1” in your last sentence and I agree, but I’m not sure that’s a bad thing.

Dark Archive

I've been working on an Average Stats by Level spreadsheet (so many numbers) and my data shows that, disregarding outliers like the Ox and Donkey, the average Level 0 creature has a +6 attack bonus and deals 3 damage. The only outliers on damage are the Orc Brute and Zombie Shambler, which deal an additional 2 damage (and the Shambler has a special attack that deals more, but only vs Grabbed or Restrained enemies). The rest average out as follows:

HP: 7 (minus the Zombie Shambler with nearly 3x that amount)
AC: 13
TAC: 12
Fort: +2
Refl: +2
Will: +0
Perception: +2

My perception of this issue is that Level 0 creatures will be able to hit more often, but their average damage is still pretty low. Damage per attack is roughly 2.5 on the first attack, 1.35 on the second, and 0.6 on the third (using the calculation DPS = (A×D)+(C×D), where DPS = Damage per Strike, A = Chance to hit, C = Chance to crit, and D = Damage). Most PCs will likely have AC somewhere between 13 and 19 (with a shield raised), so even the lowest-AC spellcasters shouldn't theoretically be in too much danger from the average Level 0 creature. Of course, armchair math and actual play experience may vary greatly from table to table.

Once I have it all filled out I'll probably post the spreadsheet somewhere on the forums. Assuming I haven't died of old age by the time I finish.

(PS: The Kobold Warrior is missing an Attack bonus on both of their attacks, and the Mercenary Scout is missing an Attack bonus on its Fist attack.)


Jason S wrote:
Armor stuff

Doesn't change my statement that "armor AC is reduced by 50%" is still an exaggeration, even by your numbers for those who actually use armor. It might be true for Mage Armor and such, but smart Wizard players shouldn't have any major use for it sans Incorporeals (which probably use different rules now, I didn't look at them yet).

Also, flanking has always been a big deal. +2 to hit is always nice, and since it stacks with everything, only requiring proper tactics, people who didn't make use of it were inoptimal. It's actually simply more of a big deal than what it is now since being flanked period unlocks sneak attack from any foe, not just ones who are flanking you.

Jason S wrote:
Monster stuff

I must be fighting some buffed up monsters then, since the last time we fought skeletons at 1st level they about killed us. As for the bonuses, the +1/+2 difference is only a matter of 5% between the tiers of success, usually having a flat modifier. A +4/+6 from PF1 is similarly massive, the only thing that really changed are the critical rules ("fumbles" now being a thing, and critical thresholds changing), and the tiers of success/failure. In short, saying those bonuses are massive in PF2 doesn't mean they weren't similarly powerful in PF1.

In addition, they have a design problem, which is making monsters "same-y." Every monster having the same bonuses to hit in PF2 (as you said with the Level 0 monsters), same AC, same saves, etc. compared to the PF1 monsters having varied amounts of those attributes (some being different CRs, but that's beside the point when we're consolidating lower tier CRs), meant that certain monsters were more deadly in certain ways than other. And if they are Glass Cannons, then this means Rocket Tag is a thing, something that PF2 is supposed to be much less of, and that's yet another design problem. Bad design isn't really a great measure of balance between CRs, and a lot of the discussion above is a great example as to how that is, since anomalies are being found and confirmed.

Jason S wrote:
UMD stuff

If PF2 Shield is weak in comparison to PF1 Shield, then why would someone want a Wand of Shield to UMD with, if UMD still existed in PF2? Same goes for Mage Armor.

As for players having UMD, it's not really the best thing to invest into, considering what you all get for it. In PF1, at 1st level (assuming you even have access to wands to UMD with), you have approximately a DC 20 check to make, most likely higher. You can't reliably do this at 1st level, even with (1 rank + 5 attribute + 3 class skill + 3 skill focus + 2 magical aptitude) a +14 to the check. You can still fail 30% of the time. This also takes two feats (which can be better spent elsewhere), a class skill (which Monks, the main contenders here, would require outside investment to have), a maximized Charisma (possible with Scaled Fist archetype, but considering it's late-end splatbook material, I don't see that as a very common build option since you lose on Will Saves as well), and rank investments (I am assuming players wants to maximize UMD to reduce these failures, which takes levels, which takes time, which takes encounters, which takes fighting, which means you won't have the bonuses at those levels).

Except for the most niche and optimized of players, even at 3rd or 5th level, when you can reasonably have a decent amount of investment into this, you don't reliably UMD a consumable item like Wands and such, and for spells like Mage Armor, you didn't really need to if you planned stuff accordingly. (PFS is its own bag of worms, but PFS is certainly not a norm to base stuff off of when they are effectively a houseruled game of their own.)

Jason S wrote:
Backwards Compatibility stuff

Pot meet kettle. I said that backwards compatibility wasn't a primary design goal, which means it's not a super-high priority for them to make PF1 stuff work with PF2 stuff. It might be something they want to do, but if it means sacrificing something as important as PF2's unique identity, I'm not certain they'd let PF1 win that debacle.

I can assure you that converting even a single entire adventure would require major rewrites of existing rules, or conjuring up of completely different rules whose substantiation is GM FIAT when the actual rules are silent or unclear (as is the case with monster creation rules currently). It would be nothing short of a herculean task, multiplied by the number of APs they design, for proper conversions. Not to mention what people's individual inputs for certain adventures might be, and you're now left with the Multiple Universe interpretation of what a PF1 AP would be like in PF2.

Jason S wrote:
Healing stuff

Actually, I do know what I'm talking about, and it's a fair thing to argue about because that 750 gold investment makes the difference between Cleric players being a Healbot or CoDZilla. Saying that PF2 now requires a dedicated healbot might be true, but it's not because of "healing being scarce," but instead being limited by an arbitrary mechanic. CLW Wands still exist in PF2, and are practically identical to PF1's in function (and presumably price scaling), so saying "healing is scarce" is a misnomer because on that front, the only front that mattered in PF1, it did not change whatsoever. "Healing is limited" is a much better application, since players can still stock up on dozens of CLW Wands, but can only use them so much in any given day.

(Just an FYI, PFS isn't the standard for gameplay, so making it out to be and saying everyone else is wrong for not doing or experiencing it isn't exactly doing your case any favors either.)

Jason S wrote:
15 Minute Adventuring Day stuff

No doubt, I do those a lot too, on both sides of the spectrum (single encounter versus several-encounter days). A deadly encounter is going to take more resources to overcome than an encounter that isn't. It's a basic foundation of balance. And in the above case, doing single encounters and resting due to being deadly compared to doing multiple encounters and resting due to being deadly are different things, and different reasons for being identically deadly.

1st level players were likewise squishy too, and have very few resources on hand to maintain effectiveness and progression (although for casters, they had more than in PF2). A symptom of lower levels is not having the resources to deal with numerous encounters depending on deadliness, it's just fact. Need to use Invisibility to properly defeat this next part of the adventure? Need more experience and power to do that.

It's more of a feature of 1st level (amateur heroes being the underdog of the story) than a bug in comparison to higher levels (fabled champions arising to defeat the coming evil).

Liberty's Edge

Mark Seifter wrote:
I did a check and our underlying benchmarks were mostly correct this time, but the smoothing smoothed down too much in that region (I think because of trying to smooth towards the closest level, but it's been a while). It seems like one of the monster bonuses should move from 6 to 10. This would lower accuracy by 1 from 6 to 9. Adding that to a very slight adjustment of the item benchmarks that were at most 1 level off (other than skill items) due to crafting changes, which might tinker with some of the other numbers by at most 1 (wouldn't affect 6, maybe 7 for accuracy), it should lead to a situation where, even after smoothing, even the top monsters can't go more than 1 above the fighter at any level.

That's awesome. Thanks for the information. :)

Mark Seifter wrote:
Now the real fun question is: Did you do a thorough analysis across many levels to find level 13 for skills and level 7 for accuracy to use to compare (which turned out to be the convergent off level both times), or did you happen upon them due to circumstances?

I examined level 1, 7, and 13 for skills fairly arbitrarily, and then returned to level 7 for accuracy because I'd already examined the creatures there (deciding I didn't have time to do level 6 as I originally intended). So serendipity, basically. :)

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Playtest / Game Master Rules / Monsters and Hazards / Attack Bonuses are too high for level 0 creatures All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.