In the final encounter of the adventure, the Mercenary Scout (a human ranger) is listed as a level 3 creature. However, the damage that she's doing with her attacks seems way off (2d6+2 with a normal kukri and 2d6+2 with an expert composite shortbow). I realize that creatures in the Bestiary don't seem to match the normal character creation rules (that's a whole other conversation), but even so, that seems excessive.
Compare the anti-paladin, who also has an expert composite shortbow and is a level 5 creature, and deals only 1d6+4 damage. She deals 2d12+4 with her greataxe, but that's because it is a magical weapon.
That's just a problem with the encounter designs; numbers are thrown around just to be thrown around, and without some sort of hard-coding (such as just having a base modifier, which the GM can add more onto with his houseruling as needed), these numbers become skeptical as to whether they are accurate enough.
One example is how Zakfah, a Gnoll Sergeant, gets more bonuses to hit with a Scimitar and Shortbow (and deal an extra dice of damage) without any effects (such as magical weapons or actions) or abilities (such as Power Attack) that reflect them, compared to his Bite attack, which has much less damage and bonuses. Because it's a playtest, we can't just change the numbers to suit the players' needs because it's more important to demonstrate to Paizo why certain things are bad or need to be changed for the sake of player enjoyment.
I think I actually remember somebody from Paizo saying that the playtesting doesn't have "fun" as a primary goal. (That isn't to say they won't consider it, just that they understand there will have to be sacrifices like "fun" made for the sake of accurate playtest data to help grant and promote a "fun" game.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hear you. I think it is up to each GM to balance playtest goals with "rules as written" versus having a fun time playing. But I also think that the designers would probably like to know about something that looks to me like an editing error, rather than a design goal. I could be wrong tho!
The damage given in those entries is most likely intentional. NPC statistics are functionally arbitrary, because the authors were too lazy to bother justifying NPC statistics (or ensuring they even could be justified). IIRC somebody even admitted that all of the NPCs were designed using an outdated set of guidelines, which is why their statistics tend to be equal to or outright better than what a PC specialist can attain...
In terms of playability, it's already a killer encounter. In my playtest, with the group that made it that far, the scout was a non-factor.
I wish NPCs followed more rules like the PCs need to follow.
An even worse instance of breaking those rules are the six level 2 spells the cleric has.
I do not like it.
In terms of playability, it's already a killer encounter. In my playtest, with the group that made it that far, the scout was a non-factor.
I wish NPCs followed more rules like the PCs need to follow.
An even worse instance of breaking those rules are the six level 2 spells the cleric has.
I do not like it.
To be fair, the Cleric has six level 2 spells because of Channel Harm. Instead of setting them apart, the stat block combines in his (3 plus Charisma modifer = 4) uses of the harm spell.
I don't have a problem with this sort of short-hand, per se. In fact, with high level builds, I kind of prefer it. Otherwise it becomes very cumbersome (as a GM) to track the many possible options each NPC enemy has.
And I don't mind it being a ridiculously tough encounter. The PCs are supposed to avoid this fight. If they don't, they've already kind of failed the purpose of their mission. And if it were too easy to beat, then the whole "rush to the tomb" part becomes somewhat pointless in retrospect.
What I don't like is when the numbers are just made up, and as long as they fit within a certain parameter, they are considered acceptable. I want there to be a system behind the scenes. It was a critical design goal in third edition D&D, and it is one of the major reasons that folks loved that edition, to the point where seeing it continue in Pathfinder was preferable to playing 4th and 5th edition D&D.
I hope that Paizo keeps that design goal for the new edition of Pathfinder. To be honest, just because their Bestiary doesn't do it at the moment, doesn't mean they have abandoned it. I think they are testing a lot of aspects of the system, and I anticipate a significantly cleaner version a year from now.
Yeah I guess (it was made to be a killer encounter). I was just saying don't worry about the scout having +1 damage.
Thanks for pointing out Harm.
I don't think that's one of their design goals. There are some things that can be changed, but that's not one of them.
But we can always ask that they take the baseline and slightly tweak it, so it fits the creature better.
OK, I've taken some time to do some analysis of the NPCs that appear in the Bestiary. Clearly they were made using a prior edition of the rules. For example, the Cleric of Rovagug probably was a half-orc before they incorporated it into human (see, for example, the -1 Int modifier).
Overall, what you can expect from these NPCs is that they will lack the majority of general and skill feats that PCs get and they will not get as many class feats. They will also have fewer skills overall. They also lack backgrounds.
What they appear to get instead are some flat bonuses: to attack, damage, saves, hp, and skills probably varying by class.
They do not appear to get any bonus to armor class over and beyond what they would have for their level.
I think we are probably looking at three layers of differences between the NPCs and the PCs: 1) built using a prior set of rules for character creation, 2) build using some simplified rules to exchange skill and general feats for straight +1s in certain areas, and 3) typos.
The typos are what drive me up a tree, frankly :) And I'm pretty sure that the extra d6 of damage for the Mercenary Scout falls in that category. I think he was supposed to get an extra +1 damage, not +1d6.
The typos are what drive me up a tree, frankly :) And I'm pretty sure that the extra d6 of damage for the Mercenary Scout falls in that category. I think he was supposed to get an extra +1 damage, not +1d6.
Oh I see what you mean now.
It was probably done to keep monster level 3 damage consistent with other level 3 monsters. For example:
Melee: 1d8+6 = 10
Melee: 1d6+4 piercing plus 1d6 acid = 11
Scout damage = 2d6+2 = 9
So slightly less damage since he is ranged.
They want all monsters of a certain level to be consistent with each other. Yes, it's kind of annoying when taken too literally.