Wizard Class Preview

Monday, May 21, 2018

With Paizocon getting underway in just a few days, we wanted to round out our previews by looking at the final class that you will be able to play at the show. So, without further delay, it's time to look at the wizard!

Wizard Features

If you are building a wizard, everything starts with your key ability, Intelligence. Having a high Intelligence gives you a boost to the DCs of your spells, and it gives you more skill choices at 1st level.

At 1st level, you begin play with a spellbook containing 10 cantrips and eight 1st-level spells, giving you a wide variety of spells to draw upon when you prepare your magic each morning. Starting out, you can prepare four cantrips and two 1st-level spells each day. In addition, you also select your arcane school at 1st level, which grants you one extra spell slot of each level that you can use only to prepare a spell from your chosen school. You can compare this to the cleric, who doesn't get extra spell slots, but instead gets a narrow ability to cast extra heal or harm spells. Your school also grants you a school power that you can cast using a pool of Spell Points. Take a look at the nifty power you can pick up from choosing divination as your school. (Remember, that [[A]] code you see indicates that this is an action, and it will be a snazzy icon in the final rulebook!)

DIVINER'S SIGHT

Concentrate, Divination, Fortune

Casting [[A]] Verbal Casting

Range 30 feet; Targets one willing living creature

Duration end of your next turn or until dismissed

You glimpse into the target's future. Roll a d20. When the target attempts a Perception check, saving throw, or skill check, it can use the number you rolled instead of rolling, and the spell is dismissed. Casting it again dismisses any active diviner's sight.

Even if you don't roll so great, it might still help avoid a critical failure on a vital saving throw.

You can forgo selecting an arcane school, instead choosing to be a universalist. This grants you a bonus wizard feat and extra uses of your arcane focus.

Speaking of which, all wizards gain the ability to place some of their power into a designated item called an arcane focus. You can drain the power from that focus once per day to cast any one spell that you have already cast without spending another spell slot. Universalists get to use this ability once for each level of spell that they can cast!

As a wizard goes up in level, they gain more spells that they can cast (either one extra spell of their highest level, or two of a new level) and their proficiency at spellcasting also increases. They start as trained, but rise to the rank of legendary at 19th level.

Illustration by Wayne Reynolds

Wizard Feats

Wizards have never had too many class features to choose from to help distinguish them from one another, so when it came time to design feats for the wizard, it was a clear opportunity to add some variety to the class.

Lets start out with a few classic concepts. At 1st level, you can pick up a feat that allows you to spend your reaction to counterspell any spell someone else casts as long as you currently have that spell prepared. If that isn't to your taste, you can take a wizard feat to recruit a familiar instead. Every day, you can select a pair of abilities to give this loyal companion, some of which grant you boons as well. At high levels, your familiar can even grant you an additional spell slot, as long as it is 3 levels lower than the highest-level spell you can cast. At 8th level you can select from a series of feats that enhance the power of your arcane school, increasing your pool of Spell Points and granting you an extra spell you can cast using that pool. One of my favorites is the necromantic power called life siphon, which lets you draw some of the magic from a non-cantrip necromancy spell you cast to regain 1d8 Hit Points per level of the spell.

Not surprisingly, the wizard also has a lot of feats to choose from that modify the spells that you cast. While many of these metamagic feats will be familiar to veterans of the game, allowing you to extend the reach or widen the area of a spell, for example, others are new. Conceal Spell lets you add an action to a spell as you cast it to hide the fact that you are casting. Focus Conservation is an action you can add to any spell that you cast by draining your arcane focus, and it lets you drain your arcane focus again the next round, casting another spell as long as it is 2 levels lower than the spell you just cast. Better still, you can keep using this feat as long as you have lower-level spells to cast. For example, if you start out draining your focus to cast cone of cold (a 5th-level spell dealing a wicked 11d6 cold damage to all your enemies), you could follow it up next round with a fireball. If you use the feat again, you could drain focus again on the following round, casting any 1st-level spell you had already cast.

As a wizard rises to the highest levels of power, their feats grant them more and more options when determining how to best utilize their spells. Effortless Concentration gives you a free action at the start of each round to concentrate on a spell you have cast, freeing you up to use all 3 actions normally. Superior Focus gives you another use of your arcane focus. Quick Preparation lets you swap out spells you have already prepared in just 10 minutes. At 20th level, you can pick Spell Combination, which lets you combine two spells into one terrifying attack that you can unleash on one unfortunate foe.

Spells

One of the biggest ways you can customize your wizard is in your spell selection, so it's probably worth looking at a few signature wizard spells to see how they work. Let's start with one of the most iconic spells of them all.

MAGIC MISSILE SPELL 1

Evocation, Force

Casting [[A]] Verbal Casting or more

Range 120 feet; Targets one creature

You send a dart of force streaking toward a creature that you can see. It automatically hits and deals 1d4+1 force damage. When Casting this Spell, you can increase the casting by a Material Casting action, a Somatic Casting action, or both. For each component you add, increase the number of missiles you shoot by one. You choose the target for each missile individually.

Heightened (+2) You shoot one additional missile with each action you spend.

Magic missile shows off a couple of interesting options in the wizard's arsenal. Casting a spell can be done in a number of ways using a variable number of actions. While most of the time this is through metamagic feats, it can also come from the spell itself. Adding casting actions to magic missile gives you more missiles to throw. In addition, a wide variety of spells can be prepared using a higher-level spell slot, giving you a better effect without having to refer to an entirely different spell. (You can find out more about that in the All About Spells blog.) That means you can prepare magic missile as a 9th-level spell and spend three actions casting it for 15 missiles!

Another important aspect of picking spells for your wizard is to balance what saving throws they allow and what effects you can get depending on the results of the save. For that, let's take a look at a spell that might instantly kill a foe.

PHANTASMAL KILLER SPELL 4

Death, Emotion, Fear, Illusion, Mental

Casting [[A]] Somatic Casting, [[A]] Verbal Casting

Range 120 feet; Targets one living creature

You create a phantasmal image of the most fearsome creature imaginable to the target. Only the spell's target can see the killer, though you can see the vague shape of the illusion as it races forth to attack. The effect of the killer is based on the outcome of the target's Will saving throw.

Success The target is frightened 1.

Critical Success The target is unaffected.

Failure The target takes 8d6 mental damage and is frightened 2.

Critical Failure The target is so afraid it might instantly die. It must attempt a Fortitude saving throw; if the target fails, it is reduced to 0 Hit Points and dies. On a successful Fortitude save, the target still takes 12d6 mental damage, is fleeing until the end of its next turn, and is frightened 4.

Heightened (+1) The damage on a failure increases by 2d6 and on a critical failure by 3d6.

This spell is perfect for removing a lower-level foe from a fight, but it has the chance of greatly hampering a higher-level foe as well. The frightened condition reduces by 1 each turn, but it applies a penalty to almost all of your checks and rolls until it does. You will find interesting choices like these throughout the arcane spell list. While most will be familiar to a Pathfinder veteran, there are a lot of new spells to explore as well, from grim tendril to chromatic wall, so your wizard will be ready for anything.

Well, that wraps up our look at the wizard. If you want to give this class (or the alchemist, cleric, fighter, paladin, or rogue) a try, make sure to stop by PaizoCon (this weekend), the UK Games Expo (early June), or Origins (mid-June), as we'll be running demos during all three conventions!

Jason Bulmahn
Director of Game Design

Note: Due to PaizoCon, there will not be a Pathfinder Playtest Blog on Friday, May 25th or Monday, May 28th.

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Ezren Pathfinder Playtest Wayne Reynolds Wizards
751 to 800 of 918 << first < prev | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
gustavo iglesias wrote:

Pf1 magic missile cast by a 1st lvl wizard vs a skeleton:

1d4+1 hp vs 4 hp. 50% chance to kill

PF2 magic missile cast by a 1st lvl wizard vs a skeleton

3d4+3 hp vs 6 hp. 100% chance to kill

Maybe we should wait a bit more before claiming the math is "exceptionally clear". The sample size is way too small to cherry pick.

You are conveniently forgetting the "if you spend 3 actions casting it" part.

Magic missile PF1 cast & move. MM PF2 1d4+1 and move twice, 2d4+2 and move once. Stan still and deal 3d4+3. The PF2 version is better if you are a level 1 caster, but not 3 times better.

But you are speaking of 1st level casters. For a third level caster it is on par or worse unless he spend 3 actions. for a 5th level caster it is worse, as, to deal the same damage that he would have dealt in PF1, he has to stand still.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Trimalchio wrote:
I'd rather just talk about the game, but im asking you to at least try and have a reasonable conversation.

I think I'm being pretty reasonable, really. Especially after having been accused of lying. But sure, let's get back to the game stuff.

Trimalchio wrote:
Hp inflation seems pretty much confirmed from the stat blocks and PC max hit points, I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary.

So, Mark Seifter specifically stated this to not be the case.

As I've been repeatedly stating, monster HP has been normalized with PC HP, which makes for higher monster HP at low levels (especially very low levels), but actually quite a bit less at higher ones.

Trimalchio wrote:

My frustration with the blasting nerf is that the PF1 wizard casting fireball wasn't the problem with caster / martial disparity, it was the wizard casting a dazing fireball, or the spell perfection feat chain, or auto win spells like maze, and so on.

Blasting away with cone of cold, which incidentally is a very sub par spell, should probably do d8s and have a status effect, was so far down the optimization list that it needed a boost if anything.

And like I said, we have no evidence it isn't a solid choice this edition (indeed, the DPR is pretty nice, like I said). Sure, it just does damage, but at 9th when you get it it's actually a fair bit more damage. That evens out over time, but by then you have better spells as well.

Trimalchio wrote:
I wish these blogs talked more about design considerations and decisions based on that, often times these posts don't address many of the concerns I've seen brought up, not to say PF2 won't address them, but I'd like to see a more explicit discussion of it.

Not everyone is interested in hearing about design goals like this, so focusing on them limits the Blog's audience quite a bit. I'd be interested, but I know people who definitely wouldn't be. So it's bad advertising (and that's what these Blogs are, bear in mind, advertising).

Also, stating design goals gets people off into weird arguments about whether the specific mechanics meet those specific goals, rather than actually discussing whether the game is good and they like it. Which is bad for the game's popularity.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Trimalchio wrote:

You can't look at spells in a vacuum, you need to compare them to the creatures they will target.

I've already done the math, and PF1 blasting is clearly superior, people can write otherwise but the math is exceptionally clear.

Now there could be other factors as we are getting a very limited preview, but the information so far provided is a hard nerf for almost all blasting.

Having also done math...huh? PF2 Blasting does higher DPR than baseline PF1 blasting by quite a bit, and all indications are that at any but the lowest levels, monster HP isn't notably higher (indeed, at high levels, it's lower than it was in PF1).

Blasting is 'worse' vs. Ogres very specifically because in PF1, Ogres have average CR 3 HP, while in PF2 they have way more than that. But that's a change in a particular monster (and has been specified as such by Mark Seifter) rather than some blanket change in monsters in general (indeed, PF1 also has monsters like that, Ogres just aren't one of them).

So...no. You are clearly and demonstratably wrong.

Actually, with the exception of the redcap, all the moster we have seen have more HP. And characters made using the PC creation use have more hp too.

A skeleton has got a 50% increase in hp, a zombie a 66.6% increase and an ogre a 100% increase. The redcap lose 8.33% of his hp.

A lvl 1 wizard (it they use a d6) a 100% increase. 6 from class and a minimum of 6 from race. After that they get a 50% increase from the hp that they receive from the class. Characters that use a d8 get a 60% increase, d10 a 66% increase and d12 a 71.4% increase.

Your test as proved that against target with a low save the critical failure make up for that. And if we get the intent correctly, even a few point of difference in the save value will make a large difference.

If current AP encounters trends stay true for PF2 we will generally meet creatures that are our CR or higher, so probably with good saves and a low chance of failing critically. With a starting point that is slightly better than PF1 but rapidly lose to the same PF1 spell (PF2 fireball, 5th level caster = 6d6, lvl 10 caster, still 6d6. PF1 version from 5d6 to 10d6) we need to make way more complex simulations to say "math prove that PF2 blasting is better".

And we still have the problem that from what we see most targets will get more hp than PF1 targets (see above).

Liberty's Edge

I address the point about how monster HP works above. Particularly with the linked quote.

In short:

It's somewhat higher at low levels (though not normally as much higher as Ogres have), then normalizes (probably right around CR 5 or so) then gradually drops off.

This is all due to it being made much closer to PC HP of the appropriate level.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:
Trimalchio wrote:

You can keep saying the ogre is somehow unique... But they are half my sample size, unless someone cares to provide more stat blocks.

Even the redcap, if you compare how it is a level 5 creature vs PF1 CR 6 monster, has more hit points for it's relative level and fast healing 10. Also the PF2 redcap is very unlikely to critically fail a ref save.

Finally we know PCs will have more hp.

All available evidence points towards hp inflation.

Except the developers of the game saying monster HP won't be as high at higher levels. But yeah if you ignore that you can totally assume it will be higher in PF2.

Well, out of 4 monster example we have, 3 have more hp, 1 less.

For characters, everyone has more hp. At least 6 extra hp for the race and 2 for the class, up to 10 for the race plus 5 for the class.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

I address the point about how monster HP works above. Particularly with the linked quote.

In short:

It's somewhat higher at low levels (though not normally as much higher as Ogres have), then normalizes (probably right around CR 5 or so) then gradually drops off.

This is all due to it being made much closer to PC HP of the appropriate level.

Lets compare the PF! tables for monster hp against a PC in PF2

I will use a d12 character with a 10 hp race and 16 cons as the PF1 tables hp are mostly for bruiser monsters.

lvl 1 25 hp
lvl 5 85 hp
lvl 10 160 hp
lvl 15 235 hp
lvl 20 310 hp

Suggested hp or PF1 monsters

lvl 1 15
lvl 5 55
lvl 10 130
lvl 15 220
lvl 20 370

It seem that if they have hp similar to the PCs, they will have more than PF1 monster hp for most of their career.

Burned again by "you have backtracked too far". I am editing, where is that "backtracking"?


I don't think enough has been revealed yet to say if blasting is better or worse.
For example, we don't know if our putative 9th level wizard has any of:

A cantrip that does d4/level / d6/level (plus int?) damage of (choose an energy type?) as a touch attack? range 30/60/90 foot? Double damage on a crit? Save allowed or not?

A feat/evocation school ability/ritual of 'alll my fire spells/ice spells/acid spells do a debuff based on energy type.

A feat/evocation school ability/ritual of 'swap the energy type of my spells (on the fly? for a spell point? x times per day?)

If the evocation specialist can do 20+ ranged damage and remove an action from the ogre every round without expending any spell slots (that's some sort of theoretical 'd4/level and Slowed 1' ice bolt cantrip) that seems pretty good. You aren't going to one shot it, but your friend the fighter goes next in the initiative and will finish it off.

But, to quote Sherlock Holmes "it is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Instantly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."

Liberty's Edge

Diego Rossi wrote:

Lets compare the PF! tables for monster hp against a PC in PF2

I will use a d12 character with a 10 hp race and 16 cons as the PF1 tables hp are mostly for bruiser monsters.

The default monster HP in PF1 were high, but by no means restricted to bruisers. They were certainly not that bruiser-y by default. Monsters exceeded the listed numbers in PF1 pretty often. Almost nobody would exceed that. There will certainly be monsters around there, but it isn't gonna be typical by any means.

Indeed, given that PC Class characters can be used as monsters unmodified, low HP PCs somewhat inevitably must fall within monster HP ranges too.

Let's examine a Con 16 Human Fighter (an 8 HP Ancestry) as a more reasonable 'bruiser' equivalent:

lvl 1 21 hp
lvl 5 73 hp
lvl 10 138 hp
lvl 15 203 hp
lvl 20 268 hp

So that falls behind at 13th level, which is admittedly a bit late to be super useful in some games.

But wait, let's also examine, say, a Con 14 Human Rogue as a reasonable 'mid range' monster HP:

lvl 1 18 hp
lvl 5 58 hp
lvl 10 108 hp
lvl 15 158 hp
lvl 20 208 hp

That version falls behind by 6th level. And is in line with the HP of the Redcap as shown, so probably a pretty reasonable monster to show up.

And now let's look at the low end, with a Con 12 Human Wizard:

lvl 1 15 hp
lvl 5 43 hp
lvl 10 78 hp
lvl 15 113 hp
lvl 20 148 hp

That version is behind by 3rd level.

How common will each of these monster types be? We have no idea. But I wouldn't assume that the high HP ones are necessarily gonna be the most common, and all are almost certain to show up.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

Lets compare the PF! tables for monster hp against a PC in PF2

I will use a d12 character with a 10 hp race and 16 cons as the PF1 tables hp are mostly for bruiser monsters.

The default monster HP in PF1 were high, but by no means restricted to bruisers. They were certainly not that bruiser-y by default. Monsters exceeded the listed numbers in PF1 pretty often. Almost nobody would exceed that. There will certainly be monsters around there, but it isn't gonna be typical by any means.

Indeed, given that PC Class characters can be used as monsters unmodified, low HP PCs somewhat inevitably must fall within monster HP ranges too.

Let's examine a Con 16 Human Fighter (an 8 HP Ancestry) as a more reasonable 'bruiser' equivalent:

lvl 1 21 hp
lvl 5 73 hp
lvl 10 138 hp
lvl 15 203 hp
lvl 20 268 hp

So that falls behind at 13th level, which is admittedly a bit late to be super useful in some games.

But wait, let's also examine, say, a Con 14 Human Rogue as a reasonable 'mid range' monster HP:

lvl 1 18 hp
lvl 5 58 hp
lvl 10 108 hp
lvl 15 158 hp
lvl 20 208 hp

That version falls behind by 6th level. And is in line with the HP of the Redcap as shown, so probably a pretty reasonable monster to show up.

And now let's look at the low end, with a Con 12 Human Wizard:

lvl 1 15 hp
lvl 5 43 hp
lvl 10 78 hp
lvl 15 113 hp
lvl 20 148 hp

That version is behind by 3rd level.

How common will each of these monster types be? We have no idea. But I wouldn't assume that the high HP ones are necessarily gonna be the most common, and all are almost certain to show up.

Thanks for the breakdowns, but in order to keep monster HPs in check/comparable to PCs, they will also have to reduce the level (HD) and Constitution scores for some (in PF1 both of those can go way higher than PCs). I wonder if monsters will get an ancestry equivalent bonus to HP, like PCs.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Weather Report wrote:
Thanks for the breakdowns, but in order to keep monster HPs in check/comparable to PCs, they will also have to reduce the level (HD) and Constitution scores for some (in PF1 both of those can go way higher than PCs). I wonder if monsters will get an ancestry equivalent bonus to HP, like PCs.

As part of creatures not operating by the same rules as PCs, their HP no longer seems based on Con directly (or anything else aside from their role and Level).

And HD and CR no longer exist at all as separate metrics, there is only Level.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Fuzzypaws wrote:

While I have my own issues with how blasting scales in PF2 between lower level spellslots becoming useless sooner in conjunction with less spell slots overall, Deadmanwalking is definitely correct here.

The Ogre is explicitly called as an unusual bag of hit points - as you might expect from a Giant, a large sized brute. No, it won't be unique, but neither will it be common. I'd guess probably only 15-20% of monsters will have very high HP for their level, the classic brute types. Probably another 15-20% will actually have low HP for their level, leaving the other 60-70% to have average HP ranges for their level.

And at the very least, at the level you get them blasting spells do at least somewhat more damage in PF2 than in PF1. So they can hold on for at least a little bit before falling behind. There's also the issue that you shouldn't be using an area spell like fireball or cone of cold to deal with a singular monster like an ogre unless you're fighting a pack of them or an ogre with a pack of other enemies, or it's being presented as a low-level boss or you're just out of other spells. Something like this is what single target spells are made for, and I would certainly hope that a single-target blast would do a lot more damage than an area spell of the same level. If that turns out not to be true, then we will definitely have a problem, but I'm at least giving them the benefit of the doubt on that.

You can also follow up a 2-action spell like fireball or (insert single target blast here) with a 1-action cantrip. So you can blast the pack of enemies or the boss, then use your other action for the turn to cantrip-blast for free to further whittle down an enemy on its last legs or at least keep driving down the bag of hit points.

When you compare damage output of a spell PF2 against the same spell from PF1 making the best or worst use of it is mostly irrelevant.

The balance problem, and one for which currently we have too few point of comparison for a good analysis is the range of the applicable saves or AC against the range of the DC/attack bonus.

As the range of DC/attack bonus is way different from PF1 and its interaction with the target save/AC will change the actual result by a wide margin it is hard to really guess the result.

Deadmanwalking has done a simulation and got a result. But the Ogre save is normal for their level? Low? High?.
Based on the ogre from PF1 I would say that is lower than average for a CR 3 creature.
In PF1 a suggested poor save for a CR 3 creature is 2. An ogre has 0. As a big bruiser it is appropriate, but it will be the same for other CR 3 creatures?

Let's consider a rogue like CR 3 creature. 35 hp, similar to those of a rogue of that level. A big guess, but I suspect that its reflex save would be at least 8. (the ogre saves are 2-3 points higher that its PF1 counterpart, the redcap 1-2 points)

DC of a CL 5 fireball: 20. Average damage 21.
To kill that rogue-like creature the caster would need a critical failure on the save, something that would happen with a 1 or a 2. Critical success on a 20 (BTW, Deadmanwalking you have included that in your calculations? If you have a chance to save and you roll a natural 20 you get 0 damage) and that will negate all damage.

DC of a CL 5 fireball: 26. Average damage 21.
To kill that rogue-like creature the caster would need a critical failure on the save, something that would happen on a roll from 1 to 8. Critical success is still a 20 and that will negate all damage.

For the CL 5 fireball if you roll average damage you have a 10% chance of doing noticeably better than PF1 (outright killing the creature) and a 5% chance of doing noticeably worse (no damage)
For the CL 10 fireball you do noticeably worse. The PF1 fireball average damage is 35, DC 19), so it will kill 65% of its targets and none will be unscathed. The PF2 fireball will kill 40% of its targets and 5% would be unscathed.

- * - * -

For the HP of the creatures, I think that we can compare barbarians to pure bruisers, fighters to creatures with big physical combat abilities, mixed bag monsters to rogues or clerics and creatures with lots of special abilities (like most faeries but not the redcap) to wizards.
When I get back home I will try a comparison on those basis.

Blog wrote:
You'll also amp up several of your ability scores every 5 levels.

I doubt that a wizard constitution will stay at 12 after level 5.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:


And HD and CR no longer exist at all as separate metrics, there is only Level.

"Creature 3" seem equivalent to CR3. And it can be shortened to CR. ;-)

Liberty's Edge

Diego Rossi wrote:

Deadmanwalking has done a simulation and got a result. But the Ogre save is normal for their level? Low? High?.

Based on the ogre from PF1 I would say that is lower than average for a CR 3 creature.
In PF1 a suggested poor save for a CR 3 creature is 2. An ogre has 0. As a big bruiser it is appropriate, but it will be the same for other CR 3 creatures?

Let's consider a rogue like CR 3 creature. 35 hp, similar to those of a rogue of that level. A big guess, but I suspect that its reflex save would be at least 8. (the ogre saves are 2-3 points higher that its PF1 counterpart, the redcap 1-2 points)

In terms of Saves, we should again look at what PCs will have.

At level 3, PCs will have Saves of 3 for level + (-2 to +1 from Proficiency) + (-1 to +4 from stat) so between +0 and +8, but usually between +3 and +8.

So yeah, a +8 Reflex Save is very possible at that level. I'd expect it's about the most you're gonna see in a save at that level, though. And probably matched with a low Save of no higher than +5.

What this means is that targeting low Saves is an important part of Wizard tactics, but personally I think that's probably a good thing.

Diego Rossi wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:


And HD and CR no longer exist at all as separate metrics, there is only Level.
"Creature 3" seem equivalent to CR3. And it can be shortened to CR. ;-)

True!

But it's the only measure now (no separate HD number to clutter things up), and is directly equivalent to a PC's level, which I think is important to note.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Trimalchio wrote:
I'd rather just talk about the game, but im asking you to at least try and have a reasonable conversation.

I think I'm being pretty reasonable, really. Especially after having been accused of lying. But sure, let's get back to the game stuff.

Trimalchio wrote:
Hp inflation seems pretty much confirmed from the stat blocks and PC max hit points, I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary.

So, Mark Seifter specifically stated this to not be the case.

As I've been repeatedly stating, monster HP has been normalized with PC HP, which makes for higher monster HP at low levels (especially very low levels), but actually quite a bit less at higher ones.

I don't read that in Mark post.

Mark Seifter wrote:
Ah, but as CR increases, PF1 monsters quickly grow to way higher HP than a PF1 PC would have (ask anyone who tries to design a PF1 NPC for a codex to roughly meet the HP benchmarks in the Bestiary how well that goes X_X). Monsters in PF2 at certain levels do have a decent touch more HP than PF1 monsters of the same level, but at many levels they're actually kind of close, and at some of the highest levels, the PF2 monsters actually have fewer.

Let's break it down as I read it (I am not native English speaker, so I can be missing something):

"Ah, but as CR increases, PF1 monsters quickly grow to way higher HP than a PF1 PC would have" = In PF1 monster have more hp than characters.

"Monsters in PF2 at certain levels do have a decent touch more HP than PF1 monsters of the same level," at some level PF2 monsters have more HP than PF1 monsters.

"but at many levels they're actually kind of close, and at some of the highest levels, the PF2 monsters actually have fewer." = at other levels, especially high levels, they have less HP than PF1 monsters.

He never say that the monsters HP have been "normalized on PCs HP". He only say that PF2 high CR monsters will have less HP than high CR PF1 monsters.

Two very different statements!

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:

...

In terms of Saves, we should again look at what PCs will have.

...

Sorry, but you seem to generalize a statement that hasn't been made.

Mark hasn't said that the monster stats will be normalized on characters stats.

Liberty's Edge

*sighs*

Mark's made the statement that they're equivalent to PCs even more explicitly in other places too. Unfortunately, the playtest boards seem to not show up in the Search feature for this site, making it hard for me to find all of those references. That said, this post is also indicative, though not as explicit as at least one other I seem to recall (but can't find at the moment).


Trimalchio wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Trimalchio wrote:
'high for their level' is not that same thing as unique, not even close.
Nobody said unique. People said unusual. Which is exactly what 'high for their level' means, in this context.

Just do a control F for the word unique.

Why do you straight up just say something utterly dishonest? You could literally just look at the 10 posts above your post.

It's really incredibly rude.

When you introduce a word into a conversation - as you did with "unique" - expect people to respond using the same verbiage.

As noted by the fact I didn't provide a link - or the name of the dev - I didn't have the relevant quote memorised, or I'd've used that.

Please dismount from the high horse, avoid tilting at windmills, and actually join the factual discussion.

Have a nice day...


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Thanks for the breakdowns, but in order to keep monster HPs in check/comparable to PCs, they will also have to reduce the level (HD) and Constitution scores for some (in PF1 both of those can go way higher than PCs). I wonder if monsters will get an ancestry equivalent bonus to HP, like PCs.

As part of creatures not operating by the same rules as PCs, their HP no longer seems based on Con directly (or anything else aside from their role and Level).

And HD and CR no longer exist at all as separate metrics, there is only Level.

Yeah, I knew about level, HD, and CR, but I totally forgot about monsters not adding Con mod to HP, just a set value per role-level, thanks.

Liberty's Edge

Weather Report wrote:
Yeah, I knew about level, HD, and CR, but I totally forgot about monsters not adding Con mod to HP, just a set value per role-level, thanks.

We don't actually know that it's strictly per role (though that's where I'd put my money). We do know that Con doesn't seem to be a big part of it, though.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Yeah, I knew about level, HD, and CR, but I totally forgot about monsters not adding Con mod to HP, just a set value per role-level, thanks.
We don't actually know that it's strictly per role (though that's where I'd put my money). We do know that Con doesn't seem to be a big part of it, though.

Yeah, and it won't be based on monster type, all Fey having d6, because...

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Weather Report wrote:
Yeah, and it won't be based on monster type, all Fey having d6, because...

Because Mark's specifically and repeatedly said that getting away from creature type-specific HD size and the like was a major design goal.

So we have that from the horse's mouth (so to speak).
.
.
.
If anyone doesn't believe me I could probably hunt down a citation, but really, it's late and I'm tired, so you'll have to wait for tomorrow at the earliest.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Yeah, and it won't be based on monster type, all Fey having d6, because...
Because Mark's specifically and repeatedly said that getting away from creature-specific HD size and the like was a major design goal.

Yes, I quite like the way 5th Ed has gone with monster HP (size-based), so I am excited to see PF2's take.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Trimalchio wrote:

You can keep saying the ogre is somehow unique... But they are half my sample size, unless someone cares to provide more stat blocks.

Even the redcap, if you compare how it is a level 5 creature vs PF1 CR 6 monster, has more hit points for it's relative level and fast healing 10. Also the PF2 redcap is very unlikely to critically fail a ref save.

Finally we know PCs will have more hp.

All available evidence points towards hp inflation.

Except the developers of the game saying monster HP won't be as high at higher levels. But yeah if you ignore that you can totally assume it will be higher in PF2.

Well, out of 4 monster example we have, 3 have more hp, 1 less.
For characters, everyone has more hp. At least 6 extra hp for the race and 2 for the class, up to 10 for the race plus 5 for the class.

And? Mark says HP numbers aren't always going to up. What am I supposed to put more stock in, these 4 samples out of a 250 page bestiary or the designer's words?

Also, all 4 of these creatures have a new weakness which makes them easier to kill with a specific thing. Skeleton is now auto dead on a failed channel save. Zombies and redcap's now take MORE damage instead of having DR. And an ogre has high odds of critically failing reflex saves for double. PF2 is aiming to have different spells, weapons, and styles shine in different contexts, and that's a good thing.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

...

In terms of Saves, we should again look at what PCs will have.

...

Sorry, but you seem to generalize a statement that hasn't been made.

Mark hasn't said that the monster stats will be normalized on characters stats.

Maybe not exactly, but we have been told that if you create an NPC using the PC-creation rules, you will get something that is roughly correct. That is only possible if monsters of a given level are roughly equal in stats to a PC of the same level.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Nightwhisper wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

...

In terms of Saves, we should again look at what PCs will have.

...

Sorry, but you seem to generalize a statement that hasn't been made.

Mark hasn't said that the monster stats will be normalized on characters stats.
Maybe not exactly, but we have been told that if you create an NPC using the PC-creation rules, you will get something that is roughly correct. That is only possible if monsters of a given level are roughly equal in stats to a PC of the same level.

Generally a NPCs is different from a monster. Even more when monster don't get HD. Hard to guess the "level" of a monster when you don't have HD or levels. CR is an indication of the danger level presented by a monster, not of its stats.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:
Generally a NPCs is different from a monster. Even more when monster don't get HD. Hard to guess the "level" of a monster when you don't have HD or levels. CR is an indication of the danger level presented by a monster, not of its stats.

But, per the designers, basically nothing you just said is true in PF2. Monsters have Levels, not CR, which work pretty much exactly like Levels on PCs and NPCs, and danger level and 'stats' are inextricably linked in PF2.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Generally a NPCs is different from a monster. Even more when monster don't get HD. Hard to guess the "level" of a monster when you don't have HD or levels. CR is an indication of the danger level presented by a monster, not of its stats.
But, per the designers, basically nothing you just said is true in PF2. Monsters have Levels, not CR, which work pretty much exactly like Levels on PCs and NPCs, and danger level and 'stats' are inextricably linked in PF2.

You can point where in the published stat of the monsters are the levels?

A ogre has 3 levels and a redcap 5?

Liberty's Edge

Diego Rossi wrote:

You can point where in the published stat of the monsters are the levels?

A ogre has 2 levels and a redcap 5?

Sure. Look at the Blog Post featuring their stats in the top right corner of the stat-block. It says Creature 3 for the Ogre and Creature 5 for the Redcap. That's their level. You can think of it as their level in the 'Creature' Class if you like.

As for how I know this to be true, read absolutely anything where any of the designers talk about monsters. They always use the term 'Level' rather than CR or HD or anything like that. It's been stated multiple times.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

You can point where in the published stat of the monsters are the levels?

A ogre has 2 levels and a redcap 5?

Sure. Look at the Blog Post featuring their stats in the top right corner of the stat-block. It says Creature 3 for the Ogre and Creature 5 for the Redcap. That's their level. You can think of it as their level in the 'Creature' Class if you like.

As for how I know this to be true, read absolutely anything where any of the designers talk about monsters. They always use the term 'Level' rather than CR or HD or anything like that. It's been stated multiple times.

Quote:
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.

That piece of the blog seem to say the exact opposite. I recall a post that seem to reinforce that. I will search for it.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

One of the things I love about the way we are doing monsters now is that the end results often end up close to what they were by doing all the math the first time around. The system that was supposed to be similar to PCs rarely was, requiring you to jump through a lot of hoops to make a balanced monster. Now we can simply make the monster what it needs to be, focusing instead on how to make it work well as part of the game environment.

Let me also say, it makes on-the-fly monster creation a breeze. In some of the preview games at GaryCon, I added a level 2 viper to the lake encounter without missing a beat. I don't think the players even realized that it was not a premade stat block.

I understand that folks want to see exactly how a thing was put together, to have a better understanding of how to tinker with that monster. I would rather reach you what the monster needs to look like to be balanced and have you adjust it to that goal than to force you to apply formulas that are trying to do the same thing, but have little flexibility in their outcome without significant modification.

Of course, that said, all of this is subject to playtest. After all, we have to make sure this system works for the most GMs out there. I hope that it does.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:
That piece of the blog seem to say the exact opposite. I recall a post that seem to reinforce that. I will search for it.

Uh...that post mentions HD only in the context of PF1 creatures having them and the consequences thereof. Indeed, that last sentence is more or less exactly what I'm talking about (though the Level thing is mentioned much more explicitly elsewhere).

EDIT: That second post you quote explicitly refers to a monster as 'level 2'.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

You can point where in the published stat of the monsters are the levels?

A ogre has 2 levels and a redcap 5?

Sure. Look at the Blog Post featuring their stats in the top right corner of the stat-block. It says Creature 3 for the Ogre and Creature 5 for the Redcap. That's their level. You can think of it as their level in the 'Creature' Class if you like.

As for how I know this to be true, read absolutely anything where any of the designers talk about monsters. They always use the term 'Level' rather than CR or HD or anything like that. It's been stated multiple times.

Quote:
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.

That piece of the blog seem to say the exact opposite. I recall a post that seem to reinforce that. I will search for it.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

One of the things I love about the way we are doing monsters now is that the end results often end up close to what they were by doing all the math the first time around. The system that was supposed to be similar to PCs rarely was, requiring you to jump through a lot of hoops to make a balanced monster. Now we can simply make the monster what it needs to be, focusing instead on how to make it work well as part of the game environment.

Let me also say, it makes on-the-fly monster creation a breeze. In some of the preview games at GaryCon, I added a level 2 viper to the lake encounter without missing a beat. I don't think the players even realized that it was not a premade stat block.

I understand that folks want to see exactly how a thing was put together, to have a better understanding of how to tinker with that monster. I would rather reach you what the monster needs to look like to be balanced and have you adjust it to that goal than to force you to apply formulas that are trying to do the same thing, but have little flexibility in their outcome without significant modification.

Of course, that said, all of this is subject to playtest. After all, we have to make sure this system works for the most GMs out there. I hope that it does.

Apparently Bulmahn is saying that now monster stat have nothing to do with following a set of construction rules, but instead are made in a way to be balanced for a level of difficulty and the monster role.

"Race: Ogre" don't give 18 hp (assuming a ogre is based on a level 3 barbarian with a +2 in cos).
"Monster: Ogre" give a complete statblock and a different kind of ogre (as an example an Ogrekin) will not inherit that 18 hp as it is a member of the ogre race.

Dark Archive

Weather Report wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
We don't actually know that it's strictly per role (though that's where I'd put my money). We do know that Con doesn't seem to be a big part of it, though.
Yeah, and it won't be based on monster type, all Fey having d6, because...

That would be interesting. Fey having d6's always bugged me a bit, since some fey are more warrior-like in nature, or rugged, and not rail-thin waifish tricksters with SLAs related to nature and enchantment.

Plus, since there's less light between Golarion-specific and 3rd-party-compliant stuff, Fey should probably just be a subtype of Outsider anyway, since they come from the First World. (Just as Elementals have been folded into Outsider, and Giants into Humanoid.)

Liberty's Edge

Diego Rossi wrote:
Apparently Bulmahn is saying that now monster stat have nothing to do with following a set of construction rules, but instead are made in a way to be balanced for a level of difficulty and the monster role.

Oh, they follow a set of construction rules. Those rules are just based on Level and Role, not anything like Ancestry or Creature Type.

Diego Rossi wrote:

"Race: Ogre" don't give 18 hp (assuming a ogre is based on a level 3 barbarian with a +2 in cos).

"Monster: Ogre" give a complete statblock and a different kind of ogre (as an example an Ogrekin) will not inherit that 18 hp as it is a member of the ogre race.

Yes. This is correct. However, what bonuses a level 3 Creature has are based on its Level.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
That piece of the blog seem to say the exact opposite. I recall a post that seem to reinforce that. I will search for it.

Uh...that post mentions HD only in the context of PF1 creatures having them and the consequences thereof. Indeed, that last sentence is more or less exactly what I'm talking about (though the Level thing is mentioned much more explicitly elsewhere).

EDIT: That second post you quote explicitly refers to a monster as 'level 2'.

(Sorry for the second post, but the dreaded "backtracked too far" hit again. Thanks CTRL-C)

I see we see the same thing and we read it in two opposite ways.

You see Bulmahn speaking of "level 2" and think "the monster as the equivalent of 2 character levels".

I see him saying "The system that was supposed to be similar to PCs rarely was, requiring you to jump through a lot of hoops to make a balanced monster. Now we can simply make the monster what it needs to be, focusing instead on how to make it work well as part of the game environment." and then " I added a level 2 viper to the lake encounter without missing a beat. I don't think the players even realized that it was not a premade stat block." and think "he made a Creature 2 monster on the fly, choosing stat appropriate for a CR 2 creature, without using any step by step production process, especially non the PCs creation process."

Liberty's Edge

Set wrote:
That would be interesting. Fey having d6's always bugged me a bit, since some fey are more warrior-like in nature, or rugged, and not rail-thin waifish tricksters with SLAs related to nature and enchantment.

Mark has specifically noted that he also dislikes this. He similarly dislikes even highly non-martial Outsiders having a very martial chassis.

So creature type no longer effects things like how many HP a creature has.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:

(Sorry for the second post, but the dreaded "backtracked too far" hit again. Thanks CTRL-C)

I see we see the same thing and we read it in two opposite ways.

You see Bulmahn speaking of "level 2" and think "the monster as the equivalent of 2 character levels".

I see him saying "The system that was supposed to be similar to PCs rarely was, requiring you to jump through a lot of hoops to make a balanced monster. Now we can simply make the monster what it needs to be, focusing instead on how to make it work well as part of the game environment." and then " I added a level 2 viper to the lake encounter without missing a beat. I don't think the players even realized that it was not a premade stat block." and think "he made a Creature 2 monster on the fly, choosing stat appropriate cor a CR 2 creature, without using any step by step production process, especially non the PCs creation process."

You appear to profoundly misunderstand what I'm saying. I agree with your second paragraph in its entirety (with the exception of referencing CR, which is no longer a thing per se).

The monster creation system bears absolutely no similarity to that of PC character creation. At all. I am not remotely saying that it does.

However, Mark has specifically stated that a PC Class Character of Level X is mechanically viable as a Level X enemy. The creation process is utterly different, but, again per Mark, their bonuses in things like attack, damage, and Saves, as well as their HP are very much on par with PCs of the same level.

Therefore, while the creation method is totally different, PC stuff is a valid barometer for things like how much HP monster will have or what their attack bonus will be. The method of getting those numbers will be different, but we have explicit designer statements that the end results (ie: the actual numbers) will be very much the same.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Apparently Bulmahn is saying that now monster stat have nothing to do with following a set of construction rules, but instead are made in a way to be balanced for a level of difficulty and the monster role.

Oh, they follow a set of construction rules. Those rules are just based on Level and Role, not anything like Ancestry or Creature Type.

Diego Rossi wrote:

"Race: Ogre" don't give 18 hp (assuming a ogre is based on a level 3 barbarian with a +2 in cos).

"Monster: Ogre" give a complete statblock and a different kind of ogre (as an example an Ogrekin) will not inherit that 18 hp as it is a member of the ogre race.
Yes. This is correct. However, what bonuses a level 3 Creature has are based on its Level.

Ogre

ogre hook +10 = 3 for the level 5 for strength 2 for master
javelin +8 = 3 for the level 5 for strength 0 for trained

Redcap
scythe +13 = 5 for level, 4 for strength 4 for legendary+
boot +13 = 5 for level, 4 for dexterity 4 for legendary+

Fighter blog wrote:
Next up, at 3rd level, you gain weapon mastery, which increases your proficiency rank with one group of weapons to master. Your proficiency rank increases to legendary at 13th level, making you truly the best with the weapons of your choice. At 19th level, you become a legend with all simple and martial weapons!

Poor fighter.

Assuming he start as trained in all simple and martial weapons, at level 3 he become an expert in one group. Behind the ogre.

At level 13 he become legendary with that group. Behind the "level 5" Redcap.

Can you show me how those attack bonus are based on the creature level?


Set wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
We don't actually know that it's strictly per role (though that's where I'd put my money). We do know that Con doesn't seem to be a big part of it, though.
Yeah, and it won't be based on monster type, all Fey having d6, because...
That would be interesting. Fey having d6's always bugged me a bit, since some fey are more warrior-like in nature, or rugged, and not rail-thin waifish tricksters with SLAs related to nature and enchantment.

Exactly, and now they are also not doomed to a low BAB. I wonder if some monsters (undead, etc) will have still have a "-" non-value for Constitution and such.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:


You appear to profoundly misunderstand what I'm saying. I agree with your second paragraph in its entirety (with the exception of referencing CR, which is no longer a thing per se).

The monster creation system bears absolutely no similarity to that of PC character creation. At all. I am not remotely saying that it does.

How that is the same thing of:

Deadmanwalking wrote:


But, per the designers, basically nothing you just said is true in PF2. Monsters have Levels, not CR, which work pretty much exactly like Levels on PCs and NPCs, and danger level and 'stats' are inextricably linked in PF2.
Deadmanwalking wrote:


However, Mark has specifically stated that a PC Class Character of Level X is mechanically viable as a Level X enemy. The creation process is utterly different, but, again per Mark, their bonuses in things like attack, damage, and Saves, as well as their HP are very much on par with PCs of the same level.

Agreed.

Deadmanwalking wrote:


The creation process is utterly different, but, again per Mark, their bonuses in things like attack, damage, and Saves, as well as their HP are very much on par with PCs of the same level.

Therefore, while the creation method is totally different, PC stuff is a valid barometer for things like how much HP monster will have or what their attack bonus will be. The method of getting those numbers will be different, but we have explicit designer statements that the end results (ie: the actual numbers) will be very much the same.

Monster have levels =/= monster have stats that are in line with characters of the same level of the creature level of the monster.

We are using that "levels" in a very different way.

Obligatory Order of the Stick citation

Liberty's Edge

Diego Rossi wrote:
How that is the same thing of:

I meant in the sense that Levels are a universal measure and things of the same Level have similar bonuses in skills, attacks, AC, and the like.

Diego Rossi wrote:
Agreed.

Okay.

Diego Rossi wrote:
Monster have levels =/= monster have stats that are in line with characters of the same level of the creature level of the monster.

Inherently? No. But Mark's specifically said that in this case they mean precisely that (not in the sense of Ability Scores, but in the sense of bonus to attack, AC, Saves and the like).

Diego Rossi wrote:
We are using that "levels" in a very different way.

Maybe? I'm confused about what you're even saying at this point.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Let me give an example:

The Ogre (a level 3 Creature) has +10 to hit with his Ogre Hook. We know for a fact that a PC Fighter of 3rd level will, on average, probably have a +10 attack bonus as well (4 Str +3 Level +2 Proficiency +1 Expert Weapon).

To build the Ogre you might well look at a table and just give them a +10, with no worries about where it comes from, but the end result the actual bonus is exactly the same as a PC Fighter of the same level.

This fact has been specifically stated as intentional and basically all the monster bonuses work this way.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:


Diego Rossi wrote:
We are using that "levels" in a very different way.
Maybe? I'm confused about what you're even saying at this point.

Very simply "monster have levels" implies a lot of things that aren't true for monsters.

Look 5 posts above this one. If monster stats are based on levels, Ogres and Redcaps have a level of mastery with their weapons that exceed that of a fighter.
If they are based to a rough equivalence to expected character stats, included the effects of feats, equipment and so on, that isn't true. They simply get an appropriate value.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Let me give an example:

The Ogre (a level 3 Creature) has +10 to hit with his Ogre Hook. We know for a fact that a PC Fighter of 3rd level will, on average, probably have a +10 attack bonus as well (4 Str +3 Level +2 Proficiency +1 Expert Weapon).

To build the Ogre you might well look at a table and just give them a +10, with no worries about where it comes from, but the end result the actual bonus is exactly the same as a PC Fighter of the same level.

This fact has been specifically stated as intentional and basically all the monster bonuses work this way.

You are again saying "the monsters have made up stats and that prove that they have the same level of the characters".

No, they have made up stats. Full stop.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:

Ogre

ogre hook +10 = 3 for the level 5 for strength 2 for master
javelin +8 = 3 for the level 5 for strength 0 for trained

Redcap
scythe +13 = 5 for level, 4 for strength 4 for legendary+
boot +13 = 5 for level, 4 for dexterity 4 for legendary+

You're assuming Ability Scores matter. They don't. That's part of the whole 'monsters are created differently than PCs' thing.

Also, the Redcaps have an Expert Scythe, which is a +1 to hit right there.

Diego Rossi wrote:

Poor fighter.

Assuming he start as trained in all simple and martial weapons, at level 3 he become an expert in one group. Behind the ogre.

Master is the +2 level, the Fighter starts with Expert which is the +1 level. This (as I note above) results in exactly the same total bonus as the Ogre when combined with a quality weapon.

Diego Rossi wrote:
At level 13 he become legendary with that group. Behind the "level 5" Redcap.

It's not about being Legendary. It's about having a +13 attack bonus. The end result is what's the same, not the method of getting there.

4 Str +5 Level +2 Master Proficiency +2 Master Weapon = 13.

Probably very doable by 5th level.

Diego Rossi wrote:
Can you show me how those attack bonus are based on the creature level?

Absolutely. See above.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:
Very simply "monster have levels" implies a lot of things that aren't true for monsters.

No, it doesn't. Saying 'They have a Class and work like PCs' implies untrue things. Saying 'They have a Level' is true, because Levels are how PF2 is measuring everything that goes from 1 to 20 in the same way.

Diego Rossi wrote:

Look 5 posts above this one. If monster stats are based on levels, Ogres and Redcaps have a level of mastery with their weapons that exceed that of a fighter.

If they are based to a rough equivalence to expected character stats, included the effects of feats, equipment and so on, that isn't true. They simply get an appropriate value.

It's not about 'level of mastery' or things like that. It's about final bonuses. Which are arbitrary to some degree, but very much based on the monster's level.

Diego Rossi wrote:

You are again saying "the monsters have made up stats and that prove that they have the same level of the characters".

No, they have made up stats. Full stop.

They absolutely have made up stats.

However, in order to decide on the numerical level of those made up stats (ie: 'Level 3 Monsters get +X to attacks') they looked at PCs of the appropriate level and picked numbers about equal to them.

Therefore a Level 3 Monster and a Level 3 PC are about on par in terms of attack, damage, and saves. They get there different ways, sure, but the end numbers are the same (or very close, anyway).

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
Benjamin Medrano wrote:

Based on what they've said, that you can use the classes to build NPCs that will come very close to the benchmarks they use for monsters, I think people might be overstating this concern.

I suspect, if we have a good chart for monster creation, this means we'll be able to reverse-engineer the monsters into a 'hit die' system in an afternoon. Not the special abilities, but those were never part of the equation. And I'd also be surprised if a 3rd party didn't release a system to build monsters to the appropriate numbers, whether via 'natural armor' or actual armor, fairly quickly.

It's two sides of a coin:

In PF1, you had a system for building monsters that wasn't much like building PCs but sort of looked close enough in some ways to seem parallel if you didn't look closely enough, and it generated results that were drastically different than what PCs were actually like (PF1 monsters, as levels increased, tended to have vastly more HP than all but the most unusually Con-heavy PCs and way lower DCs, for instance, to name just a few low-hanging fruit).

In PF2, the monster system does not attempt to appear similar to how a player builds a character on the surface of how it's done, but in exchange, you actually get results that are much more parallel to the statistics of PCs than the PF1 monsters ever were (Jason alludes to this in the first sentence of his post). You don't have a creature ostensibly at the same CR as a PC's level but with twice as many HD as the PC has levels (which then led to double the skill ranks, double the feats, and so on).

So in PF2, monsters may not be built in the same way a PC builds a character (and they weren't really in PF1 either), but they share more similarities with the PCs in terms of their actual values than before.

Levels? No.

Similar values? Yes.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:

Levels? No.

Similar values? Yes.

In PF2, similar values are what Level is. They have specifically said that the power of a monster is now measured in Levels.

And the similar values were actually my whole point.

My whole original point was that since values were intentionally similar, you can look at what Saves PCs have at Level X, and monsters of Level X will have similar Saves.

Full stop. That's all I was trying to say.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Compare apples to oranges.
X apples have the same calories of Y oranges.
That don't make apples oranges. They have different nutritional values.

For me you are saying X apples are Y oranges.

While Mark is saying X apples have the same calories as Y oranges.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Okay, let's go with the apples/oranges thing. Level is now measure being used for both PCs and Monsters. Let's say Levels is calories.

If PCs are apples and Monsters are oranges, then in PF1, apples were measured in calories (Level), while oranges were measured in, say, weight and shininess (HD and CR).

Everything is now being measured in calories. They're still apples and oranges (PCs and monsters) but are now both being measured in the same way (ie: Levels).


I'd like to know more about how Reactions are assigned to different classes. I understood that the fighter learns automatically to do attacks of opportunity. The wizard on the other hand, has to learn his counter spell reaction by feat.

Does this mean the wizard has no reaction to utilize at all, if he doesn't learn a feat granting him one?
If so, why the difference? In my opinion, every class should have the possibility to do something as a reaction from the start.

What do we know about the reactions from the rogue, cleric, alchemist and paladin? Do they get a reaction option as part of their 1st level package?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Okay, let's go with the apples/oranges thing. Level is now measure being used for both PCs and Monsters. Let's say Levels is calories.

If PCs are apples and Monsters are oranges, then in PF1, apples were measured in calories (Level), while oranges were measured in, say, weight and shininess (HD and CR).

Everything is now being measured in calories. They're still apples and oranges (PCs and monsters) but are now both being measured in the same way (ie: Levels).

What I hear:

Deadmanwalking: Creature X - it mean Creature level X - it can be shortened to level

What I try to say:

Diego: Creature X - can be shortened as CR - has nothing to do with the actual number of levels of the creature as creatures don't have levels

That difference is what bug me terribly. It is like when in the rule forum people speak of "flat footed" when a creature dexterity has been denied. Most of the effects are similar, but it is not the same thing. Sooner or later you reach the a point where the two things diverge.

At this point this derail is so far away that it has no reason to stay in the Wizard class preview. I will try to refrain from adding further comments.


The monsters don't seem to have their stats completely pulled out of nowhere, the ogre's javelin attack lines up +8 (+3 for level/Trained, +5 for Str), maybe it has Master proficiency in its Hook (+10).

751 to 800 of 918 << first < prev | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Wizard Class Preview All Messageboards