Vart the Fire Man's page

One thing I feel makes the playtest feel weird is the fact that same level monsters are challenging.

When it comes to things like MMOs and lots of single player RPGs, same level monsters are meant to be easy challenges. You quest in a zone and see a monster that's level 10 when you're level 10 - you know you can kill it fairly easily. It doesn't have a 50/50 chance of killing you, as PF2 makes it feel like. In other RPGs like Skyrim, Fallout, Witcher, if monsters are your level or lower, they're easy. It's only a challenge when they're 3+ levels higher.

I feel like there's a disconnect there. As gamers, we're so used to stomping at level challenges that suddenly PF2 comes in and even level 0 goblins are deadly. That makes it feel wrong somehow. At least it does to me.

I wonder if the developers designed the monster level system to assume equal level monsters are tough 1:1 per PC, instead of designing them to be easy kills. I feel like if things were pushed back a couple levels, so that only monsters 2-3 levels higher than PC level were deadly 1:1 per PC, the whole feel of the game would be different.

That means equal level monsters would have a blanket -2/-3 to their attack rolls, saves, skills, etc. across the board compared to now.

How would that feel, I wonder?

While I agree that there has to be SOME mention of blocking terrain in the final rules, I think everyone with a brain can understand that you can't shoot through a closed door without hitting the door.

I agree. However, I'm attempting to scour the rules for a RAW clarification on this. Were I not running this as a playtest, I would use the line of effect rules for certain.

From what I can see on page 314, the book is saying that Kyra can shoot the ogre with a ranged attack, but the ogre has cover and screening. However...it sure looks like she's shooting right through a house.

I've done my best to comb through the rulebook and tried searching for an answer in threads on this forum but so far I've come up with nothing. I apologize if I'm just blind.

Is something like Total Cover gone in PF 2.0?

I understand that cover still exists, and as per the rulebook "To determine whether a target has cover from an attack, the attacking creature or object draws a line from the center of its space to the center of the target's space. If that Line passes through any blocking terrain, the target has cover."

I've tried to find 'blocking terrain' and there's nothing. Under Line of Effect there are a few pertinent rules but they seem focused on spells, and I can't find any links anywhere else to ranged attacks.

So my question would be: What, as per RAW, prevents a PC from shooting through a house to hit a target on the other side?

I think a lot of the problem with the CR conversation is some were speaking of CR by the rules, and others like myself were speaking of "effective CR(difficulty)" which should equate to an actual CR.

I was more interested in how you can compare the Mithral Golem with a Planetar that has spent it's double treasure on buffing it's abilities, when they're both the same CR. I know you can customize monsters to fit a GM's personal view of CR, but the topic of the thread is over and underrated, and in that light, I could almost say all Treasure none monsters are overrated for their CR. That is, if it's acceptable to spend that treasure to improve the creature.

As much as I enjoy seeing all the math involved in customizing monsters based on their treasure allotments, it does seem to rather skew the stats based on CR.

Take the Marilith that's been thrown around so much.

I know the CR tables are more 'guidelines' than anything, but they're still the base measuring stick we use to determine a creature's CR. According to the table, a few stats grabbed at random for a CR 17 are: HP 270, AC 32, High Attack 27, Good Save 20, Bad Save 15.

The Marilith is already off by a few. HP 264, AC 32, Attack +24 at the highest, Fort +25, Ref +18, Will +13. So it's about right on HP and AC for its CR, but off on Attack, and both quite high on Save and low on Save, which kind of balances out anyway.

However, if we start adding multiple AC boosters, cloaks of resistance +x, con boosters, etc, the stats jump all over the place. With just two +2 AC items, the Marilith's AC jumps 4 points to 36, and this is before any spell buffs you might also add via scrolls, potions, allies, etc. A +3 resistance item gets them a Fort +28, which according to the CR table is the High Save of a CR 27 monster.

All of this might even be acceptable practice when making monsters, but the biggest question I haven't seen answered in this thread is this: What about monsters with Treasure none?

Just a quick look on the web and I found 3 CR 16's with Treasure none: Mithral Golem, Ecorche, and Plasma Ooze. This means these creatures can't use their treasure to increase their stats like the Marilith can, or really any monster with treasure.

So it begs the question. IF you can use treasure to improve a monster, and that improvement DOESN'T increase the CR, then why are creatures with Treasure none equal in CR to creatures with Treasure double or Treasure triple? Why are a Mithral Golem and Plasma Ooze equal in CR with a Planetar and Mature Adult Gold Dragon?

Not sure if you're still emailing copies, but I'd love to test out the polished rules with my own home group.

Thanks for going through all this effort, to all involved. It's a pretty intense amount of time devoted, and I hope it still gives you the warm fuzzies when you cuddle your hardcover at night.

I mean, I assume you cuddle it. I would.

Another thing now that I think about it is the general popularity of the E6 or E8 houserules. I've played with them a few times and people seemed to be pretty comfortable with the level of magic 3rd level or 4th level spells bring.

I suppose the other question becomes, if casters had limited spell levels, would a 20th level caster be unfun to play beside a barbarian or fighter? Would it skew the balance too far in the other direction, making spell casters unviable? I'm interested to know what people would think if they were in a game with such houserules.

I've been tossing around ideas for awhile now on what might be done to help alleviate some of the issues with high level gameplay (in this case level 13+). I've read a fair amount of creative ideas on fixing the problem, as well as definitions and redefinitions on what the problem actually IS, and that has led me to my current question:

Would limiting the highest spell level available to spellcasters but keeping the spell slots for those levels help to balance out higher level gameplay?

I most often see people point to the 'broken' spells as being the main reason casters start to truly overshadow the other classes past level 10. What would happen if full spellcasters never gained access to level 7 spells or higher? Partial casters no higher than 4th? Limited no higher than 2nd? They would still gain those spell slots - to be filled with lower level spells or metamagic versions, but the most powerful spells of 3.5 and Pathfinder would be gone.

Would this have any effect at all? Is 6th level spells already high enough to make casters gods?

What do you think?

Jarl wrote:

Or if you really really want to show your belly, just ask them straight out: "Do you want me to kill the horse or roll a new character?"

I kinda handed the DM my character sheet and told him that if he was going to kill me for killing this horse that he should just rip the sheet in half....I'm not entirely proud of that action, but my character was about to get attacked by 2 PCs.

Rip in half, or light on fire? More visceral, and as an added bonus, FIRE!

loaba wrote:

ciretose wrote:

If the GM didn't want him to play a Cleric of Pharasma, it needed to be addressed at creation. Once the game is rolling, if you let the player concept come in and didn't tell them that the concept was going to be a problem, you can't force the player not to play what they asked to play.

You deal with it in-game. As the DM, you enforce the negative attitude people will have in regards to the mount and the party as well. I promise you, if the mount gets in the way of party business, then it will quickly get dropped.

You let this play out. Be adult about it.

It is in the way of party business. This is it playing out. The undead has been discovered by a cleric of Pharasma, who everyone knows are dedicated to destroying undead.

The person who created the mount is a problem, and the GM who allowed it is the bigger problem.

I'd like to know how the mount was introduced. Did the OP see it coming that the Ranger would get it as a companion, or did the GM and Ranger come to an agreement out of game and the Cleric showed up one session to find a big pile of party conflict waiting for him?

I find it a little strange how many people are jumping on the OP accusing him of being the 'real' problem in this situation. From the original post, it seems the group has been together at least for a few adventures. He talks of trying to redeem other undead before attempting to destroy them. This means the other PC's originally accepted his Cleric as part of the group, mindset and everything.

I have no idea if the other players asked the OP to tone down his crusade against the undead before this incident, but if so the OP should have mentioned it. As it is, it seems like the other players made a tacit agreement to adventure with a Cleric who makes it a life mission to destroy the foul undead.

Now along comes an undead mount. The other players, the ranger in particular, should have known this would be a problem with the OP's Cleric. I mean, if you say made a Fighter who was a famous Dragonslayer, whose home town wad destroyed, family killed by dragons, and someone in the party managed to get a Dragon companion, the same sort of issues would arise.

It's at character creation that the other players should voice concerns, such as "I don't know if a Cleric of Pharasma will mesh with the group. We don't really want any zealots."

This is similar to when one player decides to play a Paladin. Sometimes, the choice has to be cleared by everyone. Unless the rest of the party are comfortable with some inter-party conflict, evil PC's become a bad choice with a Paladin PC.

I don't know that this situation is anyone's 'fault', but I think it is as much a responsibility of the Ranger to help find a compromise as it is the OP or the GM.

I have to agree with the sentiments Malignor and Ashiel have expressed. The Fighter class is often pointed out as having little to no presence in out of combat affairs. With its low skill points and focus on attributes that don't apply to most social or problem solving skills, it can often seem like a fish out of water when the fighting stops.

This, coupled with the fact that there are many spells that trivialize or downright mock the few skills a Fighter can take (such as Spider Climb, Jump, Fabricate, etc) and it can be easy to see why some might feel the Fighter's weakness is out of combat options.

I particularly like Ashiel's suggestions to add new class features in the form of Stances, Techniques and Talents. I've seen quite a few houserules for the Fighter class, and I always delve into any of them that add such features.

Spellcasters are powerful for many reasons, but ultimately, because they have options. Pathfinder did a great job adding more options to many other classes, such as Barbarians through Rage Powers, Rogues through Rogue Talents, and even very recently Monks through the Qinggong monk archetype and Ki Powers. These features add diverse options to the classes, sometimes with a focus on combat, other times with a focus on skills or out of combat applications.

Adding simply more numbers to the Fighter is one way to improve the class, but I feel until the Fighter gains features like the classes above, they will continue to be less attractive once the last badguy is eating dirt.

It seems to me that most characters being created as middle-aged or older are all casters of some kind - characters that benefit more from the benefits of old age (namely bonuses to mental stats) than suffer from the penalties.

If a player approached me and asked to create a character at an advanced age, I would sit down with them and ask them why exactly they want to do so. If they have some interesting and valid RP reasons for such a character, I might be willing to give it a try, but if they immediately go into how the benefits help them be a stronger caster, and they can downplay the negative, I would be leery. The last thing most DM's need is yet another way for players to sway the balance of power away from established standards.

Then again, if someone asked to play an older character and they were a martial class, I'd say yes in a heartbeat.