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?

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?

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?

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!

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.