Okay so my group is average level 12 and it seems the damage they do is insane. Magic Item wise, they are about 40% where the Rules say they should be so they are not that overpowered.
I have 3 players that push over 100 damage a round if Hasted. About 70 if they arent.
How do they do this? All TH fighters? Archery death? It's not necessarily that it happens that's the problem, but how.
It really sunk in last night, when they were facing a creature with over 350 hit points, AC 36, Spell Resist through the roof, DR10/-. It was a big stupid boss type tank boss creature and it took them two round to drop it.
So at level 12 they can reliably hit AC 36 and do enough damage to compensate for DR 10/- and do so without magic or despite SR. Again, sounds like some serious melee mojo.
I can create challenging encounters, but they have to avoid combat mechanics as a factor, otherwise I need to scale the monsters hit points into the thousands... or just kill off PCs left and right. Additionally, I can make my NPCs all have tons of Physical Reduction, but that is kind of a cheap, and it screws over the non-min/maxed characters in the group.So my question is this, does anyone else feel the Melee/Ranged combat PF damage rules really start to break down around level 10+?
Varies. In our party, which is now level 18, we might manage 100 hp per round between all combatants (arcane archer, shadowdancer, eldritch knight). And we're running at a similar level of magic (around 40%) if my guess is right.
It just seems to me the rules were built for reasonable gamers.. but they didn't take into account Min/Max'rs.
"Reasonable" is subjective. To a min/maxer, it's a different set of goal posts.
Note your group is relying on haste. Do you have a larger party size than the normal 4? Are you using 3.5 splatbooks or 3PP material? Details on what is happening are needed for analysis.
Okay so my group is average level 12 and it seems the damage they do is insane. Magic Item wise, they are about 40% where the Rules say they should be so they are not that overpowered.
I have 3 players that push over 100 damage a round if Hasted. About 70 if they arent.
It really sunk in last night, when they were facing a creature with over 350 hit points, AC 36, Spell Resist through the roof, DR10/-. It was a big stupid boss type tank boss creature and it took them two round to drop it.
I can create challenging encounters, but they have to avoid combat mechanics as a factor, otherwise I need to scale the monsters hit points into the thousands... or just kill off PCs left and right. Additionally, I can make my NPCs all have tons of Physical Reduction, but that is kind of a cheap, and it screws over the non-min/maxed characters in the group.
So my question is this, does anyone else feel the Melee/Ranged combat PF damage rules really start to break down around level 10+?
It just seems to me the rules were built for reasonable gamers.. but they didn't take into account Min/Max'rs.
Does anyone else run into this issue?
What was the challenge rating of the creature? What I have found is at higher levels the more difficult monsters rely not on AC and hit points but on special abilities that weaken/distract the pcs. It also depends heavily on the party. Remember a published adventurer expects a 'typical party of a divine caster, a arcane caster, a skill specialist, and a front line fighter. If you have 3 party members churning out that much damage i really doubt that is your party makeup. If just 1 player was doing that kind of damage and the rest were either providing support, buffs, or debuffs then it would be a very different encounter.
It is just a fact of life in a robust game like pathfinder, your party's abilities are very different depending on what's in it. Published adventures cant account for that. If your party is a sorceror 3, paladin2/dragon disciple 7, Paladin 12, Summoner 12, and Combot focused wildshaping druid, you have very different issues to deal with then a dm who's party is a Conjurer wizard 12, Bard 5/Rogue7, Casting focused Cleric, Fighter 5/Duelist 7.
It is also not unique to pathfinder. I have a similar problem in 3.5, d20 modern, and star wars saga edition.
Yes, yes I do.
Group combat is pretty much just the way I like it, quick and deadly, but when it comes to the bigger monsters they tend to go down super fast. The main trouble (to me at least) is full attacks. When characters stand toe to toe with the monster, whipping out 3-4 attacks per round with monstrous bonuses to their damage, the monster usually goes down very quickly, and if it doesn't it's usually powerful enough to take down the party.
Pathfinder isn't really suited for fighting one big enemy, but if you want to I suggest giving it some sort of knockback ability with its attacks. If it knocks back the PCs, they'll have to move back in to damage it, meaning they give up their full attack and thus the battle becomes longer. This doesn't fix the issue with ranged attacks, but that's for another thread. My knockback feat if you're interested is pretty much just a free CMB check in conjunction with an attack once per round, and if it succeeds you get to bull rush the target without moving.
EDIT: Or you could just use Awesome Blow, lol.
|
Location, location, location.
Or, in more specific terms: terrain, terrain, terrain.
At this level the room or environment should be a significant factor in a challenging encounter -- it should be bizarre and dangerous and difficult for them to maneuver around in, particularly it should make it difficult for them to position themselves to deal full melee attacks on the big bad in the first or second round.
In my experience 100 damage+/round isn't uncommon with groups of level 10+. Sending a single "boss" type monster is usually a bad idea unless the pc's are almost depleted of resources from earlier encounters. Fully powered pc groups tend to go "nova" when they meet a single bbeg if they are able to. By nova I mean spamming their most powerful attacks and combos as quick as possible to kill the bbeg in the quickest and most efficient manner.
I like to use tiers of bosses, where the pc face what they think is the bbeg, spams their most powerful attacks, then realizes that the boss monster they just killed was just a lieutenant or decoy and then the real boss shows up usually with reinforcements or in an ambush fashion.
It also helps to have minions with the bbeg, then the pc's have to divide their attention. The minions should be fairly easy to kill, but still pose a threat.
Pathfinder combat is designed to go pretty fast and few battles should last more than 5+ rounds. This is especially true in battles with single monsters against a group of pc's.
At higher levels, single monsters (especially if their CR isn't more than 2 above party level) will go down in 1-3 rounds, almost regardless of party composition. This was the case in 3.5, and it is still the case in Pathfinder.
In my last 3.5 campaign, one of my players had a twf warblade (tome of battle) that dished out damage close to 1k per round by the end of the campaign. Not many monsters can take a full attack from such a character, so I had to attempt to devise encounters where full attacks would not be as easily accomplished, while still allowing him encounters where he could shine, of course :)
|
Our level 6 Alchemist regularly dishes out 50-70 damage points in a round.
Sound high?
Well of course! We're using a 25-point buy, bonus Ability point every even level, free psionics... blah blah blah.
My point being, that damage itself is just numbers. We need a description of how characters are built and leveled to give you much more detailed advice.
It looks like i just need to adjust my DM'ing style to suit the game system. Not ask why the game system doesn't suit my DM style ;).
Actually, the system can support any number of DMing styles, you just have to learn how to use it :) If you want one BBEG, you can do it, but you have to use the rules. Your players obviously are...
Our level 6 Alchemist regularly dishes out 50-70 damage points in a round.
Sound high?
Well of course! We're using a 25-point buy, bonus Ability point every even level, free psionics... blah blah blah.
My point being, that damage itself is just numbers. We need a description of how characters are built and leveled to give you much more detailed advice.
We use a base stat system of 16,14,14,12,12,10. Core Rules from there with some prestige classes. But the main Damage dealers have drastically different set ups. 1 Is a Duel Wield Finesse/crit fighter, 1 is a 2 handed Great Axe Barbarian, 1 is a Ranger/Archer and the Other is a Fighter/Pally Sword and Board Style class. Most are core rules class setups.
The point is all of them deal a tremendous amount of damage. My concern was I was allowing them to get away with something, but it appears PF is designed with allowing 100+ damage as a full round action at these levels.
Also, I am correct in assuming Wizards/Sorcerers are supposed to be less than effective at single target damage correct?
Yes damage spells are far less effective at dealing damage against a low number of targets. A fireball is useful A if you have nothing else to do, or b if there are lots (i'd say 3 or more) of enemies you can get inside it's radius.
Where I really think your problem is coming from is your very atypical party make up. A fighter, paladin, barbarian and ranger? Are there other members of this party? How big is it? Just the fact that you have 4 primary combatants in your party means you will have to make alot of adjustments, let alone the likely size of your party.
Something to keep in mind also is that in pathfinder archery was deliberately powered up. That part is definately different from 3.x. You will need to adjust for that by crowding the battlefield and making it harder to get clear shots.
Lets see.
1. From the DPR olympics thread, 60 damage per round is pretty normal for an unbuffed level 10 character doing a full attack action. There are multiple builds in that thread doing 50-60 damage without buffs.
2. For warrior classes(Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, Barbarian) going from level 10-level 12 is probably a 25% increase in damage via getting a 3rd attack and +2 to hit with all attacks.
3. Haste increases most character full attack damage by 40-60% via +1 to hit, and an extra attack.
4. The effects of critical hits are averaged over multiple rounds, but landing a critical hit is similar effect to haste during the round that it happens. A crit is similar to getting a 1 or 2 extra attacks that automatically hit. This is a 30% boosts for a x2 weapon, and about a 60% boosts for a x3 weapon.
5. Magic items only account for about 30-50% of a class's damage, the rest comes from proper stat allocation, class abilities, etc. So only have 40% of the normal magic items drops your damage by 40%(damage due to magic items) * 60%(less magic than normal) = 24%
So, 60 * 1.25 * 1.5 * 1.3 * .76 = 85.5 damage per round on average
Landing a crit with a x2 weapon gets you up to 110 damage per round for that round.
Landing a crit with a x3 weapon gets us up to 140 damage per round for that round.
So if the play landed a crit, 120 damage in a single round doesn't seem that crazy for a level 12 character.
I am not sure that Pathfinder characters really do more damage than 3.5 characters.
Power Attack, for example, got a huge nerf.
Paladins got a big boost on smite evil, but let's face it, 3.5 paladins sucked at damage. The Pathfinder version of smite makes paladins useful again.
Fighters got a bit of a damage boost from Weapon Training. Really though, this only amounts to a few points per attack at level 12, and since they would probably be Power Attacking most of the time anyway, it's a wash.
Mage/Cleric damage output remained the same, except maybe at really low levels with their little touch attacks - really not much of a factor at level 12.
Rogues can sneak attack more often (fewer immune foes), so that increases the rogue damage output from pathetic to possibly really good in many cases - but when they fight enemies that they could sneak attack in both game versions, their damage output is no higher in Pathfinder than it was in 3.5.
Really, it's about the same.
As others have pointed out, the flaw is in that BBEGs who stand around and get pounded by multiple PCs making full-attack iterative actions are going to die incredibly fast in both systems.
So hide your BBEGs. If you can't hide them, then make them mobile, If you can't make them mobile, then put them out of reach. If you can't put them out of reach, then put obstacles in the way to slow down the PCs approach. If you can't do any of that, then give them a few friends to help out. Minions, mooks, whatever.
And if you can't do any of that, then watch those BBEGs burn in two rounds. But when you do, know that this is exactly what was supposed to happen, regardless of whether you're playing 3.5 or Pathfinder.
Okay so my group is average level 12 and it seems the damage they do is insane. Magic Item wise, they are about 40% where the Rules say they should be so they are not that overpowered.
I have 3 players that push over 100 damage a round if Hasted. About 70 if they arent.
It really sunk in last night, when they were facing a creature with over 350 hit points, AC 36, Spell Resist through the roof, DR10/-. It was a big stupid boss type tank boss creature and it took them two round to drop it.
I can create challenging encounters, but they have to avoid combat mechanics as a factor, otherwise I need to scale the monsters hit points into the thousands... or just kill off PCs left and right. Additionally, I can make my NPCs all have tons of Physical Reduction, but that is kind of a cheap, and it screws over the non-min/maxed characters in the group.
So my question is this, does anyone else feel the Melee/Ranged combat PF damage rules really start to break down around level 10+?
Just one example, when Raging the Fighter Barb hits Thrice a round for 1d12+24. Throw in Haste... even assuming he misses once, that is 99 Damage a round.
Also, one of my guys managed to get his AC close to 36 with core rules. (His actually AC is 40, but he is a bladesinger, and that isn't a core class so I stripped that out).
It just seems to me the rules were built for reasonable gamers.. but they didn't take into account Min/Max'rs.
Does anyone else run into this issue?
I dont think it grows any faster than it did in 3.5 but players, when using splat books, who optimize their feats, can ramp up damage really quickly. In a different thread James Jacobs mentioned the published material bases most of its NPC/Monsters on an ability score spread of 10 points. So as a DM running published material if you allow your PC's a 20 or 25 point purchase then increasing their opponents score spread appropriately would seem wise.
Groups above 4 are a special challange. Six players really makes it difficult to get balanced encounters. The Party has a great advantage in total resources like total hp, number of attacks, etc. In a classic 4 PC party (rogue, cleric, wizard, fighter) you dont have two heavies flanking a single opponent doing massive damage. With a five or six PC party you might have an exta melee combatant like a barbarian who together with a fighter can fell some might opponents quickly. That is the problem my DM currently faces (and I will next month when I begin DMing CotCT).
I dont think there is a single answer to the problem, but I agree that these min/max/optimizied PC can be problematic in a large party. I find their effects is small parties is minimized greatly however.
But the main Damage dealers have drastically different set ups. 1 Is a Duel Wield Finesse/crit fighter, 1 is a 2 handed Great Axe Barbarian, 1 is a Ranger/Archer and the Other is a Fighter/Pally Sword and Board Style class. Most are core rules class setups.
So you have 4 melee/ranged fighter-types as the main damage dealers. How many other characters are in the party?
If you have only these four, then one type of encounter that could easily be a challenge to them would be a spellcaster (or monster with spell-like abilities) that specifically target Will saves. Charm Person and similar effects could easily be the bane of this party.
If you have more than these four characters, then you have to increase the number of enemies to account for the increased number of players. The system is based around 4 PCs; if you have, say, 6 PCs in your party, then no monster should be alone against them. 6 full-round actions per round far outweighs 1 full-round action per round, even if that 1 is more powerful.
Mooks!! Mooks!!! Mooks!!!!
|
100 hasted DPR is normal for a group of 4 damage dealers. Oh hell, I would even say that it's pretty low.
D&D monsters are built on the assumption of facing a 4-man party made up of a 1 dedicated damage dealer, 1 less dedicated damage dealer and 2 casters. They're perfectly fine then, but if you drop them against a party of 4 optimized DPR specialist, you better up the HP. Or drop more monsters :)
Could make more use of dispel magic with that much melee in the party all wanting to be hasted. That or slow.
Your BBEG's need some magical backup. Or they need to learn how to enjoy an anti-magic zone.
Fine ideas, but I bet the players will get disgruntled with their 20th (or 50th) encounter in anti-magic zones. That trick works a couple times before it gets old. And Dispel Magic works with certain bad guys (obvious casters, a few rare monsters, or maybe once or twice a BBEG who whips out a wand of Dispel Magic). But even that trick gets old when every battle the enemy dispels the buffs.
Face it, the players are putting time and resources into their buffs. Taking that away from them is essentially punishing them for good play.
So, doing it a few times makes it look like the BBEGs are smart, and forces them to find ways to deal with it. Doing it all the time just looks like the DM is punishing the players for good tactics. Somewhere in the middle is the perfect balance, doing it often enough to make some fun and interesting encounters without being punitive.
Include these fine ideas with other ideas, such as monsters the PCs can't find, or can't reach, or can't stand-and-pound, mix it all up, and make sure to include some enemies that the PCs can easily handle so they are rewqarded for their good tactics instead of punished and you're well on your way to a whole slew of interesting encounters.
I am not sure that Pathfinder characters really do more damage than 3.5 characters.
Power Attack, for example, got a huge nerf.
Paladins got a big boost on smite evil, but let's face it, 3.5 paladins sucked at damage. The Pathfinder version of smite makes paladins useful again.
Fighters got a bit of a damage boost from Weapon Training. Really though, this only amounts to a few points per attack at level 12, and since they would probably be Power Attacking most of the time anyway, it's a wash.
Mage/Cleric damage output remained the same, except maybe at really low levels with their little touch attacks - really not much of a factor at level 12.
Rogues can sneak attack more often (fewer immune foes), so that increases the rogue damage output from pathetic to possibly really good in many cases - but when they fight enemies that they could sneak attack in both game versions, their damage output is no higher in Pathfinder than it was in 3.5.
Really, it's about the same.
As others have pointed out, the flaw is in that BBEGs who stand around and get pounded by multiple PCs making full-attack iterative actions are going to die incredibly fast in both systems.
So hide your BBEGs. If you can't hide them, then make them mobile, If you can't make them mobile, then put them out of reach. If you can't put them out of reach, then put obstacles in the way to slow down the PCs approach. If you can't do any of that, then give them a few friends to help out. Minions, mooks, whatever.
And if you can't do any of that, then watch those BBEGs burn in two rounds. But when you do, know that this is exactly what was supposed to happen, regardless of whether you're playing 3.5 or Pathfinder.
Power Attack didn't get a nerf. In most instances it's netting a bigger damage output in Pathfinder than it did in 3.5, no matter what the naysayers say.
Another big change was Deadly Aim, which makes archers the most powerful full attackers in the game.
Another big change was Deadly Aim, which makes archers the most powerful full attackers in the game.
Deadly Aim AND manyshot working with full attacks instead of single standard action attacks. That's what takes it over the top. If there was just rapid shot and deadly aim, archer's wouldnt be kings or queens of damage.
|
awesome blow, spring attack, the vital strike tree, there are a lot of different abilities you can give your bad guys to make encounters more interesting.
I'm currently dm'ing a party of four players at 9-10th level. I had a LOT of fun pitting a succubus against them and making the players fight against each other.
Let's see.. stone golem seems like a tankish mob with a cr of 11.
Immune to magic, dr 10/adamantine.
two slam attacks...
slow every two rounds. Note that the slow ability, which is used as a free action, counters and dispels haste. It also prevents creatures from taking full round actions, so no more full-round attacks :p
If you want to be really mean, give it the awesome blow power, and have it knock the players back 10 feet so they have to waste a round using their action to move up to the golem again. :P
Or, you could have the golem attacking the players is a lightless room, or a room where there are randomly hidden pits. A couple bull rushes and you've got players trying to climb up out of the pits while slowed, with the stone golem beating up other folks...
Mmm... *takes the idea to use on his own players*
|
Power Attack didn't get a nerf. In most instances it's netting a bigger damage output in Pathfinder than it did in 3.5, no matter what the naysayers say.
Another big change was Deadly Aim, which makes archers the most powerful full attackers in the game.
I think what broke Power Attack in 3.5 was Leap Attack... Turning 40 points of extra damage to 80 on a regular hit or multiplying on a crit (the horror) was the frightening part.
--Vrock Band: Demon edition
There was some talk in another post where a DM was having trouble with a party of 6 railroading his villains. What it seemed to be coming down to is that his party were facing a few "strong" single monsters, but with the number of actions they got they were just overwhelming the opposition.
What it comes down to I think is you need to occupy the party. Everyone needs a job to do. If its a single monster your want them to fight, its gotta be so big and so mean that they have difficulty facing it head to head. They instead need to work together to provide for a decent offense and defense.
The battlefield itself can do this too. Perhaps it has traps, or pits, or tar, or strangling vines. If the PC's are fighting the environment the BBEG can rain down on them with spells, or arrows, or minions.
Some awesome encounters I have seen is when the BBEG isn't the target, but its an asymmetrical fight. Perhaps its a race to drawbridge, or a struggle to throw a special switch. Those are some neat fights, because crowd control is just as important as damage, sometimes more so.
edit - oops, got side tracked. Anyway, if you tangle up the party, you deny them actions and they BBEG doesn't need as many HP and AC, or will last longer in any case. Straight fights after a certain point become a numbers game, and smart parties know how to play the numbers.
I wish these forums had signitures so I could make "Stop sending single enemies against a group, this is the source of your problems" into mine.
well, lets be fair, its pretty iconic. They just don't have a disclaimer on single monsters, saying warning CR might not reflect actual threat when facing an armed party of 4+ adventurers with optimal conditions. Use as directed by your doctor.
|
I wish these forums had signitures so I could make "Stop sending single enemies against a group, this is the source of your problems" into mine.
Unless it is a single enemy like these.
well, lets be fair, its pretty iconic. They just don't have a disclaimer on single monsters, saying warning CR might not reflect actual threat when facing an armed party of 4+ adventurers with optimal conditions. Use as directed by your doctor.
I don't really see it as being super iconic, myself.
What's a BBEG without a bunch of evil minions, after all? :D
1 vs 1 duels can be incredibly iconic, mind you. The problem is when it's a 4 vs 1 battle.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
I wish these forums had signitures so I could make "Stop sending single enemies against a group, this is the source of your problems" into mine.
If the game can't support such iconic encounter as the party vs. a dragon, the game wasn't very well made. Personally, I think it can, but you do need to optimize the foes a bit to fit your group.
To me, the trick to making a single enemy BBEG viable is a combination of the above. Is he intelligent? He probably knew the PCs were coming and prepared with some summons/undead minions/what have you. Has precast spells if a spellcaster, or is lurking in the darkness waiting to pounce and get a surprise round off.
My favorite tool is conditional modifiers. Spells like waves of fatigue, and dragon fear, give significant penalties to your PCs attacks that, at best, a paladin or cleric might spend a few rounds to negate. Terrain is also excellent, and even something like preventing the PCs from charging in for a round or two encourages more strategic thinking and makes a fight feel more epic. Fights just aren't fun IMO, for player or DM, when it comes down to an exchange of blows and ultimately attrition.
I wish these forums had signitures so I could make "Stop sending single enemies against a group, this is the source of your problems" into mine.If the game can't support such iconic encounter as the party vs. a dragon, the game wasn't very well made. Personally, I think it can, but you do need to optimize the foes a bit to fit your group.
It works if the single target has a means of disabling or taking out some of your party from the fight for whatever periods of time.
Otherwise, it's four against 1. There's a reason mooks fight the good guy one at a time. It was no different in previous editions.
If the game can't support such iconic encounter as the party vs. a dragon, the game wasn't very well made. Personally, I think it can, but you do need to optimize the foes a bit to fit your group.
Dragons, yes. Your average brute, no. Dragons, I'd say, had been pretty much geared for going against a party given the number of attacks they had and I think they did reasonably well.
it can easily do so, you just have to be smart and utilize a terrain. most villians are smart, they need to be played that way. Use terrain, don't be afraid to run. Have a backup plan. If the BBEG has been watching or had any of his minions escape, be prepared for the parties tactics. It can be doable, the main disadvantage is the players are typically 4 people (or more) dissecting a problem, the DM has to do it on his own. It takes practice, but its definitely possible. Dragon fights for example optimistically should never land to fight a powerful party UNLESS they are at a disadvantage already (or all ranged, or all spellcasters for example) via low hit points or terrain.
there are lots of ways to make a fight iconic and challenging, its all in how you look at it.
I wish these forums had signitures so I could make "Stop sending single enemies against a group, this is the source of your problems" into mine.If the game can't support such iconic encounter as the party vs. a dragon, the game wasn't very well made. Personally, I think it can, but you do need to optimize the foes a bit to fit your group.
Most iconic battles against a dragon do not involve a head to head fight but some sort of trickery or luck to defeat a vastly superior foe (the dragon). That normally is not what a DND/pathfinder encounter is meant to be.
That said, dragons CAN fight a party one v 4 but it has to be prepared and very very smart (you know ancient intelligence and all that). Most dms are unfortunately human, and therefore not always capable of the tactics one of the ancient wyrms should come up with.
In short, if you have a larger then average party, no it doesnt work, and if you arent very good at understanding what your party can do and countering it, it doesnt work. You can call that poor design if you want, but the truth is its not worth breaking the system so that you can have these bland single monster fights.
I have seen a few monsters that do ok as a single monster vs a party. For instance at the end of the module Carrion Hill you face this weird extra planar creature with a bunch of tentacles with reach and grab. This was very useful in keeping party members pinned so the monster wasn't overwhelmed.
Okay so my group is average level 12 and it seems the damage they do is insane. Magic Item wise, they are about 40% where the Rules say they should be so they are not that overpowered.
I have 3 players that push over 100 damage a round if Hasted. About 70 if they arent.
It really sunk in last night, when they were facing a creature with over 350 hit points, AC 36, Spell Resist through the roof, DR10/-. It was a big stupid boss type tank boss creature and it took them two round to drop it.
I can create challenging encounters, but they have to avoid combat mechanics as a factor, otherwise I need to scale the monsters hit points into the thousands... or just kill off PCs left and right. Additionally, I can make my NPCs all have tons of Physical Reduction, but that is kind of a cheap, and it screws over the non-min/maxed characters in the group.
So my question is this, does anyone else feel the Melee/Ranged combat PF damage rules really start to break down around level 10+?
Just one example, when Raging the Fighter Barb hits Thrice a round for 1d12+24. Throw in Haste... even assuming he misses once, that is 99 Damage a round.
Also, one of my guys managed to get his AC close to 36 with core rules. (His actually AC is 40, but he is a bladesinger, and that isn't a core class so I stripped that out).
It just seems to me the rules were built for reasonable gamers.. but they didn't take into account Min/Max'rs.
Does anyone else run into this issue?
Here is a suggestion. Many GM/DM tend to allow thier players to roll 4d6 or point by their abi's. Try just rolling stright 3d6 take what you get and allow them to trade rolls if the like with each other. Yeah some of your players might cry about the low stats but it is a new dimention to the game. After all is it not a game and made to to be fun and challenging.
Well, it's all relative. How much damage can their enemies do in that amount of time? If the total for the party is about the same as the monster, it's a fair fight.
But, here are some hints.
1) MOVE. Don't trade full attacks if it's not to your advantage.
Monster vs. three PCs: Makes one attack, and leaves, provoking three AOs. Next round, all PCs charge back in.
Monster: One attack, + three AOs from reach = 4 attacks
Players: Three charges + three AOs from leaving = 6 attacks
Monster vs. three PCs: Makes full attack, takes full attacks.
Monster: claw, claw, bite = 3 attacks
Players: three players w/BAB 11 + haste = 12 attacks total
2) Have multiple badguys (been covered).
3) Have a variety of badguys.
One of the classic deadly encounters from Temple of Elemental Evil included two harpies, seven ghouls, and a portcullis trap. Split the party with the trap, and then the half in the room had to resist the harpies while fighting off the ghouls.
Now, players have to think: do I open the portcullis and help my friends? Do I focus on the dangerous but weaker harpies flying above? Do I go after the melee threat, the ghouls? Challenging = fun.
4) Have terrain that matters.
Melee characters will do well on a blank featureless plain, but you're really shortchanging many character builds and most monsters. What's the point of having ranks in swim if there's never any water? And this REALLY shortchanges the aquatic monsters.
Let's see your guys fight a green dragon and its wood golem servants at the unlit bottom of a lake, for example.
5) Discuss
Immediate reaction: This is TERRIBLE, players complain.
Long-term reaction: You point out that they have only one tactic = smash it. They have little/no spells, scrolls, potions. They have taken no steps to even purchase cold weather gear, much less a potion of endure elements. Instead, they focused most of thier attention on melee damage, and you intend to make them occassionally pay.
You may even find that the REASON they all have melee brutes is because they know you tend to throw big stompy monsters at them.
I had a Duskblade in my 3.5 game that could drop any BBEG I threw at the party in one round. If anything, damage in PF is less of a problem imo.
|
6)Have tougher and better thought out monsters by design.
I think 3.5/pathfinder monsters at their assigned CRs fail in function.
I've been mulling this over for a long time - seeing the tremendous amount of power, effects and damage output a party can put out in PF I can only concede that there are some fundamental flaws in core creature design as the game transitioned from 2nd ed to 3.0 (and on).
In addition to some flawed designed I think PF has made some mistakes in not adjusting some of the creature CRs down.
A good example of this is a staple creature; the Bugbear. Checking the stats between 3.0/3.5 MM and the PF Bestiary books and seeing that the CR value has remained the same with minimal change after all the PC powering up in between editions over the years is, IMO, a huge mistake. Most creatures should be adjusted from a 1/2 to full CR down in value. They seemed to get it right when assigning -1CR to NPCs with class levels (maybe should be even lower than the -1CR to total level, possibly -2 to -3 CRs), so I think the indication is there for NPCs - just not creatures. I don't think the Cr system is bad, I just think the numbers and rewards for the challenges are way too much for the threats as stated up.
Again, my opinion on a few creature features -
I thing DR X/- should be a standard feature of most monsters (as appropriate for thick hide, blubber, etc) even if its in a small amount. So if you are fighting a monster 1-on-1 a small DR is just more challenging for the solo player while the same monster against a group of 4 or more PCs benefits from an actual Hp net gain for the overall damage reduced without upping HD, BAB, etc.
Better AC and anything with the magical/aberration/outsider tag should have at least a 50/50 fail/succeed CR appropriate Spell resistance.
More inherent bonuses vs saves on magic, specific spell types - there is hardly any of this kind of detail in any of the monster write-ups> Some of the PC races get it, there should be less shyness when assigning a thematically inherent +2 or +4 on saves vs certain types of magic. That an more immunities.
Also using few energy resistances per creature - as appropriate (magical/aberration/outsider) wouldn't hurt in having creatures regain their roll as level appropriate threats in the face of the incredible damage/effect output generated from a modern PF group of PCs.
It's as if the only ones who are going to fight monsters are martial types, there is little in the curve and design to challenge casters with more creatures that have some solid (but not unbeatable) defense vs magical damage and spell effects. Its as fighters are fighting on one plane and caster's,.... well casters don't need to worry about HP, AC, etc.
Casters need their own monster features which they should be concerned about against some threats in a fight - on par with better saves, energy resistance, effect resistance, etc.
Now that monsters are not really PC material (real monsters) Improved Nat Armor should have been bumped to +2 per take, not a measly +1.
Dump the skill focus feat and turn it into +4, +8 or +12 racial bonus and let the monster use the feat to increase its survivability.
A good example is the Owl Bear - lose the skill focus (perception), make it a racial bonus (plus race skill) and give it another feat to help it kill, survive, etc.
Sorry, I just hate the repeated "Stop sending single enemies against a group" mantra repeated, or that you need to set up the single encounter "just right" or absurd templates, tweaking action economy or super high CRs just to make it challenging.
To me this just indicates a failure in the system.
It wasn't an issue in older edition games, only since the cross-over from 2nd to 3.0 with the exploding/scaling power of PCs has this become an issue. I am not blaming Paizo or even the character design and powers - just the creature design since 3.0 which seems to (as illusion) follow the mechanics and power of PCs but doesn't scale in challenge, logic and function.
Anyway, sorry for the rant, this issue has been bugging me for awhile.
Yeah so basically, "I don't want CR to work like it does -- I want a CR equal fight to be very difficult for my party."
Except that's the exact opposite of the stated point of CR -- CR equal opponents shouldn't be difficult for the party -- they should be standard -- meaning they don't eat up too much resources, they are something the party can take several times a day and continue on.
I would suggest you should actually check the save throw bonuses, ability DCs and damage potential of the monsters mathmatically before going off on this tangent. Having done so I have found that they end up exactly where the staff at paizo have stated they want them to be for any given challenge rating.
Of course a party of PCs are going to wade through equal CR monsters -- if they didn't you would have a PC death every time and the wizard would never cast a spell with a DC since it would fail almost by design.
In order for a single creature to actually pose a "challenge" for a party it has to:
1. Be hard to hit.
2. Have enough hit points to last several rounds.
3. Make almost all of its saves.
4. Deal enough damage to cope with four people assaulting it at the same time.
Anything that meets those requirements is going to be close to TPK area for the party.
It's not as simple as "Oh I don't like the fact you say I shouldn't send just one monster."
It's the fact that in order to send one monster you have to account for action economy, the best of each of the character's abilities, and still have a bit left over to last several rounds -- by which time you've killed off several large portions of the party.
It doesn't work because the math isn't there.
Auxmaulos wrote: It wasn't an issue in older edition games, only since the cross-over from 2nd to 3.0 with the exploding/scaling power of PCs has this become an issue. I am not blaming Paizo or even the character design and powers - just the creature design since 3.0 which seems to (as illusion) follow the mechanics and power of PCs but doesn't scale in challenge, logic and function.
Really? What older editions are we talking about here, because as I recall this was even worse in second edition since the monster had a lot fewer hit points and between the splat-books available at that time damage was almost the same as it is now in Pathfinder.
It's been a while since I've played the older editions but I clearly recall my player's easily dispatching my insanely tweaked out bbeg's without breaking a sweat, usually in one or two swings with their sword or a single spell.
Anyway, back to the topic. My concern is how to make a solo monster challenging for a group of pc's. This is easier at lower levels since the characters have more limited options and the survival of the group is much more dependent upon party cooperation. At higher levels (9+ in my experience) each pc becomes a virtual power-house in his own right, with numerous options and fail saves. Together a well-oiled and well prepared party of adventurers at this level can usually best almost anything I send at them even if it is 4 or 5 CR's higher than the APL unless the creature in question have backup or have a game breaking ability or advantage.
The main reason for this (IMO) is two-fold, first the creature rarely has enough hit points or good enough defenses to stand up against a party of adventurers for an extended amount of time. Second, and this is my main concern, is as already mentioned the action economics of a single creature vs. an entire party of min-maxed player characters. The creature really can't do enough stuff to pose a challenge and still remain alive. Usually it ends up in said critter hitting once or spending his action using a special ability against which the pc's most likely succeed to defend themselves, then the party goes full nova on the poor thing bringing it down in mere seconds before the creature even manages to cry for help.
The only creatures I regularly have used against a party of adventurers successfully in a solo encounter is a dragon as these creatures usually have the versatility, cunning and toughness to last at least a bit more than 2-3 rounds in a face to face encounter. I still find the action economy of the dragon an inhibitor to the danger and fun it brings to the table as a solo challenge.
Now to be fair, I haven't played in the really high levels of the Pathfinder rpg yet, but I have numerous Campaigns going into epic levels in 3.0 and 3.5 under my belt, and as far as I have seen the statistics of the high CR monsters in the bestiary haven't changed that much since their 3.5 write-ups.
While I have no problems with challenging party of high level pc's using groups of monsters or unfair tactics, I sometimes wish I could just throw a premade monster of a suitable CR at them directly from the bestiary without having to worry about said critter becoming hamburger in less then two rounds and actually doing some damage before it went.
Second, and this is my main concern, is as already mentioned the action economics of a single creature vs. an entire party of min-maxed player characters.
Seriously they don't even have to be "min-maxed". The action economy is such that just being average means the BBEG on his own is going to get ganked.
|
|
Auxmaulos wrote: It wasn't an issue in older edition games, only since the cross-over from 2nd to 3.0 with the exploding/scaling power of PCs has this become an issue. I am not blaming Paizo or even the character design and powers - just the creature design since 3.0 which seems to (as illusion) follow the mechanics and power of PCs but doesn't scale in challenge, logic and function.Really? What older editions are we talking about here, because as I recall this was even worse in second edition since the monster had a lot fewer hit points and between the splat-books available at that time damage was almost the same as it is now in Pathfinder.
LOL, that's rich.
Yeah so basically, "I don't want CR to work like it does -- I want a CR equal fight to be very difficult for my party."
You are correct. The CR system as designed (4-5 party members) is a bit of a failure. Creature "level" should be assigned on a challenge of one-on-one and the scaled upwards in numbers or ability based upon the number of people in the party.
Each encounter should be at the 50/50 mark based on a single creature:player ratio and then moved up/down from there. This whole 20% resources/4 encounter a day is bunk.
I know asking for a thought process on issue in these forums is a bit much, just expressing my opinions based on years of play-testing.
Anyway I said it was a rant so relax, I'll fix the problem in my game.
LOL, that's rich.Auxmaulos wrote: It wasn't an issue in older edition games, only since the cross-over from 2nd to 3.0 with the exploding/scaling power of PCs has this become an issue. I am not blaming Paizo or even the character design and powers - just the creature design since 3.0 which seems to (as illusion) follow the mechanics and power of PCs but doesn't scale in challenge, logic and function.Really? What older editions are we talking about here, because as I recall this was even worse in second edition since the monster had a lot fewer hit points and between the splat-books available at that time damage was almost the same as it is now in Pathfinder.
Pfft it's true. Had a dwarf fighter in second edition that put some of these pathfinder fighters to shame when it came to damage. Never mind the cleric of "I can do it all".
|
|
Pfft it's true. Had a dwarf fighter in second edition that put some of these pathfinder fighters to shame when it came to damage. Never mind the cleric of "I can do it all".LOL, that's rich.Auxmaulos wrote: It wasn't an issue in older edition games, only since the cross-over from 2nd to 3.0 with the exploding/scaling power of PCs has this become an issue. I am not blaming Paizo or even the character design and powers - just the creature design since 3.0 which seems to (as illusion) follow the mechanics and power of PCs but doesn't scale in challenge, logic and function.Really? What older editions are we talking about here, because as I recall this was even worse in second edition since the monster had a lot fewer hit points and between the splat-books available at that time damage was almost the same as it is now in Pathfinder.
Show with the core 2nd ed books.
Yeah, a weapon grandmaster fighter with a belt of Storm Giant Strength and a +6 sword was doing, what, 3 at/rd at 2-16 +21 before miscellaneous bonuses, at full TH? Old 1E weapon specialists archers were pumping out 4 arrows/rd at full TH, and magic arrows and bows stacked for ridiculous damage...
------
Also, 3E Power Attack is broken because
a) It leads to Improved Power Attack, and Supreme Power Attack
b) it's twice as good with 2H weapons
c) It doubles with Leap Attack
d) it's 'free' with Shock Trooper, not penalizing your TH
e) there's many a weapon that does double dmg on a charge...and that means the Power Attack damage is doubled, too...
and
f) there's tons of ways to get Pounce so you can full attack on a charge for ridiculous damage.
A Frenzied Barbarian on the charge could dish out an attack for something like +160 dmg JUST from Power Attack...at no TH penalty, and with a Str score easily in the 40 range. If enlarged with a spiked chain, he could basically wipe an entire party all by himself just with Supreme cleave and one attack.
===
OMG, you did not just say PF fighters got only a minor niggling bonus with Weapon training. +4 th/dmg with primary weapon? Do you know how much dmg that translates to over time? If you just turn it into Power Attack, that's +12 dmg with every swing...for no penalty. Weapon training is freaking huge.
===Aelryinth