| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
One thing I really enjoyed about PF was that they codified the monster creation rules in the Monster Index, giving us stat ranges that a monster of CR X should fall into.
However, the flip side of that coin was left to guesswork. What do those ranges mean for a monster vs a PC?
Take the CR 20 line for instance. AC 36.
Even a moderately optimized 20th level fighter is going to have 26 Str, and an attack bonus that begins with +39. (that represents a fighter who began with 17 Str, has a +6 enhancement, +5 weapon, greater weapon focus and weapon training. Could add a +5 inherent bonus as well.)
Is that intended? Is the assumption that the fighter will definitely hit with his first attack, and almost always on his second?
A moderately optimized 20th level rogue in the same party with 26 Dex will have (assuming weapon finesse and focus), an attack bonus of +29. If she's flanking, +31. She's got a decent chance with her first attack, and 50/50 with her second.
Same goes for all the other stats. What is assumed when a monster has a primary special attack DC? 40% weak saving PC failure? 20% strong saving PC failure? 80%?
AC isn't the only factor. What if the character's can hit it like in the case of a Phase Spider or some other factor? Ok, so you hit, what if the creature has DR?
A lot of creatures have high AC but terrible Touch ACs (Alchemist or Sorcerer as ranged touched are good).
Ok the Creature has 36 AC, but has a lot of hit points. The PC may hit it every round, but are they able to get Full-round attacks in? Perhaps the creatures constantly moves or has reach and Combat Reflexes?
Or perhaps the creature shoots from range at the PCs so they can never get into melee with it?
But your point is valid about the AC. Yeah the PC can hit it the first time and probably 50/50 the second, but that's if they can even get the hit in in the first place.
AC isn't the only factor. What if the character's can hit it like in the case of a Phase Spider or some other factor? Ok, so you hit, what if the creature has DR?
A lot of creatures have high AC but terrible Touch ACs (Alchemist or Sorcerer as ranged touched are good).
Ok the Creature has 36 AC, but has a lot of hit points. The PC may hit it every round, but are they able to get Full-round attacks in? Perhaps the creatures constantly moves or has reach and Combat Reflexes?
Or perhaps the creature shoots from range at the PCs so they can never get into melee with it?
But your point is valid about the AC. Yeah the PC can hit it the first time and probably 50/50 the second, but that's if they can even get the hit in in the first place.
I'm not making a point, I'm asking a question. What are the assumptions about PC power at a particular level that go into creating that chart?
One thing I really enjoyed about PF was that they codified the monster creation rules in the Monster Index, giving us stat ranges that a monster of CR X should fall into.
However, the flip side of that coin was left to guesswork. What do those ranges mean for a monster vs a PC?
Take the CR 20 line for instance. AC 36.
Even a moderately optimized 20th level fighter is going to have 26 Str, and an attack bonus that begins with +39. (that represents a fighter who began with 17 Str, has a +6 enhancement, +5 weapon, greater weapon focus and weapon training. Could add a +5 inherent bonus as well.)
Is that intended? Is the assumption that the fighter will definitely hit with his first attack, and almost always on his second?
A moderately optimized 20th level rogue in the same party with 26 Dex will have (assuming weapon finesse and focus), an attack bonus of +29. If she's flanking, +31. She's got a decent chance with her first attack, and 50/50 with her second.
Same goes for all the other stats. What is assumed when a monster has a primary special attack DC? 40% weak saving PC failure? 20% strong saving PC failure? 80%?
That chart is for unoptimized PC's versus unbuffed monsters. Any variance has to be accounted for by the GM.
edit:I have had players where stock monsters kicked butt, and players where I had to optimize the monsters.
That chart is for unoptimized PC's versus unbuffed monsters. Any variance has to be accounted for by the GM.
edit:I have had players where stock monsters kicked butt, and players where I had to optimize the monsters.
Which still leaves the question of how unoptimized are the PCs in question. I agree with you on the lack of buffs for the monsters...a marilith or balor for instance, has enough treasure to grab an AC boosting item. My 'stock' balor has buffed weapons, accounting for his treasure.
I tend to run into the latter more often with my players. There are times when I can add the advanced template at no CR increase, and they will still chew through them as though they weren't threatening at all, never noticing.
But I'm aware of how I need to challenge my PCs. What I'm asking is for the game's assumptions on PC capabilities. Does the game assume fighters always hit with their primary past 10th level? Does the game assume a spell fails against it X%? It is ok if the game does, I just want to know.
That chart is for unoptimized PC's versus unbuffed monsters. Any variance has to be accounted for by the GM.
edit:I have had players where stock monsters kicked butt, and players where I had to optimize the monsters.
Which still leaves the question of how unoptimized are the PCs in question. I agree with you on the lack of buffs for the monsters...a marilith or balor for instance, has enough treasure to grab an AC boosting item. My 'stock' balor has buffed weapons, accounting for his treasure.
I tend to run into the latter more often with my players. There are times when I can add the advanced template at no CR increase, and they will still chew through them as though they weren't threatening at all, never noticing.
But I'm aware of how I need to challenge my PCs. What I'm asking is for the game's assumptions on PC capabilities. Does the game assume fighters always hit with their primary past 10th level? Does the game assume a spell fails against it X%? It is ok if the game does, I just want to know.
I really don't know. I just know it assumes those stats are supposed to be good for the average player. I have never seen a breakdown on expected magic items, attribute selection, and so on. I never really thought about it either though.
As for the advanced template. I only use it when I need a small bump. I have found that changing feats is more effective than adding the template. My next step is to add magic items or the template if the feat idea does not do enough.Going back to your question I don't know about the percentage of success vs failure that the game considers. I am sure there is a hard number though. I figure a math based system has to have one.
Maybe a dev will come along to give a better answer.
I really don't know. I just know it assumes those stats are supposed to be good for the average player. I have never seen a breakdown on expected magic items, attribute selection, and so on. I never really thought about it either though.
As for the advanced template. I only use it when I need a small bump. I have found that changing feats is more effective than adding the template. My next step is to add magic items or the template if the feat idea does not do enough.
Going back to your question I don't know about the percentage of success vs failure that the game considers. I am sure there is a hard number though. I figure a math based system has to have one.
Maybe a dev will come along to give a better answer.
Oh man. Giving as much vital strike chain as possible to any monster with a single natural attack (T-Rex, I'm looking your way) is way better than Improved Natural Attack. Since they always use the standard action to attack, it's effectively a permanent increase to damage.
I usually switch up feats myself. Why so many creatures have Alertness is beyond me.
Oh man. Giving as much vital strike chain as possible to any monster with a single natural attack (T-Rex, I'm looking your way) is way better than Improved Natural Attack. Since they always use the standard action to attack, it's effectively a permanent increase to damage.I usually switch up feats myself. Why so many creatures have Alertness is beyond me.
Because those creatures were designed to be good hunters, not good PC-killers. (Also Vital Strike stacks nicely with Improved Natural Attack, so why go with only one?)
Because those creatures were designed to be good hunters, not good PC-killers. (Also Vital Strike stacks nicely with Improved Natural Attack, so why go with only one?)
Oh man. Giving as much vital strike chain as possible to any monster with a single natural attack (T-Rex, I'm looking your way) is way better than Improved Natural Attack. Since they always use the standard action to attack, it's effectively a permanent increase to damage.I usually switch up feats myself. Why so many creatures have Alertness is beyond me.
Well, I don't know what a bonus to Sense Motive has to do with hunting, but I'm sure it's important. (To be fair, Paizo did replace a lot of the Alertness feats with Skill Focus (Perception), which makes more sense.)
As far as only going with one, Improved Natural Attack makes a good follow up to the Vital Strike. It just is always inferior as a first choice. (Except when the monster has more than one natural attack.)
Consider a dire shark. If you only want to switch one feat:
Normal: Bite +17 (4d10+15) (avg 37)
Vital strike: Bite +17 (8d10+15) (avg 59)
Power attack: Bite +14 (4d10+24) (avg 46, less accurate)
Imp Natural: Bite +17 (6d10+15) (avg 48)
And if you do all three:
Bite +14 (12d10+24) (avg 90, less accurate)