|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Has low-level play benefited from the remaster? If so how and do you think it's enough of a change for someone that's tried PF2e before and didn't like low-level play to try again?
I just got the Remaster Monster Core yesterday and noticed several creatures had their attack bonuses lowered or special abilities changed in the direction of making low-level play a bit easier.
AEON +9 > +7
LYRAKIEN +9 > +7
GIANT BAT +10 > +9
GHOUL Paralysis > Stench and Forbidden Craving curse.
GOBLIN WARRIOR +8 > +7
VIPER +8 > +6
I know a lot of the changes from the Players and GM core have been discussed before but not sure if a list of those changes focused on low-level play has been made.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know that they deliberately added more level -1 monsters as well as refining some of the monster stat blocks. The issue is that no adventures or adventure paths that use the new monsters are out yet, so playing remastered content on a pre-remastered AP or adventure is likely to play the same, but if you are making your own adventures it is so easy to dial in the kind of challenge you want your party to face so that it can play to their strengths or provide an extra challenge.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do the creatures with lowered attack scores do the same damage?
Or has it increased to compensate, to keep expected damage the same?
Also I disagree with the premise that "easier" = "improved". I'm good as long as obstacles can be correctly measured (by GMs) and overcome (by players) with some level of challenge. Was it not so before?
And the ghoul was changed more for copyright reasons than balance, though being one of the TPK kings, especially in water, losing paralysis was probably necessary even if an iconic ability. Funny enough, one might argue they're less effective in water now depending on how one rules Stench works underwater.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do the creatures with lowered attack scores do the same damage?
Or has it increased to compensate, to keep expected damage the same?
Damage stayed the same.
Also I disagree with the premise that "easier" = "improved". I'm good as long as obstacles can be correctly measured (by GMs) and overcome (by players) with some level of challenge. Was it not so before?
I'm not concerned about easier I'm looking for better for new players coming from other systems.
And the ghoul was changed more for copyright reasons than balance, though being one of the TPK kings, especially in water, losing paralysis was probably necessary even if an iconic ability. Funny enough, one might argue they're less effective in water now depending on how one rules Stench works underwater.
The big issue for me with paralysis is for new players it's not fun when your character is paralyzed the entire time in a 2 hour long combat. That's not really fun for anyone.
I'm looking at this from the perspective of organized play, where GM's don't have complete freedom to modify scenarios, the PCs might be at different levels, and the players may or may not know the game, or know each other, and the party might be a random mix of classes that may or may not work well together. So I'm hoping to find enough changes at low level that might help convince some people to try again now that the remaster is out.
|
|
I know that they deliberately added more level -1 monsters as well as refining some of the monster stat blocks. The issue is that no adventures or adventure paths that use the new monsters are out yet, so playing remastered content on a pre-remastered AP or adventure is likely to play the same, but if you are making your own adventures it is so easy to dial in the kind of challenge you want your party to face so that it can play to their strengths or provide an extra challenge.
Good to see they added more level -1 monsters too
|
|
Besides monsters, I'm curious if cantrips are better in the Remaster I've noticed some I've compared looks to do more damage like Acid Splash becoming Caustic Blast. I was a bit surprised that Electric Arc didn't get nerfed more, but I like the change it reduces the minimum damage but actually increases the max damage for low-level characters that have not maxed out their key ability scores.
The other question I have about the remaster is were there any changes to healing at lower levels?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Besides monsters, I'm curious if cantrips are better in the Remaster I've noticed some I've compared looks to do more damage like Acid Splash becoming Caustic Blast. I was a bit surprised that Electric Arc didn't get nerfed more, but I like the change it reduces the minimum damage but actually increases the max damage for low-level characters that have not maxed out their key ability scores.
The other question I have about the remaster is were there any changes to healing at lower levels?
The Divine Font of the Cleric starts at 4 each day, whatever your Charisma. So you have more freedom to put your stats boosts wherever you wish without lessening your ability for the healbot/harmbot role.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The other question I have about the remaster is were there any changes to healing at lower levels?
A quick skim of low-level healing options (namely Soothe, Heal, and Treat Wounds) shows that the numbers are all identical to what they were before.
A minor benefit, new 2nd rank curative spells Cleanse Affliction, Clear Mind, Sound Body, and Sure Footing are all 2-actions rather than the 1 minute cast time on Restoration. This benefit is somewhat countered by splitting up the "Lessen Toxin" effect of Restoration into its own spell (which now explicitly defines 'toxin' as any affliction--curse, poison, disease) and the "Reduce Condition" into three separate spells, however the other condition-treating benefits of those spells and the overall consolidation of all curative spells into those 4 seems to count as a net win for undoing negative effects.
... And of course what The Raven just mentioned about clerics starting off with more free heals, for parties that feature a cleric in their midst.
|
|
The Divine Font of the Cleric starts at 4 each day, whatever your Charisma. So you have more freedom to put your stats boosts wherever you wish without lessening your ability for the healbot/harmbot role.Besides monsters, I'm curious if cantrips are better in the Remaster I've noticed some I've compared looks to do more damage like Acid Splash becoming Caustic Blast. I was a bit surprised that Electric Arc didn't get nerfed more, but I like the change it reduces the minimum damage but actually increases the max damage for low-level characters that have not maxed out their key ability scores.
The other question I have about the remaster is were there any changes to healing at lower levels?
Thanks, good to know! Did any other classes get similar changes that made picking where you put your ability boot more flexible?
Not really, since none of the other already reprinted APG & CRB classes had multi attribute dependence for different abilities.
|
|
The other question I have about the remaster is were there any changes to healing at lower levels?A quick skim of low-level healing options (namely Soothe, Heal, and Treat Wounds) shows that the numbers are all identical to what they were before.
A minor benefit, new 2nd rank curative spells Cleanse Affliction, Clear Mind, Sound Body, and Sure Footing are all 2-actions rather than the 1 minute cast time on Restoration. This benefit is somewhat countered by splitting up the "Lessen Toxin" effect of Restoration into its own spell (which now explicitly defines 'toxin' as any affliction--curse, poison, disease) and the "Reduce Condition" into three separate spells, however the other condition-treating benefits of those spells and the overall consolidation of all curative spells into those 4 seems to count as a net win for undoing negative effects.
... And of course what The Raven just mentioned about clerics starting off with more free heals, for parties that feature a cleric in their midst.
Thanks, I had seen some of the spell changes, mostly the ones my character uses, but didn't know of the new spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Has low-level play benefited from the remaster? If so how and do you think it's enough of a change for someone that's tried PF2e before and didn't like low-level play to try again?
I just got the Remaster Monster Core yesterday and noticed several creatures had their attack bonuses lowered or special abilities changed in the direction of making low-level play a bit easier.
AEON +9 > +7
LYRAKIEN +9 > +7
GIANT BAT +10 > +9
GHOUL Paralysis > Stench and Forbidden Craving curse.
GOBLIN WARRIOR +8 > +7
VIPER +8 > +6I know a lot of the changes from the Players and GM core have been discussed before but not sure if a list of those changes focused on low-level play has been made.
They also changed the Elite/Weak table too for low level monsters.
This will restrict the creature options a bit but will prevent over strong and weak.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Besides monsters, I'm curious if cantrips are better in the Remaster I've noticed some I've compared looks to do more damage like Acid Splash becoming Caustic Blast. I was a bit surprised that Electric Arc didn't get nerfed more, but I like the change it reduces the minimum damage but actually increases the max damage for low-level characters that have not maxed out their key ability scores
Dmg cantrips chances was made more to remove the MAD than a nerf focused (yet still nerfed). They are now more in par with Crossbows but with a bit worse action economy and range yet way more flexible as damage types, additional effects and AoE/multitarget.
In general the gameplay of level 1 casters don't change. EA still reign supreme as primary damage cantrip, Caustic Blast becomes a good option if the burst is able to target 3 or 4 creatures at once but progress badly and only work for level 1 and 2, for divine casters Divine Lance becomes way more useful once this goes from hit some align specific targets to hit any non-construct targets but it still worse than use Needle Darts. Frostbite that was a big improvement for casters IMO giving a "strong" fortitude save damage cantrip giving a different save alternative for cantrips (I know we already had Gale Blast but it's weaker, progress badly and isn't not always that you want to push a target). Gouging Claw becomes stronger helps weaponless casters at melee and become even more devastating option for Spellstrikes, Ignition is good at melee too but only really worth if the target have a fire weakness. IMO the RoE improved more the low level cantrips giving options like the already mentioned Needle Darts and other cantrips like Slashing Gust to allow attack 2 targets in far distance than EA, Eat Fire that gives a very powerful fire resistance since level 1 and Glass Shield that improved the number of defensive options that can be used per encounter specially for arcane casters.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Has low-level play benefited from the remaster? If so how and do you think it's enough of a change for someone that's tried PF2e before and didn't like low-level play to try again?
I just got the Remaster Monster Core yesterday and noticed several creatures had their attack bonuses lowered or special abilities changed in the direction of making low-level play a bit easier.
AEON +9 > +7
LYRAKIEN +9 > +7
GIANT BAT +10 > +9
GHOUL Paralysis > Stench and Forbidden Craving curse.
GOBLIN WARRIOR +8 > +7
VIPER +8 > +6I know a lot of the changes from the Players and GM core have been discussed before but not sure if a list of those changes focused on low-level play has been made.
There are several creatures in Monster Core Bestiary 1 that are overtuned. The book was written and released with nothing more than the playtest data. Many of those creatures were written before the core rules of the came were even finalized.
It was also written during a time when the game developers were also still dealing with the mindset of PF1 where 'difficult' is the only way to make a combat challenging and engaging.
What I notice when looking at that list is that a level 1 creature should have an attack bonus in line with the table for building creatures. And that the creature's attack bonus rating should be in line with their character concept. Many of those creatures got their bonus rating downgraded to 'Moderate' and the +7 bonus that rating gives.
Aeon Arbiter: Spellcaster. Downgraded from 'high' bonus to 'moderate'.
Lyrakien: Spellcaster. Downgraded from 'high' bonus to 'moderate'.
Giant Bat: non-militant physical combatant. Downgraded from 'extreme' to 'high'.
Ghoul: Removed a problematic debuff that a low level party has no counter to, and is only protected from by the Incapacitation trait that GMs may forget to apply.
Goblin Warrior: Not so much of a downgrade as a correction to the proper 'moderate' bonus value.
Viper: Applies an affliction with every successful strike. This is a level -1 creature, not a level 1 creature. It also got downgraded from 'high' to 'moderate'.
There are several creatures in Monster Core 1 that are overtuned. The book was written and released with nothing more than the playtest data. Many of those creatures were written before the core rules of the came were even finalized.You probably mean 'Bestiary', not MC1.
Yes. Bestiary 1. Not the new Monster Core.
|
|
Lot of great info here from everyone, which got me thinking of another question.
Are there any scenarios or quests that use the remaster rules and balancing that would better reflect what we will see used in SF2e? Or is it still too soon for the remaster to appear in Adventures yet? If too soon what what scenarios or short single-session adventures do you think represent well balanced play in PF2e?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Focus spells simplified. Lots of new players were running into unexpected problems refocusing.
Also clerics getting obvious/reasonable universal attack spells. Solves the awkwardness of what the cleric does.
Both are big improvements to low level play for new players.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Has low-level play benefited from the remaster? If so how and do you think it's enough of a change for someone that's tried PF2e before and didn't like low-level play to try again?One big change is also that Aid's DC was reduced from 20 to 15, so everyone has a 25% greater chance of aiding their friends with checks and attacks.
Even better, it lowers the risk of hindering your friends by rolling a crit fail.
But then, I really think they should have gotten rid of the crit fail result completely.
|
|
Has low-level play benefited from the remaster? If so how and do you think it's enough of a change for someone that's tried PF2e before and didn't like low-level play to try again?One big change is also that Aid's DC was reduced from 20 to 15, so everyone has a 25% greater chance of aiding their friends with checks and attacks.Even better, it lowers the risk of hindering your friends by rolling a crit fail.
But then, I really think they should have gotten rid of the crit fail result completely.
I had forgotten how different aid works between Starfinder and PF2e In Starfinder it's only DC10 to give +2 aid and it stacks, but it's limited to only skill checks. But with aid in PF2e being able to be used in combat I can see why it's got a higher DC and doesn't stack with other aid.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Still I wonder why the Aid DC doesn't scale in any way... seems like it would solve most of the problems I had with it--the DC starting too high to be any real use at the levels it's most likely to come up, followed by becoming automatic for any situation where the action cost isn't a factor. Presumably there's some interaction goal the designers have for making the DC static, but I just don't see it off-hand.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Still I wonder why the Aid DC doesn't scale in any way... seems like it would solve most of the problems I had with it--the DC starting too high to be any real use at the levels it's most likely to come up, followed by becoming automatic for any situation where the action cost isn't a factor. Presumably there's some interaction goal the designers have for making the DC static, but I just don't see it off-hand.
I guess it's because it's simpler.
But I think they should have used Treat Wounds progression: DC 15 for +1, DC 20 for +2, DC 30 for +3 and critical hits give an extra +1.
Without weighing in on whether this is a good thing... Celestials and fiends no longer deal extra alignment/spirit damage by default, and it doesn't look like their base damage was raised to compensate.
I noticed that my go to celestial summon (the artist formerly known as lilliend and now known as Kanya) had some interesting tweaks. She lost inspire heroics but her courageous anthem now boosts by +2 instead of +1. She also gained 10 HP and lost one point of accuracy on her tail. And I think lost a point of AC.
I'd be interested to hear what the trends are between average to hit values and average AC comparing the bestiary to Monster Core. Especially AC. The monster building rules always felt inconsistent about whether high or moderate is the default AC for combat focused critters, and GM Core made some further tweaks but didn't quite spell it out as clearly as I liked. (Certain sections say to use high as a default, but the roadmaps largely suggest using moderate as a default.)
|
|
Recnetly in a Starfinder game, we had a very deadly chase using the chase rules. Failing a skill check and falling behind in the chase was a minimum of more than 50% of all but one of the PCs HP so we had to use a lot of Aid rolls to help each other out. The last person to make it to safety only made it with the aid rolls from the entire party added to the last roll. Something you can't do in PF2e because aid is a circumstance bonus so won't stack. Having everyone aid the last player really felt like teamwork, which is something PF2e encourages.
I find the way bonuses can't stack with the same type is good for game balance, but it can limit teamwork to only one person being able to use aid action. In some situations what if there was a team trait that could be added to a skill check encounter that would allow stacking Aid checks for that specific check? This would allow the entire party to work together to overcome a skill challenge.
The entire party can work together to overcome a skill challenge with the circumstance bonus limit. The difference is that they cannot stack, they just can try to get a critical to get the maximum Aid bonus.
For example if someone is trying to disable a trap and the other players are trying to Aid (considering the the party has 4 players and everyone is able to Aid) you have 3 chance for at last one of the player to crit or to compensate a failure.
IMO the only Aid problem is that in high levels the DC 15 is basically a sure critic to many players what's make the teamwork become restricted to 2 players and the Aid becomes a action tax to get bonus. IMO it's more a problema of how low this Aid DC is than a problem of the circumstance bonus limit in general.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would be fine with a scaling DC, but I much prefer this lower DC than the DC 20 it was before. At low levels, it was really disheartening to have to beat a higher DC than the task itself just to help someone try to succeed. (Note that I mainly play PFS, so the GM using a lower DC for the aid isn't an option.) In a game that is built so much around encouraging teamwork, starting the Aid DC at 20 was really counter productive in teaching new players to cooperate.
|
|
I would be fine with a scaling DC, but I much prefer this lower DC than the DC 20 it was before. At low levels, it was really disheartening to have to beat a higher DC than the task itself just to help someone try to succeed. (Note that I mainly play PFS, so the GM using a lower DC for the aid isn't an option.) In a game that is built so much around encouraging teamwork, starting the Aid DC at 20 was really counter productive in teaching new players to cooperate.
I so far have only played PFS and SFs, so I get the GM has their hands tied part.
Almost every time I see advice given to new players teamwork comes up somewhere, but now I'm starting to think it might be better to think of it in terms of working in pairs. It might be easier for new players to be paired up with an experienced player and the two of them work together to set up a flank or something similar.
|
|
I would be fine with a scaling DC, but I much prefer this lower DC than the DC 20 it was before. At low levels, it was really disheartening to have to beat a higher DC than the task itself just to help someone try to succeed. (Note that I mainly play PFS, so the GM using a lower DC for the aid isn't an option.) In a game that is built so much around encouraging teamwork, starting the Aid DC at 20 was really counter productive in teaching new players to cooperate.
I agree it does feel off when the DC to aid is higher than the actual check. I think higher a DC makes sense if you are using an untrained skill to aid someone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Still I wonder why the Aid DC doesn't scale in any way... seems like it would solve most of the problems I had with it--the DC starting too high to be any real use at the levels it's most likely to come up, followed by becoming automatic for any situation where the action cost isn't a factor. Presumably there's some interaction goal the designers have for making the DC static, but I just don't see it off-hand.I guess it's because it's simpler.
But I think they should have used Treat Wounds progression: DC 15 for +1, DC 20 for +2, DC 30 for +3 and critical hits give an extra +1.
Not to drag this tangent out much longer, but wanted to say this is a fairly simple solution, except that it kind of exacerbates one of the problems I had before, where now higher level characters would gain even better bonuses at what used to be the rather trivial default DC 20. Granted, higher level characters also do have a lot more options for acquiring circumstance bonuses at their disposal, so the contention may just be moot depending on... circumstances...
I don't know if I'd prefer setting the DC by the original task (Pros: simple, scaling; Cons: in the common case where you use the same skill, passing means you could have just done it yourself--albeit this already exists for any DC 15 or lower) or set the DC by the level of the main actor (or as Perp suggests, by the level of their training (Pros: simple, somewhat logical that finding a way to meaningfully help a pro improve their technique is more difficult than getting an amateur over the line; Cons: really the same as before, but with some variance for unusually hard/easy DCs)
For a little extra complexity you could set the DC for Aid at the "Easy" or "Very Easy" rate and drop most of the Cons--especially since you only need to go 5 over what should be a manageable DC to see the Aid crit.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would be fine with a scaling DC, but I much prefer this lower DC than the DC 20 it was before. At low levels, it was really disheartening to have to beat a higher DC than the task itself just to help someone try to succeed. (Note that I mainly play PFS, so the GM using a lower DC for the aid isn't an option.) In a game that is built so much around encouraging teamwork, starting the Aid DC at 20 was really counter productive in teaching new players to cooperate.
I agree. The reduction of Aid DC to 15 was welcome for early levels but the lack of scaling makes it an irrelevant check in higher levels. Using this DC for skill checks Aid just have a failure chance if you get 1 starting from level 7 when the players reach the Master proficiency with their first skill. Even using it as 3rd action in a encounter using your attacks with MAP-10 your bonus reach the default DC when you get Master proficiency only failing if you roll 1.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Aid is in a weird place. I'm generally for its DC being powered and it being an auto success/crit success at higher levels, but it does strange that the DC never changes by default and there's no real GM guidance about an alternative to DC 15 should be. Maybe something like the base DC minus 10 to aid. I've seen GMs try to use the base DC itself, but that doesn't really make sense.
I also like the idea of everyone being able to aid on checks, especially out of combat, but I think with PF2 math the master/legendary bonuses would be too big if they stacked. I also realized recently that at higher levels every single person with their level added to their proficiency for a skill should roll to Aid on out of combat Recall Knowledge checks. If the whole party is trained in nature, then mathematically the best move is to quadruple the number of rolls rather than just have everyone roll a single check. That's... Bad, and an awful waste of time, but is the optimal move if you want to avoid crit fails and such. (Or just only have the best person roll the check, but that's another problem all together.) And in general I think requiring aid checks before you even know whether it would make a difference on the roll is bad design, especially out of combat. Don't roll dice that won't matter.
Part of me thinks Aid should be moved to a combat only action, and Follow the Expert should be broadened to apply to most out of combat checks where the group could all be contributing. It doesn't solve the "let multiple people Aid" dilemma but it makes more sense narratively and reduces extraneous dice rolling. Maybe you could add a flat number based on each contributor's proficiency, though that would get awkward to balance with larger parties. You could also start using group checks where you need half or more of the party to pass a check, but everyone gets Follow the Expert by default to give them reasonable odds. You could build a quick and dirty system for mini influence encounters this way, rather than relying on the unclear rules around how many times a single PC can roll Make an Impression on the same NPC.
|
|
Aid is in a weird place. I'm generally for its DC being powered and it being an auto success/crit success at higher levels, but it does strange that the DC never changes by default and there's no real GM guidance about an alternative to DC 15 should be. Maybe something like the base DC minus 10 to aid. I've seen GMs try to use the base DC itself, but that doesn't really make sense.
I also like the idea of everyone being able to aid on checks, especially out of combat, but I think with PF2 math the master/legendary bonuses would be too big if they stacked. I also realized recently that at higher levels every single person with their level added to their proficiency for a skill should roll to Aid on out of combat Recall Knowledge checks. If the whole party is trained in nature, then mathematically the best move is to quadruple the number of rolls rather than just have everyone roll a single check. That's... Bad, and an awful waste of time, but is the optimal move if you want to avoid crit fails and such. (Or just only have the best person roll the check, but that's another problem all together.) And in general I think requiring aid checks before you even know whether it would make a difference on the roll is bad design, especially out of combat. Don't roll dice that won't matter.
Part of me thinks Aid should be moved to a combat only action, and Follow the Expert should be broadened to apply to most out of combat checks where the group could all be contributing. It doesn't solve the "let multiple people Aid" dilemma but it makes more sense narratively and reduces extraneous dice rolling. Maybe you could add a flat number based on each contributor's proficiency, though that would get awkward to balance with larger parties. You could also start using group checks where you need half or more of the party to pass a check, but everyone gets Follow the Expert by default to give them reasonable odds. You could build a quick and dirty system for mini influence encounters this way, rather than relying on the...
I Thinking about how aid works from the perspective of Starfinder players getting ready for SF2e. In Stafinder aid another can stack and is only for skill checks. There are ways to aid in combat but they are defined in feats usually in SF. I do like the teamwork that happens when everyone aids one person, but thinking about it most of the time when that happens in SF it's for a skill check with a crazy high DC that was designed that way for the encounter. In PF2e if you need everyone to do skill checks together the victory point system could be used to get that teamwork feeling.
Part of me thinks Aid should be moved to a combat only action
Not a huge fan of that. Aid as is is a really great way to let multiple people with somewhat overlapping skillsets mutually contribute to solving a problem.
It's a little weird that it's a bit risky at low levels and completely free at high levels, but it being reliable for most of the game is a really nice way to kind of keep people active when there's some conflict.
Follow the Expert is also nice, but it has distinct flavor and mechanics that mean it doesn't really cover the same niche.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Part of me thinks Aid should be moved to a combat only actionNot a huge fan of that. Aid as is is a really great way to let multiple people with somewhat overlapping skillsets mutually contribute to solving a problem.
It's a little weird that it's a bit risky at low levels and completely free at high levels, but it being reliable for most of the game is a really nice way to kind of keep people active when there's some conflict.
Follow the Expert is also nice, but it has distinct flavor and mechanics that mean it doesn't really cover the same niche.
I agree with you that we should have a way for multiple people with somewhat overlapping skillsets mutually contribute to solving a problem. I don't think Aid is a really great way to do that. For one, "multiple" really only means "two." It also calls for more rolls that don't matter, who is a big problem with the d20 system in general. By contrast, Dungeon World has an Aid action as well, but most tables IME allow it to be rolled after the main person rolls so you can tell if an aid would possibly make a difference.
Pathfinder Aid, by contrast, really encourages piling on those extra rolls out of combat just in case it makes a ifference. The optimal tactical just slows down the game. It's not a huge system grievance but it is something I've noticed in actual play.
For one, "multiple" really only means "two."
I don't think that's an unreasonable target though. Like given a standard group size if you have three or four people all trying to cover the same space (and therefore being beyond the scope of aid) that might speak to something that needs to be handled at the table level. But two people having similar interests isn't that rare or disruptive, and Aid does exactly that in letting them work together.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh God!
I never thought about give Aid to a Boss using its "minions" this would end pretty devastating!
But you are right this is RAW. Just a bit too much but it's RAW.
That's how the old Star Wars Saga Edition kept Stormtroopers and B1s relevant at higher levels (Aid another stacked in that particular d20 system)- Those mooks might have no hope of hitting the PCs themselves, but by providing bonuses to hit to real threats, the mooks stayed dangerous in their own way. It does seem rather more dangerous with the four degress of success, though.
I mean this has already always been the case with PF2 as well. Lower level minions can provide a +2 just from flanking, and many have had grab or trip or spell support all along. Ignoring them to focus on the main boss has been a bad idea from the beginning, and is part of why AoE damage is better than a lot of the early guides recognized. It is usually a bad idea to assume that multiple enemies in an encounter all all the same creature/same level, and you see pretty good encounter diversity in a lot of the APs.
I think lowering the Aid check to 15 does mean that those level -1 enemies can actually succeed at aid checks they really couldn't before (and giving their allies penalties 25%+ of the time kept most GMs from trying) but if you see an enemy spend an action to prepare to aid an ally, then that creates an interesting change in the tactical situation of the encounter where you can steal actions from the other team by disrupting their plans. At level 1, level -1 threats are still more dangerous fishing for crits on their own anyway, so there is a pretty small window of "better off aiding than attacking again" for them.
And if it's ranged Aid to Strikes from archers?
I personally don't allow ranged Aid as it doesn't make sense to me. Nothing forces you as a GM to accept any kind of Aid.
Also, you can give the Attack trait to the preparatory action, which would then include MAP and be rather tough before very high levels.