Attack Bonuses are too high for level 0 creatures


Monsters and Hazards

51 to 71 of 71 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

8 people marked this as a favorite.

The Bestiary is written operating under the false assumption that every character is acquiring all of the standard modifiers relevent to every check they perform as fast as possible. By standard modifiers I mean Ability, Proficiency, Quality, etc...

The character classes were written under a different assumption. That assumption appearing to be that anything above being Trained in a given thing, carrying standard quality equipment, and a having a modest ability modifier was an advantage. For example, the Monk becoming Legendary in Unarmed Attacks and Unarmed Defense is presented like it is an advantage, when in actuality the enemies are built under the assumption that everyone becomes legendary in their weapons and armor of choice. So instead everyone is just being punished to varying degrees for being forced to use proficiencies they can never be as good with as the rules expect them to be.

To be fair, this is a content issue. Once there are more archetypes to provide legendary proficiencies the bestiary expectations will be more reasonable...

I expect to build a bunch of even weaker sub-level zero enemies, who are largely untrained and/or poorly equipped. That way I have some enemies that won't reliably wipe 1st level characters.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Cantriped wrote:
For example, the Monk becoming Legendary in Unarmed Attacks and Unarmed Defense is presented like it is an advantage...

Scratch that, they're only legendary in Unarmored Defense. No character class meets the bestiary's expectations. Some just lose out by more than others.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Bestiary monsters actually don't have super good AC by PC standards. This makes accuracy increases a real advantage.

I agree for the most part on other stuff, though. Monsters are looking a tad overtuned at the moment.


13 people marked this as a favorite.
Knight Magenta wrote:


I think that bench-marking against creatures you face is very reasonable. It is a simulationist view of the game. The thinking goes: The bonuses I have to my attack represent my martial skill with my weapon. Even if I can't "see" the bonus of enemies in game, if a goblin is hitting me more often then I could hit my evil twin, then I feel like said goblin is more skilled then me. This is very discouraging if the fantasy you are trying to play out is "blade master."

This. You don't feel very heroic when the most famously-weak mooks in the game are as good or better than you at the thing you've focused on.

Cantriped wrote:
The Bestiary is written operating under the false assumption that every character is acquiring all of the standard modifiers relevent to every check they perform as fast as possible. By standard modifiers I mean Ability, Proficiency, Quality, etc...

Agreed. It's impossible to max out more than one ability score or more than three skills (six if you're a rogue), whether or not you can max out your attack, saves or Perception is dependent on your class, and you have no way of knowing if you'll get a bonus-granting item at the first moment that it becomes available (and you may not be able to wear the best armor for your Dex bonus).

Not to mention that they're designing everything around the assumption that you've min-maxed rather than trying to make a balanced character, and are never doing anything that's not your class' main specialty.

Things should be balanced around the average bonus, so that being extraordinary at that thing is an actual advantage rather than a bare minimum requirement to even bother trying, with everyone else being hopeless.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Agreed with The Narration and DMW comments above.

After playing Doosmday Dawn part 1, I think a major side-effect of inflated to hit numbers is that the 5-minute adventure day is even more of a problem. That's even with higher HP at level 1. When even level 0 Monsters just hit PCs too easily, in 2-3 battles the PCs were all hurt, had no more healing spells and you can't even circumvent that by giving healing potions of a wand of healing because most PCs will have just a few (if not 1) RPs to spare.

Comparing to my 3.5 Age of Worms campaign, we finished the whole first dungeon (Huge dungeon with 24 rooms) with 2 rests. At level 1.


Pedro Sampaio wrote:
After playing Doosmday Dawn part 1, I think a major side-effect of inflated to hit numbers is that the 5-minute adventure day is even more of a problem.

In Doosmday Dawn part 1 we battled with the goblins, spent ALL our healing and 8 'healing' potions from the alchemist and then went home to rest... So 1 encounter per day was closer.


The last time I can recall that my gaming group rested mid-dungeon was fifteen years ago while playing 3.0, and that was a huge dungeon that killed 80% of the party.

I don't remember it happening at all while we've been playing PF1.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Narration wrote:

The last time I can recall that my gaming group rested mid-dungeon was fifteen years ago while playing 3.0, and that was a huge dungeon that killed 80% of the party.

I don't remember it happening at all while we've been playing PF1.

PF1 characters could be quite powerful and fun to play at level 1 compared to the <=2 CR stuff, so it was definitely a different experience. Also dropping a wand or some potions could really stretch their capabilities. In my years playing PF1 so far I've always managed to avoid resting in the middle of a dungeon.

Liberty's Edge

8 people marked this as a favorite.

For the record, my group got through the entirety of Doomsday Dawn Part 1 in one day, and only had difficulty in the last fight. There were 5 of them, but two of them had notably poor offense (though one was a Cleric, which explains how they did it in one day).

Of course, my group were pretty optimized for the most part.

I'm less concerned with the 5 minute adventuring day, and more concerned what happens to the casual group including no characters with an 18 stat. The math seems strongly based on an absolutely optimal main stat at all levels, which is a bit of an issue. I think it'd be a lot better if it was based on a starting 16, since that makes an 18 feel more powerful, while not actively punishing less optimal choices. And then there's the skill stuff, which I'm still strongly concerned about...

I really hope that, given the Bestiary issues that have been pointed out, we get a 2.0 Bestiary before the playtest is over. I'm definitely worried that even with the corrections that are clearly gonna be made, monsters will still be too powerful.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

My first impression after studying bith bestiary and playtest manual is that they were done by two different staffs, one hellbent on overcharging every monster on the assumption that all players were powerplayers of the worse kind, the other intent on nerfing to the ground any interesting option and or ability in order to force player characters inside their predetermined cardstock cutouts... that feel more like wet paper.
I'm having difficulty even convincing my players to rejoin the playtest after they got a look at how many classes were gimped one way or another against all expectations from the previews, and how the monsters scale the same ay they hated in Starfinder


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
There were 5 of them, but two of them had notably poor offense (though one was a Cleric, which explains how they did it in one day).

The game seems to go out of it's way to punish ANY party that isn't optimized JUST right. For instance, no cleric and you'll have a bad time. Not maxing stats and you have a bad time. It almost seems like they want every party to go back to the fighter, thief, cleric magic user days... This may be why we had a really bad, unfun time as we made characters because they seemed interesting and NOT because they where mathematically the very best possible option to survive the meatgrinder that is new pathfinder monsters.

EDIT: And we never did finish the adventure as the boss single handedly murdered us all.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
5 of them

IMO, this skews the results quite a bit along with having a cleric. We had an extra body [an animal companion] but even with 2 people that could heal [alchemist and druid] the adventure was just brutal. We didn't leave because we were low on resources: we had NONE left and were still less than max. I feel lied to that a barbarian could keep a party healed when TWO actual healing type classes couldn't.


Too be fair to the design of The Lost Star... it explicitly gives you a week to complete a dozen-room dungeon which you're provided a map of and have an informant regarding. Nevermind whether this expectation is reasonable; it seems to be designed to be sieged, not raided. I don't think completing the dungeon in one sweep is intended, thus explaining why it is so hard to do.

Spoiler:
Its not like Drakus can procure reinforcements, his tribe has dwindled because he's been killing them faster than they can reproduce. A smart or cowardly party can easily afford to retreat several times. The worst case scenario is a pitched battle with Drakus and his remaining goblins, which is diffused by kiting them into the corridors.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
There were 5 of them, but two of them had notably poor offense (though one was a Cleric, which explains how they did it in one day).

The game seems to go out of it's way to punish ANY party that isn't optimized JUST right. For instance, no cleric and you'll have a bad time. Not maxing stats and you have a bad time. It almost seems like they want every party to go back to the fighter, thief, cleric magic user days... This may be why we had a really bad, unfun time as we made characters because they seemed interesting and NOT because they where mathematically the very best possible option to survive the meatgrinder that is new pathfinder monsters.

EDIT: And we never did finish the adventure as the boss single handedly murdered us all.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
5 of them
IMO, this skews the results quite a bit along with having a cleric. We had an extra body [an animal companion] but even with 2 people that could heal [alchemist and druid] the adventure was just brutal. We didn't leave because we were low on resources: we had NONE left and were still less than max. I feel lied to that a barbarian could keep a party healed when TWO actual healing type classes couldn't.

We had almost exactly the same experience in our playtest night. The party didn't have a Cleric the way DMW's group had, but had 2 healers, a Bard and a Druid. The other two were a Ranger with an animal companion and a Monk with high Dex. All were pretty defensive, with 16 Dex, 17 AC etc. But even then, they were being damaged constantly. And were TPKed at the battle with Drakus btw.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Cantriped wrote:

Too be fair to the design of The Lost Star... it explicitly gives you a week to complete a dozen-room dungeon which you're provided a map of and have an informant regarding. Nevermind whether this expectation is reasonable; it seems to be designed to be sieged, not raided. I don't think completing the dungeon in one sweep is intended, thus explaining why it is so hard to do.

** spoiler omitted **

I understand that a week to complete is more than enough to finish the dungeon is a conscious decision from the devs. But when the adventure day manages to be even shorter than in 3rd edition (it's reminding me a lot of my AD&D days...), then we might have a problem.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
The game seems to go out of it's way to punish ANY party that isn't optimized JUST right. For instance, no cleric and you'll have a bad time. Not maxing stats and you have a bad time. It almost seems like they want every party to go back to the fighter, thief, cleric magic user days... This may be why we had a really bad, unfun time as we made characters because they seemed interesting and NOT because they where mathematically the very best possible option to survive the meatgrinder that is new pathfinder monsters.

I'm not sure that's the goal so much as an unintended result. It may also only be true at very low levels where you can't afford consumables. Pre Wand of CLW 1st and 2nd level parties are much weaker in PF1 than an almost identical party who just got their first Wand. Resonance may make this less true, but it still seems like a serious healing boost.

My 4th level party is a Monk, Fighter, Bard, and Alchemist and there are only 4 of them, so we'll see how that changes things up.

graystone wrote:
EDIT: And we never did finish the adventure as the boss single handedly murdered us all.

Drakus is a ridiculous badass. Seriously.

graystone wrote:
IMO, this skews the results quite a bit along with having a cleric.

The Cleric might...the other character I'm skeptical. Prior to the final fight with Drakus he basically exclusively plinked away with a hand crossbow and basically never got attacked. The Cleric, meanwhile, was plinking away with a normal crossbow. I think the two of them together probably had the same offense as if the Cleric had gone melee.

Now, for the final fight he burned spells (he was a Demonic Sorcerer) and made quite a bit of difference. But I also used the Rat in that encounter, which is not intended and a huge difficulty spike, so I think that's fair.

graystone wrote:
We had an extra body [an animal companion] but even with 2 people that could heal [alchemist and druid] the adventure was just brutal. We didn't leave because we were low on resources: we had NONE left and were still less than max.

The amount of healing a Cleric pops out is kinda ridiculous, it's absolutely true.

graystone wrote:
I feel lied to that a barbarian could keep a party healed when TWO actual healing type classes couldn't.

The Barbarian healer was at much higher level using consumables. Which is workable. Or looks to be, anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
5 of them
IMO, this skews the results quite a bit along with having a cleric. We had an extra body [an animal companion] but even with 2 people that could heal [alchemist and druid] the adventure was just brutal. We didn't leave because we were low on resources: we had NONE left and were still less than max. I feel lied to that a barbarian could keep a party healed when TWO actual healing type classes couldn't.

Oh my group had 6 for that fight and the GM didn't upscale things as we weren't sure of the balance (he's upscaled things for Ch3).

But we didn't have a Cleric.

We rested before the fight with Drakus.

And we still almost lost.


I think the way the action economy works now (and I love it, btw - really easy to use and allows for genuine tactics with the abolition of AoOs) means that each additional party member is hugely significant.

I'm running Doomsday Dawn with 4 players and (even with my utterly sucky dice rolling) they are really struggling to stay alive. A fifth, and I think they'd be walking it.

Liberty's Edge

Wandering Wastrel wrote:

I think the way the action economy works now (and I love it, btw - really easy to use and allows for genuine tactics with the abolition of AoOs) means that each additional party member is hugely significant.

I'm running Doomsday Dawn with 4 players and (even with my utterly sucky dice rolling) they are really struggling to stay alive. A fifth, and I think they'd be walking it.

I'm not sure I agree that it matters more now than previously. I've been running chapters 2 and 3 with a 4 person party, and it honestly doesn't seem notably harder than chapter 1 was with a 5 person one (though, as noted, the offense on the 5th person wasn't stellar).


Deadmanwalking wrote:
(though, as noted, the offense on the 5th person wasn't stellar).

Even just being an extra body can help spread out damage from the enemies. For us it was animal companions: they weren't stellar either but they sucked up some crits that would have put any of us on the ground. I know for my group, we wouldn't have made it as far as we did if we didn't have those extra warm bodies to take extra hits.

Didn't play chapter 3 so no comment there.


graystone wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
(though, as noted, the offense on the 5th person wasn't stellar).

Even just being an extra body can help spread out damage from the enemies. For us it was animal companions: they weren't stellar either but they sucked up some crits that would have put any of us on the ground. I know for my group, we wouldn't have made it as far as we did if we didn't have those extra warm bodies to take extra hits.

... which neatly takes us back to the original point of this thread: are attack bonuses too high? :-)

Liberty's Edge

graystone wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
(though, as noted, the offense on the 5th person wasn't stellar).
Even just being an extra body can help spread out damage from the enemies. For us it was animal companions: they weren't stellar either but they sucked up some crits that would have put any of us on the ground. I know for my group, we wouldn't have made it as far as we did if we didn't have those extra warm bodies to take extra hits.

He was standing in the absolute back with a hand crossbow, and was thus rather definitively not a priority. I don't think he got attacked even once before the final fight (which, as I noted, had an additional difficulty bump I feel made up for him nova-ing in it and being quite relevant indeed).

graystone wrote:
Didn't play chapter 3 so no comment there.

I didn't find Chapter 2 harder, either. Just to be clear.

51 to 71 of 71 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Game Master Rules / Monsters and Hazards / Attack Bonuses are too high for level 0 creatures All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Monsters and Hazards