An example of why I LOVE the simplified math (Heroes of Undarin spoilers)

[Edge93]

Again, Heroes of Undarin spoilers!

...Okay, that's done. Now I'd like to provide the framework leading to this example so please bear with me.

So I've been kinda agonizing over the fact that my party may get TPKed in HoU as per the intent of the AP. I honestly think they'll accept it, my group are all close friends of mine and they get this is a playtest. But at the same time they have been doing EXCELLENT, they just got through the Lich fight and it's been the first one that drew more than a very minor amount of their daily resources. I'm pretty sure they'll handle the Demilich plus Banshees without too much trouble and I expect the Boar Demons plus Wrath Demons and the Toad Demons to go down easily enough also. But after all that I think the Shemhazian has a very real chance of killing them all. And I don't want them to get so far and have the rug pulled.

So I've worked out an extra scenario I'll add if this happens. This is separate from the Playtest process, for all reporting purposes the adventure will have ended with the TPK. But this is for the purpose of keeping this adventure from leaving more of a bad feeling than necessary.

So the idea is to cut to my players' Part 1/4 characters as they finally obtain the White Axiom. They will then go beat up the fiends that downed their protectors. But of course my players haven't leveled them to 17, and at level 9 they're no match of course. So I'm ping to have the Axiom briefly empower them to about the level of 14th level characters. And here's where I loved the math. I was able to create functional and reasonably accurate ad box stats and abilities for a party of 5 14th level characters INSIDE OF A LESS THAN ONE HOUR LUNCH BREAK. The stats aren't perfect but they're pretty close to what the players would look like at that level. I gave them enough of a smattering of abilities and spells around their level to last for the scenario. It's not perfect but it will work for the purpose and I LOVE it because this also transfers to other things like making NPC allies and enemies in home brew games and it's SO much quicker than PF1 and I love it!

And that's about it for my piece.

[MaxAstro]

Yeah, I suspect that monster generation will be head-spinningly fast in the final rule set largely due to the tight math.

I don't like everything about +level, but that is one of the big advantages that I'm stoked about. Creating custom monsters was always a huge pain before. Just for fun, without there even being an existing ruleset for it, I created a custom monster a while back, and it was a lot smoother than doing the same for 1e.

[MerlinCross]

I'd have to wait to see how the monster creation rules are before I can really say much.

I'm not making monsters, I'm just reskinning them.

[Gaterie]

Of course it's easy to add 5 levels to PCs, since they are as boring at level 9 and at level 14. Actually you don't even need to modify any number: just assume the PCs got +N to hit and +X% damages and a bunch of useless feats, while the monsters got +N to AC and +X% HP.

[Ikos]

Switch the word “simplified” with “consistent” and I agree. Simplified math implies to many that your are doing less of it in high-level PF2 than PF1, which is not simply not the case.

[BryonD]

It is easy to see why this may be very appealing.

I am curious if those who like this can also see how this level of virtual predestination of stats is highly unappealing to many.

[BryonD]

MaxAstro wrote:

Yeah, I suspect that monster generation will be head-spinningly fast in the final rule set largely due to the tight math.

I don't like everything about +level, but that is one of the big advantages that I'm stoked about. Creating custom monsters was always a huge pain before. Just for fun, without there even being an existing ruleset for it, I created a custom monster a while back, and it was a lot smoother than doing the same for 1e.

I hate to keep dropping the "4E" reference. But the shoe does fit.

This, again, was something 4E was (and, by its fans, still is) praised over. It is really easy to create monsters because the same basic math applies every time.

Unfortunately, this also results in monsters that feel like the same math with different coats of paint. Yes, you can put special effects on creatures to make them unique. But you can do that in 1E and the math doesn't help with that part in 2E. So all you gain is simplification tied to repetitiveness.

It is appealing on first blush. (And clearly for some group of players that appeal is lasting) But, by and large, the downside shows heavily for long term play.

[Voss]

What simplified math? Most of the bestiary monsters I've looked at have level, stat mod, and what I presume is proficiency (per page 23) and then... Somewhere between 4 to 7 points (at higher levels) added on with no indication of where it comes from or why. And it varies wildly between their hit bonus, DC, AC and saves. And hit points- at Cr17 the range for hit points is 262-380 for no apparent reason.

It makes monster math look like a random number generator, and as a bonus it's set to 'too high' compared to PC math.

[Scythia]

Voss wrote:

What simplified math? Most of the bestiary monsters I've looked at have level, stat mod, and what I presume is proficiency (per page 23) and then... Somewhere between 4 to 7 points (at higher levels) added on with no indication of where it comes from or why. And it varies wildly between their hit bonus, DC, AC and saves. And hit points- at Cr17 the range for hit points is 262-380 for no apparent reason.

It makes monster math look like a random number generator, and as a bonus it's set to 'too high' compared to PC math.

Use the hp, damage and to hit of every other monster of that level, set AC to whatever would give your most optimized combatant a 50% chance to hit, and voila. That's some simple maths.

[Megistone]

Scythia wrote:

Voss wrote:

What simplified math? Most of the bestiary monsters I've looked at have level, stat mod, and what I presume is proficiency (per page 23) and then... Somewhere between 4 to 7 points (at higher levels) added on with no indication of where it comes from or why. And it varies wildly between their hit bonus, DC, AC and saves. And hit points- at Cr17 the range for hit points is 262-380 for no apparent reason.

It makes monster math look like a random number generator, and as a bonus it's set to 'too high' compared to PC math.

Use the hp, damage and to hit of every other monster of that level, set AC to whatever would give your most optimized combatant a 50% chance to hit, and voila. That's some simple maths.

Please explain this.

That's exactly what PF1 does, but it hides that under "racial bonus" and "natural armor".

[Edge93]

Scythia wrote:

Voss wrote:

What simplified math? Most of the bestiary monsters I've looked at have level, stat mod, and what I presume is proficiency (per page 23) and then... Somewhere between 4 to 7 points (at higher levels) added on with no indication of where it comes from or why. And it varies wildly between their hit bonus, DC, AC and saves. And hit points- at Cr17 the range for hit points is 262-380 for no apparent reason.

It makes monster math look like a random number generator, and as a bonus it's set to 'too high' compared to PC math.

Use the hp, damage and to hit of every other monster of that level, set AC to whatever would give your most optimized combatant a 50% chance to hit, and voila. That's some simple maths.

You know, that's not neccessarily wrong for a base. Though the 50% idea really hasn't been holding up in our play. In HoU, the tough-as-nails module, 4 battles in the only thing the Fighter has had ONLY a 55% hit chance on was the enemies who were a level higher than him. Everything else has been 60-80%, this is admittedly mostly lower level enemies but the only on-level enemies we fought were 60% and 70% hit chance for the Fighter. And our Monk is only 5% behind that. And that's not even mentioning our constant landing of buffs and Flat-Footed and Frightened debuffs which often throws our hit chances up to 70-75% for the above level foes, 70-95% for lower, and 70-85% for on-level. With corresponding through-the-roof crit rates and frequent landing of second and sometimes even third attacks. And this is mostly against fiends which, looking through the bestiary just a little bit, seem to have about as good of an AC as it gets for their levels.

I'm just not seeing the "coin flip gameplay" people seem to talk about.

RE Voss, I can't speak for sure but the HP difference at least in some cases seems to come from how hard they are to hurt. Super easy to hit creatures like oozes have loaded HP, as do monsters with multiple weaknesses. While monsters with resistances tend to have less. And AC from what I've seen varies mostly on how much of a fighter the monster is, say a Lich having a few points less than a fiend or dragon. It seems to come off of what their roles are. Don't know the exaxt science though.

[MaxAstro]

I don't think coin flip gameplay was ever a thing outside of theorycrafting where for some reason you don't have a party supporting you. And even if it was:

a) Paizo seems to have approached it from the idea that a level 5 monster should be roughly equal to a level 5 PC, which makes sense to me (but is very different from the old CR system), and

b) Paizo has already said that they have realized the monsters are overtuned, and they are going to be toned down in the final version.

[Captain Morgan]

The coin flip thing mostly comes from people not understanding actual encounter design. I've written about it at length before and don't really feel like reposting it, but it's a silly meme that doesn't have much basis in anything.

[MerlinCross]

Captain Morgan wrote:

The coin flip thing mostly comes from people not understanding actual encounter design. I've written about it at length before and don't really feel like reposting it, but it's a silly meme that doesn't have much basis in anything.

There's a difference in understanding the encounter and how it FEELS playing it.

[Cyouni]

I didn't realize my Fighter with +22 hitting a lich with 28 AC at base, before any buffs, feels like a 50% chance. How about you tell me more about that?

[The Archive]

Cyouni wrote:

I didn't realize my Fighter with +22 hitting a lich with 28 AC at base, before any buffs, feels like a 50% chance. How about you tell me more about that?

So, for starters, you've selected the monster of level 12 with the lowest AC. You additionally got its AC wrong. Lich AC is 29. Most of the level 12 monsters have AC 31 or 32. You picked one of the two exceptions.

Second, you can't actually have +22 to-hit, assuming you're at level 12, without something other than ability scores, a +2 weapon (+3's aren't available until 13th), level, and proficiency modifying your attack. The math works out as: 12(level)+2(item)+5(strength)+2(proficiency) = +21 to-hit.
It's certainly still not 50% to-hit against AC 29 (it's 60%), but let's keep the numbers within the range of the premises and use the correct ones, yeah?

Now, if you make the comparison using one of the level 12 monsters that doesn't have the lowest AC of the bunch you end up with...
Hm, gosh, is that 50% against AC 31? Huh. What do y'know? It is 50%.

The level 12 fighter, with no outside help, ends up stacking up as follows against all of the AC values of the level 12 monsters:
Lich and Rusalka, AC 29: 60% chance to hit on the first attack.
Sea Serpent, Slime Demon, Valkyire, AC 31: 50% chance to hit on the first attack.
Adult Green Dragon, AC 32: 45% chance to hit on the first attack.

So, in conclusion, let's not argue about the math in a tight-math system without actually having the numbers right. Because, you're right, +22 vs AC 28 isn't 50% to-hit, but it also isn't what's happening baseline.

[Tridus]

MerlinCross wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

The coin flip thing mostly comes from people not understanding actual encounter design. I've written about it at length before and don't really feel like reposting it, but it's a silly meme that doesn't have much basis in anything.

There's a difference in understanding the encounter and how it FEELS playing it.

The Archive kindly pointed out how the math actually is coin flippy already, but this is a big point.

60% isn't a coin flip. At the table, it's close enough to feel like one very easily. You don't really feel like you're out of that until you are approaching 30% or 70% and either failing or succeeding significantly more often than half the time on average rolls.

[Edge93]

The Archive wrote:

Cyouni wrote:

I didn't realize my Fighter with +22 hitting a lich with 28 AC at base, before any buffs, feels like a 50% chance. How about you tell me more about that?

So, for starters, you've selected the monster of level 12 with the lowest AC. You additionally got its AC wrong. Lich AC is 29. Most of the level 12 monsters have AC 31 or 32. You picked one of the two exceptions.

Second, you can't actually have +22 to-hit, assuming you're at level 12, without something other than ability scores, a +2 weapon (+3's aren't available until 13th), level, and proficiency modifying your attack. The math works out as: 12(level)+2(item)+5(strength)+2(proficiency) = +21 to-hit.
It's certainly still not 50% to-hit against AC 29 (it's 60%), but let's keep the numbers within the range of the premises and use the correct ones, yeah?

Now, if you make the comparison using one of the level 12 monsters that doesn't have the lowest AC of the bunch you end up with...
Hm, gosh, is that 50% against AC 31? Huh. What do y'know? It is 50%.

The level 12 fighter, with no outside help, ends up stacking up as follows against all of the AC values of the level 12 monsters:
Lich and Rusalka, AC 29: 60% chance to hit on the first attack.
Sea Serpent, Slime Demon, Valkyire, AC 31: 50% chance to hit on the first attack.
Adult Green Dragon, AC 32: 45% chance to hit on the first attack.

So, in conclusion, let's not argue about the math in a tight-math system without actually having the numbers right. Because, you're right, +22 vs AC 28 isn't 50% to-hit, but it also isn't what's happening baseline.

Agreed that picking the lowest AC monster for that level misrepresents the situation (I would argue that taking one of two exceptions on AC for a given level means less when there are only 6 monsters if that level but I still agree we need to look at the full scope. That's why I put in percentage ranges in my post on this matter). However there is a mistake or two in your numbers as well. First, a +21 against AC 31 is actuall 55%, not 50 (you only have to meet AC, not beat it, +21 vs. 31 hits on 10 and up, so 11 of 20 numbers hit, 55%). Which then puts 65% vs. AC 29 and 50% vs. AC 32. I know that's a vey small difference but as you say let's keep the numbers right. Also I'd argue against +3 weapons being available at 12th level. They are level 12 items. Going strictly by the party treasure advancement table then yes, only half the party would have a level 12 item and yes weirdly by the individual character starting wealth you wouldn't have one if you started your adventure at level 12. But if we're talking homebrew games since the treasure table encourages GM discretion I feel like most (myself included) would see that a level 12 character has a level 12 item. If we are talking APs, well, the level 12 chapter of Doomsday Dawn grants access to +3 weapons at character creation and that is currently the only PF2 AP that applies here. Not a great sample size admittedly. But that said I think given the above it's not unfair to calculate as if level 12 martial had a +3 weapon.

If we accept the above then that takes us from 50-55-65 to 55-60-70. So for most yes, still close to a coin flip at base. Though I'd argue 60% is noticeably better than a coin flip. But I'm not trying to argue against the idea that most monsters hang in the 50% hit range for on-level enemies at base. I know mileage varies wildly but that's about how I like it. IMO having 50% hit chance on your first attack means your enemy's defense is equal to your offense. So I'd honestly be disappointed if a freaking Dragon was getting hit by my Fighter more than 50-55% at base. That's my personal take on it.

BUT, my argument against the idea of coin flip gameplay isn't that it's not at least fairly close to a coin flip at base. I admit it is at least in the neighborhood for physical-based on-level monsters an as mentioned above I like that but understand why others don't. My argument is based in how easy it is to push away from the coin flip. Flank an enemy or otherwise flat-foot them (not hard to do in my experience) and you've gone from 50-60 to 60-70. Definitely not a coin flip IMO. If you can get down something like Bless or Heroism for a +1 accuracy and/or tag your opponent with Frightened/Sick/Sluggish 1 (not exactly doable at-will but in my experience thus far it's far from impossible. My party keeps one or both of these effects up most of the time in almost every fight) you've taken that 60-70 to 65-75 or 70-80. And this grows with higher debuffs (a lot of current debuffbsoells seem to land a level 2 condition on failed save) and higher buffs like heightened Heroism. And of course this goes the other way if enemies debuff you so there is that. But my players have landed a lot more debuts than they've received (though one Heroes of Undarin fight threatened that balance. Stupid Demilich.)

So I get it's not everyone's cup of tea but I really love the relatively even chance base for on-level monsters as I believe they should stand roughly equivalent in defense to your offense where you have to cajole and maneuver and buff/debuff to get your advantage.

Also I think it's worth mentioning the tendency to fight lower level enemies more than on level or higher level in a lot of Doomsday Dawn so far. This doesn't have anything to do with the math for on-level monsters but in the majority of DD encounters I've felt the players had a numerical advantage on a lot of foes due to the level difference. And that turns right around against higher level bosses where whittling down their AC and up your accuracy is even more important IMO.

Thank you for your input Archive, I appreciate the reminder of where the AC range of this theoretical level choice falls an also the point that a level 12 fighter won't -necessarily- have a +3 weapon. These are both relevant factors.

[Gaterie]

Edge93 wrote:

Also I'd argue against +3 weapons being available at 12th level. They are level 12 items. Going strictly by the party treasure advancement table then yes, only half the party would have a level 12 item and yes weirdly by the individual character starting wealth you wouldn't have one if you started your adventure at level 12. But if we're talking homebrew games since the treasure table encourages GM discretion I feel like most (myself included) would see that a level 12 character has a level 12 item. If we are talking APs, well, the level 12 chapter of Doomsday Dawn grants access to +3 weapons at character creation and that is currently the only PF2 AP that applies here. Not a great sample size admittedly. But that said I think given the above it's not unfair to calculate as if level 12 martial had a +3 weapon.

Agreed that picking the lowest AC monster for that level misrepresents the situation (I would argue that taking one of two exceptions on AC for a given level means less when there are only 6 monsters if that level but I still agree we need to look at the full scope. That's why I put in percentage ranges in my post on this matter). However there is a mistake or two...

There are 17 permanent level 12 items in the treasure table. One is the +3 rune, another one is a +3 weapon. At the start of level 12, the whole party has 2 such items selected by the GM; PCs have no way to chose what item they found.

Why should those two items be a +3 weapon and a +3 rune or two +3 weapon? Why couldn't it be a ring of climbing and a master elven chain? If those two items are supposed to be +3 weapons and nothing else, why is the book filled with a lot of useless level 12 items?

No, seriously, you can't expect a level 12 character to have a +3 weapon. That's not how the rule are written. If the playtest give +3 weapon to every level 12 character, then it isn't playtesting PF2 at all - it is playtesting a hack with different wbl rules. "Let's playtest the rule! Firstly, instead of using the rules, let's give an additional +1 to hit and +1d damages to everyone. We're totally testing the system!"... No, you're not.

Edge93 wrote:

IMO having 50% hit chance on your first attack means your enemy's defense is equal to your offense.

Yes.

And it shouldn't be the baseline, because it leads to boring fights.

RPG are 40-year-old. And during those 40 year, we learned some stuff. using 50% as the baseline to hit is like going back 40 years in game design. It's like playing the first edition of WHFRPG.

Also, 50% to hit is for an optimized fighter. You don't have Str 20? lol, it drops to 45%. You don't have a +2 sword? lol, it drops. You aren't a fighter? lol, it drops.

In the end, if the party isn't fully optimized, fights look like "I attack. Miss. your turn - I attack. Miss. Your turn. - I attack. Miss. Your turn. - I attack. Hit! 21 damages. How many HP have you again ?"

[Cyouni]

The Archive wrote:

Cyouni wrote:

I didn't realize my Fighter with +22 hitting a lich with 28 AC at base, before any buffs, feels like a 50% chance. How about you tell me more about that?

So, for starters, you've selected the monster of level 12 with the lowest AC. You additionally got its AC wrong. Lich AC is 29. Most of the level 12 monsters have AC 31 or 32. You picked one of the two exceptions.

Second, you can't actually have +22 to-hit, assuming you're at level 12, without something other than ability scores, a +2 weapon (+3's aren't available until 13th), level, and proficiency modifying your attack. The math works out as: 12(level)+2(item)+5(strength)+2(proficiency) = +21 to-hit.
It's certainly still not 50% to-hit against AC 29 (it's 60%), but let's keep the numbers within the range of the premises and use the correct ones, yeah?

Now, if you make the comparison using one of the level 12 monsters that doesn't have the lowest AC of the bunch you end up with...
Hm, gosh, is that 50% against AC 31? Huh. What do y'know? It is 50%.

The level 12 fighter, with no outside help, ends up stacking up as follows against all of the AC values of the level 12 monsters:
Lich and Rusalka, AC 29: 60% chance to hit on the first attack.
Sea Serpent, Slime Demon, Valkyire, AC 31: 50% chance to hit on the first attack.
Adult Green Dragon, AC 32: 45% chance to hit on the first attack.

So, in conclusion, let's not argue about the math in a tight-math system without actually having the numbers right. Because, you're right, +22 vs AC 28 isn't 50% to-hit, but it also isn't what's happening baseline.

I think if the baseline adventure assumes you have a +3 weapon, it's not outside the realms of plausibility to have one at level 12. That's especially true given the level 9 adventure also has a good chance of giving them out.

Thanks for the fix on the AC, I was going off memory without the chance to check it. However, I will also point out that the developers have already noted that the math is currently tuned assuming near-max optimization, and will be tuned down for the final version.

The other thing to note is that if we're talking about actual play, the vast majority of encounters will be against things with a lower level. It's also trivially easy to shift your hit chances upwards - flat-footed is the most common condition in the book for a reason, and shifts numbers up by 10%.

[MaxAstro]

Agreeing heavily with Cyouni, here.

I think part of the reason people are worried about the coinflip idea is because they are coming from PF1e and used to the CR system, where a CR8 creature doesn't match that well against a level 8 character.

I believe it was a very intentional choice on Paizo's part that creatures now have levels instead of challenge ratings.

It seems like the system is designed such that the majority of encounters you have will be with multiple creatures lower than your level, and an encounter with a creature of your level is designed to be a challenge. 50% accuracy baseline (even in the rare cases where that is the baseline) doesn't seem so bad when your action economy outmatches theirs four to one.

Another big difference is that higher level opponents are much more threatening than they used to be. Again, people used to PF1e are fairly used to a 12th level party being able to take on CR16 or 17 threats easily, but it's clear that the level system is not built under that expectation. A level+2 threat should challenge a party pretty harshly, and a level+4 threat should probably destroy them.

I'm cool with that, personally, as it makes "boss" encounters more a thing you can actually have and predict how it will go, without having to always walk the PF1e razor edge between "clean sweep" and "TPK".

[Matthew Downie]

MaxAstro wrote:

I think part of the reason people are worried about the coinflip idea is because they are coming from PF1e and used to the CR system, where a CR8 creature doesn't match that well against a level 8 character.

A CR 8 creature matched up pretty well with a PF1 Level 8 PC... as long as that PC wasn't particularly optimized. The difference between optimized and non-optimized PC in PF1 was pretty drastic.

MaxAstro wrote:

50% accuracy baseline (even in the rare cases where that is the baseline) doesn't seem so bad when your action economy outmatches theirs four to one.

Even if it's not mathematically bad, it can feel emotionally bad.

Player: "I attack three times. I rolled 8, 12, 15, so my totals are... 18, 17, 9."
GM: "That's a miss, a miss, and a critical miss, which fortunately is no worse than a regular miss."
Player: "This character sucks."

[FowlJ]

MaxAstro wrote:

Agreeing heavily with Cyouni, here.

I think part of the reason people are worried about the coinflip idea is because they are coming from PF1e and used to the CR system, where a CR8 creature doesn't match that well against a level 8 character.

I believe it was a very intentional choice on Paizo's part that creatures now have levels instead of challenge ratings.

While it may not have worked out this way in PF1 in practice, I would point out that the idea of CR=Level isn't actually new - a creature built with character levels had CR = Level -1 if they had the 'NPC' gear budget, but CR = Level if they had the 'PC' gear budget, so a party fighting an exact mirror image of themselves (which should reasonably be very difficult) clocks in at APL+4, the same as a 'Severe' encounter in the playtest.

[MaxAstro]

Matthew Downie wrote:

Even if it's not mathematically bad, it can feel emotionally bad.

Player: "I attack three times. I rolled 8, 12, 15, so my totals are... 18, 17, 9."
GM: "That's a miss, a miss, and a critical miss, which fortunately is no worse than a regular miss."
Player: "This character sucks."

I'm not the best in the world at math, but if you are missing on a 15 I don't think that's 50% accuracy?

EDIT: I see what you mean, multiattack penalty.

idk if that's actually going to come up much, though. My players figured out in their first combat that third attacks are trash and immediately started finding other things to do with their third action.

EDIT2: I think this comes back to "most encounters will be below your level", though.

If the character has been hitting on an 8 most fights and then suddenly misses on an 11, I think the reaction is more likely to be "wow, this guy is tough!" instead of "man my character sucks". All about building expectations, you know?

[Edge93]

MaxAstro wrote:

Matthew Downie wrote:

Even if it's not mathematically bad, it can feel emotionally bad.

Player: "I attack three times. I rolled 8, 12, 15, so my totals are... 18, 17, 9."
GM: "That's a miss, a miss, and a critical miss, which fortunately is no worse than a regular miss."
Player: "This character sucks."

I'm not the best in the world at math, but if you are missing on a 15 I don't think that's 50% accuracy?

EDIT: I see what you mean, multiattack penalty.

idk if that's actually going to come up much, though. My players figured out in their first combat that third attacks are trash and immediately started finding other things to do with their third action.

Same on the third attacks, almost the only character she I've seen use them are a couple of archers played by a friend of mine who mostly just prefers to loose as many arrows as possible in the general direction of his problems and hope that that makes them go away. XD

Oh, and there's been a few launched by our HoU Monk too, with the low level enemies in some fights he's been pounding them into the ground with lucky rolls on 3rd+ attacks but just as often he just does two attacks via Flurry of Blows, using his other actions for Demoralize, Dragon Roar, or running from one end of the temple to the other with his 60 ft. Move speed. XD

[MaxAstro]

Have to say, I'm really happy with how monks have shaped up in this edition. :)

I'm a little worried about them getting pounded by AoOs due to their semi-anemic AC, but the fact that they actually work as a highly mobile skirmisher is awesome.

[Vic Ferrari]

MaxAstro wrote:

I'm a little worried about them getting pounded by AoOs due to their semi-anemic AC, but the fact that they actually work as a highly mobile skirmisher is awesome.

Only 1 point behind a fighter is not really semi-anaemic.

[Tangent101]

Given that players could pool gold for purchasing magic items, it is not unfeasible for the 12th level group to have a character or two with +3 weapons - because they chose to invest in their heavy-hitters. Just because something is a '13th level magic item' doesn't mean you need to be 13th level to get it.

What it means is that you are 13th level before you randomly find it in treasures.

[thorin001]

Vic Ferrari wrote:

MaxAstro wrote:

I'm a little worried about them getting pounded by AoOs due to their semi-anemic AC, but the fact that they actually work as a highly mobile skirmisher is awesome.

Only 1 point behind a fighter is not really semi-anaemic.

Only if they are a Dex build. And then they are lacking in damage.

[Vic Ferrari]

thorin001 wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

MaxAstro wrote:

I'm a little worried about them getting pounded by AoOs due to their semi-anemic AC, but the fact that they actually work as a highly mobile skirmisher is awesome.

Only 1 point behind a fighter is not really semi-anaemic.

Only if they are a Dex build. And then they are lacking in damage.

True; the monk is the only class I like having Dex to damage as an option in 5th Ed (I generally detest the idea), aside from that, I prefer more MAD in my games.

[Edge93]

Vic Ferrari wrote:

thorin001 wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

MaxAstro wrote:

I'm a little worried about them getting pounded by AoOs due to their semi-anemic AC, but the fact that they actually work as a highly mobile skirmisher is awesome.

Only 1 point behind a fighter is not really semi-anaemic.

Only if they are a Dex build. And then they are lacking in damage.

True; the monk is the only class I like having Dex to damage as an option in 5th Ed (I generally detest the idea), aside from that, I prefer more MAD in my games.

Yeah, our HoU Monk is Str based but has 18 Dex, he ended up with AC 31 while our Shield Paladin and Dueling Dance Fighter have AC 35 with their defenses up (AC 33 without). He's gotten by mainly by very quickly making dead anything within leg's reach (Dragon Tail attacks lol) before it can do a lot of harm. He actually 1v1ed a Glabrezu for a couple rounds and was arguably coming out just ahead before friends showed up and helped him wombo combo it. XD Banshees gave him a bit of trouble though and I'll see soon how he holds up against the Nalfenshees.

Also his 60 foot movement speed and Wall Run and Wall Jump allowing him to go wherever he darn well pleases helps too. XD

[Tangent101]

Edge93 wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

thorin001 wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

MaxAstro wrote:

I'm a little worried about them getting pounded by AoOs due to their semi-anemic AC, but the fact that they actually work as a highly mobile skirmisher is awesome.

Only 1 point behind a fighter is not really semi-anaemic.

Only if they are a Dex build. And then they are lacking in damage.

True; the monk is the only class I like having Dex to damage as an option in 5th Ed (I generally detest the idea), aside from that, I prefer more MAD in my games.

Yeah, our HoU Monk is Str based but has 18 Dex, he ended up with AC 31 while our Shield Paladin and Dueling Dance Fighter have AC 35 with their defenses up (AC 33 without). He's gotten by mainly by very quickly making dead anything within leg's reach (Dragon Tail attacks lol) before it can do a lot of harm. He actually 1v1ed a Glabrezu for a couple rounds and was arguably coming out just ahead before friends showed up and helped him wombo combo it. XD Banshees gave him a bit of trouble though and I'll see soon how he holds up against the Nalfenshees.

Also his 60 foot movement speed and Wall Run and Wall Jump allowing him to go wherever he darn well pleases helps too. XD

One of my players has an Elven Rogue with Mobility and a move of 45. She can casually walk around someone to flank and sneak-attack without suffering Attacks of Opportunity. That said, that's one of the main arc characters so she'd not actually be facing the demons with that character...

[Edge93]

Tangent101 wrote:

Edge93 wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

thorin001 wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

MaxAstro wrote:

I'm a little worried about them getting pounded by AoOs due to their semi-anemic AC, but the fact that they actually work as a highly mobile skirmisher is awesome.

Only 1 point behind a fighter is not really semi-anaemic.

Only if they are a Dex build. And then they are lacking in damage.

True; the monk is the only class I like having Dex to damage as an option in 5th Ed (I generally detest the idea), aside from that, I prefer more MAD in my games.

Yeah, our HoU Monk is Str based but has 18 Dex, he ended up with AC 31 while our Shield Paladin and Dueling Dance Fighter have AC 35 with their defenses up (AC 33 without). He's gotten by mainly by very quickly making dead anything within leg's reach (Dragon Tail attacks lol) before it can do a lot of harm. He actually 1v1ed a Glabrezu for a couple rounds and was arguably coming out just ahead before friends showed up and helped him wombo combo it. XD Banshees gave him a bit of trouble though and I'll see soon how he holds up against the Nalfenshees.

Also his 60 foot movement speed and Wall Run and Wall Jump allowing him to go wherever he darn well pleases helps too. XD

One of my players has an Elven Rogue with Mobility and a move of 45. She can casually walk around someone to flank and sneak-attack without suffering Attacks of Opportunity. That said, that's one of the main arc characters so she'd not actually be facing the demons with that character...

Pity, that'd be a good build with the Demon Skirmisher ancestry feat. Another one I keep forgetting to apply in HoU, like literally half our party has it!

Nice character though. My group has a Halfling Rogue for the main arc (The player loved the ancestry feat to use medium characters as cover) who has been doing pretty well. How'd you get above 40 foot move? Boots of Striding?

[Tangent101]

Edge93 wrote:

Tangent101 wrote:

Edge93 wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

thorin001 wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

MaxAstro wrote:

I'm a little worried about them getting pounded by AoOs due to their semi-anemic AC, but the fact that they actually work as a highly mobile skirmisher is awesome.

Only 1 point behind a fighter is not really semi-anaemic.

Only if they are a Dex build. And then they are lacking in damage.

True; the monk is the only class I like having Dex to damage as an option in 5th Ed (I generally detest the idea), aside from that, I prefer more MAD in my games.

Yeah, our HoU Monk is Str based but has 18 Dex, he ended up with AC 31 while our Shield Paladin and Dueling Dance Fighter have AC 35 with their defenses up (AC 33 without). He's gotten by mainly by very quickly making dead anything within leg's reach (Dragon Tail attacks lol) before it can do a lot of harm. He actually 1v1ed a Glabrezu for a couple rounds and was arguably coming out just ahead before friends showed up and helped him wombo combo it. XD Banshees gave him a bit of trouble though and I'll see soon how he holds up against the Nalfenshees.

Also his 60 foot movement speed and Wall Run and Wall Jump allowing him to go wherever he darn well pleases helps too. XD

One of my players has an Elven Rogue with Mobility and a move of 45. She can casually walk around someone to flank and sneak-attack without suffering Attacks of Opportunity. That said, that's one of the main arc characters so she'd not actually be facing the demons with that character...

Pity, that'd be a good build with the Demon Skirmisher ancestry feat. Another one I keep forgetting to apply in HoU, like literally half our party has it!

Nice character though. My group has a Halfling Rogue for the main arc (The player loved the ancestry feat to use medium characters as cover) who has been doing pretty well. How'd you get above 40 foot move? Boots of Striding?

Yup. She laughed and considered it and I said "why not be silly and do it?" so she did. No doubt she'll take Fleet or something to get to 50 after this and have a 25 foot Mobility Stride... walk around a Colossal creature to flank it. ;)

The kicker is she doesn't need to be on the other side anymore to flank. But if she decided to walk up to the other side's caster and then hold an action to shank the caster if they try to do anything... well, I don't think she could be easily stopped. ;)