Anyone else find the 2e healing spells way too weak?


Rules Discussion

51 to 58 of 58 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Zapp wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
What's "too lax" about the guidelines telling you what defenses and damage output should an NPC have?

They basically boil down to "a monster of this level should have from this to that in any given stat or score" with no interesting restrictions preventing you from just creating what you want (or what you don't want).

IIRC there was no connection to actually building a stat block, i.e. having to make interesting choices - getting a high score here necessitates sacrifices there.

Just being told you can have anything from +12 to +18 for some creature tells me nothing. I want to see the specific choices the devs made when they created the GMG NPCs.

Zapp

PS. I know I've discussed it with Dave2008 over at ENWOrld but try as I might I can't find the thread right now

In PF2 you start with target numbers and go from there, instead of PF1 where you would start with the building blocks and the see if they added up to target numbers. It's faster, more intiutive and ensures that your monster/NPC has actually correct numbers for the target level, unlike PF1 where you could have wildly different creatures of given CR because that's how the system worked and because optimization applied to monsters just like it did to PCs.


SuperBidi wrote:
Zapp wrote:

They basically boil down to "a monster of this level should have from this to that in any given stat or score" with no interesting restrictions preventing you from just creating what you want (or what you don't want).

IIRC there was no connection to actually building a stat block, i.e. having to make interesting choices - getting a high score here necessitates sacrifices there.

What? You build monsters like PCs?

There is no choice when building a monster. If my monster has high Strength, it has high Strength, period. It shouldn't have any impact on another of its attributes.

I think that Zapp's point is this: you can make a level X monsters with all 'extremes' scores, for example.

I would say that yes, you could 'cheat'. But what would be the point of doing that? When most of your monsters' stats, damage, saves and HP are above the average, you should just pick an higher level for it instead. Or maybe compensate its very solid stats with weaker special abilities.


I want to know if a Cultist or Cutthroat or frikkin' Beggar has below or above average stats in Athletics or Dexterity or Will Save. Will a Monk-like or Rogue-ish NPC have one typical class feat, or three? Or none at all, instead having this here cool unique monster ability.

I understand that at some level, getting a table that says "this monster can have any value from 18 to 26 in this here stat" is useful.

But that's only minimal usefulness, that I could glean out of the Bestiary already just by looking at two or three critters of that level.

The guidelines are so loose, they essentially tell me only "yes". I looked at them, but found out that I could create a dozen different Pirates with wildly varying abilities.

In short, the devs keeps all the goodies and secret formulas of their design.

That's why they're not good enough for me. I wanted closer guidance as to which stat should be higher or lower, depending on role, build, outlook and so on.

Now only the actual NPC statblocks in the GMG will tell me the developers vision for various sorts of characters.

I want and need actual canon archetypal NPCs. Not just "yes, this looks about right and that does too".


Zapp wrote:
I want to know if a Cultist or Cutthroat or frikkin' Beggar has below or above average stats in Athletics or Dexterity or Will Save.

Is it because you can't say or because you want the monster creation to be even faster?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Zapp wrote:

I found the "Build your own Monster" rules extremely open-ended to the point they're really not useful.

Useful NPC building rules to me set sufficiently restrictive limitations that it becomes a challenge to create an overpowered monster/encounter.

With the aim that this makes it less likely a new GM just stumbles into such a build. Of course the intention can never be to stop killer GMs - they will always find ways to create deadly encounters: the real value of making NPC building into a minigame is that new GMs that "just make something up" will likely end up with something average or easier.

After all, an encounter that's "too easy" is much less disruptive to a campaign than an encouner that's too hard.

The "Build your own Monster" rules are all over the place. They're way too lax to be properly prescriptive or normative.

If I want to know what the developers intend for, say, a Barbarian level 6 NPC, I will have to wait until the actual set of ready-made NPC stat blocks are released, and work from there.

Not really?

"You can use these suggestions when creating your roadmap to emulate a PC class, customizing as you see fit. You’ll still need to look at the class to pick feats, weapons, and the like. Any statistic that isn’t specifically listed can use moderate numbers."

"Barbarian high Athletics; high Str, high to moderate Con; high AC; high Fortitude; high HP; moderate attack and extreme damage (when raging); Rage and a few barbarian abilities"

"Barbarian instinct ability and related feats, raging resistance; Feats 1st: Raging Intimidation; 2nd: No Escape, Shake it Off; 4th: Fast Movement, Swipe; 6th: Attack of Opportunity, Cleave;"

I can slap together a barbarian that follows those guidelines in a couple minutes, and you should be able to as well.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Having pretty much home brewed everything for my campaign. The monster guidelines are great. Sure I could go out of my way to make bad choices but realistically every creature (if around 50% of them have been himanoids) pretty much tells me their story as I go through the tables. If it doesn't the my vision for that monster was pretty poor to begin with.

I dont think there is any secret sauce to it apart from practise. Even then they give you quite strong recommendations like use Extreme sparingly and always balance it with an equally strong weakness.

Also we haven't got the gmg yet, they just put those guidelines out 100% for free to help the community out.


HumbleGamer wrote:
Raging resistance is lvl 9 for a character. Wouldn't be strange to find an npc of the same class with dr 3 levels earlier than the player?

No, why would it?

Soulbound Doll is a level 2 Creature that can cast Chilling Darkness which is a level 3 spell players can't get until level 5.

Creatures having stronger abilities than players at level is a feature.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:

I want to know if a Cultist or Cutthroat or frikkin' Beggar has below or above average stats in Athletics or Dexterity or Will Save. Will a Monk-like or Rogue-ish NPC have one typical class feat, or three? Or none at all, instead having this here cool unique monster ability.

I understand that at some level, getting a table that says "this monster can have any value from 18 to 26 in this here stat" is useful.

But that's only minimal usefulness, that I could glean out of the Bestiary already just by looking at two or three critters of that level.

The guidelines are so loose, they essentially tell me only "yes". I looked at them, but found out that I could create a dozen different Pirates with wildly varying abilities.

In short, the devs keeps all the goodies and secret formulas of their design.

That's why they're not good enough for me. I wanted closer guidance as to which stat should be higher or lower, depending on role, build, outlook and so on.

My suggestion is to read the whole document and not just the individual tables saying that a 5th level creature should have an AC in the 19-25 range. I agree that a range that wide isn't really helpful, but take a look at the "base roadmaps" on page 6, or the class roadmaps on page 20.

So, to take your pirate example, I would envision a pirate as a skirmisher type as a monster, or a rogue-type as an NPC. So as a skirmisher it should have high Dex, high Reflex, and low Fortitude, and mostly moderate in the rest. I wouldn't go full rogue with one, but I'd look at the rogue roadmap and go for a high Perception, high Athletics and Acrobatics skill (rather than Stealth and Thievery), either moderate AC + moderate hp or high AC + low hp, moderate attack, moderate damage + sneak attack or a variant thereof, and some special abilities based around the "pirate" concept. Perhaps add in a decent Intimidate skill and Sailing Lore if I think that's useful.

All in all, I can see a 1st level pirate crewman be something like this:
Perception +8
Acrobatics +7, Athletics +7, Intimidate +6
AC 16
Fort +4, Ref +10, Will +7
HP 15
Speed 25 ft
[A] Rapier +7 1d6+2 (deadly d8, agile, finesse)
[A] Dagger +7 1d4+2 (Agile, Finesse, Thrown 10 ft., Versatile S)

Gang Up: If making a melee attack against a foe who is flat-footed or adjacent to one of the pirate's allies, the pirate deals 1d6 extra precision damage.

It might need some fine tuning, but that should be close enough for most situations.

51 to 58 of 58 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Anyone else find the 2e healing spells way too weak? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.