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


Rules Discussion

1 to 50 of 58 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Maybe I'm missing something but even the most powerful healing spells only heal about 4d10 damage or so, which just seems way too weak considering PCs at level 20 can have like 200 hp.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Heal Spell 1
Healing Necromancy Positive
Source Core Rulebook pg. 343
Traditions divine, primal
Cast Single Action to Three Actions
Range varies; Targets 1 willing living creature or 1 undead

You channel positive energy to heal the living or damage the undead. If the target is a willing living creature, you restore 1d8 Hit Points. If the target is undead, you deal that amount of positive damage to it, and it gets a basic Fortitude save. The number of actions you spend when Casting this Spell determines its targets, range, area, and other parameters.

Single Action (somatic) The spell has a range of touch.

Two Actions (verbal, somatic) The spell has a range of 30 feet. If you're healing a living creature, increase the Hit Points restored by 8.

Three Actions (material, somatic, verbal) You disperse positive energy in a 30-foot emanation. This targets all living and undead creatures in the burst.

Heightened (+1) The amount of healing or damage increases by 1d8, and the extra healing for the 2-action version increases by 8.

Bolded the heightened statement. A 10th level heal spell as a 1 action cast heals 10d8 (45 average).

A 10th level heal spell as a 2-action cast heals 10d8 + 80, or 125 hit points on average. An elf with a caster class and 10 Con has 126 hit points. A dwarf barbarian, 20 Con, and toughness has 370 hit points.

A DC 40 medicine check (doable at level 20) will heal 2d8+50, or about 57 on a success for 10 minutes of healing effort.

At 20th, a champion's lay on hands will heal 60 hit points.

So barbarians probably want to have a cleric with healing font around, as they require three 10th level spells to go from empty to full in 3 rounds, or about 70 minutes free if someone has legendary medicine plus continual recovery or about 60 minutes if there's a champion in the party.

There are some feats which can affect those healing numbers as well.


and still fun at level 1, when my druid player wiped an entire encounter of skeletons with three action heal before anyone else realized the skeletons were there


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ok, I didn't realize you could heighten multiple times.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Yqatuba wrote:
Ok, I didn't realize you could heighten multiple times.

There's two kinds of Heighten.

Heighten (3rd)
Heighten (+1)

The former refers to a specific spell level (in this case, 3rd), the latter is "apply as many times as you like." Spells may feature more than one of these, though typically only one of the "+1" type, its not impossible to have more (e.g. they could have a +1 for an extra die of damage and a +1 for adding 30 feet of range; I don't think any printed spell does this, but the design space exists).


4 people marked this as a favorite.

You can also heighten even if there's no listed benefit because some effects like counteracting care about spell level


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

No.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:
Yqatuba wrote:
Anyone else find the 2e healing spells way too weak?
No.

+1

The age of the healbot hath returned, and it is glorious.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I absolutely love how healing is handled in P2E. The party in the one campaign I'm playing in has a Cleric, Alchemist, and Champion. Each kind of healing has its place. Each player feels useful when it comes to healing. Each has been vital at times.


Sapient wrote:
I absolutely love how healing is handled in P2E.

Well, considering how combat is handled in P2E (aka you *will* get hit, aka xp only for blood) and the power level disparity in between martials and casters (at least at the low levels I am currently playing) I do seriously consider to memorize additional healing spells as the party cleric. Why bother giving a random enemy some -1 to xyz stat or DC when you can also just keep the martials going.

And yes, I am aware that considering infinite rolls that -1 could prove to be crucial and/or provide +x% of damage, however I am yet to see a -1 or +1 making a huge difference in any important fight so far. In stark contrast to the 2 action heals I am pumping out...


Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ubertron_X wrote:
Sapient wrote:
I absolutely love how healing is handled in P2E.
Well, considering how combat is handled in P2E (aka you *will* get hit, aka xp only for blood) and the power level disparity in between martials and casters (at least at the low levels I am currently playing) I do seriously consider to memorize additional healing spells as the party cleric. Why bother giving a random enemy some -1 to xyz stat or DC when you can also just keep the martials going.

What is the GM throwing at you that 5+ healing spells and the medicine skill aren't enough?


Ravingdork wrote:
What is the GM throwing at you that 5+ healing spells and the medicine skill aren't enough?

Just a guess but natural 20's would tend to do it.


Pathfinder Companion, LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Nope, I've found that my daily supply of healing spells and medicine make encounters much more tolerable. Though there are times where some particularly beefy enemies can almost down a character on a lucky crit. Can be pretty harrowing at times.

On top of the normal heals I would also recommend a Cleric for healing since the Healing Font can provide an easy 3-5 extra healing spells at the highest spell level per day. On top of this, look into getting a Staff of Healing as it gives you an additional heal for the day AND increases the amount healed for all of your healing spells.


Ravingdork wrote:
What is the GM throwing at you that 5+ healing spells and the medicine skill aren't enough?

We are playing the Age of Ashes adventure path and even if it does not seem overly hard a lot of encounters seem to be level+x (x can be zero) instead of the recommended daily dosis of level-x.

And such enemies can easily hit and crit you with the first attack (even without nat 20) and some can also hit and crit you with the second attack.

The last fight (though considered a level+3 boss fight I guess) would see enemy hit and crit chances at 1+/6+/11+ respectively 11+/16+/nat20 vs our lowest AC char (Wizard) and still 6+/11+/16+ respectively 16+/nat20/--- vs our sword and board fighter. So despite chain healig for 3 to 4 rounds our fighter went down on a mix of regular hits and crits more than once that fight. And our GM didn't even play the boss to full effect.

And even on fights that aren't this hard enemies will usually hit their first and second attacks on something like 10+/15+ to 12+/17+ so even regular fights in P2E can consume a lot of HP even when no one is going down and the party is on stake.


Ubertron_X wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
What is the GM throwing at you that 5+ healing spells and the medicine skill aren't enough?
We are playing the Age of Ashes adventure path and even if it does not seem overly hard a lot of encounters seem to be level+x (x can be zero) instead of the recommended daily dosis of level-x.

Understandable, but definitely not how the game was intended to be balanced.


Everyone in both my groups loves the PF2 heals.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Draco18s wrote:
Ubertron_X wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
What is the GM throwing at you that 5+ healing spells and the medicine skill aren't enough?
We are playing the Age of Ashes adventure path and even if it does not seem overly hard a lot of encounters seem to be level+x (x can be zero) instead of the recommended daily dosis of level-x.
Understandable, but definitely not how the game was intended to be balanced.

The first AP published by the game designers is not how the game is intended to be played?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Draco18s wrote:
Ubertron_X wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
What is the GM throwing at you that 5+ healing spells and the medicine skill aren't enough?
We are playing the Age of Ashes adventure path and even if it does not seem overly hard a lot of encounters seem to be level+x (x can be zero) instead of the recommended daily dosis of level-x.
Understandable, but definitely not how the game was intended to be balanced.

I disagree, in terms of encounters most of them should be level+1 or level+2. Level+0 is considered to be a "trivial" encounter.

Level-x being constant would be a stomp.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
Draco18s wrote:
Ubertron_X wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
What is the GM throwing at you that 5+ healing spells and the medicine skill aren't enough?
We are playing the Age of Ashes adventure path and even if it does not seem overly hard a lot of encounters seem to be level+x (x can be zero) instead of the recommended daily dosis of level-x.
Understandable, but definitely not how the game was intended to be balanced.

I disagree, in terms of encounters most of them should be level+1 or level+2. Level+0 is considered to be a "trivial" encounter.

Level-x being constant would be a stomp.

That's assuming that the fight is just a single creature, which it usually isn't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thorin001 wrote:
Draco18s wrote:
Ubertron_X wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
What is the GM throwing at you that 5+ healing spells and the medicine skill aren't enough?
We are playing the Age of Ashes adventure path and even if it does not seem overly hard a lot of encounters seem to be level+x (x can be zero) instead of the recommended daily dosis of level-x.
Understandable, but definitely not how the game was intended to be balanced.
The first AP published by the game designers is not how the game is intended to be played?

IIRC a decent portion of Age of Ashes and the entirety of the Fall of Plaguestone were written before second edition was officially complete, so there are balance issues involved due to working with rules and standards that have changed. I suspect the Extinction Curse will be a better show of how the game is intended to be balanced.


thorin001 wrote:
The first AP published by the game designers is not how the game is intended to be played?

S@#! happens. The adventure writers aren't always on the same page as the mechanics writers. This has always been true.

Cyouni wrote:

I disagree, in terms of encounters most of them should be level+1 or level+2. Level+0 is considered to be a "trivial" encounter.

Level-x being constant would be a stomp.

No, intended is four [level-2] creatures for a [party of four] or ONE level+0/1. Read the encounter exp budget system again.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Draco18s wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
The first AP published by the game designers is not how the game is intended to be played?

S$$% happens. The adventure writers aren't always on the same page as the mechanics writers. This has always been true.

Cyouni wrote:

I disagree, in terms of encounters most of them should be level+1 or level+2. Level+0 is considered to be a "trivial" encounter.

Level-x being constant would be a stomp.

No, intended is four [level-2] creatures for a [party of four] or ONE level+0/1. Read the encounter exp budget system again.

One level +0 enemy is indeed trivial.

A level +2 enemy is a moderate encounter.

A level +3 is severe, meaning a small boss or extra difficult but not way out of the normal encounter.

There are a few too many severe encounters in the first couple of Age of Ashes books, as well as Plaguestone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sporkedup wrote:
A level +3 is severe, meaning a small boss or extra difficult but not way out of the normal encounter.

The encounter building guidelines start using the description "boss" at equal to the party's level.

Level +3 is not "a small boss" according to the book, it's "severe- or extreme-threat boss."

"A small boss" encounter looks more like a creature of the party's level accompanied by some allied creatures 2 or so levels below the party's level.


Draco18s wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
The first AP published by the game designers is not how the game is intended to be played?

S!$% happens. The adventure writers aren't always on the same page as the mechanics writers. This has always been true.

Cyouni wrote:

I disagree, in terms of encounters most of them should be level+1 or level+2. Level+0 is considered to be a "trivial" encounter.

Level-x being constant would be a stomp.

No, intended is four [level-2] creatures for a [party of four] or ONE level+0/1. Read the encounter exp budget system again.

Read the actual post again.

An encounter is one+ creatures, which should come out to Level+X. Each of these creatures may be anywhere from level-4 to level+4, but the overall encounter should be Level+X.

Again, if encounters were consistently Level-X, they would be stomped over easily. I actually had one of these encounters in a session earlier this week, a level-2 encounter. The party ended it so fast that half the party didn't even get a second turn, and the enemies did something like 25 damage total to the level 14 party.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
thenobledrake wrote:
Sporkedup wrote:
A level +3 is severe, meaning a small boss or extra difficult but not way out of the normal encounter.

The encounter building guidelines start using the description "boss" at equal to the party's level.

Level +3 is not "a small boss" according to the book, it's "severe- or extreme-threat boss."

"A small boss" encounter looks more like a creature of the party's level accompanied by some allied creatures 2 or so levels below the party's level.

I dunno, just going by what the book says. Severe encounters are expected to be consistently defeatable for parties. But they do tend to be important story moments or bosses. Creatures of that value are severe level threats (it mentions extreme as well because having any minions or hazards will push them to that level).

One +3 enemy on its own is a severe level boss, which means you should be seeing one around a chapter or book end in an AP, or at least at particularly important points. Like I said, there are too many in the early books. But in my experience, an even-level enemy can easily, easily be killed in less than a round, which is not much of a boss feel. That might change at higher levels, don't know.


Cyouni wrote:
An encounter is one+ creatures, which should come out to Level+X. Each of these creatures may be anywhere from level-4 to level+4, but the overall encounter should be Level+X.

The terminology you are using doesn't line up with what the book uses.

An encounter doesn't have a level of its own (despite that the published adventures thus far stick a level on each), it just has a difficulty rating based on what level the characters are when facing it (which the number in the published adventures serves to indicate).

So an encounter with a level 1 monster and two level -1 monsters isn't a "Level X encounter" - it depends on what level the party is when facing it, so it could be trivial (3), low (2), or moderate (1).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sporkedup wrote:
I dunno, just going by what the book says. Severe encounters are expected to be consistently defeatable for parties.

The phrase "consistently defeat" is a pretty vague one - it could mean 9 times out of 10, or it could mean 6 times out of 10.

Sporkedup wrote:
One +3 enemy on its own is a severe level boss, which means you should be seeing one around a chapter or book end in an AP, or at least at particularly important points. Like I said, there are too many in the early books. But in my experience, an even-level enemy can easily, easily be killed in less than a round, which is not much of a boss feel. That might change at higher levels, don't know.

I personally think using that tough of an enemy as often as once per story objective (i.e. putting 1 in each of the 4 dungeons explored during one AP book) is too often.

And while an even-level "boss" can be killed in less than a round, they can also be part of a very memorable and engaging encounter - the difference between the two often coming down to set up (just put the "lackeys" between the "boss" and the party, and it usually handles itself).

Hopefully as the APs roll on, more of the Severe threat encounters published will be made up of even-level "boss" and numerous lower-level lackeys rather than a singular party level +3 creature.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
thenobledrake wrote:
Sporkedup wrote:
I dunno, just going by what the book says. Severe encounters are expected to be consistently defeatable for parties.

The phrase "consistently defeat" is a pretty vague one - it could mean 9 times out of 10, or it could mean 6 times out of 10.

Sporkedup wrote:
One +3 enemy on its own is a severe level boss, which means you should be seeing one around a chapter or book end in an AP, or at least at particularly important points. Like I said, there are too many in the early books. But in my experience, an even-level enemy can easily, easily be killed in less than a round, which is not much of a boss feel. That might change at higher levels, don't know.

I personally think using that tough of an enemy as often as once per story objective (i.e. putting 1 in each of the 4 dungeons explored during one AP book) is too often.

And while an even-level "boss" can be killed in less than a round, they can also be part of a very memorable and engaging encounter - the difference between the two often coming down to set up (just put the "lackeys" between the "boss" and the party, and it usually handles itself).

Hopefully as the APs roll on, more of the Severe threat encounters published will be made up of even-level "boss" and numerous lower-level lackeys rather than a singular party level +3 creature.

I'm not that excited for a party +3 boss, let's be honest. I know I have one coming, so hopefully it doesn't totally slap my players around. But so far, no moderate encounters have felt at all like fights of definite significance. Pretty sure adding a +1 or +2 boss with a few minions can make it a seriously interesting threat.

Severe are, to my experience so far, the only fights with a non zero chance of players losing. That's why the book specifically says they should be willing to flee if it goes badly. I personally hope encounters in APs don't tend way more towards moderate difficulty for fights of significance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:

Read the actual post again.

An encounter is one+ creatures, which should come out to Level+X

Nope.

CRB p488 wrote:

To build a combat encounter, first decide how the

encounter fits in the adventure as a whole. Then, estimate
how much of a threat you want the encounter to pose,
using one of five categories below:

Note that we haven't yet seen the word "level."

Quote:

Trivial-threat encounters are so easy that the characters

have essentially no chance of losing;

We'll assume a trivial threat. We still haven't seen level, but we're about to look up in the table on the next page how much EXP we have to spend in order to create a trivial encounter.

Quote:

Threat XP Budget

Trivial 40 or less

[...]

The XP budget is based on a group of four characters.

We have 40 exp to work with. Now we have to spend that on critters.

Quote:

TABLE 10–2: CREATURE XP AND ROLE

Creature Level XP Suggested Role
Party level – 4 10 Low-threat lackey
Party level – 3 15 Low- or moderate-threat lackey
Party level – 2 20 Any lackey or standard creature
Party level – 1 30 Any standard creature
Party level 40 Any standard creature or low-threat
boss

Now we see the word "level."

If we spend all 40 exp on a single creature, it is a "single, low-threat boss." Which is exactly what I said it was, a single creature equal to party level. To get FOUR creatures we only have a mere 10 exp to spend on each of them: creatures of level-4.

Four level-2 creatures would be 80 exp: a moderate encounter (which is the baseline). Exactly what I said it was.

Four level+0 creatures would be 160 exp: an extreme encounter.


One thing that throws a lot of variety in the mix (as far as mileage varying from party to party) is how some groups are opting for clerics and divine sorcerers, and some are going mostly melee and arcane, and just counting on after-fight patching of wounds.
My group I'm running thru Plaguestone got mowed down a couple of times. They have a fighter, ranger, rogue, and a druid (who never prepares heals). They haven't died yet. But they've had a tougher time than a party with a cleric would, is my guess.
I like it, tho. I like that groups can choose what they like, instead of feeling like they are forced into the "classic 4" lineup.


Draco18s wrote:


Now we see the word "level."

If we spend all 40 exp on a single creature, it is a "single, low-threat boss." Which is exactly what I said it was, a single creature equal to party level. To get FOUR creatures we only have a mere 10 exp to spend on each of them: creatures of level-4.

Four level-2 creatures would be 80 exp: a moderate encounter (which is the baseline). Exactly what I said it was.

Four level+0 creatures would be 160 exp: an extreme encounter.

Then do me a favour while you're quoting the book, and find where it notes you should have a "recommended daily dose of" creatures of lower level than the party.

(Also, you may wish to note that he's referring to Age of Ashes, which makes quite a bit of use of creatures lower level than the party.)


Cyouni wrote:
Then do me a favour while you're quoting the book, and find where it notes you should have a "recommended daily dose of" creatures of lower level than the party.
Quote:

Severe-threat encounters are the hardest encounters

most groups of characters can consistently defeat. These
encounters are most appropriate for important moments in
your story, such as confronting a final boss.

Bolded statement implies that Severe and higher encounters are rare, and that most encounters will be moderate or lower.

Quote:
(Also, you may wish to note that he's referring to Age of Ashes, which makes quite a bit of use of creatures lower level than the party.)

Haven't read or played it. But sure, lets look at his statement again:

Ubertron_X wrote:
We are playing the Age of Ashes adventure path and even if it does not seem overly hard a lot of encounters seem to be level+x (x can be zero) instead of the recommended daily dosis of level-x.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:

Why aren't you guys looking up the specific Age of Ashes encounters?

This "are we talking about one creature or four" and "what is a Boss to you" routine is outright slapstick, but I'm getting bored by it.

Using hard cold facts instead ("this encounter features one L+2 creature and three L-1 creatures") would make the discussion sooo much more relevant.

The first rule about spoilering is, we don't talk about spoilers! ;)


I'm not sure that being bored that a discussion about encounter design theory is talking about theory, rather than specific things which fit into that theory, is an "us" thing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:

Why aren't you guys looking up the specific Age of Ashes encounters?

Please don't. I'm a player in Age of Ashes, not a GM, and I would like not to have spoilers. Vague terms are one thing ("The initial part mostly consists of low and moderate encounters with one or two severe ones"), but please don't talk specifics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

xp only for blood

Your GM can award experience at milestones, for good roleplaying, creativity. Encounter rewards are just one piece of how characters can advance.


I'm not suggesting anyone spoils anything.

I am suggesting that people don't use vague qualifiers such as "many" creatures or a "boss monster", and instead say "four L-2 creatures" or "a L+3 boss".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:

I'm not suggesting anyone spoils anything.

I am suggesting that people don't use vague qualifiers such as "many" creatures or a "boss monster", and instead say "four L-2 creatures" or "a L+3 boss".

I'd go through it myself, but I don't know if/when I might end up playing it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:

I'm not suggesting anyone spoils anything.

I am suggesting that people don't use vague qualifiers such as "many" creatures or a "boss monster", and instead say "four L-2 creatures" or "a L+3 boss".

Hellknight Hill encounters by ranking and creature:

Moderate 1: Creature 1 + Hazard 1
Severe 1: Creature 1 x 3
Low 1: Creature 2
Low 1: Creature 0 x 2
Hazard 2
Severe 1: Creature 1 x 2
Low 1: Creature 2
Moderate 1: Creature 1 x 2
Low 1: Creature 2
Low 1: Creature -1 x 3
Low 1: Creature 2
Moderate 1: Creature -1 x 4
Moderate 1: Creature 3

Moderate 2: Creature 2 x 2
Low 2: Creature 3
Low 2: Creature 3
Moderate 2: Creature 2 x 2
Moderate 2: Creature 2 x 2
Moderate 2: Creature 2 + Creature 1 x 2
Low 2: Creature 3
Moderate 2: Creature 1 x 3
Low 2: Creature 1 x 2

Moderate 3: Creature 2 + Creature -1 x 5
Moderate 3: Creature 1 x 4
Moderate 3: Creature 3 x 2
Hazard 4
Low 3: Creature 1 x 3
Trivial 3: Creature 1
Low 3: Creature 4
Trivial 3: Creature 1
Low 3: Creature 3 + Creature 0
Severe 3: Creature 5 + Creature 2 + Creature -1

Moderate 4: Creature 1 x 6
Trivial 4: Creature 4
Severe 4: Creature 7
Hazard 5
Severe 4: Creature 5 + Creature 1 x 4
Low 4: Creature 5


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Super lite weight Summary for everyone concerned about spoilers (Kudos on how minimal that was Joana!)

For those who want to know more, Joana did include some extra details, that could be spoilery.

3 Trivial
14 Low
13 Mod
5 Severe.


I note that I see a Severe encounter very early, with another Severe a mere 4 encounters later

And five instances where the creature/hazard is above level+4 (unless I'm reading that wrong, but I don't think so, considering the "creature -1" syntax)

Strike that, I was.


One thing I found when I was looking into the "Build your own Monster" rules, is a handful of -1's I looked at had above rules for damage. ie, no Extreme listed as recommended, and 3 -1's that I found had values that better matched that option. Plague Zombie (L1) also has High Attack to go with it's Extreme Damage and Extreme Hit points.

I have barely touched my review of Monsters (a mere 9 monsters in), but I'm curios to see if Future Bestiaries are more in line with the models, or if the model will change between preview and actual Gamemastery Guide launch.

I suspect that some of the disconnect is that low level humanoid monsters, using reasonable weapons, will do above expected damage, and this is an outlier that should be recognizable as such.


Draco18s wrote:

I note that I see a Severe encounter very early, with another Severe a mere 4 encounters later

And five instances where the creature/hazard is above level+4 (unless I'm reading that wrong, but I don't think so, considering the "creature -1" syntax)

Strike that, I was.

Across the entire AP, Kougarou's count (from Reddit) states:

Spoiler:
Trivial 3%, Low 25%, Moderate 49%, Severe 19%, Extreme 3%

While the Moderate count is higher than I'd likely prefer if I were doing a conversion, it's really not that bad. I'd still shift some of the Severe encounters down to Moderate, and some Moderate down to Low.


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.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path 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.

What's "too lax" about the guidelines telling you what defenses and damage output should an NPC have?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:
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.

Taking the Pathfinder Monster Builder I've found here, I made that in a minute (these are attributes while raging):

Level 6 Barbarian

Str +7
Dex +4
Con +5
Int +2
Wis +2
Cha +2

HP 123–115
AC 23
Fort +18
Ref +14
Will +14

Perception +19

Att +17
Damage 2d12+10 Avg

I just need to add one or 2 abilities (certainly a rage one that consumes one action and maybe a DR or something mimicking a barbarian feat) and I'm done.


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


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?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.

1 to 50 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.