Question for the community.
I am trying to figure out the relative strength of a monster that possesses a level equal to a PC. As far as I can tell, a monster of, let's say, level 7 fought a PC of level 7, the monster would almost always win (barring environmental effects/bad rolls/random interactions/etc). A monster of similar level to a PC being superior is certainly not new, and in fact it's something I've been able to count on as a GM.
However, the question I want to ask is: just how much stronger is the monster than a PC? (Note: I use the term "monster" in this discussion as a stand-in for any non-player character/adversary.)
Using the resources available to me, the difficulty/encounter table assumes that a "Moderate" challenge is effectively a "50/50" battle (meaning there is some risk of failure, but not significant enough to be truly terrifying). Most battles should, arguably, rest at this tier (with higher and lower tiers used at GM's discretion). When I observed the Moderate threat XP budget, a GM can reasonably employ 2 monsters of levels equal to the PCs. What this effectively seems to mean is 1 monster of level X is as strong as 2 PCs of level X (again, environs/out-of-the-norm hazards/bad or unlucky rolls/etc not factored in).
I say a 1-to-2 ratio because all encounters assume a party of 4 player characters, with an XP bump/reduction based on the number of missing party members.
I ask all this because I'm not entirely sure what type of effect adding an NPC or two to the adventuring party to help them out would have. I'm not sure what level I should set them at, since it seems 1 monster of the party's level effectively acts as "two" PCs.
Does this seem accurate? Is there any official word as to the power relativity between monsters and PCs?
What's more, I'm not sure what effect building these NPCs as PCs first and then applying the monster building rules after would have vs. building them from the ground-up per monster building.
The tables have turned when it comes to static bonuses of players and monsters in PF2 for various reasons.
Monsters *will* hit players with spells and attacks, even if lower level and often critically. And though I don't like the design of artificially increased atttack values on and above fighter levels (and better than any caster in regards to spell attacks and DC) however it serves it's purpose of:
a) Keeping the tension even when fighting lower level enemies, and
b) Keeping fights more dynamic because the PC's have to actually out-maneuvre the monsters in order to avoid damage (in PF1 the monsters usually had to out-maneuvre the players in order to deal damage because numbers where against them). This also plays well into the new action economy, and
c) to encourage teamwork in order to buff / debuff or outskill the monsters to lessen the impact of the monsters inflated stat blocks.
In addition a GM can possibly also go easy on some of the monsters, e.g. playing a dumb monster dumb without it losing its scary factor and just wasting anyones time with a meaningless fight.
Even if you would let monsters fight monsters it would eventually turn into a bloodbath because hitting and critting on a 6-8 roll respectively a 16 to 18 roll (level 7 ogre boss has +19 to-hit vs AC25). Regarding attacks I rate even level monsters as in between player level+1 or +2 as far as offensive capabilities are concerned.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A monster isn't stronger than a fully equipped PC of the same level. Certainly not at level 7. They're really very comparable to PCs, particularly Fighters, of the same level, with perhaps a few numbers very slightly higher, but fewer options to make up for it.
Let's actually compare, shall we?
An Ogre Boss, at level 7, has +19 to hit for 1d10+11 (16.5) damage, AC 25, 130 HP, and +17/12/15 Saves. Their Perception is +12, and their Skills are +16 to +11.
A Shaitan, also at level 7, has +20 to hit for 1d10+12 (17.5) damage, AC 25, 110 HP, and +18/12/15 Saves. Their Perception is +15, and their Skills are +19 to +14.
A Stegosaurus, also at level 7, has +18 to hit for 2d8+9 (18) damage, AC 23, 125 HP, and +17/13/13 Saves. Their Perception is +15, and their sole Skill is +20.
A PC Fighter of 7th level, meanwhile, assuming Str 19, Dex 14, Con 16, Int 10, Wis 16, Cha 10 has +18 to hit, for 2d12+7+1d6 (24.5) damage, AC 26, 106 HP, and +14/+13/+14 Saves. Their Perception is +16, and their Skills are +19 to +11 if in Stats they have over 10.
The monsters certainly have higher HP and attack bonus than the Fighter, and their highest Saves are a bit higher as well (though not higher than some other PCs at the same level...and some of this is a result of being precisely 7th level, as PCs get Resilient Armor around 8th), but their damage is lower, their Perception (and thus initiative) is lower, their AC is lower, and their damage is lower.
Those stats don't look too bad for the PC, honestly. Especially given that they completely ignore the advantageous benefits of Feats (and, for non-Fighters, things like Juggernaut and Evasion on Saves).
.
.
.
As for advice, you should never combine the PC building rules and the monster building rules, they aren't designed to combine. Either works fine for NPCs working with the party, though I'd generally use the PC rules since they're easier to level.
When I observed the Moderate threat XP budget, a GM can reasonably employ 2 monsters of levels equal to the PCs. What this effectively seems to mean is 1 monster of level X is as strong as 2 PCs of level X (again, environs/out-of-the-norm hazards/bad or unlucky rolls/etc not factored in).
I say a 1-to-2 ratio because all encounters assume a party of 4 player characters, with an XP bump/reduction based on the number of missing party members.
I ask all this because I'm not entirely sure what type of effect adding an NPC or two to the adventuring party to help them out would have. I'm not sure what level I should set them at, since it seems 1 monster of the party's level effectively acts as "two" PCs.
Does this seem accurate?
I'm leaning towards not accurate. Though the numbers might add up, the action economy doesnt. The monster loses none of its action economy whereas a party cut to two or even one has half or a quarter of its usual action economy. That's a HUGE power decrease that needs to be accounted for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's an anecdotal experience:
A few weeks back a pair of level 2 rogues were scouting and stuck their noses into more trouble than they could handle - a patrol of 3 enemies:
3rd level
2nd level
1st level
This was intended as a moderate encounter for the whole party of 6, but hey, things happen.
It just so happened that the NPCs were of a mind to "fight honorably" and not dogpile, and the rogues had each hidden themselves in separate parts of the map so they couldn't really help each other. A perfect experiment, right?
So, one rogue faced off against the 2nd level NPC - an even match by level. It was a VERY close fight, and it happened to tip in favor of the NPC - that rogue went down but stabilized. Extreme difficulty would certainly fit.
The other rogue squared off against the level 1 NPC and beat it without too much trouble, but the NPC carved off maybe half or 3/4 of that rogue's HP. Then the level 3 NPC stepped up and annihilated the rogue - wasn't a fair fight at all as the rogue was alone against an NPC 1 level higher, and had few HP left at the start of the fight. Alas that particular rogue is now in Pharasma's Boneyard.
Make what you will of all of that.
|
|
Working the add/subtract a PC from the Encounter budget, we get:
Trivial 40 - 3x10 = 10 // Party level -4
Low 60- 3x15= 15 // Party level -3
Moderate 80 - 3x20 = 20 // Party level -2
Severe 120 - 3x30 = 30 // Party level -1
Extreme 160 - 3x40 = 40 // Party level
I'm pretty sure you should just view this as a warning not to go above party level for one on one fights and expect the PC to pull through it.
A single monster your own level is definitely a match for a single PC.
Per the encounter guidelines an Extreme encounter is 160 XP for a party of four.
That means 160/4=40 XP is an Extreme encounter for a party of one.
Guess what XP a monster your own level gives?
...that isn't how that works... at all.
The table is with the ASSUMPTION and UNDERSTANDING that it is designed for 4 players in the party.
Meaning a "trivial" encounter is 40 XP, meaning that's a level 0 monster.
Scaling down by missing players is in increments of 20 at "Moderate" threat. If I'm missing, say, 3 players, that means 3 x 20 = 60 XP. I'm allowed 20 XP budget if I'm playing with 1 player to make that "Moderate" challenge.
In your own words "Guess what XP a monster your own level gives?" ...uhm, still 40 XP, but I'm not able to use that. I get 20 XP, which is worth a monster -2 levels, meaning a PC of say, level 7, can have a "Moderate" challenge of 1 monster at level 5.
Severe then goes to 30 XP, which is -1 level. Level 6 monster.
Oh, hey, heck that out, Extreme then is 0 level from the party, meaning a monster of their own level. Level 7 in this example.
So a PC going 1-on-1 with a monster of their level is treated as Extreme no matter what. That would mean that there shouldn't be an expectation that the PC pulls through. It's quite honestly a coin-flip.
The Rulebook lists Extreme challenges as: "...encounters are so dangerous that they are likely to be an even match for the characters, particularly if the characters are low on resources. This makes them too challenging for most uses. An extreme-threat encounter might be appropriate for a fully rested group of characters that can go all-out, for the climactic encounter at the end of an entire campaign, or for a group of veteran players using advanced tactics and teamwork."
Too challenging for most uses. That doesn't sound like 1-to-1 level/power equivilancy to me.
But that's why I posed the question. I just didn't enjoy your ignorant math.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A 50/50 chance of TPK is too challenging for most uses, and yet that's the exact definition of a perfectly evenly matched fight.
Most people don't enjoy pushing their luck that hard that they might end the campaign right then and there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Too challenging for most uses. That doesn't sound like 1-to-1 level/power equivilancy to me.
Why not?
1:1 power equivalency suggests that the PCs have roughly even odds of surviving the encounter or being completely wiped out.
If you set up 4 encounters in a row and all of them are exactly equal to the party, only about 6% of parties would be expected to survive (that's, of course, completely ignoring the issue of resource expenditure, which would diminish those odds significantly further).
It should be pretty straight forward why that doesn't make for a good baseline for most groups. You'd likely have to make a new character every session, possibly multiple times.
As a party of 6 playing from levels 1 to 7, we've taken on 6 even leveled enemies in our campaign at least 10 times. So far, the results have been all successes for the party. That may be a function of the synergy and stability the larger group size offers and/or the duplication of abilities being much higher in the groups of enemies allowing us to play around them. We have had 2 fights like this where we were close to TPK.
I will say that our play group is very experienced at tactical gameplay with many of us having played competitive wargames for over a decade. That also applies to 2 of our 3 GMs in our rotating GM seat, though.