|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's nice that you've made a database, but isolated points of data without the entire statblock is meaningless, and that's exactly what you're throwing around here.
A whole bunch of monsters you've listed are not "casters that hang back and use spells as their primary offence", they're melee powerhouses with casting tacked on the top.
If anything, whoever wrote the advice didn't consider that their definition of spellcaster monster is different from yours. But then again, yours is the outlier.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are more melee brutes with Low AC than there are spellcasters with Low AC.
Does that sounds right to you?
When the examples drawn on are monstrous, inhuman, exceptional examples of opposition? Sure, why not.
The monster creation rules are guidelines for creating monsters and NPCs, they're not hard requirements.
That said, do you by any chance have access to a collection of stat blocks for NPCs? How many of those spellcasters (who aren't bosses) have Extreme AC?
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's nice that you've made a database and it's cute that you're trying to make people respect you for that, but data without the entire statblock is meaningless, and that's exactly what you're throwing around here.
People like hitting stuff. People like seeing their spells succeed (even more so, since they cost resources). Yes, spells do have some effect on a success, but often it doesn't feel "worth" it.
People keep posting that monster AC values feel "too high" because monster AC values feel too high. The extra damage or lower max-hp from the higher AC creatures doesn't factor into the player perception of fights because they miss, miss, miss, miss before finally getting a lucky hit.
That lucky hit doing a boatload of bonus damage because they triggered a weakness is something that gets added on in secret against a secret total. The player can't SEE that effect.
Sure, you might know its there because you know its a fey and you have a cold iron sword, or because the GM said that "it looks like that hurt it more than you expected."
But that's borderline irrelevant when it comes to game feel.
The game feel is "miss, miss, miss, miss."
That said, do you by any chance have access to a collection of stat blocks for NPCs? How many of those spellcasters (who aren't bosses) have Extreme AC?
I do not. I can dig up a handful of NPCs from adventures, the only ones I've actually looked at are a couple from Plaguestone, and all of them landed in the "generally High" grouping (eg the Sculptor from Plaguestone has High AC, Moderate attacks, and no DC-inflicting abilities, and his saving throws are on the low end, but only just (typical seems like "high, moderate, low" and the scultpor is "mod, mod, low")), but I don't have all of those numbers at my finger tips as readily.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
How do creatures within a given category of creature compare to each other? I think that is more relevant than how all creatures compare to each other. For example, do Melee Orcs have higher AC than Spellcasting Orcs?
What about Kobolds?
Boggards?
Etc...
If, in a group of 12 Orcs, the guys who look like obvious Spellcasters always have the highest AC in the group, then yeah, that's weird.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The game feel is "miss, miss, miss, miss."
If you feel this way, the "always hit with your first two or three attacks" game subforum is just a few wheels of scrolling below this one. Why bother yourself with a game you don't like?
Paizo isn't going to rework the math, so you're getting nowhere. If you're trying to tell me that I've missed some memo while playing Age of Ashes up to adventure 5 and never getting the "miss, miss, miss" problem with my Ranger - well, you need to try harder.
The game feel is "miss, miss, miss, miss."
If you say so.
That only matches my experience when people are using making more than one or two strikes a turn.
Similarly with spellcasters, its an adjustment for sure, but once you realize a successful save for many spells is still "The Spell Works" and that you're supposed to view spell success as a spectrum and not a binary pass/fail they feel much better.
Characters hit 20 last week in Age of Ashes, and its been 3 books since they've had trouble hitting anything that wasn't a level +6 super-boss.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It feels like doing a survey of adventure paths is probably better than doing a survey of the bestiaries. Since you're going to want to reuse antagonists less often when it comes to big, dramatic, showpiece fights. If you just need a speedbump "guards" or "bandits" or "rando cultists" are always available.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How do creatures within a given category of creature compare to each other? I think that is more relevant than how all creatures compare to each other. For example, do Melee Orcs have higher AC than Spellcasting Orcs?
This is more difficult to track as there are only so many critters in a given grouping (eg 2 kobolds) and very rarely are they in the same level bracket (e.g. the kobold mage is level 2 and the kobold scout is level 1).
But with the "generally speaking everything has High AC" once you accounted for level differences I would say that in general, no, the melee types don't have higher AC than the spellcasting types. There are some exceptions (eg. kobolds).
There might be some slight differences (where the difference is not enough to drop one down a category or the other up a category) but those are much harder to track as those +/-1s seem to come out of nothing. I'm going to try and take another look, but when I started my data project it was sort of like "ok, this creature's Fort save is +2 over that creature's, but its Con is -2 in comparison. It also has a lower ranged attack, but higher dex, and their reflex saves are the same."
Some of it could have been due to magical gear (eg. having a +1 sword vs. a non-magical mace) but it seemed more arbitrary than due to some intrinsic stat that could be traced back to a root cause (eg we can't see a monster's TEML ratings and probably don't even have any, instead getting consumed into the Extreme/High/Moderate/Low rankings of total value).
Why bother yourself with a game you don't like?
1) I'm not playing PF2 any more
2) Maybe I want to know why I don't like itThat only matches my experience when people are using making more than one or two strikes a turn.
I've seen it on skill checks, saving throws, perception rolls, and attack throws. Is some of it due to luck? Sure, I rolled less than a raw 10 on something like ten of twelve Athletics rolls over the course of three rounds. Luck was not on my side.
But when I can look back over the course of an entire module and see every player coming away with the sense that "I feel like we're not the actual heroes, but rather some random collection of nobodies who feel lucky to actually still be alive" I suspect it's not the luck.
It feels like doing a survey of adventure paths is probably better than doing a survey of the bestiaries. Since you're going to want to reuse antagonists less often when it comes to big, dramatic, showpiece fights. If you just need a speedbump "guards" or "bandits" or "rando cultists" are always available.
As I said, I've looked at the ones in Plaguestone and they seemed to be on-par with the Bestiary. But I plan to incorporate those as well. The math even seems to indicate that The Sculptor shouldn't be as bad as it actually is, which is why I suspect a systemic problem with the design guidelines, not necessarily a problem with the specific adventure (like I said, his stat block is slightly below the mean for the bestiary that I've already collected).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd view the section you quoted as a suggestion of when it is typically appropriate to use Low AC, not a demand that every spellcaster must use Low AC.So 66% of the entire bestiary is fine using a High AC, High Attack, and High save DC? (not necessarily all on the same creature at the same time, but there are 127 high AC, 127 high attack, and 130 high save DCs)
There's incredibly low variance on those 3 stats. Nothing else even comes close.
That is very important information to know in order to fully judge the situation, not something that can be brushed aside by looking at the number of instances divorced from contributing circumstances.
Guidelines start AC with a base of "high or moderate," not moderate - and then can adjust based on other factors as necessary (like HP, Resistances, Weaknesses, Saves, etc.)
High Attack is recommended for anything good at fighting, which I'd assume is likely a large percentage of the Bestiary.
High Save DC for spells/abilities is also expected to be common, since the table doesn't even list below Moderate DC and outright suggests leaning towards extreme values past level 15.
Part of the issue I see is that you seem to think that Moderate is supposed to be the default, when it is defined as being unremarkable and nearly everything is expected to have some high values. The description for a high value even includes this: "Most combat-focused creatures have high AC and either a high attack bonus and high damage, or a merely moderate attack bonus but extreme damage." Considering a bestiary is likely to include a lot of combat-focused creatures, especially the first couple books, I'd certainly expect many creatures to have high values in key combat-related categories. Because let's be honest, printing a creature with low AC is a waste of ink unless there is some significant compensation elsewhere in the stat block - you might as well just use a lower level creature instead.
The other part of the issue is likely that this isn't the first time I've seen you post about being unable to roll 10+ on a d20. The math in this edition makes your dice matter more and luck is a bigger factor (which is also probably why hero point rerolls are now part of the core rules to help with luck). So when you have a bad streak, that's less the statblocks and more the dice hating you, to which I can only say I hope your unlucky steak ends. (& if you keep forgetting hero points exist like my group, try to use them more. I still have to get better at that myself.)
That lucky hit doing a boatload of bonus damage because they triggered a weakness is something that gets added on in secret against a secret total. The player can't SEE that effect.
Sure, you might know its there because you know its a fey and you have a cold iron sword, or because the GM said that "it looks like that hurt it more than you expected."
To this I'd suggest that the GM needs to do a better job trying to embellish these events. I always try to give obvious descriptive imagery when weaknesses come into play - and have found my players to be quite responsive to the effect (like when a missed alchemist fire does splash damage and I describe how the fire splash suddenly catches and flares up against a creature that is weak to fire.) That, and have the enemies noticeably react to their weaknesses getting targeted (alchemist gets told that all the enemies seemed to shift focus to him, recognizing him as the biggest threat immediately after burning one of their group).
|
The game feel is "miss, miss, miss, miss."If you say so.
That only matches my experience when people are using making more than one or two strikes a turn.
Similarly with spellcasters, its an adjustment for sure, but once you realize a successful save for many spells is still "The Spell Works" and that you're supposed to view spell success as a spectrum and not a binary pass/fail they feel much better.
Characters hit 20 last week in Age of Ashes, and its been 3 books since they've had trouble hitting anything that wasn't a level +6 super-boss.
OT, but do you actually fight Level +6 creatures in Age of Ashes, or were you using hyperbole? I haven't played it.
OT, but do you actually fight Level +6 creatures in Age of Ashes, or were you using hyperbole? I haven't played it.The game feel is "miss, miss, miss, miss."If you say so.
That only matches my experience when people are using making more than one or two strikes a turn.
Similarly with spellcasters, its an adjustment for sure, but once you realize a successful save for many spells is still "The Spell Works" and that you're supposed to view spell success as a spectrum and not a binary pass/fail they feel much better.
Characters hit 20 last week in Age of Ashes, and its been 3 books since they've had trouble hitting anything that wasn't a level +6 super-boss.
Unintentional hyperbole. I was mistaken about the encounter in question - its limited to Level +4 like most of the really severe ones.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So when you have a bad streak, that's less the statblocks and more the dice hating you, to which I can only say I hope your unlucky steak ends. (& if you keep forgetting hero points exist like my group, try to use them more. I still have to get better at that myself.)
You see that athletics check I mentioned? 12 rolls in three rounds?
Yeah, hero points WERE spent.And I wasn't the only one that couldn't roll above a ten some sessions. The barbarian regularly had entire combats where his total on each roll didn't break 12 (the fight with the sculptor was one).
There were times the rogue went to pick a lock and he'd have to roll something like 8 times for a two-success lock.
I didn't keep track of all of these events because not all of them were mine. But they happened on average once a session. Once a session one player would just be like "yeah, f$@! this, I've been completely useless all session, all I had to do was roll a f~%*ing 8 and couldn't."
I didn't track the number of times various PCs were taken down to zero, but the rogue suspected that he had the high score in that regard, as while we figured that the barbarian hit zero once a fight, if the rogue went down, he generally went down more than once.
People keep saying these numbers are needed to make things a challenge for players.
News flash, high AC/Save/DCs values aren't the only way to make things a challenge.
So when you have a bad streak, that's less the statblocks and more the dice hating you, to which I can only say I hope your unlucky steak ends. (& if you keep forgetting hero points exist like my group, try to use them more. I still have to get better at that myself.)You see that athletics check I mentioned? 12 rolls in three rounds?
Yeah, hero points WERE spent.And I wasn't the only one that couldn't roll above a ten some sessions. The barbarian regularly had entire combats where his total on each roll didn't break 12 (the fight with the sculptor was one).
There were times the rogue went to pick a lock and he'd have to roll something like 8 times for a two-success lock.
I didn't keep track of all of these events because not all of them were mine. But they happened on average once a session. Once a session one player would just be like "yeah, f##+ this, I've been completely useless all session, all I had to do was roll a f@$%ing 8 and couldn't."
I didn't track the number of times various PCs were taken down to zero, but the rogue suspected that he had the high score in that regard, as while we figured that the barbarian hit zero once a fight, if the rogue went down, he generally went down more than once.
People keep saying these numbers are needed to make things a challenge for players.
News flash, high AC/Save/DCs values aren't the only way to make things a challenge.
Was this in real life, or on Roll20? Because my group is convinced that Roll20s RNG is borked. We've had entire sessions where nobody rolls above 10.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
That lucky hit doing a boatload of bonus damage because they triggered a weakness is something that gets added on in secret against a secret total. The player can't SEE that effect.
Your GM should be making you aware that your cold iron weapon (or whatever) did a surprising amount of damage to the creature, if it has a weakness. A good GM communicates how various weapons/energy types affect the target. It’s part of narrating the story. A lot of how heroic a combat feels is dependent on how the GM narrates it.
Honestly, I never felt “heroic” when the fighter/paladin/whatever slaughtered everyone on the opposing side in the first round of combat, frequently before my PC would even get a turn.
Heroic is when the PCs overcome a challenge that they have a possibility of failing.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're operating under the assumption that a monster should be equal in stats to PCs of its level. That's not how it works and that's not how the game is designed. Also, that ship sailed so long ago...No I am not. However when an even leveled monsters second attack has equal chances of hitting like a party martials first attack, that does for sure not counter the "we are not feeling like heroes but incompetent fools" general mood and related threads that are surfacing in this forum on a regular basis.
Uh...High Attack gives monsters almost exactly the same attack bonus as a Fighter of their level. That's higher than other martials, but those other martials make up for that in other ways, and that's only a two point difference, not the four or five needed to make a second attack equal a first attack.
You're operating under the assumption that a monster should be equal in stats to PCs of its level. That's not how it works and that's not how the game is designed. Also, that ship sailed so long ago...
With the exception of Extreme stats, most monster stats are absolutely in the PC range. High AC is right around the low end of martial AC at most levels (though it rises slightly to around optimal Fighter by 20th), and most other monster stats follow suit. High is the category for 'about optimized PC level' in just about everything.
PF2 assumes statistically optimized PCs, it's true, but it doesn't actually put monsters above them nearly as much as people are implying. All the numbers shown by various people, incomplete as they are, agree that Extreme values are relatively rare, and that's the only area that actually exceeds PCs (well, and spell attack bonus specifically, but that's a separate and unrelated issue).
Remember, according to the monster building guidelines:
Low AC typically fits spellcasters, who compensate with their selection of powerful spells.
You're taking that sentence way out of context. They're saying that spellcasters are an example of someone who could have low AC, not that all spellcasters will. Indeed, on p. 59 of the GMG there are actual guidelines for making a spellcaster, and they say nothing about AC (meaning they advise defaulting to Moderate or High, like for most creatures). The only stats they actually advise as 'low' on spellcasters (which many of your examples don't qualify as, by the way, they reserve that classification for those with full spellcasting and high or extreme DCs) are Fortitude and HP.
In fact, let's read the whole section you quoted rather than cherry picking one sentence, shall we?
Because AC is one of the most important combat stats, you need to be more careful with setting this number for any creature you expect will end up in a fight. Low AC typically fits spellcasters, who compensate with their selection of powerful spells. Most creatures use high or moderate AC—high is comparable to what a PC fighter would have. Reserve extreme AC for a creature that is even better defended; these values are for creatures that have defenses similar in power to those of a champion or monk.
Bolding mine because it's relevant that the guidelines themselves say High should likely be at least as common as Moderate.
Likewise, let's examine what it says about attack bonus, shall we?
Use a high attack bonus for combat creatures—fighter types—that also usually have high damage. A creature could have a higher attack bonus and lower damage, or vice versa (for instance, a moderate attack bonus and extreme damage might fit a creature that’s more like a barbarian), instead of having a poor statistic in another category. Spellcasters typically have poor attack bonuses, potentially in exchange for extreme spell DCs.
Note that Poor is not a listed category, meaning it is used colloquially to refer to 'lower than combatants', which is to say either Moderate or Low. So, combatants have High Attack and High Damage by default, and anything less than that is 'poor'. Check.
The Hamadryad has High AC for her level, it's true. Her HP, however are well below Moderate even not counting her Weaknesses. She's very fragile for her level if you do manage to hit her...as is appropriate for a lithe and beautiful faerie queen. Likewise, her attack bonus is High...but her damage is Moderate, putting her attack at about what you'd expect of a caster of her level. Her Save DC is High, too, rather than the Extreme you might expect if her physical attacks were even weaker.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having already done about 75% of the work in this regard:
< Low: 1
Low: 15
Mod: 37
High: 127
Extreme: 13
> Extreme: 0This covers literally every monster from 10th level up (except a couple of the metallic dragons; their stats are very much in line with the others as well as good aligned, so not likely foes, but I'll get to them eventually) and a broad selection of monsters from -1 through 9 (I'm filling in that when I have time/inclination). Only Bestiary 1, Bestiary 2 is going to be its own long slog.
You can see what's accounted for here:
https://github.com/Draco18s/PF2StatisticsData/tree/master/Assets/Resources/ specific_monsters.If you're interested in other attributes:
** spoiler omitted **
Hey Draco, I just got around to looking at your dataset and oh my goodness this is pretty amazing. Thank you for posting this.
Uh...High Attack gives monsters almost exactly the same attack bonus as a Fighter of their level. That's higher than other martials, but those other martials make up for that in other ways, and that's only a two point difference, not the four or five needed to make a second attack equal a first attack.You're operating under the assumption that a monster should be equal in stats to PCs of its level. That's not how it works and that's not how the game is designed. Also, that ship sailed so long ago...No I am not. However when an even leveled monsters second attack has equal chances of hitting like a party martials first attack, that does for sure not counter the "we are not feeling like heroes but incompetent fools" general mood and related threads that are surfacing in this forum on a regular basis.
Well I don't claim that super high attack-values are the norm (usually it "only" is something like Fighter +1 due to better stats), however our party had a good & very bitter laugh when our GM revealed the attack stats on this one. Actually it was quite a "lol" moment.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well I don't claim that super high attack-values are the norm (usually it "only" is something like Fighter +1 due to better stats), however our party had a good & very bitter laugh when our GM revealed the attack stats on this one. Actually it was quite a "lol" moment.
** spoiler omitted **
It's usually only Fighter level by the math, often below.
And the creature in question is high at level 6 even for an Extreme attack. Frankly, looking at it, it's quite overtuned and almost certainly an error due to even AoA volume 2 being a very early book. Literally no other monster of level 6 has higher than a +18 to hit, and only two of them have even that, all the rest are +16 or +17, with the occasional +15. +20 is just completely beyond the pale and should not be on a level 6 creature, certainly not one that also has pretty good HP, AC, and damage.
In short, that monster specifcally is an outlier by quite a lot, and probably actively in need of errata.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That creature actually fits pretty close the the guidelines "base road maps" for a Brute sort of enemy (GMG sidebar p. 59), with the one detail that sticks out being that the +1 bonus from the +1 striking trident the creature is listed as packing has been added on top of its already Extreme attack bonus instead of being considered a part of it and other attacks lowered slightly to make the +1 appear.
This is not correct. The Brute recommends High Attack, while the creature in question has Extreme even without the trident.
The fact that it otherwise matches the Brute suggestions except for this being strictly higher than they suggest is a strong indicator of it being overtuned, frankly. It's just better than the guidelines say it should be.
That creature actually fits pretty close the the guidelines "base road maps" for a Brute sort of enemy (GMG sidebar p. 59), with the one detail that sticks out being that the +1 bonus from the +1 striking trident the creature is listed as packing has been added on top of its already Extreme attack bonus instead of being considered a part of it and other attacks lowered slightly to make the +1 appear.Well I don't claim that super high attack-values are the norm (usually it "only" is something like Fighter +1 due to better stats), however our party had a good & very bitter laugh when our GM revealed the attack stats on this one. Actually it was quite a "lol" moment.
** spoiler omitted **
Which is surely part of what DMW is suggesting - it is an error due to it being an early book where those tables were not finalised and it was clearly not understood that magic weapons were supposed to be included
Outliers are just that - outliers. And I am sure they existed in 1E as well. There are definite tales of creatures that didn’t fit the CR. Indeed some I can immediately think of come from the the first pathfinder AP - young templates on shadows that made them harder for lower CR and the infamous shadow triceratops
I did exactly what DMW did but to a lesser extent - filtered by level 6 and looked at the first 6-8. Most were 16 or 17.
I also did something similar with level 1 creatures when I first read the comment on (second attack equal or higher than PCs first attack) - and found that statement to be untrue there as well
That creature actually fits pretty close the the guidelines "base road maps" for a Brute sort of enemy (GMG sidebar p. 59), with the one detail that sticks out being that the +1 bonus from the +1 striking trident the creature is listed as packing has been added on top of its already Extreme attack bonus instead of being considered a part of it and other attacks lowered slightly to make the +1 appear.This is not correct. The Brute recommends High Attack, while the creature in question has Extreme even without the trident.
The fact that it otherwise matches the Brute suggestions except for this being strictly higher than they suggest is a strong indicator of it being overtuned, frankly. It's just better than the guidelines say it should be.
It could also just be taking into account the fact that the party is supposed to be Level 7 when they face it. Every encounter including that creature is a 7th Level Encounter.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It could also just be taking into account the fact that the party is supposed to be Level 7 when they face it. Every encounter including that creature is a 7th Level Encounter.
It could, but that's not how the monster creation rules are supposed to work. It'd be reasonable to just have the creature be level 7, and it'd be reasonable if it was worse at something to pay for its higher than normal attack, but it isn't, it's more or less exactly where the Brute template says it should be, except with +3 extra to attack.
Giving creatures bonuses beyond what they should have for their level is utterly antithetical to PF2's entire design and unambiguously an error.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Was this in real life, or on Roll20? Because my group is convinced that Roll20s RNG is borked. We've had entire sessions where nobody rolls above 10.
Roll20 because of the apocalypse.
And yes, we're pretty sure its borked too, but when we've gone and analyzed it (doing things like chi-squared tests) it comes out fine. Values higher than ten DO get rolled, they just tend to get rolled on other things, like initiative, or monster attack rolls, etc.Mind its been a while since we've done an analysis of it, but we have examined it before. And we're not the only ones. I've seen complaints on their forums that it never rolls BELOW ten for some people.
Generally, no, I don't think they are too high. Yes there are guidelines, but that doesn't remove the creative element infused in monster creation (thank goodness for that!).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Those are monster creation guidelines, not rules. Not every monster will follow that chart with precision. So, it could be an error on the designer, or it could be entirely intentional, but its not a violation of any rule or standard because there isn't one. NPCs, most of the time, hit those benchmarks. But that's not to say they always will.
The chapter is full of language like 'Should' 'be careful about' 'Most such creatures' 'reflect your intended design' and etc. It never tells you to full stop, don't do this thing. Just to be aware or careful of what it might mean.
Sure, but we're talking about a creature that just wildly violates those norms in one specific area, without any real compensatory weakness.
That's not a cool monster with unusual stats, it's straight-up overpowered and an error. Having a few of those in the game is inevitable while people get used to the guidelines, but let's not pretend they're not a bad thing when they show up. So far, to my knowledge, there've only been about one per AP, but it's a thing.
This is not correct."pretty close"
I wouldn't generally consider an arbitrary +2 to hit 'pretty close' to the same as not having such a bonus, though I suppose if they added the damage for the item after following the guidelines as well, it is pretty close (since that would put the 'base' creature at Extreme to-hit but Moderate damage), but +1 to-hit alone does not really explain the issue, which was my point.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my experience, martial characters tend to succeed on one or more things almost every round. I've rarely seen the monk I play with miss with both attacks with flurry of blows (and she only needs one to hit for stunning fist) and my champion always succeeds on at least one attack, trip, or demoralize each turn. In games that I run, players are consistently able to land their first attack on higher level monsters with high AC (an example I remember being the final boss of Plaguestone).
For spellcasters it's a bit more complicated, as they use the degrees of success system far more than martials do. But I can say that none of my spellcaster players have ever felt that their spells weren't impactful.
So I guess my point is that I've never experienced the complaint that attacks always miss.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
What does 'feel a hero' mean? Doing a routine job that could get a little problematic in a really unlucky day?
When you encounter that infamous dragon, with its nearly impenetrable scales, do you expect that wounding it will be trivial?
To me, the hero is one who manages to overcome difficulties that seemed above their weight at first.
Of course, adventures should be written in a way that make you feel your progress. If all the encounters are against level +3 enemies, then yeah, the feeling could be not the one I'm looking for.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whenever I see people referring to not "feeling like a hero" I always assume they mean something like:
- Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli wading through all the enemies at Helm's Deep
- The Avengers squishing mooks in all those big battle scenes
They tend to gloss over how when the Avengers are fighting one enemy that particular enemy is insanely strong and really giving them a massive beat down for a large part of the fight
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then why do you keep banging on about how it's the game's fault that you're rolling low when you're "pretty sure" it's the VTT you're using that's borked?
You rail on and on about your experience being evidence of an endemic design flaw, while other people are explaining they aren't experiencing nearly the level of failure that you are - and then casually "yeah, pretty sure it's Roll20 that's jacked"
Because mathematically it isn't borked?
Because we've used roll20 for PF1 and don't have these issues? Have we had occasional instances, sure. But it'll be bad one week and fine the next. PF2 was "bad, bad, worse, bad, and bad."
Because we've rolled physical dice and have had similar issues?
Because I can objectively point to specific instances where something isn't working as the marketing tells me it should work?
Because I'm not the only one complaining? I'll point out because apparently it isn't obvious: I have not started a single thread regarding PF2's balance.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You might just be bad at statistics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chi-squared_test
I've done this on real dice and against roll20. I'll do it again if you really want me to. Hell, I'll do it on the dice rolled during our Plaguestone game if you really want me to.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because I'm not the only one complaining? I'll point out because apparently it isn't obvious: I have not started a single thread regarding PF2's balance.
I really think the reason why people are complaining is that they got used to the complete absence of challenge in PF1 once you were reaching the mid levels. And it's very easy to get in PF2, just use PF1 encounter building rules, considering that an enemy of level X is equivalent to a Challenge Rating X enemy. And it works fine again.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think personal attacks are anywhere close to useful...
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly agree with Draco18s that games should have mechanics that help to mitigate bad rolls, allow for you to push the odds in your favor, and generally allow for characters to reliably succeed at things they are good at.
I just happen to think that PF2E already is such a game.
Hes also not wrong for highlighting that the use of "High" for values that are normal (as opposed to the common association for the term High, which implies greater than normal) may be somewhat confusing.
I dont think the current rules or guidelines are broken by any means in how they're applied in the game, but its valid observation.
I really think the reason why people are complaining is that they got used to the complete absence of challenge in PF1 once you were reaching the mid levels. And it's very easy to get in PF2, just use PF1 encounter building rules, considering that an enemy of level X is equivalent to a Challenge Rating X enemy. And it works fine again.
Because I'm not the only one complaining? I'll point out because apparently it isn't obvious: I have not started a single thread regarding PF2's balance.
Thinking more about it, I think the best way to get PF1 experience back in PF2 is to add one level to all monsters at level 5, 10, 15 and 20. So, starting at level 5, the game will feel way easier but not trivial, like in PF1. By level 10, the game will start being trivial and players will ask for "imbalanced" encounters like in PF1.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
My Level 13 PF1 game was at the point where if I didn't edit the enemies they would pretty much never hit my AC obsessed players.
My PCs would never miss their first and second attacks (and one PC was a supercharging kineticst which compounds the "auto hit" problem)
They would also almost never fail a save. Even a "low" save would only be failed against the written DC on maybe a 3 or 4.
When you are spending hours prepping and playing a game that is basically only about rolling dice to see if 1's or 20's come up it is a little frustrating. And attempts to counter the balance take a lot of work and can accidentally go too far (for example increasing strength to boost attack rolls per the mechanics of 1E gives loads of bonus damage or increasing dex for finesse enemies gives bonus AC)
So I am biased in this but I for one welcome our new "dice rolling matters" overlords.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You might just be bad at statistics.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chi-squared_test
I've done this on real dice and against roll20. I'll do it again if you really want me to. Hell, I'll do it on the dice rolled during our Plaguestone game if you really want me to.
Roll20 already does a pretty good job of verifying the validity of their rolls. You can see a summary at: https://app.roll20.net/home/quantum . I've had a session where it seemed like no one could every roll a reasonable number, but when you look through the rolls, or apply a few statistics to them they are actually fine, the bad numbers just happen to land in bad places.
On the topic of monster AC values in general, I'm a huge fan of some of the implications that the current accuracy paradigm enables. Largest of those is how much it enables small buffs, and bonuses to actually matter. The +-10 system eliminates the plateaus I often saw/see in other systems, where a bonus really just doesn't matter, or matters so trivially that its not worth any action/investment.
I've been running 2 sessions a week of Second edition pathfinder (for 2 different groups) since the system came out, and I've had 2 sessions where I've seen what you've described (one of each group), where it seems like the dice are cursed, and nothing can ever succeed. What I have had great success at is calling out when those small bonuses mattered, and its really changed how my groups play. The players actively hunt down those little turn by turn bonuses. Both of those cursed sessions had circumstances where the players didn't try and get those bonuses (for various, totally reasonable reasons). AC/defenses in general seem to be well, hard to beat on their own, but almost perfectly on that line, so that even small bonuses start to skew things drastically.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then why do you keep banging on about how it's the game's fault that you're rolling low when you're "pretty sure" it's the VTT you're using that's borked?
You rail on and on about your experience being evidence of an endemic design flaw, while other people are explaining they aren't experiencing nearly the level of failure that you are - and then casually "yeah, pretty sure it's Roll20 that's jacked"
Because mathematically it isn't borked?
Because we've used roll20 for PF1 and don't have these issues? Have we had occasional instances, sure. But it'll be bad one week and fine the next. PF2 was "bad, bad, worse, bad, and bad."
Because we've rolled physical dice and have had similar issues?
Because I can objectively point to specific instances where something isn't working as the marketing tells me it should work?
Because I'm not the only one complaining? I'll point out because apparently it isn't obvious: I have not started a single thread regarding PF2's balance.
You join in the refrain that "the math is bad" in EVERY THREAD YOU ENCOUNTER. It's always "PF2 is fail, fail fail." "bad, bad, worse, bad, and bad" as if your personal anecdotal experience is a feature of the game.
When other people tell you they're not having the same experience your response is blather on about the statistics of it supporting what you say and talking over the three people describing a different experience. It's kind of the same as stating that 66% of Monsters behave a certain way 3 posts away from where you freely admit you have yet to input all the raw data. It's a snap judgement you've made based on incomplete information or unscientific observation.
It's an axe, and if you keep grinding it - it won't remain one for long.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You join in the refrain that "the math is bad" in EVERY THREAD YOU ENCOUNTER. It's always "PF2 is fail, fail fail." "bad, bad, worse, bad, and bad" as if your personal anecdotal experience is a feature of the game.
So, if I complain about my experience, I get asked for data.
When other people tell you they're not having the same experience your response is blather on about the statistics of it supporting what you say and talking over the three people describing a different experience.
When I present data, I get asked for my experience.
Now I've done both and am told I'm talking over other people's experiences?
Where did I say "no your experience is irrelevant"? I'm the one who's been told my experience is irrelevant and brushed aside by "roll20's RNG is bad, don't let that color your experience" despite the actual mountain of rigorous evidence that roll20's RNG is not bad.
It's kind of the same as stating that 66% of Monsters behave a certain way 3 posts away from where you freely admit you have yet to input all the raw data. It's a snap judgement you've made based on incomplete information or unscientific observation.
Ok, so (1) when I posted that 66% number I said "66% in the data set" and already stated it was incomplete. No really, here's the post. I even linked TO the data set so that it could be observed. The "75% complete" number isn't accurate, but it was a "I've done some work, quite a bit, more than you did by looking at only monsters starting with the letter A" comment, not a rigorous percentage.
(2) The "snap judgement" as you call it can't really be snap if the conclusion is both (a) supported by the GM guidelines and (b) one drawn from literal hours of data entry.
(3) The whole reason I'm even doing the data analysis in the first place is to figure out why my expectations don't line up with my experience.
What is it that you actually want from me?
Oh, and I didn't come into this thread to b!!~&, I came into this thread to post the data. That data was then belittled, despite being more rigorous than what the OP posted.