| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not Applicable. NPC and monster modifiers do not break into components like PC stats. They're built top down, starting from the end result, not bottom up like PCs.
Rewind your thinking to how NPCs get built.
NPCs do not use bonuses because they do not get built from the ground up (as contrasted with PF2 PCs and PF1 everything). So they were given that attack bonus and given that damage number so that they fall within the parameters of their Level. Most are built at the highest end of attack bonus and an average amount of damage (according to the charts in the GMG).
So in many ways they're built like Fighters, except they're not Fighters, have feats & abilities unavailable to Fighters, and may lack other Fighter traits because the NPCs aren't any class at all, even when they borrow a majority of their abilities from a class.* They also tend to lack the weapons of a PC, yet still get damage that mirrors a similar level PC. And while a PC has peaks and valleys in their progression (when proficiency jumps or a new die is added to their weapon), NPCs tend to have a smoother progression which gives them an advantage at several levels.
So how did they get those numbers?
By their creator's estimation of what would make a fair and exciting encounter for that level based on numeric parameters which we can reference in the GMG.**
*There are a few specific NPCs that were built using PC rules.
** There are some creatures, i.e. the Lich, which break these parameters, usually to highlight an iconic ability.
Also, NPCs tend to have a higher attack value so they can legitimately threaten PCs that are a higher levels, though NPC damage tends to be lower to compensate. Giving NPCs a lower attack and higher damage makes battles more variable (which favors the underdog, usually not the PCs).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Modifiers to damage tend to skew high to stand in for magic items, so that NPCs don't shower the party with expensive gear compared to non-NPC creatures of their level.
So, a level 7 Gang Leader gets +10 to their damage rolls, which is a fair amount, but a level 7 rogue built similarly to the gang leader would get an extra 1d6 from a striking weapon, giving them a similar average result despite the lower modifier.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Gamemastery Guide has a whole section on how to build Creatures and explains how the modifiers are chosen. This explanation is available on AoN Here. Very good read and gives you more insight into why certain enemies have weird stats.
The attack and damage bonuses both seem pretty high to me.
For attack, most NPCs & monsters match a Fighter of the same level (even w/o using the Fighter's equipment so be wary about improving NPC equipment!) That's about as high as it goes (though a Fighter with supportive friends gets even higher).
A Barbarian w/ a level-appropriate d12 weapon plus energy Runes & Rage is high damage (w/ maybe an expensive poison on their weapon for extra measure!). Most NPCs don't get that high (though some nastier monsters are in that range!). They're more like a Fighter w/ Barb MCD (so not the full Barb Rage bonus). Some even do less damage than regular NPCs because they have another damage source to stack on (i.e. Pack Attack).
And some damage can actually be mediocre because it's the base damage for an AoE attack, most often Trample.
As well as being built to have strong combat stats without magic (due to treasure issues), many NPCs also seem to have "teamwork" bonuses worked in. So when your party's flanking and at later levels might be assumed to have spell buffs up, NPCs come in with similar numbers sans buffs or allies to flank with. This is also reason to be wary about letting NPCs pre-buff, since they're already buffed to be competitive.
Ultimately NPC & monster building is more an art with finesse than a science with rigor. Comparing NPCs & monsters that have the same level will usually reveal the give & take. Same goes for AC/Saves vs. Hit Points.
The thing about NPCs is that for 99% of them, they are "on screen" for all of 3 rounds, maybe 5. They also only get 3 actions each round. So this stat block get between 9 and 15 TOTAL actions, maybe a bit more if they have Reactions. For a single NPC to be a threat, they have to hit HARD. If they don't, if the PCs don't have to use actions in damage mitigation (moving away, raising shields, healing etc.) then they get to use their 12 action in a round to pound the NPC into submission while the NPC gets maybe 2 hit in.
My making the NPC hit hard, it increases their survivability, keeping them upright for 3 rounds instead of 1 1/2. This makes for more interesting combats. Fights where everyone just runs up and starts to whale on each other gets boring. Dynamic fights where you are running around the battlefield dodging in and out of combat is interesting.
As the others above said, some (or quite a lot of) verisimilitude behind the scenes were sacrificed for the sake of smoother gameplay. I personally loathe it even now, but had since adapted to the tragic fact than newer RPGs seem to forsake simulationism one by one for a supposed "ease of play".
Whether you decide to engage in a burning crusade against the fact that the supposedly hard hitting sword you looted from the bandit boss was anything but magically strong, or not, is up to you (though I cannot guarantee if you get to stay in a team without getting evicted if the former).
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just to be clear, there are rules for creating an NPC as if it were a player, but they warn that they can be extra challenging since they can end up having a huge toolkit, and is best saved for reoccurring characters, like allies or a villain that always comes back. Making every creature like a player would be very time consuming, rather than just slapping some suggested stats together based on how challenging they should be.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
As the others above said, some (or quite a lot of) verisimilitude behind the scenes were sacrificed for the sake of smoother gameplay. I personally loathe it even now, but had since adapted to the tragic fact than newer RPGs seem to forsake simulationism one by one for a supposed "ease of play".
Whether you decide to engage in a burning crusade against the fact that the supposedly hard hitting sword you looted from the bandit boss was anything but magically strong, or not, is up to you (though I cannot guarantee if you get to stay in a team without getting evicted if the former).
Who's said verisimilitude has been sacrificed?
Nothing in-game gets changed by having various meta/mechanical approaches to builds. It's not like characters have their levels stamped on them or have other in-game trackers. And it'd be jarring if their were. "Hey, you're only level X, you shouldn't be able to do Y amount of damage without a magic weapon because PCs can't!" seems more destructive to verisimilitude.
One could think of the level system as NPCs getting to a certain challenge level by actually being better than PCs who need gear to get to become as dangerous. Someone "as good" as a magic-less PC shouldn't be the same level in combat as the PC due to lack of PC level equipment to get those final numbers high enough. That is if one wants Level to have meaning when determining threat levels.
Or one could convert PCs over to automatic progression so loot & gear are less relevant to power. Problem solved.
Or do like Gygax did w/ the Drow who needed lots of magic to compete with much higher level PCs. Have much of the magic crumble or dissolve in sunlight or if away from Drow HQ too long.
So that "hard hitting sword" would be faulty perception, since it's the bandit boss doing the hard hitting w/ a lesser sword. He's that good, and it's going to be tough to take him down! (Even though net, he might only be the PCs' level of threat!)
And simulationism seems more a matter of granularity within the game world than the parity between PCs & NPCs you seem to be lamenting the loss of. Nearly all RPGs lack both. Anyway, I'll stop there before taking the thread on a tangent into RPG marketing and design.
So that "hard hitting sword" would be faulty perception, since it's the bandit boss doing the hard hitting w/ a lesser sword. He's that good, and it's going to be tough to take him down! (Even though net, he might only be the PCs' level of threat!)
I agree with this 100%. This is a guy or gal that is so awesome, that without any magical weapons, they were able to get more than a dozen other brigands (a chaotic group at best) to not only fight but DIE for him. He's got to be pretty impressive to do that.
I was just replying to Castilliano who said NPCs had high attack bonuses, but low damage bonuses.
To me, they both seem high.
Oh, not "low" damage. Except maybe at the lowest levels "0" & "-1" where their attacks are proportionally even higher, like a level 1 just for half the damage, and they'll always be fighting higher level PCs.
Just not highest damage. Most monsters have a similar offense to a min-maxed Fighter, so the highest attack possible, and a solid damage (but not on the level of a min-maxed Barbarian). Non-monster NPCs have more diversity than that, yet are often still superior to a run-of-the-mill build. They're more like a build w/ an MCD or even Dual Class.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The attack and damage bonuses both seem pretty high to me.
The stats of a level 5 NPC are not "skip the math and simulate a level 5 PC".
They're "skip the math and get a monster designed to challenge a party of four level 5 PCs."
It's a subtle but important difference, kind of like the difference between miles and miles per hour.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The stats of a level 5 NPC are not "skip the math and simulate a level 5 PC".They're "skip the math and get a monster designed to challenge a party of four level 5 PCs."
That's incorrect. A level 5 NPC is graded as a "trivial" threat to a party of four level 5 characters (40 XP for an at-level NPC).
Four level 5 NPCs however would be an extreme threat to a party of four level 5 PCs (4x40 = 160 XP) and an extreme threat is characterized as
"so dangerous that they are likely to be an even match for the characters."
So a level 5 NPC is meant to be roughly comparable to a level 5 PC. The rules for building NPCs using PC rules even explicitly say as much.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The stats of a level 5 NPC are not "skip the math and simulate a level 5 PC".They're "skip the math and get a monster designed to challenge a party of four level 5 PCs."
That's incorrect. A level 5 NPC is graded as a "trivial" threat to a party of four level 5 characters (40 XP for an at-level NPC).
Four level 5 NPCs however would be an extreme threat to a party of four level 5 PCs (4x40 = 160 XP) and an extreme threat is characterized as
"so dangerous that they are likely to be an even match for the characters."So a level 5 NPC is meant to be roughly comparable to a level 5 PC. The rules for building NPCs using PC rules even explicitly say as much.
The point isn't how much of a challenge the NPC is - the point is that their role is to be a challenge in opposition to the PCs. That's why the numbers aren't scaled the same way PC scores are, and why they can seem so high.
All the damage bonuses I've seen for enemy NPCs, not necessarily monsters, are higher than could be gotten with any character but a raging barbarian.I was just replying to Castilliano who said NPCs had high attack bonuses, but low damage bonuses.
To me, they both seem high.
Oh, not "low" damage. Except maybe at the lowest levels "0" & "-1" where their attacks are proportionally even higher, like a level 1 just for half the damage, and they'll always be fighting higher level PCs.
Just not highest damage. Most monsters have a similar offense to a min-maxed Fighter, so the highest attack possible, and a solid damage (but not on the level of a min-maxed Barbarian). Non-monster NPCs have more diversity than that, yet are often still superior to a run-of-the-mill build. They're more like a build w/ an MCD or even Dual Class.
I habitually run the numbers through my head, so have evaluated nearly every monster and most NPCs. One thing to note in doing this is to assume the NPC w/o magic still has to do the damage of a PC w/ level-appropriate magic AND Dedications. Otherwise yes, the NPCs will nearly always have higher bonuses than a PC because those bonuses stand in for that magic.
So I'm talking about the final average damage comparison, no matter how they go there. (Also notable, with all or nearly all of their attack options!)So an 8th level PC Fighter might have a 2d12 weapon, +3 from Weapon Specialization, and +4 from 19 Str. So 20 average damage, except we're not done. Don't forget the energy Rune for +3.5 and maybe the Rage of an MCD Barbarian for +2 more. 25.5 average damage.
An 8th level NPC should then do around that damage, except usually the die type will change to suit the weapon they use and maybe they'll do it all based on one die to simulate their weapon isn't magical.
An Assassin (Level 8) does 2d6+4 + 2d4 poison + 2d6 Sneak Attack for 23 At range, so no Rage +2. That's actually high for a ranged attack, but it's also circumstantial because Sneak Attack works poorly at range (though the Assassin has two rounds of tricks for that). And poisoning the weapon takes an action so Assassins would make poor bosses (w/ such a hampered 2nd attack), yet fine minions (putting all their eggs in their first Strike, plus flanking).
In melee their attack drops by 2 (which is about 1/4 less net damage!) but then they'll also be flanking, one would hope. So their sneak damage becomes more reliable and their total's 1d6+8 + 2d4 +2d6 = 23.5. So still comparable to a Fighter except w/o MCD Barb, though more likely to match using a deadly weapon (which both both of the Assassin's are.) Swap d10s (as if using a d10 deadly scythe instead of normal d12 weapon) into the Fighter calculations above and we've got comparable damage.
So we get Fighter: 2d10 (Deadly d10) + 3 WS + 4 Str + 2 (mini-Rage) + 3.5 energy Rune = 25.5.
Assassin: 2d6 + 4 (Deadly 2d10(!)) + 2d4 poison + 2d6 SA = 23 (ranged)
or 1d8 + 8 (Deadly 1d8) + 2d4 poison + 2d6 SA = 24.5 (melee)
At this point one might ask where the +8 damage on the Assassin's rapier comes from, right? It comes from the Assassin being a Level 8 threat with that rapier & needing more damage, and that's it. It's not tied to any class abilities, stats, or magic of theirs; just needing them to hit like a level 8 truck. (So in-game, they likely appear superior to a level 8 PC who does rely on magic to be a level 8 threat.)
Looking at giants, the Marsh Giant (8) does 21 damage w/ 10' Reach and a 2-action +3d6 Bleed maneuver or 21 damage w/ great range.
Stone Giants do 23 damage w/ 10' Reach (and a +1 attack advantage over the Marsh G. & Assassin's bow) and a maneuver to move the opponent while doing 5 (or 10 on crit) extra damage; plus throwing for 19 (which seems a travesty given their tradition role as thrower!)
So they and the Assassin are doing less damage than the min-maxed Fighter PC except 8th is also strong level for PCs (w/ wealth!) because they just got Weapon Specialization at 7th and energy Runes at 8th (again, if wealthy). At 9th, the NPCs & monsters will go up in damage while the PC won't (until 10th w/ a 20 Str.)
Attack bonuses:
Fighter: +8 level + 6 Master + 4 Str + 1 weapon = +19
(But higher damage if min-maxed)
Assassin: +20 bow, +18 rapier
Marsh Giant: +20 melee, +20 ranged
Stone Giant: +21 melee, +18 ranged :(
All that said, I'd fear the wealthy, min-maxed PC Fighter most in melee because they're only using a basic Strike in the example plus they'll likely have a cool Press Attack option for their 2nd Strike!
Though yes, it'd be very difficult for a Fighter to do that AND get such a great ranged attack AND get all those Assassin skills. The Assassin has to fill all those Assassin roles at level 8 even when alone, while a PC gets to/has to work with a party to fulfill a broader swath of roles.
A better match-up might have been Fighter w/ MCD Rogue for +1d6 Sneak Attack and a comparable range of skills, but it's still hard to match an NPC's or monster's breadth of "Fighter level" attack options when a Fighter's limited to one weapon group (w/ a few exceptions).
Modifiers to damage tend to skew high to stand in for magic items, so that NPCs don't shower the party with expensive gear compared to non-NPC creatures of their level.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Modifiers to damage tend to skew high to stand in for magic items, so that NPCs don't shower the party with expensive gear compared to non-NPC creatures of their level.Oh really?
Yes, really. So far (into book 3 of AoA) they seem to be pretty neatly following the guidelines in the GMG for NPC gear:
ITEMS
If you gave a creature gear equivalent to a PC, your PCs would gain a huge amount of treasure by defeating a large group of them. Using Table 2–4: Safe Items can help you avoid that. A creature can have a single permanent item of the listed level without issue. For example, if a 6th-level creature has a +1 weapon, that item’s not worth so much that the PCs would be massively rich if they encountered many creatures of that type and sold everything they found.
When our level 10 party beats up a whole bunch of goons with +1 striking weapons, that doesn't make us rich. We don't really have a use for ten low-level weapons. But selling them is only 500gp. We made a lot more money selling their moderate quality manacles (250gp / 2 = 125gp). We're joking that our struggle against the bad guys is actually an iron mining operation.
Modifiers to damage tend to skew high to stand in for magic items, so that NPCs don't shower the party with expensive gear compared to non-NPC creatures of their level.Oh really?
That's not a by-level analysis nor does it compare NPC gear/treasure to non-NPC creatures' or PCs'. So it fails to even address Fowlj's point much less refute it.
Look at the Level 8 Assassin mentioned above.
It has only one at-level permanent item, their +1 Striking shortbow (suitable levels 4-9ish for PCs) and one below-level item, their +1 rapier (suitable levels 2-3ish). So the bow drops as loot way after PCs would acquire that item, perhaps w/ an elemental Rune on their favorite. And there's likely Striking on their alternate weapon as well. Meanwhile the Assassin doesn't even have magic armor yet still has AC as if Trained and wearing +1 Armor. Nor do they have skill-bonus items yet they still have Stealth as high as a PC w/ normal wealth could get it.
They're under-equipped if a PC, yet have PC numbers. Plus, isn't there commentary in the books about the treasure discrepancy that can arise by equipping NPCs too much?
ETA: Ascalaphus found such a comment. :)
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
<rant>
One of the most pernicious habits of the old system was "clever use of templates" as well as adding class levels to monsters, to make monsters with stats that were actually quite far apart from the intended numbers.
Like a writer for a level 4-5 adventure for 6 players is trying to make a CR 5 boss (along with some mooks) - sounds like a reasonable CR for such a large party. But then the writer takes a basic CR 1 ghoul, promotes it to ghast (~+1 CR Advanced template), and adds 5 rogue levels which are counted as ~+3 CR.
However, the final monster has AC 4 over normal for its CR, 2 more HP, 3 attacks at +1 above a "high" attack modifier for that level, damage that's 20% over recommended, paralysis DC +1 over recommended on each of those attacks, and 2d6 sneak attack on those attacks which would put the monster at 220% of recommended damage, good save at +3 over recommended and bad save at +2.
Compared to the Bestiary monster creation tables, this monster should be somewhere in the CR 6-8 range. But the writer gets to put their "clever" monster in the adventure. Who's getting fooled here? The editor? The GM and players?
This is basically saying "I want to have a really really hard CR 5 monster". No, what you actually want is a CR 7 monster, but the editor who gave you this adventure to write told you that you only have X encounter budget and you're trying to circumvent that.
If CR is supposed to be a useful tool for building encounters ("I want this to be X hard, so I take a level X monster") then the numbers need to be accurate. The easiest way by far to do that is to just set the numbers to what you need them to be, rather than having some convoluted internal character building system for monsters.
Put in another way - the only way the players experience the monsters is the "surface" numbers. And actually, also for the GM to use the monster in practice, it's also the outside of the monster that matters, not how it was originally designed. So why even have a system for their internal construction, if you're just going to have to squeeze it to fit outside numbers anyway?
It's perfectly fine to want a difficult encounter - but call a spade a spade and just admit that what you're using is a higher level monster. Be honest to yourself at least.
</rant>
I still shudder at the 10th-level commoner bodaks our party fought. The commoner levels (being commoner levels) only add a small amount to their CR, but it was enough to skyrocket their death gaze DC. Bastards just stood back, taking the total defense action while waiting for us all to eventually fail our saves.
One of the most lopsided broken custom encounters I had ever faced.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
RANTI like this rant. It made me realize why I always disliked dragons in 3.X editions, because they feel like they are following the "clever monster" rules, but as base creatures, and not even all that cleverly, given that their formula was spells + lots of attacks + best options for other statistics.
Dragons are an interesting example yes. It's fundamentally just not being honest with yourself. Instead of saying "I want a monster that's really hard for CR 10 because it's a dragon", you could just be honest. You could say "normally for an encounter for level 7 characters, I would use at most a CR 10 boss, but because this is a dragon, I'm willing to use CR 11, because any time you meet a dragon boss, it should be brown pants time".
The whole point of CR/monster levels is that you can compare monsters. One CR 10 monster shouldn't be much more powerful than another CR 10 monster, otherwise CR becomes useless. The whole point is that CR allows you to quickly see if a monster is reasonable for your party, and for that the metric needs to be honest.
One of the most pernicious habits of the old system was "clever use of templates" as well as adding class levels to monsters, to make monsters with stats that were actually quite far apart from the intended numbers.
In my 9 years of GMing Pathfinder, both 1st Edition and 2nd Edition, I have regularly needed to buff up encounters. My players are highly skilled and my parties are often oversized. Sometimes I make an encounter more threatening simply by adding more monsters. Yet in a battle where a single monster is the key combatant, I have to level up the monster.
The so-called clever use of templates described by Ascalaphus is the wrong way to level up a monster for a game. I don't want the most powerful monster for the encounter. I want a monster whose power is predictable for an encounter of exactly the threat level I wanted. The CR has to be accurate.
My usual technique, in both PF1 and PF2, is to decide what PC class and level the foe most resembles. Then I look at what the next two class levels offer. Do they fit the foe? Or do they clash with its design? Monsters that don't resemble a humanoid PC with class levels would use templates instead of levels or copy abilities from much higher-level versions of the species, but fitting the original concept at a higher CR is still the main design criterion.
I usually use the NPCs from the Gamemastery Guide as friendly characters, so I don't need to level them up. Once in converting the CR 4 troglodyte oracle Ighiz (Trail of the Hunted page 60) to PF2, I started with the Zealot of Asmodeus, creature 4, page 213 of the Gamemastery Guide, and switched him to female xulgath worshipping a different god with different domains. PF2 lacked an official oracle class at the time, and the options from the oracle playtest did not fit.
Modifiers to damage tend to skew high to stand in for magic items, so that NPCs don't shower the party with expensive gear compared to non-NPC creatures of their level.Oh really?That's not a by-level analysis nor does it compare NPC gear/treasure to non-NPC creatures' or PCs'. So it fails to even address Fowlj's point much less refute it.
Look at the Level 8 Assassin mentioned above.
It has only one at-level permanent item, their +1 Striking shortbow (suitable levels 4-9ish for PCs) and one below-level item, their +1 rapier (suitable levels 2-3ish). So the bow drops as loot way after PCs would acquire that item, perhaps w/ an elemental Rune on their favorite. And there's likely Striking on their alternate weapon as well. Meanwhile the Assassin doesn't even have magic armor yet still has AC as if Trained and wearing +1 Armor. Nor do they have skill-bonus items yet they still have Stealth as high as a PC w/ normal wealth could get it.
They're under-equipped if a PC, yet have PC numbers. Plus, isn't there commentary in the books about the treasure discrepancy that can arise by equipping NPCs too much?
In my conversion of Ironfang Invasion to PF2 I mostly convert hobgoblins, the main enemy in the adventure path. The hobgoblins I directly convert from the PF1 modules have more magic items than the hobgoblins I borrow from the PF2 Bestiary. Look at Hobgoblin Archer, creature 4. It has no magic items. Yet its crossbow attack is enhanced:
Ranged [Single Action] crossbow +14 [+9/+4] (range increment 120 feet, reload 1), Damage 1d8+2 piercing plus crossbow precisionCrossbow Precision The first time the archer hits with a crossbow attack in a round, it deals 1d8 extra precision damage.
The archer has Dex +4 and level 4, so that explains +8 of the +14 attack bonus for the crossbow. Expert crossbow proficiency would give another +4. That still leaves +2 unexplained. Crossbow precision resembles a ranger's Precision Edge, but it is limited to the crossbow and does not require Hunt Prey beforehand. Hobgoblin is a playable race, but I would be unable to give that +14 and crossbow precision to a hobgoblin PC.
The Bounty Hunter, creature 4, in the Gamemastery Guide has those crossbow abilities, too. That NPC has a Hunt Prey ability based on the ranger's Outwit Edge, so its precision damage for the crossbow gives it two different Hunter's Edge abilities.
PF2 opponents typically have fewer skills and feats, so I envision them trading away their feats for higher numbers. When I designed PF1 monsters, I preferred giving them purely numerical feats such as Weapon Proficiency, because I lacked the time to master complicated feats. The PF2 opponents appear to use the same design philosophy, high numbers instead of high complexity. The shortage of feats often makes them one-trick characters, a weakness that my players exploit to win.
I suspect the Hobgoblin Archer has some numbers tied to how it will likely only attack once/round. Also, even with the +1d8, its damage is on the modest side. Compare to Fighters or Rangers w/ bows who'd shoot two decent shots for about the same damage each (if a PC w/ Striking weapon), or more damage if a Precision Ranger. But two shots with lower attack bonus leads to more fluctuation than one shot with a higher attack bonus.
The design (along w/ Perfect Aim & a crossbow instead of a bow w/ Deadly) gives them more consistent damage, and keeps them a threat against higher level enemies for quite awhile without giving them awkward damage spikes (or at least giving them fewer). And their ability to move (or use Formation) is remarkable enough to keep them viable defensively for some time too.
It's a mediocre boss build, but a fine thug build and excellent minion build.
Separately I'd say most PF2 creatures are two-trick ponies.
They nearly always have some form of backup attack, often ranged on creatures you wouldn't necessarily expect it on. Lots of set pieces getting tossed around. :)
|
|
PF2 monsters do tend to be a bit better about having both a ranged an melee plan yeah, and also the 3-action economy means that you can often spend 2 actions to move to catch up with and then 1 to attack a PC who's spending one action to move and 2 to "do a thing" like casting a spell, even when the PC is moving smart and has a higher move speed. But of course the price you pay is attacking only once, so it's a fair trade.
I suspect the Hobgoblin Archer has some numbers tied to how it will likely only attack once/round. Also, even with the +1d8, its damage is on the modest side. Compare to Fighters or Rangers w/ bows who'd shoot two decent shots for about the same damage each (if a PC w/ Striking weapon), or more damage if a Precision Ranger. But two shots with lower attack bonus leads to more fluctuation than one shot with a higher attack bonus.
The design (along w/ Perfect Aim & a crossbow instead of a bow w/ Deadly) gives them more consistent damage, and keeps them a threat against higher level enemies for quite awhile without giving them awkward damage spikes (or at least giving them fewer). And their ability to move (or use Formation) is remarkable enough to keep them viable defensively for some time too.
It's a mediocre boss build, but a fine thug build and excellent minion build.Separately I'd say most PF2 creatures are two-trick ponies.
They nearly always have some form of backup attack, often ranged on creatures you wouldn't necessarily expect it on. Lots of set pieces getting tossed around. :)
Castilliano has the mathematics of swingy damage backwards. Two shots with lower attack bonus has less fluctuation than one shot with a higher attack bonus.
For example, consider the Crossbow Precision case. Compare a Hobgoblin Archer getting one shot per turn with a crossbow that deals 2d8 damage due to Crossbow Precision, with another archer that takes two shots per turn with a ranged weapon that deals 1d8 damage. The Hobgoblin Archer has two possible outcomes in a turn: a miss for 0 damage or a hit for 2d8 damage. The other archer has four possible outcomes in a turn: two misses for 0 damage, the 1st shot missing and the 2nd hitting for 1d8 damage, the 1st shot hitting and the 2ndd missing for 1d8 damage, and both shots hitting for 2d8 total damage. The two outcomes of 1d8 make the other archer's damage per turn closer to the average, which is less swingy. For further study, read up on the Central Limit Theorem upon which D&D and Pathfinder rely to keep combat damage within bounds (for easier viewing, see a video of the Central Limit Theorem with dragon cards).
A +1 striking weapon is a 4th-level magic weapon, so the Bestiary developers are not giving one of those to a nameless creature 4, for reasons discussed above. Therefore, a creature 4 has special abilities to get as much damage out of a lesser weapon as a PC would get out of a level-appropriate weapon.
Furthermore, I think that the Hobgoblin Archer has a crossbow instead of a longbow for flavor purposes. The longbow is associated with the English yeoman landowners of 13th to 15th centuries. It is a weapon for respected combatants. The Hobgoblin Archers are supposed to be regular recruits, so they were given the crossbows, a simple weapon for a simple soldier.
By coincidence, I am converting the PF1 Hobgoblin Lieutenant to PF2 today. It is a ranger 5 with NPC stats, so its challenge is CR 4. It has a longbow and a pair of masterwork sickles for Double Slice. More significantly, it is built like a PC except for lesser stats and lesser gear. The PF2 Hobgoblin Archer is easier to play. I would just use the Hobgoblin Archer, but the Hobgoblin Lieutenant is needed in a melee role that the archer would not fit.
I suspect the Hobgoblin Archer has some numbers tied to how it will likely only attack once/round. Also, even with the +1d8, its damage is on the modest side. Compare to Fighters or Rangers w/ bows who'd shoot two decent shots for about the same damage each (if a PC w/ Striking weapon), or more damage if a Precision Ranger. But two shots with lower attack bonus leads to more fluctuation than one shot with a higher attack bonus.
The design (along w/ Perfect Aim & a crossbow instead of a bow w/ Deadly) gives them more consistent damage, and keeps them a threat against higher level enemies for quite awhile without giving them awkward damage spikes (or at least giving them fewer). And their ability to move (or use Formation) is remarkable enough to keep them viable defensively for some time too.
It's a mediocre boss build, but a fine thug build and excellent minion build.Separately I'd say most PF2 creatures are two-trick ponies.
They nearly always have some form of backup attack, often ranged on creatures you wouldn't necessarily expect it on. Lots of set pieces getting tossed around. :)Castilliano has the mathematics of swingy damage backwards. Two shots with lower attack bonus has less fluctuation than one shot with a higher attack bonus.
For example, consider the Crossbow Precision case. Compare a Hobgoblin Archer getting one shot per turn with a crossbow that deals 2d8 damage due to Crossbow Precision, with another archer that takes two shots per turn with a ranged weapon that deals 1d8 damage. The Hobgoblin Archer has two possible outcomes in a turn: a miss for 0 damage or a hit for 2d8 damage. The other archer has four possible outcomes in a turn: two misses for 0 damage, the 1st shot missing and the 2nd hitting for 1d8 damage, the 1st shot hitting and the 2ndd missing for 1d8 damage, and both shots hitting for 2d8 total damage. The two outcomes of 1d8 make the other archer's damage per turn closer to the average, which is less swingy. For further...
If you lower the base damage to 1d8, yes. Duh. You're just spreading out the same damage potential which isn't what I was doing. Doing that also lowers the average damage significantly, too low I'd say for a 4th level threat (unless one increases the attack far too much).
To maintain damage parity, the new weapon would have a similar +1d8/round ability. And I was referencing bows which have Deadly d10 on top. And if an NPC is built like a PC, they do get the Striking weapon, it's just recommended not to build more than a few this way due to treasure issues. Yet if only similar to a PC, the NPCs still have comparable damage to a Striking weapon due to level determining appropriate damage. The final builds to compare should have similar DPR, in which case I think the crossbow build becomes less swingy (especially when fighting upward against PCs).
So it's miss/2d8+2 (often)/crit x2 (only on 20 in most cases)
vs. miss/2d8+2 (less often)/crit x 2 +1d10 (on 20) AND
miss/1d8 or 2d8+2 (even less often)/crit x 2 + 1d10 (on 20)
I don't have the wherewithal to determine what "often" & "less often" mean so that the average damages match vs. normal ranges of enemies. I guesstimate the latter example ends up with more variability, especially since a higher percentage of its successful hits would be crits.
To maintain damage parity, the new weapon would have a similar +1d8/round ability. And I was referencing bows which have Deadly d10 on top. And if an NPC is built like a PC, they do get the Striking weapon, it's just recommended not to build more than a few this way due to treasure issues. Yet if only similar to a PC, the NPCs still have comparable damage to a Striking weapon due to level determining appropriate damage. The final builds to compare should have similar DPR, in which case I think the crossbow build becomes less swingy (especially when fighting upward against PCs).
Sorry, I guess I misunderstood. I thought that we were talking about the creatures from the PF2 Bestiaries and the Gamemastery Guide which are built as PF2 NPCs.
I myself have been building Ironfang Legion armies. The army's mass-supplied gear is too low level for the PCs, and they have no opportunity to sell that gear for cash. Instead, they are giving the gear away to unarmed refugees. The first time my party encountered Hobgoblin Archers was at 4th level. The archers were part of a force of two Hobgoblin Archers creature 4, two Hobgoblin Heavy Troopers creature 2, and ten Hobgoblin Soldiers creature 1. They were a roadblock garrison I quickly threw together when my players said, "Let's check out the town to the east," when the module did not include that town.
Due to my wayward players I need Bestiary and NPC Gallery creatures that I can throw together as an encounter without worrying about excessive treasure or miscalculated threat rating. The few creatures with significant treasure are reserved for the named individuals introduced by the modules, where my concern becomes converting them to PF2 without changing their fundamental nature.
We were talking about one such NPC (Hobgoblin Archer) w/ and a comparable hypothetical bow user (who could be built as an NPC or PC). IMO the odd choices for the HA to use a crossbow and have a single good shot/round make sense because there's less variance in damage compared to what a two-shot/round bow user would have.
And also realized as I wrapped that up that the crossbow build would also be less susceptible to buffs/debuffs causing even greater variance, i.e. if you gave them a Bard ally or their target was caught flat-footed.
Just another of the ways to aid balance behind the scenes.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This discussion has convinced me that if I ever GM again, I'm only running published adventures. This is way too complicated for me.
It's really not so bad.
First off, you don't have to design your NPCs yourself, just because you're not running a published adventure.
- There are NPC statblocks in the Gamemastery Guide (and thus available for free online).
- You can take a statblock from a different adventure and just re-use it.
- You can even just take the stats for a monster and pretend it's an NPC. Just cross out "hobgoblin" and write in "human" and you can use a monster from the Bestiary. Just use a different pawn and your players probably won't notice if you switch one humanoid with another.
Second, much of the work of making monsters can be automated. Check out this. The main idea is that you pick a Roadmap, such as "brute" or "wizard", a creature type and a level. And that already creates a lot of default values for you, and it's fine to just use those defaults.
Finally, don't be afraid to try some stuff and get it wrong sometimes. Every GM makes mistakes, even after doing it for years. And that's no big deal at all. Just try stuff, think about whether you liked how it went, and maybe try something different next time.
Are you kidding? In first edition you just rolled up a character and used those stats, from what I remember. The method in 2e has so many tables it's just, overwhelming.It is MUCH MUCH MUCH easier than in d20/PF1, that's for sure.
(It still is more work than using existing adventures of course)
I think you might be forgetting about a lot of the granularity involved in building an NPC in PF1. Plus, NPCs generally didn't get rolls, rather the 15/14/13/12/10/8 standard stat block (rearranged as needed of course).
You had to choose which class they took for every level they had.You had to purchase their items (w/ a chart for recommended % distribution), distribute skill points, take as many feats as any PC, and fill out a complete spell list - factoring in that they'll use less than a handful in combat, yet might have umpteen active buffs running if warned (so you also have to account for amount of warning they may or may not get with a buffed & unbuffed version, and that'd before the Greater Dispel Magic hits them and strips off a chunk of those numbers). Even warrior classes needed buffs via potions to remain competitive.
And the final product has to actually work. Too often a simple build won't be competitive for its level or your intentions. Which is why so many bosses had "PC level wealth, +1 CR", to get a broad set of gear.
And you had to factor in PC tactics, so they don't just drop the baddie in a hole w/ a low level spell and shoot arrows down at them. Oops.
PF2 NPC & monsters stats resemble a fully-prepped, equipped, and buffed PC of the same level without the GM having to calculate from scratch.
(Which is one reason to be wary when adding creatures that can buff, like a Bard, to an encounter.) An NPC in PF1 could easily fall short of being a viable threat for their level (especially if using NPC classes), yet in PF2 that's actually difficult without intent. Of course, PF1 builds could also manipulate CR ratings to get ridiculous combos whose final numbers.
I had one friend write a published adventure for PFS with some monsters that had NPC warrior levels. One might suspect he was playing nice because they only used shortbows, hadn't armored up, and didn't load up on consumables for buffing. Arguably he was softballing. Except their boss was a Bard and the encounter became notorious for TPKs because focused fire works. :O
Mild apologies for spinning into tangents.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is MUCH MUCH MUCH easier than in d20/PF1, that's for sure.
(It still is more work than using existing adventures of course)
The Gamemastery guide makes NPCs so easy. I wrote a level 8 adventure for the Secrets of Magic Playtest. At first I was kicking myself because the NPC gallery doesn’t go that high, but using the table, it was easy to level up a few cultists and a tyrant. I made a guard captain and some gnome guards from scratch.