| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The game is designed around the general assumption that in most encounters, the PCs will outnumber the monsters, so of course the monsters will generally have better stats. It can also be misleading when you look at a level 1 PCs stats and then compare it to a level 1 monster - two of that level 1 monster is supposed to be a moderate difficulty encounter for a party of 4 PCs, making it roughly equivalent to two PCs (well, more like 1.5 PCs because the system is weighted so that moderate encounters aren't "you lose half of them").
If your GM is throwing four level 1 monsters at a level 1 party thinking that they are equivalent, that is actually an extreme threat encounter, which is basically an end-boss type encounter.
Also, your "magic system is boring" argument ... doesn't actually come with an actual argument behind it? Just a general statement with nothing for people to go off? So I guess my answer is "it is just you"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To back up what Tender Tendrils said, a creature the same level as a PC is stronger.
4 creatures the same level as the party are considered to be an "extreme threat".
2 creatures of the same level as the party are considered to be a standard encounter.
If your GM wanted to have a standard encounter with 4 enemies they need to be 4 levels below your party, and I don't think we have CR 1/4 enemies. This is a specific issue at level 1 and not having weak enough enemies to face.
If your GM is trying to play PF2 like they would have set up PF1, you're going to have a bad time. Monsters in PF2 are stronger than your characters, and with the tightening of the math you don't have run away power house PCs like you did in PF1.
As far as magic items go, the bonuses got much smaller and there are less types to stack because the math is much more tightly controlled. If that's the kind of stuff you're looking for it wont be much surprise that you would find it "boring", though I think it would be more accurate to it doesn't satisfy the desire for more power.
To be honest I had these same kind of complaints and quit playing PF2.
PF2 is not a game about find the next best number adder and adding it to your character. While in PF1 you won the game at character creation, PF2 has become about using tactic and team work to succeed against the enemy. You are mathematically inferior to your enemy and you have to make up for it by having a larger party (action economy) and better tactics.
This topic is in wrong place. There's anything here about Guns and Gears.
But responding your questions:
1. Critical hits System - is it just me , but most encounters the monster we encounter their 1st hit Crits a PC 75% of the time.. Where our PC's maybe Crit 25% of the time..
Do you think this is by design?
Monster have 3-4 More AC & +3-4 more to hit if not more..
The critical system high depends from level diference between the players and their enemies.
If the players are facing just only one enemy boss alone this boss Encounter Budget usually makes this boss have high AC, hit rate and critical rate than players. How high will depend from Encounter Budget the GM chooses.
If you are facing many enemies (4 or more), depending from Encounter Budget of the encounter their level is significantly smaller than the players. This make their hit-rate, AC and critical hit smaller than players to compensate their numbers.
If your GM is following the Encounter Budget rightly usually the critical rate wouldn't surpass the players unless mostly the encounters is always against a single or outnumbered creatures.
If you have this felling about crits, ac, and hit rate maybe your GM is exaggerating in their encounters or your want to pass a constantly risk sensation to the players making most encounters several or more.
Also is it Just me PE2 - Magic item system is soo boring..
It's not just you!
Many players and GMs, specially those came from 3.5/1E fells the magic system some boring.
This happens mainly because the PF2 diminishes the casters firepower keeping only their versatility to avoid them to surpass the non-casters. They still a very versatile and useful classes, specially to do all other things except make damage to a single opponent (this the non-casters are almost always better).
But this changes make them some boring specially against a single boss where's the lvl diference makes the area spells and incapacitation spells much less useful if not useless.
So there's players that are ok with this, but others simply don't like and abandon the caster classes or the entire PF2. This players have some hopes that Secrets of Magic may give the casters some more importance in the game.
Also is it Just me PE2 - Magic item system is soo boring..It's not just you!
Many players and GMs, specially those came from 3.5/1E fells the magic system some boring.
This happens mainly because the PF2 diminishes the casters firepower keeping only their versatility to avoid them to surpass the non-casters. They still a very versatile and useful classes, specially to do all other things except make damage to a single opponent (this the non-casters are almost always better).But this changes make them some boring specially against a single boss where's the lvl diference makes the area spells and incapacitation spells much less...
Yuri, there post is about magic items not about magic classes.
Oh sorry!
I missunderstand! kkk
So I disagree here. I like the magic item system of PF2 I have nothing to complain abount it until now.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In a typical battle in my campaign, the PCs get critical hits about 40% of the time and the enemies get critical hits about 5% of the time.
The twist that causes this is that I am converting the Ironfang Invasion adventure path to PF2. My party fights armies of lower-level hobgoblin soldiers. Gaining critical hits is all about the difference between the attack bonus to a Strike and the Armor Class. Since both numbers add level to proficiency, higher level gives an advantaage.
The monsters do have another advantage beyond level. Most monsters have the attack bonuses of a fighter, essentially expert proficiency with their natural unarmed attacks. This is because giving them other abilities, such as bard abilities, cleric abilities, investigator abilities, rogue abilities, or wizard abilities, would not fit the concept of the monster. Big dumb creatures hit well due to instinct and hit hard due to claws and jaws. Some monsters have other tricks, such as wolves' ability to trip and crocodiles' aquatic ambush and vipers' venom, but those often depend on successful attacks so are paired with a high attack bonus.
Boring magic items are another story. In order to make my players excited about treasure, I usually have to give them items three or four levels above their level.
This is partly because in Pathfinder 1st Edition, numbers like +3 are exciting. The tight math in Pathfinder 2nd Edition limits anything above +1 to high-level items (a +2 weapon potency rune is 10th level) and anything above +2 is a rare item out of legend (a +3 weapon potency rune is 16th level).
To avoid stacking bonuses into bigger bonuses, Paizo tried for magic items without bonuses. Thus, we have some magic items that offer utility cantrips, such as Hand of the Mage which permits casting the Mage Hand cantrip. This can be convenient, but it is not exciting. In PF1 players could burn through charges on Wands of Cure Light Wounds for rapid healing. In PF2 wands are once-a-day items. Besides, PF2 offers better non-magical healing so spamming magic healing is not vital.
For comparison the PF1 Cloak of Elvenkind, grants a +5 competence bonus to Stealth. Competence bonuses are only about 3% of bonuses, so they stack with most other bonuses. Its price is 2,500 gp, affordable by a 5th-level character. The standard PF2 Cloak of Elvenkind grants a +1 item bonus to Stealth. Item bonuses don't stack with other items, but they will stack with status bonuses from spells, circumstance bonuses from the environment, and proficiency bonuses from individual skills. It is a 7th-level item, which means that 7th-level characters can afford to buy one. To make up for the tiny bonus, the PF2 Cloak of Elvenkind also grants Invisibility once a day, a non-numerical effect.
The ranger in my party was lent a PF2 Cloak of Elvenkind at 2nd level, so she had a magic item 5 levels above hers. The lending became a permanent gift.
In contrast, the high-Charisma rogue in my party with Sorcerer Multiclass Dedication has focused on bloodline abilities and can only arcane cantrips on his own. He has a small collection of wands with 1st- and 2nd-level spells on them, such as Jump and Burning Hands, that let him dabble in higher-level spells. But that character is 10th level right now, so 2nd-level spells are weak in combat. He could afford 9th-level wands that cast 4th-level spells, but my players don't shop for items like that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This hasn't been my experience with the system, with a caveat for boss monsters. When they fight someone who is a couple levels above them this changes, but generally they fight things roughly their level or lower and higher-level monsters are reserved for minibosses/bosses as the Creature XP and Role table suggests. Admittedly this probably isn't the experience of several APs in print, as I understand it paizo is still fond of printing several fights against a single creature in which case the system does skew to favoring the monsters. You might talk to your GM about that style, as if you find the single boss creature fights frustrating it isn't too hard to change them even with APs.
Just want to get peoples thoughts.1. Critical hits System - is it just me , but most encounters the monster we encounter their 1st hit Crits a PC 75% of the time.. Where our PC's maybe Crit 25% of the time..
Do you think this is by design?
Monster have 3-4 More AC & +3-4 more to hit if not more..
thoughts?
Also is it Just me PE2 - Magic item system is soo boring..
This also hasn't been my experience. In PF2, I like that a lot of the items that boost numbers also give a side benefit. Magic weapons and armor don't, and I'm probably going to switch to Automatic Bonus Progression for the next campaign I start because of that, but all of the skill and stat boost magic items come with a little power you can run use. I think a lot of them are pretty interesting. Might be a matter of taste though.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
To back up what Tender Tendrils said, a creature the same level as a PC is stronger.
4 creatures the same level as the party are considered to be an "extreme threat".
You're misunderstanding the intent there. A level 5 enemy is supposed to be roughly as strong as a level 5 player. If you have an equal number of equal strength characters on both sides then it's a coinflip on who wins, and a 50/50 for a full party wipe is a considered an extreme encounter because players are generally expected to win their fights.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No Arachnofiend, you can look at the numbers. On average NPCs of the same CR will have a higher to hit and AC than a PC.
They are stronger.
But yes a CR+4 encounter is an extreme encounter because there's a significant risk of total party wipe. And, 4 creatures of CR equal to the party is the same as a single CR+4 creature according to the experience /CR chart for combat building.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Consider the 1st-level Hobgoblin Soldier, the basic enemy in my PF2-converted Ironfang Invasion campaign. Hobgoblin is a playable ancestry and the Hobgoblin Soldier starts with fighter abilities such as Attack of Opportunity, so let's compare it to a hobgoblin fighter PC.
The hobgoblin soldier has Str +3, Dex +3, Con +2, Int +0, Wis +2, Cha -1. The hobgoblin ancestry starts with ability boosts in Constitution, Intelligence, and one other, and an ability flaw in Wisdom, which is pretty strange given that the Hobgoblin Soldiers weak ability scores are Intelligence and Charisma rather than Wisdom. But go with a background that boost Strength and Dexterity and we can get Str +3, Dex +3, Con +2, Int +1, Wis +0, Cha +0.
A workable background is Martial Disciple giving the hobgoblin fighter Athletics skill, Warfare Lore, and Catfall feat. Fighter class gives him training in Acrobatics skill and 4 other skills. One should be Stealth to match the Hobgoblin Soldier. The other trained skills can be Intimidation, Medicine, and Survival.
The hobgoblin's heritage is Warmarch and his ancestory feat is Hobgoblin Lore. His 1st-level fighter feat is Point-Blank Shot.
Give him the same equipment as the Hobgoblin Soldier: hide armor, longsword, longbow (10 arrows), wooden shield--except a longbow instead of a shortbow and add a healer's tools, repair kit, and thieves' tools.
Mark, 1st-level Hobgoblin Fighter
LN, Medium, Goblin, Humanoid
Perception +5; darkvision
Languages Common, Goblin, Dwarven
Skills Acrobatics +6, Athletics +6, Crafting +4, Intimidation +3, Medicine +4, Stealth +6, Survival +3, Thievery +6, Hobgoblin Lore +4, Warfare Lore +4.
Str +3, Dex +3, Con +2, Int +1, Wis +0, Cha +0
Items hide armor, longsword, longbow (10 arrows), wooden shield (Hardness 3, HP 12, BT 6), healer's tools, repair kit, thieves' tools.
AC 16 (18 with shield raised); Fort +7, Ref +8, Will +3
HP 20
Attack of Opportunity [Reaction]
Shield Block [Reaction]
Speed 25 feet
Melee [Single Action] longsword +8 [+3/-2] (versatile P), Damage 1d8+1 slashing
Ranged [Single Action] shortbow +8 [+3/-2] (deadly 1d10, range increment 100 feet, volley 30 ft, reload 0), Damage 1d8 piercing
Point-Blank Shot (open, stance) You take aim to pick off nearby enemies quickly. When using a ranged volley weapon while you are in this stance, you don’t take the penalty to your attack rolls from the volley trait. When using a ranged weapon that doesn’t have the volley trait, you gain a +2 circumstance bonus to damage rolls on attacks against targets within the weapon’s first range increment.
Warmarch Hobgoblin You come from a line of wandering mercenaries, constantly on the march and scavenging food on the trail. If you fail, but not critically fail, to Subsist in the wilderness, you can still keep yourself fed with poor meals. When exploring, you can Hustle twice as long before you have to stop.
Catfall Your catlike aerial acrobatics allow you to cushion your falls. Treat falls as 10 feet shorter. If you’re an expert in Acrobatics, treat falls as 25 feet shorter. If you’re a master in Acrobatics, treat them as 50 feet shorter. If you’re legendary in Acrobatics, you always land on your feet and don’t take damage, regardless of the distance of the fall.
Comparing Mark, my hobgoblin fighter, with the Hobgoblin Soldier, they have the same attack bonus with sword and bow, and thus the same chance of a critical hit against the same target. The Hobgoblin Soldier's advantages are an extra +2 damage with its longsword, an extra +2 to AC, an extra +2 to Will (all because Hobgoblin ancestry has an Ability Flaw in Wisdom), and the Formation ability. Mark's advantages are using a 1d8 longbow instead of a 1d6 shortbow with his Point-Blank Shot stance capable of nullifying the longbow's volley liability, +2 to both Fortitude and Reflex, Warmarch and Catfall abilities, and 8 more trained skills.
Standing toe to toe mindlessly exchanging longsword blows, the Hobgoblin Soldier would have an advantage. But if the two hobgoblins were comrades in arms, marching across the plains and raiding villages for loot, then the soldier would acknowledge the fighter as his superior, better equipped to feed them, bind wounds, repair shields, judge the enemy forces, and unlock chests. And in the hands of a tactical player, the fighter Mark could use his clever skills to negate the soldier's longsword and armor advantage, such as by using terrain to make the battle between them an archery match, and running away to tend his wounds and then returning to combat the still-injured soldier.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Very good comparison Mathmuse.
If we add the group factor that the players party usually are way better balanced than their foes, with healers, magic casters, tankers and damage dealers with combined strategies usually the advantage is from the players.
And remember a 4 players party facing the same number of enemies with the same level is a extreme encounter, something usually recommended only for last boss encounters.
Just want to get peoples thoughts.1. Critical hits System - is it just me , but most encounters the monster we encounter their 1st hit Crits a PC 75% of the time.. Where our PC's maybe Crit 25% of the time..
Do you think this is by design?
Monster have 3-4 More AC & +3-4 more to hit if not more..
thoughts?
Also is it Just me PE2 - Magic item system is soo boring..
Critical Hits: Yes it favors those that are higher level than their opponent. Not all encounters I throw at my players are higher level than them. The ones that are tend to be fun fights for my players.
Magic Item System: Its not PF1 for sure. It seems to be built around items losing their value as you level up. Since I mold a game system to work with my homebrew world and not the other way around, I just fix what I don't like about it and move on. For items that have a set DC like say Ring of the Ram, I change it so that it uses either the Players Class DC or Spellcasting DC or the set DC of the item, which ever is higher. Its been working out great and items tend be usable from 1-20 and removes the throw away mentality of magic items which don't fit my world setting :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The variable likelihood of critical hits in encounters is one of the combat systems more dynamic features and plays with both the action economy and tactical planning aspects of the game in really fun ways. It massively cuts down on players being able to try to adopt a one-size-fits-all approach to approaching encounters.
Consider the 1st-level Hobgoblin Soldier, the basic enemy in my PF2-converted Ironfang Invasion campaign. Hobgoblin is a playable ancestry and the Hobgoblin Soldier starts with fighter abilities such as Attack of Opportunity, so let's compare it to a hobgoblin fighter PC.
The hobgoblin soldier has Str +3, Dex +3, Con +2, Int +0, Wis +2, Cha -1. The hobgoblin ancestry starts with ability boosts in Constitution, Intelligence, and one other, and an ability flaw in Wisdom, which is pretty strange given that the Hobgoblin Soldiers weak ability scores are Intelligence and Charisma rather than Wisdom. But go with a background that boost Strength and Dexterity and we can get Str +3, Dex +3, Con +2, Int +1, Wis +0, Cha +0.
A workable background is Martial Disciple giving the hobgoblin fighter Athletics skill, Warfare Lore, and Catfall feat. Fighter class gives him training in Acrobatics skill and 4 other skills. One should be Stealth to match the Hobgoblin Soldier. The other trained skills can be Intimidation, Medicine, and Survival.
The hobgoblin's heritage is Warmarch and his ancestory feat is Hobgoblin Lore. His 1st-level fighter feat is Point-Blank Shot.
Give him the same equipment as the Hobgoblin Soldier: hide armor, longsword, longbow (10 arrows), wooden shield--except a longbow instead of a shortbow and add a healer's tools, repair kit, and thieves' tools.
Mark, 1st-level Hobgoblin Fighter
LN, Medium, Goblin, Humanoid
Perception +5; darkvision
Languages Common, Goblin, Dwarven
Skills Acrobatics...
A good analysis Mathmuse, although I think as levels go up the gulf increases in terms of difference of AC and to hit. At least based on published values. I also don't think it's good to baseline against fighters, since fighters are better at hitting than other classes. I am having trouble locating the table that provides relevant statistics vs CR (and provides ranges for low, standard, high, extreme IIRC) to back that up at this time though.
However the point remain the same that mathematical the enemy remains superior. The players are supposed to use tactics and character abilities to even the playing field. The problem with that (IMO) is that not everyone is good at doing so. And if you look only at the relative statistics, it can be very disheartening.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mark, 1st-level Hobgoblin Fighter
LN, Medium, Goblin, Humanoid
Perception +5; darkvision
Languages Common, Goblin, Dwarven
Skills Acrobatics +6, Athletics +6, Crafting +4, Intimidation +3, Medicine +4, Stealth +6, Survival +3, Thievery +6, Hobgoblin Lore +4, Warfare Lore +4.
Str +3, Dex +3, Con +2, Int +1, Wis +0, Cha +0
Items hide armor, longsword, longbow (10 arrows), wooden shield (Hardness 3, HP 12, BT 6), healer's tools, repair kit, thieves' tools.
AC 16 (18 with shield raised); Fort +7, Ref +8, Will +3
HP 20
Attack of Opportunity [Reaction]
Shield Block [Reaction]
Speed 25 feet
Melee [Single Action] longsword +8 [+3/-2] (versatile P), Damage 1d8+1 slashing
Ranged [Single Action] shortbow +8 [+3/-2] (deadly 1d10, range increment 100 feet, volley 30 ft, reload 0), Damage 1d8 piercing
Point-Blank Shot (open, stance) You take aim to pick off nearby enemies quickly. When using a ranged volley weapon while you are in this stance, you don’t take the penalty to your attack rolls from the volley trait. When using a ranged weapon that doesn’t have the volley trait, you gain a +2 circumstance bonus to damage rolls on attacks against targets within the weapon’s first range increment.
Warmarch Hobgoblin You come from a line of wandering mercenaries, constantly on the march and scavenging food on the trail. If you fail, but not critically fail, to Subsist in the wilderness, you can still keep yourself fed with poor meals. When exploring, you can Hustle twice as long before you have to stop.
Catfall Your catlike aerial acrobatics allow you to cushion your falls. Treat falls as 10 feet shorter. If you’re an expert in Acrobatics, treat falls as 25 feet shorter. If you’re a master in Acrobatics, treat them as 50 feet shorter. If you’re legendary in Acrobatics, you always land on your feet and don’t take damage, regardless of the distance of the fall.
I'm confused how you got melee damage to be 1d8+1 when you have a strength mod of +3. The AC is also low. A level 1 fighter is trained in medium armor, so that's 10 + level + 2 for trained + 2 dex cap + 3 item bonus = 10+1+2+2+3 = 18. 20 With shield raised.
So two of the biggest benefits to the hobgoblin go away with the right numbers.
That being said, as others have pointed out, yes: the discrepancy between PCs and NPCs in raw numbers tends to go up with levels. But I would argue that that's because so too does the additional benefits of being a PC, such as having access to various items (both permanent and consumable) tailor made for your build, being in a balanced party, getting feats that build on and synergize with each other, etc.
For that reason I think level 1 is a perfect case study, and at level one typically you can get equal to or better abilities / stats when compared to your NPC counterparts... if you're going for pure stats. Which is pretty much what most NPCs do to avoid complexity of the statblock.
In fact, if you weren't trying to copy the hobgoblin soldier but rather optimize it as if it was a player then you could even go a step above them by doing things like maxing out your key ability score at +4 instead of +3, using your gold to get a better shield for your shield block reaction, and even buying consumables like minor healing potions if you want. After all, for the hobgoblin this is almost certainly going to be a life and death battle, and let's be real here: they're going against PCs. It's going to be death.
I'm confused how you got melee damage to be 1d8+1 when you have a strength mod of +3. The AC is also low. A level 1 fighter is trained in medium armor, so that's 10 + level + 2 for trained + 2 dex cap + 3 item bonus = 10+1+2+2+3 = 18. 20 With shield raised.
So two of the biggest benefits to the hobgoblin go away with the right numbers.
Despite being a retired mathematician, I do make arithmetic mistakes, typographical errors, and mental goofs. So the longsword damage is 1d8+3. I think that one was a mental goof: somehow I thought Strength 13, which translates to +1 Strength bonus. The mistake on AC was probably me forgetting the +2 for trained proficiency. I just checked the AC on an example cleric I was writing, and I had forgotten the +2 item bonus for studded leather armor. Well, that one I corrected before posting.
Thank you for the corrections.
In fact, if you weren't trying to copy the hobgoblin soldier but rather optimize it as if it was a player then you could even go a step above them by doing things like maxing out your key ability score at +4 instead of +3, using your gold to get a better shield for your shield block reaction, and even buying consumables like minor healing potions if you want. After all, for the hobgoblin this is almost certainly going to be a life and death battle, and let's be real here: they're going against PCs. It's going to be death.
That is a paradox for comparisons. If I try for a copy of a humanoid monster, then I have to pass up some good options for PCs. That makes the PC below average. If I optimize a PC of similar abilities to a humanoid monster, then I would end up with different abilities that cannot be directly compared to each other. I don't dare use a non-humanoid monster, because those would be too different.
A good analysis Mathmuse, although I think as levels go up the gulf increases in terms of difference of AC and to hit. At least based on published values. I also don't think it's good to baseline against fighters, since fighters are better at hitting than other classes. I am having trouble locating the table that provides relevant statistics vs CR (and provides ranges for low, standard, high, extreme IIRC) to back that up at this time though.
The numbers for monster creation are in the Gamemastery Guide page 56: Building Creatures. The numbers in the Bestiaries don't always follow that guide.
The warriors are common among the humanoid NPC creatures, and they resemble fighters if built for melee and rangers if built for range. For variety I found a few humanoid clerics in the Bestiaries: Drow Priestess creature 3; Duergar Taskmaster creature 2; Gnoll Cultist creature 3; Grioth Cultist creature 3; Herexen creature 2 (undead); and Samsaran Anchorite creature 1.
Cavern Elf has darkvision like a drow, so I will try to build an elf cleric similar to the the Drow Priestess. I'll name my cleric Gráinne.
I chose Cavern Elf heritage for the darkvision. I could chose Elven Weapon Familiarity as Gráinne's 1st-level ancestry feat for training in rapiers like the Drow Priestess uses, but instead her diety will be the pirate queen Besmara, whose favored weapon is rapier. This leaves me free to chose Wildborn Magic to give Gráinne the cantrip Ray of Frost.
The Drow Priestess has Str +1, Dex +2, Con +1, Int +0, Wis +4, Cha +1. Elf ancestry boosts Dexterity, Intelligence, and one other which will be Wisdom. It reduces Constitution, so let me give her Archeologist background with boosts Constitution to cancel that out. The other boost from background will be Wisdom. Her 1st-level boosts will be Strength, Dexterity, Wisdom, and Charisma. This gives her Str +1, Dex +2, Con +0, Int +1, Wis +4, Cha +1, less Constitution and more Intelligence than the Drow Priestess.
Warpriest doctorine grants Gráinne training in light and medium armor and in martial weapons. So Elven Weapon Proficiency would have been redundant. She learned Shield Block, too, just like the Drow Priestess. Her 2nd-level cleric feat is Emblazon Armament so that she can emblazon her rapier for 1 additional damage.
Archeologist background trains Gráinne in Society and Architecture Lore. Cleric class trains her in Athletics, Religion and 3 other skills. Those 3 skills will be Deception, Intimidation, and Stealth to match the Drow Priestess. No, scratch the Intimidation, because she will learn Sailing Lore instead.
Archeologist background also gives her expert Additional Lore in the history of a culture. I select the Sodden Lands. She and her friends sail the coast of the Sodden Lands seeking out drowned ruins to dive for their lost treasures. She knows where the ruins are located and her darkvision is vital to spotting underwater loot. When treasure pickings are lean, they instead anchor near coastal villages at night and steal supplies.
Her 2nd-level skill feat will be Quick Identification to identify loot they uncover. Her 3rd-level general feat will be Toughness to try to match the Drow Priestess in hit points, though given her diving into deep water, Breath Control would have been more practical. Rather, she can cast Air Bubble when diving. For her 3rd-level skill increase, she becomes expert in Deception.
For simplicity, we give Gráinne the same items and prepared spells as the Drow Priestess. A few changes are necessary. Gráinne lacks Str 16 for chain mail, so she gets studded leather armor instead. She swaps her hand crossbow for a more efficient shortbow. And she can afford +1 weapon proficiency runes for her rapier and shortbow. I claim that the lethary poison was a lucky find on a previous expedition.
Gráinne, 3rd-level elf cleric of Besmara
CE, Medium, Elf, Humanoid
Perception +9; darkvision
Languages Common, Elven, Mwangi
Skills Architecture Lore +5, Athletics +6, Deception +8, Religion +9, Sailing Lore +6, Society +7, Sodden Lands Lore +8, Stealth +7
Str +1, Dex +2, Con +0, Int +1, Wis +4, Cha +1
Items Studded leather armor, +1 shortbow (10 arrows), lethargy poison (4 doses), +1 emblazoned rapier, spare religious symbol, steel shield (Hardness 5, HP 20, BT 10)
AC 19 (21 with shield raised); Fort +5, Ref +7, Will +11
HP 36; the DC of recovery checks is equal to 9 + your dying condition value.
Shield Block [Reaction]
Speed 30 feet
Melee [Single Action] +1 emblazoned rapier +8 [+3/-2] (deadly 1d8, disarm, finesse), Damage 1d6+2 piercing
Ranged [Single Action] +1 shortbow +8 [+3/-2] (deadly 1d10, range increment 60 feet, reload 0), Damage 1d6 piercing plus lethargy poison
Divine Prepared Spells DC 19; 2nd harm (x2), silence, spiritual weapon; 1st bless, command, fear; Cantrips (2nd) detect magic, guidance, know direction, read aura, stabilize
Primal Innate Spells DC 16; Cantrips (2nd) ray of frost
The two are almost equal. Nevertheless, the Drow Priestess has more advantages. She can wear chain mail without a check penalty despite a mere Strength 12, and her AC is 20 versus Gráinne's AC 19. She has an additional +1 to hit on her attacks. She has 3 more hit points. She has Intimidation +8 compared to Gráinne's Athletics +6. She has expert Fortitude save boosted by a higher Constitution and +1 status to all saves vs. magic. She can cast one more harm spell. She has a long list of divine innate spells while Gráinne's only innate spell is ray of frost, which depends on her Charisma rather than Wisdom. Yet ray of frost is better for combat than any of the drow's innate spells.
The weakness in Gráinne might be because I made a few weak choices in building Gráinne as a 2nd-rate copy of the Drow Priestess rather than optimizing her as an archeologicist warpriest cleric of Besmara.
Suppose Gráinne is scouting a ruin on the shore of the Sodden Lands ruin and the Drow Priestess is scouting the same ruin having come up from underground. Both rely on the darkness of night for their concealment, so they are surprised when they encouter each other plain as day in their darkvision, nose to nose.
The Drow Priestess wins initiative and realizes that she has an armor advantage over Gráinne. She Stides, Strikes with her rapier, and Raises her Shield. Gráinne runs, but the drow can keep up. Gráinne climbs over a wall with her Athletics. The drow fails to climb the wall at first and goes around. Gráinne waited in ambush and hits the drow with a poisoned arrow, flat-footed with her shield down. The drow drops her rapier, pulls out her hand crossbow and shoots a poisoned bolt of her own. Due to unlucky saves, both end up slowed 1 by the poison so they maintain their positions for a ranged battle. In the long run, the drow with her higher Fortitude save will shake off the poison first. But Gráinne has two Strikes with her shortbow each turn (with additional exposures to poison) compared to the drow's Strike and Reload with the hand crossbow.
Next, the Drow Priestess Raises her Shield and Strides within 30 feet of Gráinne. The following turn she casts command ordering Gráinne to toss her bow aside. Of course, the Drow Priestess has the same Will save against Gráinne's command. If they match spell to spell, then their fate is decided by luck, except for the drow's Fort +8 compared to Gráinne's Fort +5. Or her AC 20 versus Gráinne's AC 19 if both cast spiritual weapon.
Enough for today. I have to create a PF2 7th-level minotaur investigator NPC to replace the Warmaze Master CR 7 (Minotaur ranger 3) in the PF1 adventure path Assault on Longshadow for tomorrow's game. I think that an investigator's Devise a Stratagem ability has a nice flavor for the Warmaze philosophy and any investigator abilities that don't fit I will drop in favor of hitting hard with a greataxe.
Monsters & NPCs operate as peak PCs. Unlike PCs this applies to any role they might take, combat or non-combat. PCs simply cannot match that breadth, though PCs have a lot of breadth of a different nature plus their magic emergency items.
Also, there are some hiccups because NPCs have a smoother power curve while PC increases come in burst at certain levels (or where certain items are meant to be acquired). For example, when a Fighter first gets Striking on their greatsword it takes NPCs a few levels to catch up.
And apparently a peak PC is somewhat akin to a Fighter/MCD Barbarian in that their attack is like Fighter's and their damage is about +2 higher (as if MCD-Raging w/ a d12 weapon, even when using a different weapon or if relying on Pack Attack, et al). Sometimes these stats are lower, like if the creature has a shield or great mobility. And it'll apply across the board, not simply with one's chosen weapon or weapon class, which is a distinct advantage in versatility, yet usually not more powerful than a PC at max.
And these numbers include the PC's magic items, even if the creature doesn't have a magic item. So in that sense, yes, a level 8 NPC often does fight better than a level 8 PC because that PC needs magic to keep even (and only barely at that). Creatures that actually have a magic weapon, like many Giants, do get a small bump in their attack bonus over this curve. :/
As for defense, a martial, especially one in heavy armor, will usually have a better AC, yet to keep up on hit points would need high Con, Toughness, and that MCD Rage hit point bonus. Sometimes the meatier NPCs' ACs are even lower, but their hit points even higher, above what a Dwarf can reach. (And that's not even bringing in Zombies & Oozes.)
This asymmetry favors PCs (assuming they have the advantage to begin with) because it makes battles more reliable. NPCs also get less advantage from healing (though it makes their defensive tactics more worthwhile).
Not that all monsters/NPCs are meant to handle a martial role, but most do, even plenty of the spellcasters. Speaking of which, those do seem to have a notch above PCs, not just the notorious ones like Liches, but most spellcasters have equal or better DCs and Spell Attack values.
Not sure the thinking there as fighting one do-or-die battle already favors them since they can fire off their most dire spells throughout while PCs have to think of future battles.
It might tie back into them generally facing higher level PCs so needing a bump to keep combat results more stable?
And yes, crits favor NPCs as do all wild fluctuations since NPCs are generally the underdogs. But few get crit specialization or other abilities that trigger off of them like PCs can get so there's that.
I used to, and I suppose I still do, run through the Bestiaries and try to guess monsters' damage, hit points, & AC using only their level, their flavor, and where a fully-equipped PC (w/ an MCD that improved damage like Barbarian or Rogue w/ SA) would be. It's formulaic enough one can get high accuracy on AC & damage & decent accuracy on hit points. Again I'll add the caveat that the monsters/NPCs are doing this for every role they're built to play, so you get Drow who can fight as well as any Fighter their level while casting at-level spells too, some of them spammable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with hard stats versus abilities & teamwork is that sometimes people just like to walk over, hit stuff and not get hit in return, especially those who are not deeply invested in detailled tactical combat, e.g. the boy or girlfriend that is there for the social aspects of the game or players who just enjoy their beer and pretzels. Of course this issue is partially solvable by using level-x opponents, however due to their improved hard stats even those often still punch way above their weight. That is just to say that I can easily understand the line of reasoning behind the impression that PF2 can easily come across as a little unfair.
Monsters & NPCs operate as peak PCs. Unlike PCs this applies to any role they might take, combat or non-combat. PCs simply cannot match that breadth, though PCs have a lot of breadth of a different nature plus their magic emergency items.
I often see the NPCs stuffed into roles that they are not optimized for. I might be part of the problem, since I am converting an adventure path from PF1 to PF2. Nevertheless, I recall a few situations where a generic member of a species was used for a specific role not because it was best at that role but because it was available.
For example, the party wanted to investigate a Korred festival. The writers chose the korreds to host the festival because in korred lore they object to non-fey creatures at their festival. The korred guards were equipped with colorful fey abilities for combat, but their Perception +12 was no match for the Deception of the 5th-level high-Charisma scoundrel rogue. He claimed he was a fey and rolled well. The rogue's species, halfling, was seldom seen deep in the forest and he had some draconic features anyway due to his Sorcerer Dedication, so the korred failed their Society check to identify his species. He walked past the guards as they apologized for not recognizing that he was fey. And the fey-touched gnome druid walked in beside him, because she actually was fey.
In another case, the party had to enter a cliffside dwelling but a brood of owlbears nested at the front door. Rather than fighting the owlbears, they climbed to the clifftop and smashed open a barred sturdy door. The owlbears made terrible sentries, because they were animals. If the dwelling were occupied by humans with proper sentries, breaking in like that would have been met with resistance.
At 5th level my party had trouble battling trolls because they attacked as many trolls as they had spellcasters who could cast fire spells, such as Produce Flame. One miss with the fire spell and a troll would regenerate 20 hit points. The spellcasters burned through a lot of hero points for rerolls until the champion remembered that she had some Alchemist's Fire deep in her bag of holding. Yet the next time the party encountered trolls, the red-draconic-bloodline rogue/sorcerer had flaming Dragon Claws and the ranger had a flame rune on her sword, so the trolls were toast.
A good tactic in PF2 is to observe how a monster does not fit the role it holds and exploit that. Korreds are untrained in identifying locally-uncommon humanoids, owlbears are not watchdogs, and trolls always bring fire-deactivated regeneration to flaming-weapon fight.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To subvert your heading, the critical hit system favors plays, not monsters. That is to say that system mastery is what bridges the gap, which seems to be very much intended. A creature that has a 20% chance to crit any given character is just a minor debuff and a Raised Shield away from having that playing field equalized - which is to say asking players to engage with the system (both the 3 action system and the status/circumstance conditions).
This works both ways. A creature can be cut down to size with clever combat. If your group doesn't want to play that way, consider tossing the weak template onto every encounter or designing encounters down. I, personally, recommend against it as it misses out on what makes PF2's combat so interesting and varied to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mathmuse,
I should have phrased it more rigorously; by "any role they might take" I meant out of those the creature's been intended to take. That can be a diverse set so that the GM can just plug them in to do what it seems they're supposed to, yet that's seldom all roles. One thing I appreciate about PF2 is that not all creatures have maxed out Perception (!) so stealth's a reasonable avenue w/o everybody maxed out.
As for creatures not playing a role they're built for, I think that can make for great adventure writing. As you've noted, giving players chances to exploit weaknesses is a good thing. IMO it encourages smart, engaged play. A party built as a juggernaut can go directly through the Owlbears (and maybe Korreds depending on goals), straightforward yet difficult; or they can bypass by other, less difficult means if the party's well-rounded (not that the two build styles are mutually exclusive).
This reminds me of a PFS1 scenario where it had been easy to bypass a guardian (a pumped up Gargoyle if I recall) through charm, maybe even knowledge too, yet fighting it destroyed many parties. Or another where a measure of self-control avoided a gauntlet of really tough encounters (and played into the adversary's narrative that Pathfinders are a bunch of murder-hobos) or one could pummel through if that were the party's mindset. One child asked me the GM afterward what was supposed to have been so difficult about the scenario (which only has a few battles if played with foresight & listened to the narrative) and I replied that some people fought X, Y, & Z to which his eyes widened. "Why would they do that?!" "Because they see monster and go or approach the mansion like a dungeon rather and scout into areas that'll get them killed."
I'm glad they went through wisely!
Anyway, yeah, maybe it was Korreds (even back in PF1) because they could be duped, yet would prove a tough battle if not duped.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with hard stats versus abilities & teamwork is that sometimes people just like to walk over, hit stuff and not get hit in return, especially those who are not deeply invested in detailled tactical combat, e.g. the boy or girlfriend that is there for the social aspects of the game or players who just enjoy their beer and pretzels. Of course this issue is partially solvable by using level-x opponents, however due to their improved hard stats even those often still punch way above their weight. That is just to say that I can easily understand the line of reasoning behind the impression that PF2 can easily come across as a little unfair.
To that I would say: who said you had to put hard encounters in the adventure in the first place?
If a group of people prefers easy combats, what's the problem with that? Even if you use XP, you could just do two easy combats instead of one hard one, and end up with the same XP.
The only good reason for hard encounters is if people enjoy them.
To that I would say: who said you had to put hard encounters in the adventure in the first place?
If a group of people prefers easy combats, what's the problem with that? Even if you use XP, you could just do two easy combats instead of one hard one, and end up with the same XP.
The only good reason for hard encounters is if people enjoy them.
Well, human psychology is weird at times as people often like to compare themselves to others and at the same time often can't admit that they may not be up to the task at hand. They are the same reasons why many people play their shooter on "hurt me plenty" instead on "I'am too young to die" even if they are clearly lacking in performance and have to restart very often. People seem to love to do things "as they were meant to be done" simply because the initial expectation is that if you do you are then operating at a 'normal' ability level and your user experience should be as close as possible to the user experience as intented by the designers. Also many people do not want to come across as "pansies" for chosing a lower difficulty setting. Human ambition paired with flawed self-perception will always be a very good reason why people are embracing hardships instead of trying to have fun.
Note that even experienced players may be prone to the above, especially if unexpectedly confronted with the harsh reality that may be PF2 combat. With both GM and players new to the system my very own party of seasoned RPG and boardgame veterans was shortly before the literal table flip once we learned the 'unfair' NPC hard stats during a certain infamous "Greater" encounter.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As mentioned, NPCs have higher raw numbers to make up for their lack of versatility. Some examples of what PCs get that usually monsters don't:
Saving throw modifiers like Evasion. This really shifts the math to favor PCs on saving throws in non-obvious ways. But try using an occult caster against a bunch of PCs with Master Will saves-- you're lucky if your spell does anything at all. While a monster with a high will save probably gets a normal success and still takes a penalty.
Critical specialization. Some of these are quite brutal.
Knowledge checks. Technically monsters can roll these against PCs but in practice never will. Monsters usually only learn what PCs can do by being subjected to it. And many aren't smart enough to use the knowledge effectively anyway.
The ability exploit weaknesses. Few PCs have weakness to specific damage, but many monsters do.
Hero points.
Being able to get back in the fight after hitting the ground.
A every small selection of monsters have one or two of these things. Most do not have any of them.
I learned how well my players had mastered PF2 tactics when they went off the map to scout a nearby tiny village--I named it Polebridge and purchased the Coastal Town map from 2 Minute Tabletop--that turned out to have been conquered by the Ironfang Legion. The legion placed a garrison there to maintain a roadblock at the bridge. Visible to the scouting were two 4th-level soldiers, four 2nd-level soldiers, and at least eight 1st-level soldiers, against a party of five 4th-level characters. That's 280 xp of opponents, and an extreme threat against a 5-member party is 200 xp. Another dozen were in the buildings, including the 5th-level commander of the garrison.
My goal was to discourage the party from attacking the garrison. I failed. My players chose the hard encounter.
They used a divide-and-conquer strategy, first luring some of the 1st-level soldiers into the forest where they died to the ranger's snares and second holing up in an abandoned inn and sniping from the upstairs windows. They won. The garrison did knock one PC unconscious and dying near the end, the only time that has happened in my campaign.
I had already seen the PCs defeat some severe-threat and one extreme-threat encounters by engaging in teamwork and exploiting weaknesses--standard tactcs for them. Polebridge was when I learned that the players had invented more tactics than I had envisioned. I reset my definition of hard encounter upward and tried to learn all their tactics.
Yeah, tactics are definitely a big factor. And at low levels enemies often lack ranged attacks, which means that with good positioning a sniper can really break an otherwise hard encounter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, tactics are definitely a big factor. And at low levels enemies often lack ranged attacks, which means that with good positioning a sniper can really break an otherwise hard encounter.
Yes, my players discovered that at 3rd level. Or rather, the version where the enemies have inferior ranged attacks. The extreme-threat encounter I mentioned had been them with bows versus enemies with spears. The party was wounded, so they retreated at first. The enemy followed. The party climbed a ladder and an enemy threw a spear at them. They didn't laugh aloud, but that was the mood afterward. They could control access and force a ranged battle rather than a melee battle. So they won.
At the inn at Polebridge, the 1st=level Hobgoblin Soldiers had shortbows. However, the rogue shooting from the 2nd-floor window had cover from the window frame while the soldiers had no cover. The poor soldiers where under strict orders to guard the bridge, so they could not move to cover. If I had more time to design the village, then the hobgoblins would have set up makeshift cover on the bridge in advance.
The rogue hid anew as her third action every turn, giving her Hidden condition as further defense and letting her first shot each turn catch a soldier flat-footed. The soldiers had little chance to hit her. The druid casting cantrips from another window instead used the Take Cover action. The 4th-level Hobgoblin Archers, who had a better chance at hitting the snipers, were instead on the ground floor trying to take down the very defensive champion and her animal companion velociraptor guarding the stairway.
It looked like an Old West shootout at a hotel, which might have been my players' inspiration. Those cinematic tactics work in Pathfinder 2nd Edition.
That tactic is great, until an enemy decides to set the building on fire.
I will have to consider that counter-tactic for the future. But it might not be fast enough. A homeowner website said, "Fire is FAST. In less than 30 seconds a small flame can turn into a major fire. It only takes minutes for thick black smoke to fill a house or for the home to be engulfed in flames." 30 seconds is five rounds. Running to the armory to fetch Alchemist's Fire would take 5 rounds before the fire. The party spent only 10 rounds in the inn.
That tactic is great, until an enemy decides to set the building on fire.I will have to consider that counter-tactic for the future. But it might not be fast enough. A homeowner website said, "Fire is FAST. In less than 30 seconds a small flame can turn into a major fire. It only takes minutes for thick black smoke to fill a house or for the home to be engulfed in flames." 30 seconds is five rounds. Running to the armory to fetch Alchemist's Fire would take 5 rounds before the fire. The party spent only 10 rounds in the inn.
You're the GM, you could always say one (or a few) of the soldiers had alchemist fire flasks on them. Possibly 1 or the 4th level and 2 of the 2nd level.
But your players also used good tactics to turn what should have been an unwinnable battle (or at best a pyrrhic victory) into a (mostly) successful encounter. Considering the level of threat it could have been, only one person unconscious/dying is very successful. Of course they essentially split the encounter in two (or more) smaller encounters.
It also could have played out much differently. Instead of the 1st level soldiers running off to be slaughtered they could have roused the entirety of their forces to be only alert and sent a significant amount (and level) of the forces against the PCs at once.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eh, at this point its just GREAT player coordination and planning.
Let them have their win.
In my current kingmaker campaign i have the staglord keep set up as an impossible encounter, but the PC'S are willy and they're amassing allies to raid it, and they've learned of a secret passage that leads to the storage area bellow the keep.
If the impossible encounter becomes easy because of their hard work and ingenuity, i'm not gonna suddenly introduce ghosts to make it harder.
Kudos to them!
Yeah, if the GM wants to 'win' they can, of course.
The group uses good tactics to come out of an otherwise unwinnable situation, but: gotcha! Here's a TPK.
No, I wouldn't do that.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that you should be a gotcha GM and introduce new enemies to an encounter because you're players did something intelligent.
But you also don't have to let them steam roll something either.
There is a balance, that each group has to find.
Just because the players do some good planning doesn't mean you as a GM have to let the encounter play out exactly as the players want.
In Mathmuse's case the NPCs didn't have to send in their weakest members to be picked off. Especially if the NPCs had encountered the group before (I have no idea). They also didn't have to continue to try to ineffectual enter the building after the PCs start picking them off. It would have been equally reasonable after one or two are brought down for the NPCs to regroup with cover and make a different plan. Rather than rushing head long into death. Mathmuse statement about "the enemy was determined to stand guard at the bridge" is one of those things that just shouldn't be IMO. No matter how scary their leader might be, no one is going to just stand there and let themselves be shot when they have cover nearby.
They had superior numbers and could have reasonably used it.
Now, should they? That's a question that depends on the group and the challenge they like. I suspect that there were other option, aside from combat, for doing what the party needed to do. But is it wrong for Mathmuse to let it play out the way they did, letting a potential TPK become something else? No, it's not. Mathmuse leaned into what the players wanted to do and let the combat become something manageable by the party.
I was more saying the enemies can use tactics too. If they can't get to you and you're in a wooden (or partly wooden) structure then them setting it on fire is a perfectly legitimate strategy. As would be just taking cover would be if they were determined not to move too much.
Enemies could really use good tactics sometimes but in most adventures it is not normal for this to occur. If your read the most APs, PFS adventures and even most scenarios you will see that the most encounters are not simply balanced enough to face a well balanced party. They are in most cases just a bunch of similar monsters or guards facing "well trained dedicated special ops of adventures" that are usually ready to face any threat and each member make up for other member weaknesses.
That's why the monsters are simply strong to be able to face the party of players.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you can do "wrinkle in the plan" without necessarily ruining it.
The party takes up a defensive position in the inn? Okay. They pick off some enemies before the enemies pull back and develop a new plan. But in the mean time, the party's won some skulls.
Next the enemy tries setting fire to the inn. Maybe that works and the party is forced out of the building and you can maybe have a rooftop battle. Or maybe the party manages to put out the fire and they can stay holed up here.
Let's say the party manages to put out the fires and the hobs run out of alchemist fires. So they pull back again and now they wait until nightfall to try a stealth assault.
... and so on. Each time, the party can reduce enemy numbers a bit. And they may also be able to sortie out of the inn and kill some junior hobs who were distracted setting up some barricades and such.
The point is, you can do more than be binary "the plan succeeds perfectly/fails totally". Each challenge to the ongoing plan could be won or lost. If it loses, you transition to a different scene (rooftop battle? sewer escape?), you don't transition directly to a total defeat and end credits.