Yep heal is super powerful in this game. It was powerful in PF1 too. Erasing damage is a very unequal ability. If you have it, then you can match others with it. If you don't have the heal, you can't match those with it as they erase your damage.
Yeah already noticed that some things of the core rules (CRB) can make trivial other things.
If someone finds their games became too linear and predictable, could use variants to make them more challenging, both from GMG:
- Use Stamina system so healing is not too good.
- Limiting the magical items and shopping them. But introduce just the Devastating attacks from ABP to avoid damage underpowered.
Specific the magical items stuff (loot and shopping) in PF2 is the worst thing I have ever seen for a RPG game system. Fortunately the GMG gives tools to make it fit into your game better, but adding some of yourself as is not full explanatory.
Yea loot in P2E isn't bad...item scaling and static DCs just give most things a limited shelf life. The items that aren't subject to that are just fine
Even then, there's a lot of set-DC ones that are powerful and/or really cool when those DCs are relevant, so mostly it's a consideration for when you're shopping (or wishlisting, or looking for leads, or deciding on formulas). They still make for good loot: great for a time, and if your party isn't the kind to use them or doesn't get a chance to, the ability to sell or disassemble them for resources to get other stuff is pretty acceptable.
(I do hope they eventually find an alternative to set DCs, like a more reasonable/palatable form of Resonance, or that they add a system to scale them. My houserules just allow an extra use of investing an item to use your attack/DC modifiers instead, and I haven't noticed that being an issue yet.)
Yea loot in P2E isn't bad...item scaling and static DCs just give most things a limited shelf life. The items that aren't subject to that are just fine
I can sort of see it, loot in PF2 can be kind of boring. Treasure Vault helped quite a bit, but it still feels like an outsized portion of loot is just spent on math items and extra spell slots and a lot of the loot that isn't that is more quirky and niche than anything else (even if I love items like that).
About loot and magical items system, in fact was my first post here
This post exposes it very well, it made me laugh XD here
Cannot take seriously a system of happy family shopping center with machines converting your money into whatever you want magical combo item. The runes system is a total crap, exchanging magical capabilities like stickers. What the hell?!
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
About loot and magical items system, in fact was my first post here
This post exposes it very well, it made me laugh XD here
Cannot take seriously a system of happy family shopping center with machines converting your money into whatever you want magical combo item. The runes system is a total crap, exchanging magical capabilities like stickers. What the hell?!
The Runes system is a great boon compared to 3.5/PF1 where you just could not use and had to sell the wonderful magic weapon you found just because it was not a weapon you specialized in (or even just did not know how to use).
As for the other point, Golarion is a setting where magic (including magic items) is quite common.
The Runes system is a great boon compared to 3.5/PF1 where you just could not use and had to sell the wonderful magic weapon you found just because it was not a weapon you specialized in (or even just did not know how to use).About loot and magical items system, in fact was my first post here
This post exposes it very well, it made me laugh XD here
Cannot take seriously a system of happy family shopping center with machines converting your money into whatever you want magical combo item. The runes system is a total crap, exchanging magical capabilities like stickers. What the hell?!
With group proficiencies that is less required in PF2, so it could have been interesting in a supplement for PF1 as optional rule. Not required at all in PF2.
But even in PF1 I’d use the non-runes system, sorry people, the previous owner of the item didn’t make your favorite and died just to leave it to you.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Runes system is a great boon compared to 3.5/PF1 where you just could not use and had to sell the wonderful magic weapon you found just because it was not a weapon you specialized in (or even just did not know how to use).About loot and magical items system, in fact was my first post here
This post exposes it very well, it made me laugh XD here
Cannot take seriously a system of happy family shopping center with machines converting your money into whatever you want magical combo item. The runes system is a total crap, exchanging magical capabilities like stickers. What the hell?!
With group proficiencies that is less required in PF2, so it could have been interesting in a supplement for PF1 as optional rule. Not required at all in PF2.
But even in PF1 I’d use the non-runes system, sorry people, the previous owner of the item didn’t make your favorite and died just to leave it to you.
I feel the PF2 way is way more fun for players, so I prefer it.
|
|
I feel the PF2 way is way more fun for players, so I prefer it.Agreed, but for a different reason. If a game is assuming that characters will have lots of items with lots of different effects I like to make it easier for them to get those effects. Pathfinder 2E is such a game, where you're expected to eventually have a dozen or more magic items. If it was an OSR or more narrative-focused game where magic items are going to be much thinner on the ground then I'd have them search, instead. It makes good adventure grist, and there isn't going to be any concerns over the bookkeeping nightmare of having to juggle all the various magical bits and bobs to find the ones that have the effect they want in any given situation.Yeah I admit I prefer a balance of "Christmas tree" and "the only magic item I have is Stormbringer" (from Elric).
Flaming swords? Heck yes. Rods of the Five Wizards? Absolutely. I'm not sure I'm onboard with the obscene piles of random pluses but I really appreciate that PF is modular enough to deal with PCs with and without items.
Elric wielded the Arctorios (or Dragon stone) on his Ring of Kings. He later wielded the Chaos Shield and used the Horn of Fate.
And that's just for the artifacts known as the Objects of Power.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because item bonuses do relate to this topic, and are the thing players start asking for around level 3 or 4, when martials start getting more accurate with weapons while casters are still running up against too few spell slots to reliably spend upon more than cantrips for combat, and saving throw cantrips (before Rage of elements) were too few, I do think pointing out that literary magic items (especially weapons) don’t translate well to a fantasy RPG where characters need to grow in power so slowly, and for so long, that it would bore readers of a novel or even series. PF2 (pre-remaster) really doesn’t do “magic items as artifacts of power” very well. While you could give an entire party of level 1 PCs +3 greater striking weapons with awesome runes in the first adventure and probably run a fine campaign that way (skewed a little towards easy, and thus probably set to face more dangerous, higher level enemies more often), it would seriously curtail an aspect of character growth that the game builds up slowly.
Like the reason not adding level to proficiency isn’t that popular isn’t because of the math or the grittiness of the game, it is just that character growth feels flat and characters don’t get as many boosts where it feels like they have really just gotten more powerful. Magic weapons do a lot of heavily lifting for character power growth in PF2…but not for casters.
Some folks hate this (hence this massive thread), but for casters those big power boosts are getting new ranks of spell slots. Personally, I much prefer we keep spells tuned up to the point where new ranks of spells just making your character feel more awesome, rather than trying to mute that enough to tie it also to needing to upkeep a magic ray item that is going to boost 2 times total, maybe? I don’t know if the developers could have had the foresight of the kineticist class at the start of the edition if they would have tried to temper spells a little more to accept a slower item bonus progression into casting. But it would be a less excellent system if default spells were less powerful so that you had to buy specialized equipment to cast certain spells better.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still believe Paizo could add in item bonuses to spell attack rolls and it wouldn't change much. People would still feel underwhelmed because attack roll spells aren't very good.
Casters work with saves in PF2. Without touch AC and powerful attack roll spells worth using like in PF1, attack roll spells are vastly inferior to the current save spells that form the meta (that's the word to be used for top level play?).
I think a lot of people miss attack roll spells because PF1 had some real winners like enervate and polar ray when it was brutal.
I haven't used many attack roll spells at higher level in PF2. I imagine some wizards like using disintegrate in PF2. I don't know. I don't play many arcane casters and none to high level.
I'm still not sure why we have these long spell attack roll threads given I don't know many attack roll spells I would start using if they gave us an item bonus other than cantrips.
I keep wondering if the people creating these threads really have an idea of what attack roll spells will suddenly make attack roll spells great with an item bonus? What do they want to use that they're having problems using?
PF2 casters could use a Callandor, Sakarnen, or a Choedan Kal an exciting item that isn't just another way to access a couple more spell slots.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I much prefer we keep spells tuned up to the point where new ranks of spells just making your character feel more awesome, rather than trying to mute that enough to tie it also to needing to upkeep a magic ray item that is going to boost 2 times total, maybe?
Why are we acting like it's an either or?
Making something bad more balanced doesn't require making something balanced less to compensate. It doesn't even make sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Without touch AC and powerful attack roll spells worth using like in PF1, attack roll spells are vastly inferior to the current save spells that form the meta (that's the word to be used for top level play?).
To clarify, pretty much. "Meta" in this case refers to popular/effective playstyles/builds that are useful in most every encounter/table, and is commonly used as a term in competitive online games like League of Legends, DOTA 2, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have never liked the term "meta" in this context. For some reason it just annoys the heck out of me. :-(
I have never liked the term "meta" in this context. For some reason it just annoys the heck out of me. :-(
I can understand it, but it's not something exclusive to a subset of genres anymore.
From what I understand, the term was derived because of the "constant" changes in balancing that are far more feasible and malleable to do in computer games (because all it is, essentially, is changing coding and then posting that informative change to the public), than in a tabletop system like PF2. As a result of things constantly changing, calling something the "meta" basically meant that this was the Flavor of the Month, since next month, it will probably change, or more accurately, "meta"morphosize into something else entirely.
To a point, PF1 did this as well when they released new content, what with the numerous Dex to Damage feats and exclusive character trait options (and PF2 did to an extent, like the Flickmace, but this is more because of new options existing, and not because of power creep, which PF2 has gone to great lengths to curtail over time), so this sort of thing wasn't necessarily exclusive to online computer games, though it certainly wasn't as frequent (nor did it constantly change existing options, just implemented newer, stronger options over time).
Of course, one could instead extend the term to apply to edition changes, and in that case, then the explanation of the "meta" for this edition makes more sense in that context.
Without touch AC and powerful attack roll spells worth using like in PF1, attack roll spells are vastly inferior to the current save spells that form the meta (that's the word to be used for top level play?).To clarify, pretty much. "Meta" in this case refers to popular/effective playstyles/builds that are useful in most every encounter/table, and is commonly used as a term in competitive online games like League of Legends, DOTA 2, etc.
Thanks. That's a newer slang term to me. We use optimal around my table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Meta" was also used in MTG before those games existed to refer to the same kind of thing
At the end looks like magic is more a saving throws thing, and attack spells (non-cantrips) are really a something more niche, as looking them usually have some special feature:
- Scorching ray: selective multi-target. So party friendly.
- Chromatic ray: can apply some powerful effects, specially as 6th level.
- Disintegrate: can be used against objects and to disintegrate 10-foot cube of material, which could be pretty handy against doors, walls, etc. And can terminate any force barrier spell.
- Polar ray: applies the powerful condition drained, more powerful if you use the Stamina rules.
A fey blooded sorcerer can in one turn use fairy dust then charm triggering their bloodline effect twice.
Resulting in two concealed allys one foe that cant attack the caster from charm. Leaving the tankiest character as the only target left the enemies can go after without any hindrance.
In the right hands charm can work in battle.
|
|
It would be interesting to know the breakdown of attack spells and the various save spells in each Tradition.You ask? I deliver!
(note that this isn't all spells with the Attack trait since that's a lot of other options like Telekinetic Maneuver)
** spoiler omitted **** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
As we can see, Arcane and Primal have the vast majority of the spell attacks, with occult having the fewest. Arcane is fairly balanced between saves, while Divine really loves its Fortitude and Will saves and sucks at Reflex. Occult similarly sucks at Reflex and is heavily weighted towards Will, while Primal is good at Fortitude and Reflex but awful at Will.
Also note that I didn't comb through each list for attack spells. So the list of Will saves will include things like Charm, which is pretty much not a combat spell, or Catch Your Name, which definitely isn't (and caster's imposition which...really is irrelevant). I can filter that later...
Wow. Thanks a lot. Arcane really has the greatest versatility.
A fey blooded sorcerer can in one turn use fairy dust then charm triggering their bloodline effect twice.
Resulting in two concealed allys one foe that cant attack the caster from charm. Leaving the tankiest character as the only target left the enemies can go after without any hindrance.
In the right hands charm can work in battle.Hence the "pretty much", yep. I mean arguably "catch your name" can be used in combat as well (though it's harder) and so filtering becomes a very subjective thing.
But hopefully the provided data (with no filtering) are still useful for people!
Thank you for making those tallys. That must have been a bit of work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow. Thanks a lot. Arcane really has the greatest versatility.It would be interesting to know the breakdown of attack spells and the various save spells in each Tradition.You ask? I deliver!
(note that this isn't all spells with the Attack trait since that's a lot of other options like Telekinetic Maneuver)
** spoiler omitted **** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
As we can see, Arcane and Primal have the vast majority of the spell attacks, with occult having the fewest. Arcane is fairly balanced between saves, while Divine really loves its Fortitude and Will saves and sucks at Reflex. Occult similarly sucks at Reflex and is heavily weighted towards Will, while Primal is good at Fortitude and Reflex but awful at Will.
Also note that I didn't comb through each list for attack spells. So the list of Will saves will include things like Charm, which is pretty much not a combat spell, or Catch Your Name, which definitely isn't (and caster's imposition which...really is irrelevant). I can filter that later...
And Arcane has true strike on its list.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will note that recently there have been some spell attack spells without the attack trait, the list of ones I know of are Flense, Inkshot, Purifying Icicle, Exploding Earth, Splinter Volley, Percussive Impact, Blinding Foam and lastly an area spell attack in Ravenous Darkness
Maybe some kind of testing a change for method? It would be interesting having only spell attack and using it against target AC or savings, instead the target using its resistances against caster DC. Just remove the DC thing and unify all the roll vs and apply only the multi-attack penalty if attacking the AC.
|
|
I will note that recently there have been some spell attack spells without the attack trait, the list of ones I know of are Flense, Inkshot, Purifying Icicle, Exploding Earth, Splinter Volley, Percussive Impact, Blinding Foam and lastly an area spell attack in Ravenous DarknessWhyyyyyyy that's so silly.
Based on the following, we should apply the MAP, but RAW it would apparently not increase :
"Penalties affect spell attack rolls just like any other attack roll—including your multiple attack penalty."
|
|
Maybe some kind of testing a change for method? It would be interesting having only spell attack and using it against target AC or savings, instead the target using its resistances against caster DC. Just remove the DC thing and unify all the roll vs and apply only the multi-attack penalty if attacking the AC.
True Strike would become far more of a problem/required spell. As well as Hero Points and any Reroll Fortune effect that would apply.
|
|
Yep, but the weird thing is that it doesn't itself increase your MAP. Which is, uh, a thing.I will note that recently there have been some spell attack spells without the attack trait, the list of ones I know of are Flense, Inkshot, Purifying Icicle, Exploding Earth, Splinter Volley, Percussive Impact, Blinding Foam and lastly an area spell attack in Ravenous DarknessWhyyyyyyy that's so silly.Based on the following, we should apply the MAP, but RAW it would apparently not increase :
"Penalties affect spell attack rolls just like any other attack roll—including your multiple attack penalty."
The perfect spells for people with a one-action attack.
Maybe some kind of testing a change for method? It would be interesting having only spell attack and using it against target AC or savings, instead the target using its resistances against caster DC. Just remove the DC thing and unify all the roll vs and apply only the multi-attack penalty if attacking the AC.True Strike would become far more of a problem/required spell. As well as Hero Points and any Reroll Fortune effect that would apply.
Restrict True Strike for attacking AC only.
For rerolls no problem just make the attacker roll again its attack instead rolling yourself your saving.
This would change AoE spells but indeed IMHO is like it should be, the caster making attacks rolls again the target defenses, i.e. attack with a Fireball the target Reflexes. In Rolemaster it was that way and loved it as is your attack, no matter if AoE or not. And you save of making a loooot of rolls, 1 attack vs many saving throws.
|
|
Maybe some kind of testing a change for method? It would be interesting having only spell attack and using it against target AC or savings, instead the target using its resistances against caster DC. Just remove the DC thing and unify all the roll vs and apply only the multi-attack penalty if attacking the AC.True Strike would become far more of a problem/required spell. As well as Hero Points and any Reroll Fortune effect that would apply.Restrict True Strike for attacking AC only.
For rerolls no problem just make the attacker roll again its attack instead rolling yourself your saving.
This would change AoE spells but indeed IMHO is like it should be, the caster making attacks rolls again the target defenses, i.e. attack with a Fireball the target Reflexes. In Rolemaster it was that way and loved it as is your attack, no matter if AoE or not. And you save of making a loooot of rolls, 1 attack vs many saving throws.
I think players do not like it when they feel they have no agency in avoiding something that will weaken their character's abilities, such as conditions and other consequences that effects with a save often inflict.
While attacks, which mostly just subtract hit points, usually do not adversely affect said abilities.
Making every spell an attack would IMO make the players feel really bad when it's their PC who is on the receiving end.
Maybe some kind of testing a change for method? It would be interesting having only spell attack and using it against target AC or savings, instead the target using its resistances against caster DC. Just remove the DC thing and unify all the roll vs and apply only the multi-attack penalty if attacking the AC.True Strike would become far more of a problem/required spell. As well as Hero Points and any Reroll Fortune effect that would apply.Restrict True Strike for attacking AC only.
For rerolls no problem just make the attacker roll again its attack instead rolling yourself your saving.
This would change AoE spells but indeed IMHO is like it should be, the caster making attacks rolls again the target defenses, i.e. attack with a Fireball the target Reflexes. In Rolemaster it was that way and loved it as is your attack, no matter if AoE or not. And you save of making a loooot of rolls, 1 attack vs many saving throws.
I think players do not like it when they feel they have no agency in avoiding something that will weaken their character's abilities, such as conditions and other consequences that effects with a save often inflict.
While attacks, which mostly just subtract hit points, usually do not adversely affect said abilities.
Making every spell an attack would IMO make the players feel really bad when it's their PC who is on the receiving end.
Speaking of the receiving end. Do caster foes casting the same spell attack spells do so better than players at the same level?
Speaking of the receiving end. Do caster foes casting the same spell attack spells do so better than players at the same level?Maybe some kind of testing a change for method? It would be interesting having only spell attack and using it against target AC or savings, instead the target using its resistances against caster DC. Just remove the DC thing and unify all the roll vs and apply only the multi-attack penalty if attacking the AC.True Strike would become far more of a problem/required spell. As well as Hero Points and any Reroll Fortune effect that would apply.Restrict True Strike for attacking AC only.
For rerolls no problem just make the attacker roll again its attack instead rolling yourself your saving.
This would change AoE spells but indeed IMHO is like it should be, the caster making attacks rolls again the target defenses, i.e. attack with a Fireball the target Reflexes. In Rolemaster it was that way and loved it as is your attack, no matter if AoE or not. And you save of making a loooot of rolls, 1 attack vs many saving throws.
I think players do not like it when they feel they have no agency in avoiding something that will weaken their character's abilities, such as conditions and other consequences that effects with a save often inflict.
While attacks, which mostly just subtract hit points, usually do not adversely affect said abilities.
Making every spell an attack would IMO make the players feel really bad when it's their PC who is on the receiving end.
That's a bit misleading bc a "same lvl" caster enemy is designed to be fought by 4 PCs. A balanced 1 v 1 versus a caster enemy would result in that NPC being a lower lvl
|
|
Speaking of the receiving end. Do caster foes casting the same spell attack spells do so better than players at the same level?Maybe some kind of testing a change for method? It would be interesting having only spell attack and using it against target AC or savings, instead the target using its resistances against caster DC. Just remove the DC thing and unify all the roll vs and apply only the multi-attack penalty if attacking the AC.True Strike would become far more of a problem/required spell. As well as Hero Points and any Reroll Fortune effect that would apply.Restrict True Strike for attacking AC only.
For rerolls no problem just make the attacker roll again its attack instead rolling yourself your saving.
This would change AoE spells but indeed IMHO is like it should be, the caster making attacks rolls again the target defenses, i.e. attack with a Fireball the target Reflexes. In Rolemaster it was that way and loved it as is your attack, no matter if AoE or not. And you save of making a loooot of rolls, 1 attack vs many saving throws.
I think players do not like it when they feel they have no agency in avoiding something that will weaken their character's abilities, such as conditions and other consequences that effects with a save often inflict.
While attacks, which mostly just subtract hit points, usually do not adversely affect said abilities.
Making every spell an attack would IMO make the players feel really bad when it's their PC who is on the receiving end.
Just checked one on AoN. Not sure if all others are like this, but it had the same DC as my Witch, but a +2 to attack spells.
Now, a martial foe nearby that felt like a Barbarian had +3 to melee attacks and +6 to ranged attacks compared to my Barbarian.
|
|
That's a bit misleading bc a "same lvl" caster enemy is designed to be fought by 4 PCs. A balanced 1 v 1 versus a caster enemy would result in that NPC being a lower lvlSpeaking of the receiving end. Do caster foes casting the same spell attack spells do so better than players at the same level?Maybe some kind of testing a change for method? It would be interesting having only spell attack and using it against target AC or savings, instead the target using its resistances against caster DC. Just remove the DC thing and unify all the roll vs and apply only the multi-attack penalty if attacking the AC.True Strike would become far more of a problem/required spell. As well as Hero Points and any Reroll Fortune effect that would apply.Restrict True Strike for attacking AC only.
For rerolls no problem just make the attacker roll again its attack instead rolling yourself your saving.
This would change AoE spells but indeed IMHO is like it should be, the caster making attacks rolls again the target defenses, i.e. attack with a Fireball the target Reflexes. In Rolemaster it was that way and loved it as is your attack, no matter if AoE or not. And you save of making a loooot of rolls, 1 attack vs many saving throws.
I think players do not like it when they feel they have no agency in avoiding something that will weaken their character's abilities, such as conditions and other consequences that effects with a save often inflict.
While attacks, which mostly just subtract hit points, usually do not adversely affect said abilities.
Making every spell an attack would IMO make the players feel really bad when it's their PC who is on the receiving end.
I had forgotten this.
It explains at least part of the discrepancy for the martial vs my Barbarian. Thank you.
That's a bit misleading bc a "same lvl" caster enemy is designed to be fought by 4 PCs. A balanced 1 v 1 versus a caster enemy would result in that NPC being a lower lvlSpeaking of the receiving end. Do caster foes casting the same spell attack spells do so better than players at the same level?Maybe some kind of testing a change for method? It would be interesting having only spell attack and using it against target AC or savings, instead the target using its resistances against caster DC. Just remove the DC thing and unify all the roll vs and apply only the multi-attack penalty if attacking the AC.True Strike would become far more of a problem/required spell. As well as Hero Points and any Reroll Fortune effect that would apply.Restrict True Strike for attacking AC only.
For rerolls no problem just make the attacker roll again its attack instead rolling yourself your saving.
This would change AoE spells but indeed IMHO is like it should be, the caster making attacks rolls again the target defenses, i.e. attack with a Fireball the target Reflexes. In Rolemaster it was that way and loved it as is your attack, no matter if AoE or not. And you save of making a loooot of rolls, 1 attack vs many saving throws.
I think players do not like it when they feel they have no agency in avoiding something that will weaken their character's abilities, such as conditions and other consequences that effects with a save often inflict.
While attacks, which mostly just subtract hit points, usually do not adversely affect said abilities.
Making every spell an attack would IMO make the players feel really bad when it's their PC who is on the receiving end.
Right cant think of monster level as the same as character levels interms of power.
If a party of player characters fought mirrors of themselves what would the encounter rating be? Would it be less than fighting 4 level same level monsters ?4 same level is extreme right? But a mirror match of the party? If the rating is also extreme then we are talking apple to apples and the higher spell attack is comparable.
If you mean that all targets suffer similar effect, with rarely different success or some fails while others critical success on saving, well is what it has that system based on attack. But while is applied for both players and foes is balanced. It would be compensated when a player caster uses a Fireball and rolls high making full damage to everyone.
At the end is just probability in any case.
Speaking of the receiving end. Do caster foes casting the same spell attack spells do so better than players at the same level?
NPC casters tend to be designed with martial or even fighter level accuracy because Paizo realizes that having spell attacks that fail constantly would make for a boring enemy encounter.
NPC casters tend to be designed with martial or even fighter level accuracy because Paizo realizes that having spell attacks that fail constantly would make for a boring enemy encounter.
Speaking of the receiving end. Do caster foes casting the same spell attack spells do so better than players at the same level?
Then this whole thread is was really solved when this was mentioed earlier. All the arguments for spell attack not getting those pluses are undermined by the fact that monsters need thise bonuses to pose a threat to players with spell attacks. Its safe to assume monsters are attempting to apply tactical bonuses the same way players are by causing fear and trying to flank. The same applies the other way, players need the same bonuses to pose a threat with spell attacks to monsters.