Community

Aug 26, 2012 -- 3:17PM, elecgraystone wrote:

Aug 25, 2012 -- 6:14PM, edwin_su wrote:

so my question is monster to hit to low ?
all classes get a minimum of a +2 to hit bonus, but most monsters don't they only get their ability score modifyer.
should the to hit of monsters be increased also giving them the same +2 bonus that all classes give to the player characters ?
 

Well... Lets take that +2 and roll it against not the fighters and clerics but the playtest wizard. 9+ with a chance of a one hit KO. A greater than 50% chance to hit seems too HIGH looking at that.

yes it could have been our party composition 1 priest 2 fighters.
lowest ac 15 from the sex fighter.

he was the onlu onw who got hit during the whole 6 hour sesion of play and when he did get hit his d6 was enough to reduce the damage to insignificant numbers

Aug 28, 2012 -- 7:43PM, ElricLikesFighting wrote:

I think its an artifact of the new player hp totals. If you give the monsters a 60% success rate with a hit, and then keep their damage the same but reduce player hp, you end up with a lot of dead PCs. I really don't like it. It moves the system further in the direction of the tyranny of the d20. It's not really about the tactics being used or what a creature or PC is supposed to be good at, it's about the whims of the d20. What's the point of having stat blocks if the game is essentially say what you want to do and roll a d20, if you roll a 13 or higher you succeed. The GM rules even kind of say this when they tell the DM to not worry about a DC, just eyeball it on whether the roll was high or not.

Right now the game is all about sending waves of monsters at the PC so they have a chance of scoring a hit and PCs not feeling like they are good at something unless they have advantage. As a previous poster said, it's so swingy. I know they want to test the low hp pcs, but what's the point of having low hp if you're only going to be hit once or twice during the day; unless of course you dm rolls hot and murders you with three lucky rolls. Players aren't really punished for poor decisions, they're punished for bad luck.

There's a ton of potential in a bounded accuracy system, I just don't think the way to account for low hp is by screwing with the to hit math. That's the engine the game runs on. That needs to be tight and expandable. Then you could create the feel you want by adjusting other parts of the game. Some players want a more deadly game, keep monster damage the same and lower PC hp. Some want a more granular system of hits increase PC hp or reduce monster hp.

Me I'd much rather have kobolds have say a 60% chance of hitting, and then only do 1 point of damage. What's the point of attempting something you only have a 30 or 40% chance of success at. That's a sign you should be doing something else. I can see why they did it, I just think the game is better served with monster that hit an average PC  four out of six times doing a point of damage each time than a monster that only hits one out of six times for six damage.

I also think the game is better served with similar probabilities on both sides of the table. I can understand people liking the feel of older editions, the sense of danger and adventure, but I don't think wonky math is one of the things people are nostalgic for.

One way to account for this and actually make the early encounters a bit better is to re-equip the monsters. Goblins are as likely to use daggers as maces, imo, since they are stealthy roguish raiders. Give them an appropriate weapon, and watch their damage with that dagger go down. Then you can give them a +2 or so to bring them back up to a 'pc' level (this is still low, but 10% more likely while allowing even most wizards to take a hit and live). If that +2 doesn't seem balanced enough, raise it to a +3, then they are in line with a trained PC in that attack mode (though with low ability scores).

There's no reason they should ALL be wielding maces every time. 

Aug 29, 2012 -- 10:39AM, Lon_Mo-arr_Soltari wrote:

Also, even though the "tactical module" isn't included in this package. Maybe when it is added it will include flanking for +2 to strike (or just add it yourself). Now, all of a sudden, those groups of mooks have a better chance to hit the PCs if they can manage to flank somebody.

I know I plan to include some sort of flanking rule when the game comes out if one isn't included in the core game or a module (flanking is just such a basic tactic that, from my past gaming experience, even relative newbies who have little sense for tactics seem to easily grasp and enjoy the mechanic).

But, for now, the monsters' low to-hit bonuseses (boni) are simply to balance against overall PC fragility (at least at low levels)...in theory...

I tend to give advantage if they are flanking, but I don't pay a LOT of attention to positioning, and have been looking at revising it since that makes rogues far higher DPS in melee then they are without it.

Aug 29, 2012 -- 10:39AM, Lon_Mo-arr_Soltari wrote:

Also, even though the "tactical module" isn't included in this package. Maybe when it is added it will include flanking for +2 to strike (or just add it yourself). Now, all of a sudden, those groups of mooks have a better chance to hit the PCs if they can manage to flank somebody.

I know I plan to include some sort of flanking rule when the game comes out if one isn't included in the core game or a module (flanking is just such a basic tactic that, from my past gaming experience, even relative newbies who have little sense for tactics seem to easily grasp and enjoy the mechanic).

But, for now, the monsters' low to-hit bonuseses (boni) are simply to balance against overall PC fragility (at least at low levels)...in theory...

Good point.  We really need to see what other bonuses will be available to the monsters before we can really work with the numbers.

For all we know, many of the monsters may get bonues like Mob Tactics, thug, bloodlust, whatever they come up with to make the creatures more interesting and more effective in specific situations.