Bestiary

[Xeterog]

Looking at the monsters in the Bestiary, I notice that they don't have any bonus to hit, except from Str/Dex

I've also noticed that many people note that the Monsters don't hit very much at all...that they work alot like brutes from 4e in that they don't hit much, but hit hard when they do hit.

PC's, on the other hand, seem to not be able to miss at all, as they not only get their stat bonus, but a class bonus to hit.

I'm going to run some of the playtest adventure this weekend, and I think I may just add 2 to most monsters attack rolls... probably add 3 or 4 to higher level creatures and/or 'fighter' types (like the level 6 Bugbear with a whopping +2 attack..should be +5 or 6 at the least, IMO)

any thoughts and/or suggestions?

 

[Xeterog]

could it be that PC attacks are too high right now? instead of +2 to +4 for the 5 levels, it should be +0 to +3..hmm.

 

[Blackwarder]

could it be that PC attacks are too high right now? instead of +2 to +4 for the 5 levels, it should be +0 to +3..hmm.

I was thinking the same thing the other day...

Warder

 

[PinkRose]

Raise Monster attacks. Don't lower PC attacks.
If PCs have lower attack bonuses they hit less and combats take longer. Better Attack Bonuses will move combat along and make combats scarier.
I think +2 to all monsters sounds solid at this time.

 

[mlund]

Yes, monster attacks are short by a baseline of around +2 to hit. At the same time monster damage is too high for the reduced HP of PCs. Perhaps a blanket +2 to hit / -2 to damage could get the job done.

Right now monster attacks are using the same engines as PCs - weapon tables, stat adjustments, armor tables, but with no class levels and often times bad stats. That's no way to build a monster!

- Marty Lund

 

[Mengu]

Monsters do a decent amount of damage on a hit, and PC's don't have a whole lot of hit points. If monsters hit any more frequently, every character will need their own personal pocket healer. As things stand it seems near impossible to play without a healer. Increasing monster attack bonus would only compound the issue.

I think they are relying on the fact that monsters will miss most of the time, for PC survival. I don't think this is a good direction (due to multiple reasons from swingy combat to perceived monster scariness), but it seems to be their model for attempting to keep PC hit points low. Apparently that is what was requested by the masses, and they are attempting to listen to the masses, so this is where we're at.

Please, in your feedback, tell them we need monsters to hit more often, do more damage, and be scarier. Only if our wishes contradict each other multiple times, will they come to their senses, and stop listening to us, and start crafting a good game.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Please, in your feedback, tell them we need monsters to hit more often, do more damage, and be scarier. Only if our wishes contradict each other multiple times, will they come to their senses, and stop listening to us, and start crafting a good game.

qft

 

[tlantl]

I'd be more inclined to lower character bonuses than increase monster attacks, but I would imagine that the average monster should be at least as good as the cleric or the rogue, or vice versa.

At some point I'd imagine combat oriented creatures to be up to the task of fighting at a level at least commensurate to the level they are assigned if not their hit dice which is how the players measure their combat prowess. Given that some creatures are more defensive oriented such as deer and other prey animals they shouldn't be combat savvy nymphs and brownies either, but an orc, that's another thing entirely. I'd expect them to be easily as dangerous as the group's fighter or slightly less depending on how you see their basic combat training to be.


Perhaps because of the small handful of hit points a mage and a rogue start with the devs decided to reduce the attack values of monsters to avoid players whining about having their newly rolled 1st level wizards one shotted by the very first goblin they faced in melee.

 

[Cerebral Paladin]

I completely agree with the complaints--the monsters can't hit the broadside of a barn. Especially with hard-to-hit PCs--high dex rogues, fighter types--the monsters need to roll like a 14 to hit, which means that small numbers of monsters are either overmatched or very swingy (if they can do enough damage to be threatening even with a 1 in 3 hit rate) and large numbers of monsters are kinda tedious. "You get attacked 6 times, and hit twice..."

Obviously, if the fights are overall balanced right, increasing the hit rate needs to be matched with decreasing the damage... but I'm not sure the fights are balanced right. My impression is that the fights that the playtest packet thinks are reasonable are generally pushovers. So I think there might be a lot of merit to upping the to-hits of the monsters while holding the damage roughly constant.

 

[kenko6ux]

I kind of like the lower attack bonuses coupled with higher damage for monsters. It feels cinematic. In most movies the bad guys are notoriously bad shots and the good guys rarely get hit. But when they do get hit, it's usually memorable. It raises the stakes every time the PCs do get hit.