Weather Report wrote:
Ah, I am not into the Magus, especially with the revised action economy,
Due to revised action economy the Magus would have to work almost completely differently on a mechanical level to be cool and effective. That doesn't mean they can't do that (I suspect they can), but it's not gonna resemble the PF1 Magus a whole lot mechanically.
Weather Report wrote:
nor into Swashbuckler (rogue or fighter archetype), the Bloodrager is an obvious Barbarian thing (as you say), and a stupid name, to me,
I'd be fine with all these as Archetypes, but then I'd be fine with Gunslinger solely as an Archetype, too. They may well be too popular for that treatment (especially Gunslinger and Swashbuckler), but we'll see.
Weather Report wrote:
as for the Summoner, I like the concept, dislike the execution, the Eidolon thing annoys me.
Summoner strikes me as worth converting thematically, and the mechanics seem fixable with an edition change.
Weather Report wrote:
Hey, I wasn't having a go, just trying to get it straight in me ol' noggin.
Oh, I wasn't trying to be snippy, just provide information and clarify why I hadn't mentioned it previously. Sorry if it came across otherwise.
Tone is hard to convey properly on the internet sometimes.
Weather Report wrote:
1) Neat, I always like feats like Zen Archery and substituting ability scores, within reason (4th Ed goes too far with this, for me - yay, I can use my Cha modifier for everything!).
So far it seems Class rather than Feat based, which is a bit easier to keep from getting out of hand.
Weather Report wrote:
2) I guess if the Witch is in the top 3 or what-have-you most popular non-core classes, then yeah, they should bring it on; Gunslinger, Oracle, and Witch seem like good candidates.
Well, per this survey I appear to have misremembered slightly. Witch is 4th of the non-corebook Classes, right after Magus and right before Gunslinger. So Oracle, Witch, Magus, and Gunslinger seem like to get revamps (Swashbuckler and Inquisitor are also on that list popularity wise, as are Bloodrager and Summoner).
Personally I hope they combine Swashbuckler and Gunslinger into a single Class (no idea on name, but the mechanics for the two are similar enough to make this a good plan), and make Bloodrager stuff a Barbarian Archetype, but the rest of those being full Classes makes a lot of sense to me.
Weather Report wrote:
Paladin from Have Gun Will Travel is an example of a fictional character who makes an excellent LG Paladin example. And how such a character can work as a mercenary. It's super good inspiration for PC Paladins for precisely that reason.
I recommend it for that purpose to anyone who likes Westerns.
Not all classes will work the same in PF2. Some have spells. Some don't. Clerics have domains. They will have different weapon proficiencies.
True, but Class-Agnostic Archetypes don't interact with those things at all. The part they interact with is equivalent, which is very much not true of Starfinder Archetypes.
I also doubt class feats will all be equal. Some classes will weaker feats than others. If Archetypes are class agnostic, then either the Archetype is overpowered or only the classes with weaker feats use them.
This is not necessarily true. For one thing, they mentioned in the Pirate Archetype example that it might have both martial ans spell casting Feat options, so one of the biggest divides in likely Class Feat capabilities might be bridged right there. For another, I'm not sure it follows that one Class's Class Feats will be unambiguously better than another's. We have several Classes whose Class Features aren't so assuming Class Feats will strikes me as odd.
Weather Report wrote:
1) Nice, some little dreams can come true, though I am not sure about it being Cha-based (Master of Resonance).
Alchemists already have Int based Resonance, I'd be willing to bet that so will Occultists.
Weather Report wrote:
2) Feeling cheated seems to come, no matter what, with an edition change, someone always feels "cheated".
Sure, but you ideally avoid as many of these situations as you can. This one's easy to avoid.
On different note, I really liked adding class levels to monsters. Sure, it could have some weird issues, and took some time, but you could really dial stuff in.
Uh...all evidence is that you can absolutely do this in PF2. Even 'inappropriate' Classes will be more balanced, simply because any level of anything adds +1 to attack, saves, AC, all skills, and anything else with a Proficiency Bonus.
But you can throw three levels of Cleric on an Ogre if you want and it looks like that would work fine.
The Pirate example seems to have been just that, a hypothetical example. Which doesn't mean there won't be one, of course (there almost certainly will be eventually) but don't be surprised if it's not in the playtest.
And guns and pirates aren't very strongly correlated in Golarion, so I wouldn't expect a pirate archetype to get gun stuff. That said, I'd be shocked if we don't get a class-agnostic gun archetype eventually, and taking both that and the Pirate archetype seems plausible.
The soul anchor lets you keep Class Levels. That's a vastly more mechanically important concept than memories and absolutely justifies it being an artifact. On a conceptual level, it literally lets you cheat Pharasma's system and judgment (which is what normally determines what you become in the way of an Outsider).
Hell, that would justify it being an artifact all on its own even if you still lost your memories.
I don't think its existence says anything one way or the other about how difficult mortal memories are to return to a formerly mortal Outsider (which both the options I list actually do allow, both can make you live through the memories).
Starfinder lacks the inherent balancing mechanic of all Classes actually working the same (ie: Class Feats in PF2). It also doesn't do what they say they're gonna do with PF2 Class-Agnostic Archetypes and make them modular (ie: they're a new list of Feats, but you don't need to take them at a specific level or anything, and can take only as many as you want).
This is important information. Again I recognize there may be rules changes, but I expect there are still ways to, for example, disarm and sunder weapons. So in the example of the ogre and redcap, who have only weapon-based attacks, if this happens, I as GM now have to sit in the middle of combat and try to reverse-engineer the monster to figure out what its attack bonus will be with an unarmed/natural/attack with a different weapon. No. No thank you. (Especially since HD are also not listed now, and while I don't mind that, it makes that kind of reverse engineering even harder.)
Level has replaced both BAB and HD for basically all purposes. Many Creatures may have additional bonuses in general on top of that (most of which are probably not weapon specific), but Level is the base amount.
But Mark's already said there are guidelines for switching weapons on monsters, so I wouldn't worry about them too much.
Given that we've been told that characters will automatically improve in Perception, rather than put ranks in it, it seems a bit odd that Sense Motive would also be included in this.
Not really. I worry about not getting any Sense Motive Skill Feats, but aside from that raising in Proficiency automatically seems a reasonable enough thing for your ability to detect lies, given how often adventurers get lied to.
My guess is Ride will be part of Athletics.
Athletics is the Strength based one, so I sorta doubt it.
Orville Redenbacher wrote:
Pretty sure Occultist could just be bard sub-class in new system.
They've already strongly implied that's not how they'd do that. Occultist is apparently a Class they're interested in converting over in its own right.
I think a lot of the "witch can't be a wizard" comments are not thinking of things in the context of what we already know about pf2e, and how it differs from pf1e.
No, I've thought about it.
For starters, hexes, if they are going to still be at will in pf2e, fit perfectly with the new scaling cantrip system.
Not really very well. I mean, they might well count as cantrips for mechanical ease, but they sort of definitionally need to be way more powerful than other people's cantrips are shaping up to be or people who like the Witch will feel cheated.
Clerical domains in pf2e have already shown to add spells to the character's spell list, as opposed to pf1e's domain slots. As such, there's no reason that the various witchcraft schools (and specialist schools, for that matter) could not do the same.
I'd be shocked if Patron didn't do exactly this, but replacing 1/2 to 2/3 of the Spell List is a bit beyond such a thing.
It could be designed that the most signature illusion spells, for instance, are only available to wizards who have specialized in the illusion school. Conversely, a witch of the healing specialty could have heal, restoration, etc on theirs.
This is theoretically doable, but from what they've already said about spell lists clearly not how they're doing them for Wizard, so it's a bit of a non-starter in that regard.
Still curious as to why there is no range listed on the ogre's darkvision?
Vision no longer seems to have range. Darkvision just makes you able to see in the dark.
Also since CMD is gone what do you use for the DC of a combat maneuver? AC? Touch AC? Other?
We know that grapple and disarm both target 'Reflex Defense' which is Reflex Save +10. Other maneuvers may target other Save Defenses, and some skills may be able to substitute in (I wouldn't be surprised if Athletics +10 can be used as a defense against Grapple).
I think the new CMD is related to athletics and acrobatics.
No, making combat maneuvers is now an Athletics (for grapple and disarm at least) or maybe sometimes Acrobatics check, but defending seems Save based.
Weather Report wrote:
Which I do not like (keep skills away from perfunctory combat manoeuvres), maybe because of 5th Ed's egregious design mistake.
I'm cool with it given the really tight math.
Weather Report wrote:
Yes, and I do not agree with your assertions/list/reasonings, no big deal, we just disagree, I am fine with a witch class, or not. Easily taken care of with an archetype, subclass, and what-not.
Fair enough, I suppose.
As for what they're gonna do with it, like I said in my first post, this is sort of academic in terms of Witch. They've noted that Witch almost made the cut as a new core class and that they're aware people get annoyed when their favorite Classes get changed into archetypes. Oracle and Witch, as the two most popular PF1 Classes not showing up in the Core, are pretty much certainly gonna show up as full Classes eventually.
Everything past that is more debatable, though the Occult Classes are weird enough that they seem likely to be their own thing when they show up.
Chalk me up for one that dislikes the direction AWAY from classed monsters. I want all intelligent creatures the GM controls that are able to learn to do so via level advancement, just like the creatures the players control.
As Fuzzypaws notes, nothing prevents doing NPCs with the PC rules or adding PC Class levels to monsters. That works fine.
Weather Report wrote:
Still looks and plays like a wizard variant, hexes and storage/gaining of spells are really not enough to hang a new class on, from what I see. I was gonna convert the PF1 Witch to 5th Ed, but it screams to be a subclass.
Have you ever actually played a Witch or seen one played over a significant time frame? I have done so a few times (the Witch in my RoW is about to hit 9th level having started at 1st, and I've seen them played into the teens). I ask this as a serious question, because, despite looking similar at first glance, they play so differently from just about any other primary caster that it's difficult to even compare them.
The style of play and how they actually function are more profoundly different than Druid and Cleric (to pick an example of two Classes that are distinctly different in both Pathfinder and 5E despite the same superficial similarities as Wizard and Witch). And indeed, in many ways, more similar to a caster Druid than to a Wizard (though they aren't really similar to either). If I was to suggest they be made an Archetype, it wouldn't be of Wizard, but one of the several other Classes they play closer to (not that any are very close).
The spell list is an interesting a specific thing, and both very thematic, while being flexible in some ways (healing and Baleful Polymorph on the same list) but sharply limited in others (a Witch's crowd control options are sharply limited, for example). And that's just the spell list, which is not the most major aspect, that's the Hexes themselves.
The Witch's Hex emphasis profoundly alters their interaction with the rest of the game world more than almost any other non-spell Class Feature that exists, and does so in a way that makes trying to insert them as a Wizard Archetype almost certainly either profoundly overpowered, deeply unsatisfying, or both. Because Hexes are at-will abilities that are often as powerful as your best spells, just often with very narrow application, and that creates such a different dynamic with their spells, when to use them, and how they work, that it bears almost no real resemblance to playing a Wizard.
If that dynamic is maintained (which it should be, it's the heart of the Class mechanically) then adding it to a Wizard is gonna make them overpowered almost no matter what they give up. You need a less offensive spell list to have the dynamic work, and frankly once you've changed the list and replaced the Class Features it's a new Class and you might as well label it as such.
Classes define mechanics - Players define flavor. What mechanics are different between a witch and a wizard? How do those minor differences warrant a separate class, when the system can work better with them combined?
Uh...are you serious? The two Classes are both Int based prepared casters (so they have the same number of skill points, BAB, and HD). Both can have a Familiar.
I have just listed the entirety of their mechanical similarities. The Spell Lists are different, Witches store and gain spells differently, and the Witch's Class Features are entirely different.
Saying the two are the same is basically just ignoring most of what makes both Classes actually tick. It's like saying a Barbarian and a Swashbuckler are the same because both are martial Classes with Full BAB and 4 + Int Skill Points.
Less popular Classes that are well suited to the Archetype treatment are most Hybrid Classes (maybe with the exception of Investigator and Shaman which do some odd and unique stuff) and those that either have lots of Archetypes duplicating them (like Gunslinger), or lots of Archetypes making them duplicate other Classes (like Vigilante).
Unless that gets codified, many GMs will declare monsters have odd numbered stats, making any level of -(odd number) to a stat less effective.
As Captain Morgan notes it's almost certain at this point that reducing ability scores is not a mechanic in the game. There are penalties that apply to everything the score does, but actually reducing it? Not a thing.
This would also be really easy to codify.
Assuming that monsters have even numbered stats is not especially difficult or onerous.
Asmodeus only does it when it gets him something (ie: the indoctrination of children). Cayden Cailean does it to help people, and is the Good Deity most involved in charitable giving.
Ryan Freire wrote:
No but being a drunken lecher isn't very paladiny even if it isnt necessarily non-good.
Cayden Cailean enjoys life, but there's little basis for calling him a lecher. I mean, there's evidence he hit on Calistria on at least one occasion...but she's the literal Goddess of Lust. That doesn't mean much. He's noted as flirtatious and a fan of bawdy songs, but that's a bit different from being a lecher.
He certainly is a drunk by some definitions, but on the other hand he specifically never broke with his own code of ethics, is probably the single most philanthropic of the main Gods (he's the only one who's notably a patron of orphanages other than Pharasma and the only one noted as a favored deity of philanthropists), and actively opposes tyranny at all times. He's not perfect...but then neither is Iomedae and she was a Paladin.
Conversely, spell casters are no longer limited to a single spell per turn, and casting time on many spells is reduced to a single action (with options to spend more) increasing their agency by virtue.
Wait, what? We have zero evidence of this. It's true of the Heal spell, but per the actual things the designers have stated about spells in general that's very much the exception and not the rule. From what they've actually said, most spells are two actions, especially offensive ones, with summoning spells being 3 actions and the only single action spell mentioned thus far being Shield, which is just like having an actual shield only not quite as good.
In short this is a huge assumption there's basically no evidence for and quite a bit against.
C/M D is by the looks of things just having a paradigm shift, but isn't getting fixed. Unless the feats designed to encapsulate individual combat styles somehow are simultaneously designed to be worse both numerically and temporally as a feature of the game. Current math suggests it is not.
We have way too little data to say this (especially since the only math I've seen on this is on one Feat, which could be anywhere from a great Feat to an abysmal one). Particularly since C/M D is primarily not a combat problem, and we have almost nothing on Skill Feats.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Cool. Given this I'll assume Save Proficiencies are similarly covered.
2) I think we need to know the proficiency of skills, since that will influence options in and out of combat.
We actually don't know this. There are definitely Trained Only skill uses, but I think we can safely assume that listed skills are at least Trained and unlisted ones are not (that's probably made explicit in the actual Bestiary).
Beyond that, it's very possible all the advantages to high Skill Proficiency beyond the numerical bonus are Skill Feats rather than inherent to the Proficiency level. And that neither of the listed creatures have any relevant Skill Feats (which is possible even if Monsters get Skill Feats, since getting additional skills trained is an available Skill Feat).
All that said, if there are benefits to high Skill Proficiency alone, yes, we need that info. We also need that info on Saves desperately (at least for Master and above), though that might simply be in the list of special abilities (and neither the Ogre nor Redcap have any).
They've said that the only setting changes are those in published Adventures.
As far as I know the only 'geography' changes are maybe there being a couple of things that should be marked on the map in Varisia that aren't on the PF1 maps, and the Worldwound having technically closed (though that region is still a demon haunted wasteland).
Well, and some internal stuff in the River Kingdoms, but that's probably not on most maps anyway.
I mean, there's quite a lot of "ifs" there. For one, that her CE life was somehow different than her Succubus life; which is a big reach, considering that if she became a succubus, her life was probably one of complete uncaring hedonism where she just indulged herself without care for others. Otherwise she wouldn't have become a succubus.
It's possible to harm others with your lust and rapacity without being entirely without human connection. For example if you love a spouse but constantly cheat on them anyway, eventually driving them to suicide (or to murdering one of your lovers and then getting executed)...you have done an awful, awful thing (more awful for doing it to someone you loved), and may well wind up a succubus (if you were already CE), but that doesn't mean you didn't care about someone. Or how about a child? You can be an utterly terrible person and still care about your kid, or even kids in general.
modify memory at best lets you fake five minutes of someone's life per casting. To grab any outsider and make them remember not just a part, but the whole sum of the memeories of a life that isn't theirs anymore is way beyond the scope of limited wish. Maybe wish or miracle, but even then, getting their memories back means....well mostly nothing. Because we go back to the first if, that somehow the CE living person wouldn't enjoy their new CE demon life. Which might be true. Maybe. Especially for lower ranks of demons. But for the big dudes? I seriously doubt it.
Oh, I agree. Most demons aren't gonna start a quest for redemption just because they get their memories back. Which ones do probably wouldn't actually be based on how powerful they are, IMO, but it'd be a tiny subset that'd even try. Those that got their memory back would likely get a bit...odd, by demonic standards, but most would still be very, very, Evil.
Now, as for what magic it takes...that's actually almost academic to my main point which is that a sufficiently powerful and determined mortal could do it. I tend to think limited wish is enough because 6th level is about where I'd peg a 'Remove Amnesia' spell, but wish is also a possibility.
So yeah, Desna went in, fiddled with her soul, and probably that little whisper did something else too. I mean Auri became mythic that day too, is it really that hard to believe Desna did something more than just let her remember (which is already a big deal)?
Desna certainly made her Mythic. However, there's no evidence she did anything but return her memory and offer her advice and doing anything more is both really out of character for Desna (as a deity who cares about freedom), and cheapens any redemption (since then it really wouldn't have been her choice).
A demon deciding to redeem themselves after recovering their memory is unusual, but she was weird even before the meeting with Desna (choosing to dream is a very weird thing for a demon to do), and Desna is a deity, her seeing that a memory recovery in this specific case might spark redemption seems much more likely than her forcing the issue with anything more overt.
Also, if an artifact can change your alignment I'm pretty sure gods damn well could too. Why they don't do it is another question. But I'll admit, Desna didn't change Auri's alignment, just set her on a path to redemption.
Mortal magic can actually do a lot of things Gods can't. Heck, Baba Yaga explicitly avoids becoming a deity specifically to avoid their limitations. I'd strongly suggest that Alignment changes fall under that category.
It takes a very powerful artifact to retain mortal memories after the transition to petitioner/outsider, I very much doubt that a spell will allow you to dig up those memories once they've been wiped clean by your judgement and transition. I might let a Wish do it, but not because it's duplicating a spell.
Does it? Someone who'd religiously used a mnemonic repository could do it with a single word and some time.
That's admittedly not the normal case, and much more limited than giving one's whole memory back at once...but on the other hand, it's a CL 3rd item that costs only 3k. A high level spell doing more than that faster and better is rather to be expected.
Heck, even the artifact you seem to be referencing (which can give anyone all of a creature's memories in theory, not simply return them to the person who had them originally...it's way more powerful than the effect being suggested) is only CL 15th (not the 17th you'd expect if wish was really necessary).
I'm not saying this isn't a difficult thing to do, but then I don't think 7th level spells (or higher) grow on trees either.
Uh...Arushalae's Alignment wasn't directly changed by what Desna did (indeed, there's no evidence a deity even can do that...if they could change people's alignment directly the setting would be pretty different and Desna wouldn't do that anyway, being a Goddess of Freedom). She explicitly then went and spent quite a while redeeming herself, which explains her going to CN from CE. Desna just pointed out the possibility and gave her some context (ie: memories).
And remembering what being a human was like and comparing how awful and empty being a demon is could absolutely make even someone who was CE in life rethink their life choices and where they'd gotten them. Say that as a mortal she was in love with someone (hardly impossible or even unlikely, even for someone CE)...the realization that an actual relationship based on love and respect is basically impossible for a demon might be enough all on its own to start her on her path. And that's just one possible example out of many (though a likely one given that she's a succubus and falling in love is explicitly one of the things that aids her redemption).
Another example is what if she had standards as a mortal? You can be CE and still think to yourself "I'll never harm a child. I may be a bad person, but I'm not that." and yet, when you become a demon you forget that decision and hurt and kill children along with the rest...what if you suddenly remembered? Wouldn't that be a certainty shaking experience, realizing that all your standards and justifications were nothing but self deception? Or maybe inspiring you to try and reclaim them?
Now you can argue that modify memory couldn't give a demon back a mortal memory, but given that it can give false memories, never mind real ones from a previous incarnation, I'm skeptical of that claim. Giving them all back is definitely a step or three up from modify memory, and can be argued as above limited wish but definitely not a higher step than wish or miracle, so it's definitely within the scope of (very high level) mortal magics.
For me, there is this ancient thing in my brain that places too much emphasis on "playing the character that you rolled up" instead of "playing the character you want to play"
You can do that with the existing Ability Up system and some very simple die roll mechanics:
Roll 1d8 for Ancestry, then 1d4 for where you put your floating stat mod (start at Strength and count down ignoring stats that already have a bonus).
Roll 1d20 for Background, then roll 1d2 for which stat gets the first bonus followed by 1d5 for what remaining stat gets the floating bonus.
At that point you pick a Class and assign the other four +2s of the final stage (or, for more variability, you can even determine the four +2s randomly before picking a Class if you really want, just roll 1d6, then 1d5, then 1d4, then 1d3).
This gets you a pretty random character (heck, even your Ancestry is random), actually, and one with the exact same number of points in stats as the 'official' method (though probably a little more distributed and less focused).
*shrugs* I guess that's one way of looking at it. ^_^
Well, one of modify memory's explicit uses is "Allow the subject to recall with perfect clarity an event it actually experienced." Which sounds like exactly what happened.
Doing it for a lifetime is certainly a bigger deal, but I wouldn't peg it as more than a 6th level spell ("Remove Amnesia" or the like), and messing with memories is well within the domain of Arcane Spells.
Weather Report wrote:
I'm not really seeing any of the examples being put forth as credible examples of a CG paladin, it's like the D&D warlord class conversations, suddenly every other character from literature and film is a warlord. "Remember when Sarah Connor tells Kyle "On your feet, soldier!", yeah, she's totally a warlord!"
Robin Hood and Zorro are pretty credible. As is Nightcrawler. Some of the others I may dispute but those three are very solid.
They don't have the powers, but then neither does basically any character from literature who'd be a LG Paladin inspiration prior to D&D getting popular.
I don’t mind if there’s a story reason for the ability, I don’t like when it’s NPC Barbarians have completely different abilities than PC Barbarians just because they’re NPCs.
I'd agree with this. I just don't think it's probably gonna be a big thing in PF2. In terms of abilities NPCs/Monsters are intentionally a lot simpler so I'd be really surprised if there are too many non-magical/non-unique ones a PC can't duplicate somehow.
Like, I bet you can't duplicate Red Cap, but I'd be shocked is Deadly Cleave isn't PC available.
That's making some pretty strong assumptions about limited wish. As they say in PFS, expect table variation. ^_^
Not really. You can almost certainly do the memory thing with a specific memory with modify memory and that's a level below the max level of effect limited wish can duplicate.
Still, a real stickler might make it require an actual wish I suppose. Still within the scope of mortal means.
No, it absolutely does. Mark Seifter specifically noted (well, implied really strongly) that a PF2 Alchemist he played got extra skills at 1st level due to having high Int.
It may not grant skills every level any more, but with each skill rank meaning more gaining extra ranks equal to your bonus at 1st level (the most likely scenario) is very nice. It also seems to add to more skills than any other Ability (though that's speculative, I'll grant).
Charisma, meanwhile, grants a single point of Resonance, and seems to add to more skills than anything but Int (I think the two together make up almost half the skill list). The choice between a single extra skill and a single point of Resonance per day seems about an even one to me.
Wisdom is still the standout of the mental stats with Will Saves, Perception, and a few skills to boot. Con has gone down a bit in value if only because HP have gone up but is still solid. Ditto Dex going down in value (due to Initiative leaving it), but remaining valuable. Str has generally maintained value (though Bulk may up it a little).
So I'd say the three save-affiliated stats (Dex, Con, Wis) remain more valuable than the other three (Str, Int, Cha) but that the balance has shifted somewhat in favor of the non-Save stats, and that while those three stats will still see more 'dumps' than the Save boosting ones, which one of them gets 'dumped' will equalize out a bit.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
They've explicitly said you can tack on levels of PC Classes to monsters and that works fine.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Seems very plausible, yeah.
We have no evidence that there will be such abilities commonly available. Avoiding giving your NPCs (even those built with the monster system) abilities unavailable to PCs seems very doable if that's a goal.
1. As Cyouni mentioned, there's all the examples listed. I could probably come up with more given a bit of time. There are also a lot of templates like Vampire or Devil Bound that add abilities generally inaccessible to PCs.
2. Why would you announce this? Especially with a character not built with the PC rules? Classes are sometimes distinct in-world entities but they aren't stamped on your forehead and someone built on different rules (ie: the monster rules) is clearly a very weird variant as compared to an actual NPC built with the PC rules even if they do appear to be a Wizard or the like.
Psh. The 'divine intervention' in that case was a few words of advice and something you could probably do with a limited wish (let an Outsider remember their mortal life).
It wasn't the sort of thing that a mortal can do effort free, but none of it required a Goddess. A Goddess just happened to be the one who stepped in and did it.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
How I'd do it is: add the levels onto the monster in an additive function and then determine its CR. So 5 levels of fighter will affect different monsters differently in terms of calculating CR.
You probably just straight out add them. And all will give +Level to a bunch of stuff, so I'd actually bet on them all adding about the right amount of power as well.
It comes down to wanting a stat block that covers 99% of the time, while this stat block covers 85% of the time. Why do I need to know the ogre's carrying capacity? Most of the time I don't, but what about if the PCs charm it, or talk to it and make it an ally? And then ask it to carry or lift stuff cause it's strong?
Doing basic math to determine it has a 20 is not that hard.
What if the ogre drops his ogre hook to pick up a longspear? If the reach is built into it's ogre hook line of the stat block, it's unclear if it has reach with any other weapon, to know how a reach weapon interacts with that.
I'm betting Reach and how it works is covered under the Size rules (ie: the rules for the 'Large' tag). And an Ogre Hook is an actual weapon used by non-ogres and likely found in the corebook's weapon chart. Figuring out what happens when you replace it is pretty easy.
It's certainly not meaningfully more difficult than looking up the stuff you need to change weapon in PF1.
What happens when I cast bulls strength on the ogre (assuming it actually increased Str) or some effect which interacts with the actual ability score.
Such effects appear to not exist.
Even if standard effects don't anymore, what about oddball rules for encounters where you have something like a sphere of annihilation which can be mentally controlled and moves 10' per point of Int?
Again, figuring stats based on modifiers is all of 5 seconds work at most.
Sure they're all corner cases, but in aggregate they cover a decent amount of situations.
They really don't. Replacing a weapon means you need to look up two weapons. Some things require you to know how Ability Mods work.
Neither of those seem super punitive or difficult.
It makes no sense to me either, and is not the actual rule in Starfinder or, by all the evidence, the rule in PF2 either. The assumption it is strikes me as weird.
I probably would to, but they aren't gonna do that, so don't worry about it too much.
Hmm... So you’re saying the +9 Athletics is derived from Strength plus Expert Proficiency (Level +1). 5+3+1=9. And Acrobatics is Dex plus Master Proficiency (Level +2): -1+3+2=4. That checks out. And presumably the +1 to all other skills is just Untrained Proficiency (Level -2); 3-2=1. But if that’s the case,
The Blog explicitly states that this is exactly what's going on in terms of mods (the way of getting there is totally hypothetical).
the stat block is baking Strength and Dexterity on to its calculation of Athletics and Acronatics, while the modifier for all other skills would need to be applied on top of the appropriate Ability mod... that’s... a little unintuitive.
It's only counterintuitive for a moment until you get used to it, IMO. I've seen two stat blocks and it's already clear to me. Some people might take longer, but not by a whole lot.
The fact that you add the “all other skills” bonus on top of the appropriate ability mod could lead someone to assume they are likewise supposed to add the Athletics bonus on top of their strength mod, causing them to mistakenly double their strength bonus to Athletics. Alternatively, it could lead them to assume since they just add the Athletics modifier and don’t add Strength mod on Athletics checks that they should likewise not add an ability mod to other skill checks.
It could if they don't actually read the description of how stat blocks work. That's easy for us seeing them in a Blog. It's hard to miss in an actual Bestiary book, and basically impossible for new players to miss.
V is not a Paladin. For a host of reasons. His ethos are definitely CG (at least in the movie and debatably in the comic), but he does things in the pursuit of them that make it debatable whether he's even Good aligned, never mind Paladin material.
For myself, I think most classical depictions of Robin Hood are pretty solid CG Paladin inspiration. There are definitely interpretations where that's less true, but there are those for the Knights of the Round Table as well.
They've explicitly stated that the PC Rules can be used for NPCs and they'll be an appropriate challenge. So Karzoug would probably still be a 20th level Wizard built with the PC rules.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
The +2 racial bonus on Deception would deal with #2 (not #1 though). Also if you look at the skills I think we can infer that CR 3 creatures will have +11 on average skills, +13 on good skills and +??? on all other skills. I suspect the fact the ability scores appear to help match up with the skill bonus is purely coincidental.
You mean Level 5, right?
Though it'd actually be level 7 (actually 6 per Mark's post), since that's what they seem to have as a prosthetic level for skills (which I'm fine with, by the way, as long as it doesn't go more than two levels up).
And that actually doesn't make sense with the Ogre stat block at all. There'd need to be at least three 'levels' of skills (which based on extrapolation would be +7/+10/+12 for Level 6 or +4/+7/+9 for level 3...the Ogre happens not ho have any mid level ones and the Redcap no low level ones).
Now those three levels are certainly possible, I was just hopeful that having the highest level of skill would have some correlation to having a good rating in the stat.
But however the skills are determined, my real worry is that the Redcap isn't maxed for level 5, because that means monsters can exceed optimized PCs of their level by a fair bit if true (the Redcap is already at the point where a PC needs gear to equal it, assuming such gear is even available for Deception).
If the Redcap is maxed out, I think that's an odd and perhaps improper choice if going for a straight conversion, but it's a minor issue with one creature. If it isn't maxed then there's seemingly a skill disparity between PCs and NPCs in the favor of the NPCs. Which is potentially a serious problem.
Mark Seifter wrote:
It turned out that the Redcap, which used to have a CR of 6 in PF1, had all its non-default listed skills 1 point too high. The Playtest Bestiary ship hasn't sailed yet, so I've fixed it there. It now has 12s and 10s. Incidentally, redcaps aren't world-class deceivers for their levels like doppelgangers or succubi, but we have still them specced as being pretty darn good at it. You will rarely see monsters with higher Deception than that at level 5.
Okay, cool. That actually makes me feel quite a lot better. Thank you so much, Mark.
Well, based on the Redcap stat block in the recent Blog, I'm gonna call it and say there is no Sense Motive skill. They converted all of its PF1 skills except that one so it must have been rolled into something.
My guess is that it's either rolled into Perception or Deception. I'm betting on Perception.
Mark Seifter wrote:
In PF2, the monster system does not attempt to appear similar to how a player builds a character on the surface of how it's done, but in exchange, you actually get results that are much more parallel to the statistics of PCs than the PF1 monsters ever were (Jason alludes to this in the first sentence of his post). You don't have a creature ostensibly at the same CR as a PC's level but with twice as many HD as the PC has levels (which then led to double the skill ranks, double the feats, and so on).
This is great, but sorta why I'm worried about the Redcap's high skills. Deception in particular is substantially higher than a 5th level PC with anything less than maxed Charisma can even theoretically have, and that's the kind of issue high skill points result in that this system is supposed to eliminate, right?
I mean, if the Redcap is as optimized in Deception as a level 5 monster could possibly be, that'd be one thing...but it has mediocre Charisma and is not thematically tied to ridiculously high Deception (it has a +13 in PF1, but that meant a lot less in that edition), so it's just weird that it's so good at it compared to PCs in the same range.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
In PF1e the devs would have had "+2 racial bonus to Deception" which is as arbitrary as saying "Redcap's have a +13 deception bonus because I said so".
My issue is not really with it being arbitrary, but with it being the following:
1. It's higher than it seemingly should be given the Redcap's thematic role (this is my big issue).
I guess the latter is sort of an issue with it being arbitrary but not directly so.
As I noted in my first post, the Redcap seems to be built as a Level 7 creature specifically for skills. This is a reasonable cap for specifically skilled monsters, IMO. That's what their trained skill bonuses indicate as well as their untrained one.
It doesn't explain their Deception modifier being so high, though.