IonutRO |
gustavo iglesias wrote:Entryhazard wrote:Also even when the character stop around 15, enemy NPCs go up to 20I'm lste to the party (but I think it doesnt count as necro)
If the AP went to level 20, then the game would need 23-25 levels, just for the BBEG being able to challenge the PC. Unless the game change some basic assumptions about the CR system, and add thibgs like 4e Solo/elite or 5e Legendary crestures, simple action economy and PC wealth means a group of lvl 20 will crush a lvl 20 villain
Templates, adding class levels to races with racial HD, mythic tiers, etc. are all available for increasing CR above 20; also, at high level play just about any single creature within a few CRs of the APL is a cakewalk. Frankly, by the time a BBEG gets to 20th level, they probably shouldn't be a "standard NPC" anyway, as well as having associates and/or minions.
Getting back to the original topic, keeping the 20 levels for compatibility will probably gain the widest acceptance. However, I could definitely see most Starfinder APs ending by 15th level (instead of the typical 17th-18th for most Pathfinder APs).
That would shoehorn endgame bosses into having to always be monsters or mythic
Tacticslion |
What? Why? It would not do so more than it already does.
Wait. I think we may be miscommunicating. I think what DragonChessPlayer is saying, is that (based off his estimation) the PCs will end the last adventure in star finder at 15th level. Meanwhile, that allows bosses to use the full suite of abilities up to 20th, if necessary. This limits any "need" for templates or mythic whatsits, as it is obviated by the "breathing room" built into stopping the AP at fifteenth for the PCs, but 20th for the rules.
Upon rereading, I think you're suggesting that having a hard level cap at fifteen, while running APs as they are now, would necessitate templates and mythic whatsits. While I don't think that's strictly true (I think that evil groups could also work for this), I think that is is true that this would be a strong tendency in games capped at 15th and with APs that go to it.
Did I understand and explain all points correctly?
gustavo iglesias |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Many current APs use monsters, or monsters with class levels for final villains. CRs can go above 20 even if levels stop at 20.
Yes, but not ALL villains in every single story Paizo wants to tell is a Monster or a mythic vamprire / lich to add templates. Sometimes the evil emoeror is just a sith.
@tacticlion:
No, my point is about those asking APs yo go to 20th lvl. They stop around lvl 16_17 so a 20 lvl Mage as Karzaug is a credible threat, without needing to make him a half-fiend lich, and also the "necessity" of the game expkaining 20 lvls, if only for villains.
Even more: if you make the game lvl 30, the AP would go to lvl 26, and then the villain would go to 30. If the game ends al lvl 15, AP would go to lvl 12 and villains would be lvl 15.if you add mythic, PC would not be mythic while villains are, or PC go to mythic ,4 while the villain goes to 8. And so on. As long as the BBEG is built with the same rules as PC does, he'll need a lvl boost to counter action economy, sheer hp, and the extra resources a party has
ryric RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32 |
thejeff |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I fundamentally object to the idea that there be levels designed only for villains. One of the big appeals of the d20 system is that PCs and monsters play by the same rules.
Whether it's explicitly set up that way or not, it often practically works out that way: high level PCs need an higher level enemy to fight. You can work around that by upping the challenge with multiple enemies or monster templates and the like, but it is a basic problem.
I'd rather see it explicit than to pretend they use the same rules, but hack extra things onto the enemies.
gustavo iglesias |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I fundamentally object to the idea that there be levels designed only for villains. One of the big appeals of the d20 system is that PCs and monsters play by the same rules.
And that's exactly why villains have to out-level the heroes. With different rules for them (say, more actions pee round to balance the party action economy) they could be the same level and still ve a credible threat. But the emoeror is not a real villain unless he can defeat Mace Windu and 3 other Jedi, or Count Doku face at least Anskin and Obi Wan with chances to kill them both.
"The bad evil guy who threaten the world" doesnt work if the PC are as powerful as him, but a group of 4 or more. Sauron would not be a extinction level threat if every hobbit, human, dwarf and elf in the fellowship could beat him one on one 50% of the time
Sundakan |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...And Sauron is a monster. He is not mortal.
Now, monsters already DO have different rules. They can have Templates, for instance. Templates that do, sometimes, have effects like giving them extra actions.
The addition of a "Boss" template might be all that is required in this case. Something like a combo of Mighty and Alacritous.
thejeff |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...And Sauron is a monster. He is not mortal.
Now, monsters already DO have different rules. They can have Templates, for instance. Templates that do, sometimes, have effects like giving them extra actions.
The addition of a "Boss" template might be all that is required in this case. Something like a combo of Mighty and Alacritous.
But if the "Boss" template doesn't require you to be a monster, why can't PCs take it? Isn't that playing by different rules?
gustavo iglesias |
Yes, already stated that Monster can easily go through CR20. But not ALL the stories Paizo wants to storytell us are about monsters. Sometimes they are about just a 20th lvl wizard from an ancient empure of human wizards that Rise again. Or a queen in a Crimson Throne possesed by an evil artifact. Or whatever.
Also, the problem with lvl 20 parties is not the lvl 23+ end boss. Is also the corridors full of lvl 20 dudes in groyps of 4 to barely challenge the PC in the way to the end boss.
Furthermore, having GMed a couple of games up to lvl 20, I'd say it's a different thing there. It's more about the PC vast power wanting to do things and the GM reacting to that. That's by definition muchas harder to wrote in a generic AP for the public, without knowing the PC, party composition, and players gamestyle. It's pretty safe for the writer of the AP to assume the PC will go to Thistletop. it's muchas harder to know if they are going to create their own demiplane or not
ryric RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ryric wrote:I fundamentally object to the idea that there be levels designed only for villains. One of the big appeals of the d20 system is that PCs and monsters play by the same rules.And that's exactly why villains have to out-level the heroes. With different rules for them (say, more actions pee round to balance the party action economy) they could be the same level and still ve a credible threat. But the emoeror is not a real villain unless he can defeat Mace Windu and 3 other Jedi, or Count Doku face at least Anskin and Obi Wan with chances to kill them both.
"The bad evil guy who threaten the world" doesnt work if the PC are as powerful as him, but a group of 4 or more. Sauron would not be a extinction level threat if every hobbit, human, dwarf and elf in the fellowship could beat him one on one 50% of the time
Ah, but you can do that with open-ended level systems. Class abilities can stop being new at 20 but you could still have a level 24 end boss if you like. I only object to the idea that levels 16-20(or whatever) are designed with being "villain only" in mind.
Sundakan |
Sundakan wrote:...And Sauron is a monster. He is not mortal.
Now, monsters already DO have different rules. They can have Templates, for instance. Templates that do, sometimes, have effects like giving them extra actions.
The addition of a "Boss" template might be all that is required in this case. Something like a combo of Mighty and Alacritous.
But if the "Boss" template doesn't require you to be a monster, why can't PCs take it? Isn't that playing by different rules?
No different than Pathfinder already plays by...unless I play in weird games, and the norm is for PCs to be able to add templates onto their characters whenever they please?
Templates are GM tools. They're by their very nature going to "pay by different rules".
The difference is that they don't randomly get more out of the same options a PC does (an NPC Fighter is not automatically better than a PC Fighter), they merely have other abilities on top that may or may not complement it. Like being a vampire.
There's a thin line between NPCs having some options available only to them, and PCs having options taken away from them that they should logically be able to access. Templates are the former, where truncating classes but only for PCs is the latter.
thejeff |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
thejeff wrote:Sundakan wrote:...And Sauron is a monster. He is not mortal.
Now, monsters already DO have different rules. They can have Templates, for instance. Templates that do, sometimes, have effects like giving them extra actions.
The addition of a "Boss" template might be all that is required in this case. Something like a combo of Mighty and Alacritous.
But if the "Boss" template doesn't require you to be a monster, why can't PCs take it? Isn't that playing by different rules?
No different than Pathfinder already plays by...unless I play in weird games, and the norm is for PCs to be able to add templates onto their characters whenever they please?
Templates are GM tools. They're by their very nature going to "pay by different rules".
The difference is that they don't randomly get more out of the same options a PC does (an NPC Fighter is not automatically better than a PC Fighter), they merely have other abilities on top that may or may not complement it. Like being a vampire.
There's a thin line between NPCs having some options available only to them, and PCs having options taken away from them that they should logically be able to access. Templates are the former, where truncating classes but only for PCs is the latter.
Well, there's a difference between: The high CR baddie must be a vampire or lich or other monster that gets a powerful template and the high CR baddie gets a boss template that gives him a boost just so he's a fair match for the PCs.
I'm not actually sure what the difference is between "Here's a few varieties of template to add to the BBEGs" and "Here's a few extra levels for the BBEGs to take". It may be a line, but it's a very thin one. At least in my mind.Still, if we're going to GM tools to boost Bosses, I'd agree that levels aren't the way to go. They don't generally scale usefully. It's not usually raw power, but action economy and focus fire that are the key. Since we're having the GM play by different rules, make those rules deal with the actual problem rather than just more PC style power. 5E's Lair monster abilities are an attempt to do that.
Drahliana Moonrunner |
Wait. I think we may be miscommunicating. I think what DragonChessPlayer is saying, is that (based off his estimation) the PCs will end the last adventure in star finder at 15th level.
But the only evidence we have for 15 being a cap, unless I'm reading wrong is his guess.
Either way it's a moot point because I'm sure that Paizo has already asked and answered those questions for the purposes of development.
Dragonchess Player |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To clarify my statement that I could see the Starfinder APs ending at earlier levels than Pathfinder APs:
I would not be surprised if that were a narrative decision for the APs. The d20 system, as discussed here, is designed play differently at different level ranges.
Science fantasy usually falls within a lower "power band" than fantasy; "demigod-like" abilities inherent to the character, rather than from technology (equipment), are a less common trope. Staying at a lower "power band" (Wuxia instead of Superheroes) for the APs would make more sense to me than attempting to drastically change the underlying system (which would make compatibility problematical).
phantom1592 |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dislike the idea of an 'endcap' on the game. Even if the game falls apart at a level, or an AP ends, or whatever... I like the IDEA that it can keep going on.
If the game breaks at 15... now is the time to FIX that in some way. If an AP ends at 15... If there is more stories to tell with those characters... the DM can pick it up an go from there.
I'm pro-infinity and beyond... not 'stuck in a narrow box'.
My ONE suggestion for high level play.... Don't make those endcaps incredibly awesome. Make it so you get something... but you're not bummed out that your favorite character never got his ultimate mode... Maybe have a solid awesome ability kick in at 15, and then from there add some extra feats or bonuses to the abilities you already have.
This way your character can feel 'complete' and if the game keeps going, you'll actually get to PLAY with your fun abilities.
I've had a couple of games that actually got to 20... JUST after the end fight and cool abilities that never got to actually see play.
Tacticslion |
Welp.
Walls-o-text.
Badly formatted.
With rambling.
Sorry.
No, my point is about those asking APs yo go to 20th lvl.
For the record, I was responding to IonutRO. But good to know!
(It's unclear because of the way these conversations trickle down - DCP was responding to you, IRO was responding to DCP, and I was responding to him. XD)
I fundamentally object to the idea that there be levels designed only for villains. One of the big appeals of the d20 system is that PCs and monsters play by the same rules.
I actually quite agree.
Whether it's explicitly set up that way or not, it often practically works out that way: high level PCs need an higher level enemy to fight. You can work around that by upping the challenge with multiple enemies or monster templates and the like, but it is a basic problem.
I think this is the crux of the misunderstanding going on.
In-practice, most APs don't have "And now you fight the rival Adventuring Party." set-up.
Point in fact, there are usually two reasons that mages (or creatures magical enough to qualify) of all stripes are more often the final bosses in various formats than any other.
- Action Economy: a mage can help balance the action economy to a degree by its own self and its own nature. Summon in extra help, conjure powerful guardians, and replicate foes as (lower level) slaves means that they can easily "add" more AE to their own side; on the other hand, various de-buffs (including the oft-lamented SoL-style effects) means that they can more rapidly tie-up AE for the PCs at the same time.
- Do Stuff: when certain characters are limited to doing "real" style things, and the villains need to be over-the-top in their world-shaking threats, the default in PF (and many various works of all stripes before it) is magic. Magic lets them do really weird effects, whether because they've got an artifact McGuffin, or are, themselves, capable of advanced magic.
I am not here to argue whether or not the C/M-D is a thing, and that's not my point. I'm using strong trends to point at the AE issue, and the many varied and really clever ways that APs usually get around that.
These two abilities are often-lamented when they fall into the hands of players. Summoner is generally lambasted for its easy-access to "free" bonus AE, as are necromancers (though their bonus AE usually isn't all that big a deal, as, later on, the "easy" creatures to get are kind of super-sucky, while the more powerful ones come with built-in terribad complications... and aren't really that much more powerful, anyway, and are expensive), or the Leadership feat (though there are still other uses for that, as well).
For the record, I don't mind these things in PC hands. I love 'em. I say this both as a GM and as a player - they're a blast!
But it's a definite trend that such issues crop up in various ways for the PCs.
That said... I've been re-watching Farscape recently. You know what I noticed?
AE is a very, very serious thing. In a TV show, not just in a a game-setting. There are a few times when, completely outnumbered, the protagonists either give up or leave (or the villains do). The few times that this isn't true is when there really isn't a choice (and/or some other thing is pushing them to... well, that would be spoilers).
Usually, when the entire crew is challenged, it's because the entire crew is challenged, often in their own, unique ways, simultaneously.
Whether it's because a whole crew of Peacekeepers has stolen aboard, or a giant bug that replicates weird blue-paste-vomit clones that continually multiply to outmatch the crews' numbers, the Action Economy remains something that has to be dealt with in some manner or another.
This is a very similar trend in shows like Firefly, Star Trek, Stargate, and Babylon 5, and even things like Star Wars - note that in the SW films, no matter how potent the Force user, they try not to get too outnumbered, unless they are severely over-leveled, comparatively.
I'd rather see it explicit than to pretend they use the same rules, but hack extra things onto the enemies.
I think this is an interesting idea. I urge caution with how far it goes, however. I would rather it be explicit in explaining something like,
"This is how the game runs. Usually the BBEG(s) will need: higher levels than the PCs, a template of some sort, or enough threatening mooks/damage sponges/'lectro-robits to ensure that the PCs don't take four actions for every action the bad guy takes, unless the bad guy has more than enough saves and hp to handle it."
... in that way, it's up to a given GM. Maybe explain that, in a broad-strokes sort of way, "We aim to end our APs at level <blarg>, so that, <narf>; but if you want to <poit>, then go ahead!" or whatever.
I think clarifying the intent behind how things are handled - adding that layer of transparency and bringing others alongside with the concept would over-all help raise up better GMs and help calibrate the expectations of players and GMs alike getting into the game, either for the first time, or as they explore the APs.
To some extent, PF tries to do that, but it lacks many of the "Behind the Curtain" elements that made 3.X so useful to me (though the editor's opening in the APs are super-awesome, and their level of responsiveness on these very forums are amazing).
I dislike the idea of an 'endcap' on the game. Even if the game falls apart at a level, or an AP ends, or whatever... I like the IDEA that it can keep going on.
Agreed. It's one of the reasons I really like epic levels. :D
If the game breaks at 15... now is the time to FIX that in some way. If an AP ends at 15... If there is more stories to tell with those characters... the DM can pick it up an go from there.
Absolutely. I do think there is a limit, however - the d20 system begins to go a little wonky at very high levels, no matter what you do. It's because of the nature of having a d20 that you roll. At some point, dice cease to matter (outside of the ~5% chance of auto-pass/fail on attacks and saves), and numbers become all-powerful forces of determination.
And there is nothing wrong with this, but it certainly clashes with the play-style of many, and causes dissonance.
It is a combination of this with various "tricks" that makes the d20 system seem unstable to certain people, tables, and play styles. They're not doing anything wrong - it's just that the way they interface with the game-system is different from how the game-system runs itself, numerically.
At a certain point, "Fixing" the system would mean doing things to it to make it no longer resemble itself, and that wouldn't really help anyone.
That said, as you suggest, there are certainly things that can be done to help! And those things can be exceptionally important, even in aiding in the over-all concept of "balance" beyond.
My point was not to repudiate you, but simply advise caution in the attempts to "fix" things: there are just simple limits with what people are over-all comfortable with in the d20 system. Attempting to over-correct will cause... other issues.
I'm pro-infinity and beyond... not 'stuck in a narrow box'.
Agreed!
My ONE suggestion for high level play.... Don't make those endcaps incredibly awesome. Make it so you get something... but you're not bummed out that your favorite character never got his ultimate mode... Maybe have a solid awesome ability kick in at 15, and then from there add some extra feats or bonuses to the abilities you already have.
This way your character can feel 'complete' and if the game keeps going, you'll actually get to PLAY with your fun abilities.
I'm not entirely sure that's really the way it should be, or has to happen. I see what you're saying, and somewhat agree, but I have a different way of looking at it (at least, I think it's different) that ultimately generates the same thing: the "endcap" isn't really the "end" of anything.
The basic level system go from 1-20? No problem! Permit it to go further.
PF tried/tries to do this with Mythic, but I find that substantially different enough from Epic that I don't think they should be exclusive.
I think it's the "perception" of something being an "endcap" that's the problem itself - people don't see a chart after 20, and figure, "Welp, we probably shouldn't play anymore." - that's not really true, but having that perception and presentation is an issue that leads to those like the one you've experienced, below.
So, to sort-of agree with you - maybe they should come earlier. Make wish- and miracle-like effects be class features: "Pay money, and expend a spell-slot of 7th, 8th, or 9th level; imitate a lower-level spell than the slot you've expended." - and do so for all different classes with all sorts of things.
I've had a couple of games that actually got to 20... JUST after the end fight and cool abilities that never got to actually see play.
That... kind of sucks. :/
Sorry.
Again, though, I don't think that's inherent in the system - I think that's part of perceptions.
Why would you want to limit the game to 15 levels? I regularly run pathfinder up to level 20 and find the game reaches my peak interest in the 12+ range. If you only want to play low magic low level games, then do that and let others have the options they prefer.
Yup! :D
The addition of a "Boss" template might be all that is required in this case. Something like a combo of Mighty and Alacritous.
That... would be an awesome boss. :D
But if the "Boss" template doesn't require you to be a monster, why can't PCs take it? Isn't that playing by different rules?
... and this is the problem I immediately run into, as well.
Just having that be a "boss" template for "reasons" isn't really something that sits well with me. It feels gamey and arbitrary, instead of actually syncing up with the internal "reality" of the game.
... and I'd totally give that to a PC at some point or another.
Well, there's a difference between: The high CR baddie must be a vampire or lich or other monster that gets a powerful template and the high CR baddie gets a boss template that gives him a boost just so he's a fair match for the PCs.
I'm not actually sure what the difference is between "Here's a few varieties of template to add to the BBEGs" and "Here's a few extra levels for the BBEGs to take". It may be a line, but it's a very thin one. At least in my mind.
I think this is all about internal-consistency.
Making a creature a vampire, and thus more powerful, is different than just making the creature more powerful. Being a vampire means something, in-world. It comes with its own perks and downsides; bonuses, and penalties; it's a real, tangible thing that truly exists.
Being a "boss" is not. "I now employ these goblins by typical wages according to the Core for Hirelings, and have declared that I run Goblinrunner Inc.; I SHALL DEVOUR MY FOES IN THE FIELDS OF BATTLE NOW~!" doesn't really make the same kind of sense.
What's more, having a boss be a vampire gives it an entirely different suite of abilities than having a boss be a lich - they may both be undead and both able to come back and give it a go later after their defeat... but they're not even remotely similar.
This is true with applying the other templates as well.
Having a standard one-size-fits-all, "Here are your BBEG britches" template makes no sense within the context of the world of the game, and makes the baddies seem overly similar.
Still, if we're going to GM tools to boost Bosses, I'd agree that levels aren't the way to go. They don't generally scale usefully. It's not usually raw power, but action economy and focus fire that are the key. Since we're having the GM play by different rules, make those rules deal with the actual problem rather than just more PC style power. 5E's Lair monster abilities are an attempt to do that.
This could function... but, again, I'd simply place similar things into templates - because that's basically what they are. 5E "legendary" creatures and any lair abilities are just two "more action economy" templates - really cool ones with neat flavor, mind, but that's all they boil down to.
I'd say that "Guardians of the Galaxy" is pretty good as a goal for high level Starfinder, and it IS superheroes in space.
Agreed! GotG is one of the few super-hero things that bothers with both action economy and big-dragon-boss style fighting.
Yes, already stated that Monster can easily go through CR20. But not ALL the stories Paizo wants to storytell us are about monsters. Sometimes they are about just a 20th lvl wizard from an ancient empure of human wizards that Rise again. Or a queen in a Crimson Throne possesed by an evil artifact. Or whatever.
True!
Also, the problem with lvl 20 parties is not the lvl 23+ end boss. Is also the corridors full of lvl 20 dudes in groyps of 4 to barely challenge the PC in the way to the end boss.
I think this is the crux of the weirdness we're all running into. Having a level 20 game doesn't necessitate having level 20 minions, or even level 18 or level 15 minions.
This goes back to fixing or tweaking things, like phatnom1592 suggested. With the appropriate tweaks, these creatures can, in fact, pose threats to seasoned adventurers.
Thing is, it's not always obvious how. I want more strategies for making these low-level hordes into, if not threats, at least reasonable challenges for higher-level characters. I'm not sure it's possible in PF, but it could be, in SF.
Furthermore, having GMed a couple of games up to lvl 20, I'd say it's a different thing there. It's more about the PC vast power wanting to do things and the GM reacting to that. That's by definition muchas harder to wrote in a generic AP for the public, without knowing the PC, party composition, and players gamestyle. It's pretty safe for the writer of the AP to assume the PC will go to Thistletop. it's muchas harder to know if they are going to create their own demiplane or not
This is true, but this doesn't mean that the AP shouldn't go beyond certain levels, merely that the assumptions about how its written need to be changed - or that, in order to continue with things, communication needs to be established with GMs and players before-hand; "Look, guys, this is what I've got: we can go off the rails, but it'll be harder on me, and I'm not going to be very prepared." is an important conversation to have, at low levels or high, if the GM needs to have it. And there's nothing wrong with it - every group has different needs.
As a fellow GM who's gone to really high levels - and I mean really high levels, sometimes - I agree that it's often a different beast. But it can be done - it's just up to the writer to note the bigger picture and a few fail-safes a bit better than it is at lower levels. :)
(Good job on running those games, though! They can be tough!)
gustavo iglesias |
think this is all about internal-consistency.
Making a creature a vampire, and thus more powerful, is different than just making the creature more powerful. Being a vampire means something, in-world. It comes with its own perks and downsides; bonuses, and penalties; it's a real, tangible thing that truly exists.
Being a "boss" is not. "I now employ these goblins by typical wages according to the Core for Hirelings, and have declared that I run Goblinrunner Inc.; I SHALL DEVOUR MY FOES IN THE FIELDS OF BATTLE NOW~!" doesn't really make the same kind of sense.
What's more, having a boss be a vampire gives it an entirely different suite of abilities than having a boss be a lich - they may both be undead and both able to come back and give it a go later after their defeat... but they're not even remotely similar.
This is true with applying the other templates as well.
Having a standard one-size-fits-all, "Here are your BBEG britches" template makes no sense within the context of the world of the game, and makes the baddies seem overly similar.
But being "boss" does not mesn you are BOSS. I don't think dudes like Ripnugget should act twice in the round or be sble yo cast spells as inmediate action or so. But maybe Karzaug should. Karzaug isnt a Vampire. Or lich, or Ghost. But the is a Runelord, mind you. While the game *could* provide us with a "Runelord template" or "Runelord prestige class", that would fall into the "things only the NPC have", which some despise. It's also a big effort and wadte of wordcount. On the other hand, Karzaug could have a few unique, tailored only for him abilities, altough that will rub some people in the wrong way too, as it means different rules for PC and NPC. Altough the game already does this: Kingmaker's end boss has unique defenses built in. Krune, Runelord of Sloth. Has unique runes. Babayaga has a lot of over the top stats because she owns artifacts and unique effects. And so on
The best alternative I can think off id this "boss template". Which allow enough room to tinker with it, without needing to use "because Baba Yaga" arguments. In some ways, Mythic works for this.
An easy way I once read I a blog to "cheat" it with the CR, is a template ("paragon") that double the hp, snd leg you act twice in two different initiative counts. Worth +2 CR. Essentially, a "paragon Runelord" is the same than two idebtical Runelords sharing the same space.
CorvusMask |
Eh, I think that cutting out levels 16-20 would have been nice idea since those are the levels were standard pathfinder starts breaking and I doubt developers have time for playtesting higher levels until they are balanced. Plus if they aren't going to support those levels anyway with content(amount of high level adventure modules vs low level adventure modules...)... Well, yeah, thats annoying.
phantom1592 |
Honestly, I don't mind if the Boss is better because 'reasons'... I'm pretty easy going with things like that. This is a game, and there are certain aspects and limitations we just have to work around. That really hit home when I was customizing the Heroclix game, Regardless of stats or abilities... That 'one action a round' was brutal.
In the comics they were based of, Magneto had the ability to SCHOOL a whole team of X-men... Dr. Doom fights the entire Fantastic Four. Hulk can fight a team of Avengers... Dracula battles Van Helsing's entire squad...
It's a common trope that is fun and exciting. If there was something that can be done to make Megaevil a threat to a group... I certainly wouldn't complain that it wasn't available to PCs too.
CorvusMask |
Yeah, I don't see in general why npcs should play by same rules as pcs. One of great things about Cypher system xD
Then again, I don't see why "video gamey" elements are unwanted in role playing games when not talking about things that make role playing harder xP
The Raven Black |
If NPCs are inherently stronger than PCs, then a NPC cannot join the party and become a PC because it would be unbalancing.
Which means that any story with opponents becoming allies (from Hulk joining the Avengers to too many Dragonball seasons) becomes impossible to tell.
Why restrict the variety of stories we can tell in Starfinder ?
gustavo iglesias |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If NPCs are inherently stronger than PCs, then a NPC cannot join the party and become a PC because it would be unbalancing.
Which means that any story with opponents becoming allies (from Hulk joining the Avengers to too many Dragonball seasons) becomes impossible to tell.
Why restrict the variety of stories we can tell in Starfinder ?
That's faulty logic. "Some NPC are inherently stronger" is not the same than "all NPC are inherently stronger". Hulk joining the Avengers is not the same that Galactus joining the Avengers.
And probably Karzaug joining the party ss a PC isn't the greatest idea ever.
CorvusMask |
...BTW, just to ask, what exactly is difference between "Boss template" and "Advanced template"?
Like, both are basically "This creature is more powerful version of normal monster!", I don't see how advanced template is anymore justified in setting outside of mechanics
phantom1592 |
Agreed. NPCs are already stronger than PCs. How often does a Level 5 party go heads to head against a Level 5 wizard or Rogue??? Usually Big Bads are at least a +2 or +3 CR to the party...
Do you really want to have a level 8-9 NPC join a party of level 5s? In all my years, I've never seen THAT happen in a game. :)
CorvusMask |
What is the appeal of NPCs playing by same rules anyway? This game isn't Players vs GM where it has to be "fair" so that GM can feel their side is as balanced as PCs :P D&D 5th has whole legendary actions and lair actions and most people I have seen react to those think they are cool. Plus NPC classes are already a thing.
Seriously, what is problem with a game being "gamey"?
Though perhaps NPCs having different rules work better in systems where players do all the rolling xD (Cypher for the win)
gustavo iglesias |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There IS an appeal in NPC and PC having same rules, about in-game consistency. Not appeal to everyone, but exists.
In truth, classes are game constructs. People can't be cathegorized IRL in classes, all of them with access to same "skills" at same "levels". Achilles' abilities are vastly different than Hercules' abilities, even if both of them are "high level fighters". The level of customization for that to happen is unwieldly (unless a total different approach to the rules). That's why we pigeonhole them into class skills, to balance things out and have a proper framework
So, in my eyes, the weird thing is not that different characters have different abilities. The weird thing is that different characters have the same ones. I just understand that it is a game construct needed for gamey reasons.
thejeff |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Absolutely. I do think there is a limit, however - the d20 system begins to go a little wonky at very high levels, no matter what you do. It's because of the nature of having a d20 that you roll. At some point, dice cease to matter (outside of the ~5% chance of auto-pass/fail on attacks and saves), and numbers become all-powerful forces of determination.
I don't think it actually is because of using a d20. More because of the way the d20 system chooses to scale abilities - some getting better every level, others half that, leading to greater and greater differences, exacerbated by the ability to stack modifiers to focus even more.
That's what starts to make the rolls meaningless. You could make a system using a d20 where your good saves were a fixed amount better than your bad ones, for example. That would scale better.
gustavo iglesias |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are ways to make things scale slightly better, but the whole premise of DnD and derivatives makes it hard to scale well.
In DnD and PF you start fighting goblins and struggling to beat orcs, snd end defeating great wyrms and demon princes who can literally make meteors fall and miracles happen. There's little room there for balance. If a character can hit a great wyrms, he can't miss a goblin, unless the math is so flat that goblins can hit dragons too. Which has it's own set of problems
thejeff |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are ways to make things scale slightly better, but the whole premise of DnD and derivatives makes it hard to scale well.
In DnD and PF you start fighting goblins and struggling to beat orcs, snd end defeating great wyrms and demon princes who can literally make meteors fall and miracles happen. There's little room there for balance. If a character can hit a great wyrms, he can't miss a goblin, unless the math is so flat that goblins can hit dragons too. Which has it's own set of problems
True, but not really a problem. You just don't go back to fighting goblins by the time you're fighting great wyrms.
In the early days you have trouble hitting goblins. Later on, you have trouble hitting great wyrms. (Iterative attacks change this a bit: You may nearly always hit your first attack and nearly always miss your last, but the roll matters in between.)
Clearer with saves: When whole party has to make saves against something, at low levels those where that's a good save and a useful stat might be +5 or 6 over those where it's a bad save and a dump stat. At high levels: you can easily have a difference of 15.
gustavo iglesias |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
True , but not really a problem. You just don't go back to fighting goblins by the time you're fighting great wyrms.
Yes, but the problem is not the Goblin, but the goblin's AC. A goblin has AC 15. A Demon Prince has AC 38.
When you have enough BAB to hit AC38 (be it a Demon Prince, or a high level fighter in magical full plate with defensivo feats) you'll hit anyone in AC15 (br it a goblin, or a high level barbarian in rage with a cheap magical Hide Armor and no defensive feats).
There are workarounds to avoid this , but they come with their own glitches. 4e tie defenses to level, but it gives you a few of "running in a mousewheel", and it's own set of wonky math. 5e flattens the math, but that makes uberdragons snd megademons hitable by goblins, which might or might not be a problem for some players but feels certainly odd in a level based game that covers so much ground. It's like Aunt May damaging Hulk or Lois Lane hitting Bizarro.
So yes, *some* room for improvement there, but we'll need to find a compromise sooner or later. You have some room, but it's still a level based system that covers from Frodo power level to demigods and suoerheroes.
The Raven Black |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
NPCs and PCs using the same rules (mostly) also means that your products will interest a larger audience.
Not that many players buy the Bestiaries :-)
The Raven Black wrote:If NPCs are inherently stronger than PCs, then a NPC cannot join the party and become a PC because it would be unbalancing.
Which means that any story with opponents becoming allies (from Hulk joining the Avengers to too many Dragonball seasons) becomes impossible to tell.
Why restrict the variety of stories we can tell in Starfinder ?
That's faulty logic. "Some NPC are inherently stronger" is not the same than "all NPC are inherently stronger". Hulk joining the Avengers is not the same that Galactus joining the Avengers.
And probably Karzaug joining the party ss a PC isn't the greatest idea ever.
Hulk being a worthy BBEG was mentioned in a previous post ;-)
And seeing the boundless creativity of Marvel writers in all those many years, I am not sure there has never been and never will be an incarnation of the Avengers with Galactus or a similarly powerful being as part of it :-))
Karzoug joining the party after being defeated, losing some of his power and the PCs adventuring some more to fill in the gap could make for great stories. The dividing of the loot would become exceptionally interesting ;-)
Tacticslion |
Tacticslion wrote:Absolutely. I do think there is a limit, however - the d20 system begins to go a little wonky at very high levels, no matter what you do. It's because of the nature of having a d20 that you roll. At some point, dice cease to matter (outside of the ~5% chance of auto-pass/fail on attacks and saves), and numbers become all-powerful forces of determination.I don't think it actually is because of using a d20. More because of the way the d20 system chooses to scale abilities - some getting better every level, others half that, leading to greater and greater differences, exacerbated by the ability to stack modifiers to focus even more.
That's what starts to make the rolls meaningless. You could make a system using a d20 where your good saves were a fixed amount better than your bad ones, for example. That would scale better.
You misunderstand me.
There are three different ways of describing the "problem" (which aren't inherently problematic, but definitely clashes, depending on style): one of which (the one I used) is to examine the dice (in this case a d20 for which the system is named) and point at that as the limiting factor for growth; the other is by noting the problem in terms of the fact that growth occurs at all; and the third is the specific date of advancement compared to the dice and each other.
The problem isn't the rate, or the dice, or the extance of advancement - it's the combination of those three when combined with the expectations and presentation of the system to generate those expectations. More than that, "problems" arise when non-growth changes to the system impact it in non-regulated manners, creating sudden spikes and exponential increases in what, on the surface, looks like a straight line increases (basically magic items and spell effects).
The d20 rate of advancement is fine. It just causes things that some aren't comfortable with in some cases. There are plenty of ways to "fix" this - but the d20 system in particular, attached to a single d20 as it is, is going to have to either have a hard limit on its advancement, have an extreme change in its advancement rate (to either an exceptionally slow one, or one so different as to be unrecognizeable and I compatable with d20), or embrace the fact that it has different tiers and clarify this with a hearty pruning and editing... or it could just remain the same. That's an option. Pretty sure it won't happen that way, though, based on what's been said. :)
My guess/understanding of what will happen:
- math tweak/progression shift toward more "balanced" option(s)
- 20 levels cap, lack of mythic support
- lower-than-20th AP-campaign design (with higher level + templates for bosses)
Mind, not all of that makes me perfectly happy, but it's mostly what I expect from Starfinder, from what I've heard. :D
Gorbacz |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tactics mate, sorry, but running a level 13+ game in Pathfinder is such a massive chore that I strongly back any initiative towards making new d20 games which do not reach above 15th level or so. Actually, I am a bit dismayed that Paizo goes with level 20 for Starfinder.
gustavo iglesias |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Karzoug joining the party after being defeated, losing some of his power and the PCs adventuring some more to fill in the gap could make for great stories. The dividing of the loot would become exceptionally interesting ;-)
That's, indeed, a great argument for (high level) NPC and PC having different rules.
If Karzaug is going to lose "some power" to join the PC. Then why mot giving him "boss status" ?
We can even name the template the "some power template". When Karzaug is dupposed to be a epic villain, he gains "sone power". Later if he joibs the PC hd loses "some power" so he is balanced with the rest of the party.
Zhangar |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tactics mate, sorry, but running a level 13+ game in Pathfinder is such a massive chore that I strongly back any initiative towards making new d20 games which do not reach above 15th level or so. Actually, I am a bit dismayed that Paizo goes with level 20 for Starfinder.
Some of us love running 13+ though. I'd be dismayed if Starfinder stripped that out =P
Now, I'm guessing that the high levels still won't have much support, because the people who like playing in those echelons are a niche of a niche, and so marketing directly to them doesn't give a good return.
But chopping it out entirely has its own problems.
Part of the appeal of d20 is giving people many, many options, even if they don't choose to use them.
Edit: I mean, you should be to do this in Starfinder. (I'd expect that to be a high level act simply because of the sheer numbers required =P)
Sundakan |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If NPCs are inherently stronger than PCs, then a NPC cannot join the party and become a PC because it would be unbalancing.
Which means that any story with opponents becoming allies (from Hulk joining the Avengers to too many Dragonball seasons) becomes impossible to tell.
Why restrict the variety of stories we can tell in Starfinder ?
The Raven Black |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Raven Black wrote:
Karzoug joining the party after being defeated, losing some of his power and the PCs adventuring some more to fill in the gap could make for great stories. The dividing of the loot would become exceptionally interesting ;-)That's, indeed, a great argument for (high level) NPC and PC having different rules.
If Karzaug is going to lose "some power" to join the PC. Then why mot giving him "boss status" ?
We can even name the template the "some power template". When Karzaug is dupposed to be a epic villain, he gains "sone power". Later if he joibs the PC hd loses "some power" so he is balanced with the rest of the party.
I should have been more explicit : losing all his magic items, his city and any accompanying perks and powers that came with it.
I did not mean losing a template. Unless that is a template that a hardworking PC who did the same efforts that Karzoug did would get.
I strongly oppose any system that gives greater power to NPCs "just because".
CorvusMask |
I still want explanation for why PCs and NPCs should be same, espicially since NPC classes exist. And its not like players or characters will ever know its "just because". Also "just because" can be anything from "tapping onto well of eldritch power" to "uses steroids" if you really want justification for it.
Steve Geddes |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There isn't really a "should", it's just a difference in approach that is valued by some and not by others.
People who prefer it probably sit near in the simulationist corner of the spectrum and regard rules as the way we represent the fantastical reality of the game world.
People who don't value it highly are probably more into the narrative side of RPGs where rules are just the way we regulate and provide objective limits on the stories we tell - they don't have direct analogs in the game world's reality.
Gorbacz |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still want explanation for why PCs and NPCs should be same, espicially since NPC classes exist. And its not like players or characters will ever know its "just because". Also "just because" can be anything from "tapping onto well of eldritch power" to "uses steroids" if you really want justification for it.
Because the 4e with PC Human Ranger and NPC Human Ranger being two completely different animals operating under different rules was stupid.
One of the greatest achievements of d20 design is that everything - PC, NPCs, monsters - is built from the same Lego bricks.
The Raven Black |
There isn't really a "should", it's just a difference in approach that is valued by some and not by others.
People who prefer it probably sit near in the simulationist corner of the spectrum and regard rules as the way we represent the fantastical reality of the game world.
People who don't value it highly are probably more into the narrative side of RPGs where rules are just the way we regulate and provide objective limits on the stories we tell - they don't have direct analogs in the game world's reality.
I must be an exception, I guess :-)
Why should NPCs use rules that are unavailable to PCs who share the exact same characteristics as the NPCs, just because they are NPCs ?
It breaks my feeling of immersion in a consistent game world's reality
CorvusMask |
CorvusMask wrote:I still want explanation for why PCs and NPCs should be same, espicially since NPC classes exist. And its not like players or characters will ever know its "just because". Also "just because" can be anything from "tapping onto well of eldritch power" to "uses steroids" if you really want justification for it.Because the 4e with PC Human Ranger and NPC Human Ranger being two completely different animals operating under different rules was stupid.
One of the greatest achievements of d20 design is that everything - PC, NPCs, monsters - is built from the same Lego bricks.
I doubt anyone was saying that PC Ranger and NPC ranger should be different just because :P I was saying that NPCs should be allowed to have their own toys to create interesting encounters. Isn't that why players keep complaining about class options clearly meant for NPCs?
Steve Geddes wrote:There isn't really a "should", it's just a difference in approach that is valued by some and not by others.
People who prefer it probably sit near in the simulationist corner of the spectrum and regard rules as the way we represent the fantastical reality of the game world.
People who don't value it highly are probably more into the narrative side of RPGs where rules are just the way we regulate and provide objective limits on the stories we tell - they don't have direct analogs in the game world's reality.
I must be an exception, I guess :-)
Why should NPCs use rules that are unavailable to PCs who share the exact same characteristics as the NPCs, just because they are NPCs ?
It breaks my feeling of immersion in a consistent game world's reality
But does barbarian who isn't "barbarian" but a npc with barbarian class break your immersion? If no, then doesn't that imply that game mechanics don't need match world completely?