Attack the Stat Block

Friday, May 18, 2018

In Monday's monster blog, Mark told you about some of the changes we made to monsters to make them more engaging and easy to run. So how did we turn all that into something you can use? Well, we put a lot of thought into making a new monster stat block that would be more concise, while remaining flexible enough that we can still keep a similar level of complexity for some of our most powerful and iconic monsters.

But let's start small. Well... big, but also small. You'll see.

So Now There's Ogres, Okay?

Oh no... what's that smell? It's like a gym bag ate roadkill!

Ogre Creature 3

Chaotic, Evil, Giant, Humanoid, Large

Perception +5, darkvision

Languages Giant

Skills +1; Acrobatics +4, Athletics +9

Str +5, Dex -1, Con +2, Int -2, Wis +0, Cha -2

Items hide armor, 6 javelins, ogre hook


AC 16, TAC 14; Fort +8, Ref +3, Will +5

HP 60


Speed 25 feet

[[A]] Melee ogre hook +10 (deadly 1d10, reach 10 feet, trip), Damage 1d10+7 piercing

[[A]] Ranged javelin +8 (thrown 30 feet), Damage 1d6+7

Ah, of course. It's an ogre! This is an example of one of the simplest stat blocks in the playtest. Ogres are big bruisers, and they don't have a whole lot of special actions to use. They play a role as big challenges for low-level groups and in groups as minions for higher-level threats, so having them be simple makes plenty of sense for how they're used in the game. You might notice that this stat block is shorter than a Pathfinder First Edition stat block. We think this will give us more room for other text in our bestiaries and adventures. Some elements went away because of rules simplifications, while other pieces of information, like organization and environment, will appear in the monster's text instead of in the stat block.

We don’t have art of ogres or redcaps yet, but check out this illustration by Wayne Reynolds of a bugbear!

Quick reminder: the [[A]] symbol is code for "action," and it will have a special icon in the actual Pathfinder Playtest Rulebook and other products. You'll also see an [[R]] later to represent a reaction.

You can see how a stat block leads off with the creature's name and level, followed by its traits. These traits include its alignment and size. The top section of the stat block continues with the first stats you'll typically use, since you'll be determining whether the PCs and monsters can see one another (requiring you to use Perception), or the party might start out with an interaction (meaning you'll use the monster's languages and skills). The skills entry first lists a number you can use (in addition to the relevant ability modifier) for any skills the monster doesn't have listed, followed by a list of all the skills the monster has a different modifier for. So if you needed to roll an Acrobatics check for the ogre, you'll roll 1d20 and add 4, which is much better than its base modifier plus its Dex modifier (a total of +0).

You'll also notice the monster gives just its ability score modifiers instead of scores. This lets you make calculations more quickly, and since monsters don't increase their scores the same way PCs do, listing those is unnecessary. Monsters with items also list those up top.

There's a line to show where the monster's defenses start. Our ogre's pretty straightforward, with just ACs, saves, and Hit Points.

The next line separates the statistics and actions the monster can use on its turn. Here, that's Speed and the ogre's Strikes: an ogre hook and javelins! Even though the ogre doesn't have any special actions, it does have some special options due to its ogre hook. In parentheses, you can see the ogre hook's traits: deadly 1d10 (making it deal 1d10 more damage on a critical hit—ow!), a reach of 10 feet (letting the ogre attack past the first space), and trip (which lets the ogre trip using its hook instead of its body). Just as in Pathfinder First Edition, the reach comes from the ogre's size—the hook itself isn't long enough to increase reach.

So you can see the stat block is organized so that you're looking at the middle section when it's not the monster's turn, and at the bottom section on its turn. We think that will make it easier to use at the table, but we'd love to hear your feedback as you run these monsters during the playtest!

Blood and Boots

So how about a stat block that has a bit more going on? Here's a redcap: the nasty, brutal little fey with oversized scythes. This is a moderately complex monster. We won't be showing you any liches or pit fiends today, but the redcap will demonstrate how we present a few special abilities.

Redcap Creature 5

Evil, Fey, Small

Perception +10, low-light vision

Languages Aklo, Common, Giant, Sylvan

Skills +5; Acrobatics +13, Athletics +13, Deception +13, Intimidation +11, Nature +11, Stealth +13

Str +4, Dex +4, Con +4, Int +3, Wis +1, Cha +2

Items red cap, expert Medium scythe, iron boots

Red Cap (arcane, necromancy) A redcap's shapeless woolen hat is dyed with the blood of its victims. If the redcap loses its cap, it no longer benefits from fast healing and takes a -4 conditional penalty to its damage rolls. It can create a new cap in 10 minutes, but that cap doesn't grant its powers until the redcap has turned it red with Blood Soak. A cap has no benefit for creatures other than redcaps.


AC 20, TAC 19; Fort +8, Ref +11, Will +9

HP 55, fast healing 10; Weaknesses cold iron 5, irreligious

Irreligious (emotion, fear, mental) If a redcap sees a creature brandish a holy symbol of a good deity or use one for the Material Casting of a divine spell, the redcap must attempt a DC 17 Will save. On a failure, the redcap is frightened 4 and fleeing for 1 round; on a success, it's frightened 2; on a critical success, it's unaffected. To brandish a holy symbol, a creature must Interact to brandish it for 1 round (similar to Raising a Shield). Once a redcap has to attempt a save against a brandished holy symbol, it is bolstered against brandished holy symbols for the next 10 minutes.


Speed 50 feet

[[A]] Melee scythe +13 (deadly 1d10, trip), Damage 2d10+4 slashing
boot +13 (agile, versatile B), Damage 2d4+8 piercing

[[A]] Blood Soak (manipulate) The redcap dips its cap in the blood of a slain foe. The foe must have died in the last minute, and the redcap must have helped kill it. The redcap gains a +4 conditional bonus on damage rolls for 1 minute.

[[R]] Deadly Cleave

Trigger The redcap drops a creature to 0 Hit Points with a scythe Strike.

Effect The redcap makes another scythe Strike against a different creature, using the same multiple attack penalty as the scythe Strike that triggered this reaction. This counts toward its multiple attack penalty.

[[A]] Stomp The redcap Strides up to half its Speed and makes a boot Strike at any point during that movement. If the boot Strike hits a prone creature, it deals an extra 2d6 persistent bleed damage.

You can see here that the redcap has an ability to represent its blood-soaked hat, and that appears in the top section because it affects all of its statistics. You'll also notice the weakness to cold iron that comes from being a fey creature. One of the nice things about the new system of building monsters is that we can just give monsters the statistics we want them to have instead of sometimes building them in strange ways to get their statistics to be good. For instance, in Pathfinder First Edition, a fey might have had far more Hit Dice than expected to get its statistics high enough, which led to odd results from abilities that counted Hit Dice. Now, the redcap gets statistics that are suitable for its level and how it's used.

You can see the Irreligious ability is an example of a special ability that will come up when it's not the monster's turn. A redcap can be scared off by symbols of divinity!

In the bottom section, you see two special actions and a reaction. The reaction appears down here because the trigger is most likely to occur during the recap's own turn. You'll also see how some of the basic actions of the game end up being used in other actions. For instance, Stomp tells you that the redcap uses Stride and Strike. An ability like this lets you know any ways in which these actions operate differently than using them normally.

Spell It Out

How about just one more example for today? Let's look at how innate spells work. These are much like spell-like abilities from Pathfinder First Edition, but they function more like spells than they used to. The only difference between these and other spells is that the number of times the monster can cast them is based on the monster itself rather than on a spellcasting class. Innate spell entries look much like prepared spells, with a couple extra categories of usability. Here are some we stole from the efreeti:

Innate Arcane Spells DC 22, attack +17; Constant detect magic; 5th illusory object; 4th gaseous form, invisibility (×2); At Will plane shift (7th, to Elemental Planes, Astral Plane, or Material Plane only); Cantrips produce flame (4th)

The spell DC is listed right there, along with the attack bonus for touch attacks since the efreeti has produce flame. Illusory object is presented the same way a prepared 5th-level spell would be, as are gaseous form and the two spell slots of invisibility. Anything that doesn't come in a level entry is cast at its lowest level unless a level appears in parentheses. You can see that happening with the produce flame cantrip, which the efreeti casts as a 4th-level spell. Its detect magic is level 1, but that's a constant ability that functions all the time for the efreeti. The other special way a creature can use innate spells is with at-will spells. These are spells the monster can cast as many times as it wants even though they aren't normally cantrips. The efreeti can cast plane shift any number of times, but the parentheses tell you that it's the 7th-level version and that it can go only to certain planes.

What do you think of this take on monster presentation? Do you think it'll be easy to use these stat blocks in your game?

Logan Bonner
Designer

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Pathfinder Playtest Wayne Reynolds
451 to 500 of 623 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Major one that I realized no one has brought up yet: Spells.

What would the reaction be if only NPC Wizards could be the ones to cast mirror image?

Well that is a bit different. That would be removing a player option and making it NPC only, rather than creating a new ability for the NPC.

But assuming that wasn't the case, so long as it had a reason [and that reason was potentially discover-able] I wouldn't mind. It is no more arbitrary than anything else. Maybe the Wizard split his soul with a prism, maybe he bargained with Nethys for a new spell or was just a particular genius at illusions the new spell being the result of years of study.

Of course so long as it wasn't over powered, I'd probably allow players who found the spell book to copy it.

Slightly different but it highlights the issue.

1) “assuming it was discoverable” and thus potentially a PC option is not what’s being talked about.

2) the examples you give are story based powers, not “he has different spells just because he’s an NPC Wizard”.

PCs can research unique spells in PF1 too, per the rules, if the DM doesn't disallow it. I take it you object to NPCs also having unique spells that they researched? If an NPC has a unique spell, is it a hard line for you that the PCs should always be able to recover it in scroll form off their corpse, even if their spellbooks are elsewhere or they're a cleric / druid / sorcerer who doesn't even use spellbooks?


QuidEst wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

I don't know 1 DM that would actually ask you to turn off feats due to Ability damage. Encumbrance yes(Oi Mages, maybe don't DUMP it fully?) But feats? Same with skills. Now your Bow example? Can still use it, but you do less damage. Much like hitting something with your melee would. I don't see this as too hard to manage.

Especially with online play and Apps.

Ability damage and penalties didn't turn off feats, and strength damage didn't actually impact your carrying capacity. The rules were weird, and very few people played them as written.

Are we talking 3.5 or Pathfinder? I know people in Pathfinder, myself included, that will lower your carrying capacity(It makes bloody sense why not?)

QuidEst wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
But can you still Die from it? That Shadow doesn't seem so scary if it does only 1d6 damage with Debuff. There's probably a good amount of creatures that are only threatening or notable because of the Ability damage. Take that away and either you need to give them a big boost or might as well remove them. To say nothing about having to revamp ALL Poisons and Diseases.

You couldn't die from strength damage normally anyway. Shadows had to have a custom rule just to make that work. Shadows in PF2 might kill you if their debuff stack reaches your ability score or something like that. Yeah, monsters will need to be changed if they had ability score damage, but I think it's reasonable to get rid of some of the options that ignored normal defenses.

Pathfinder Unchained already revamped how poisons and diseases worked to avoid ability score damage (which was more of a nuisance than a real threat). Personally, I found it to be a lot more interesting.

Okay I'll give you on the Shadow killing you with STR damage. Unconscious then. And I have no problem with monster that ignored normal defenses. If only because people tend to get to a point where attacks don't bloody matter vs AC.

I can't comment on Unchained Poisons as I haven't looked at them in detail. The whole Track thing seems just another thing to upkeep though.

It's an issue with having info scattered all around the place. Really they should just reprint the core book with Unchained changes and be done with it.

Did they do that now that I think about it? I should see what printing my book is.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Fuzzypaws wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Major one that I realized no one has brought up yet: Spells.

What would the reaction be if only NPC Wizards could be the ones to cast mirror image?

Well that is a bit different. That would be removing a player option and making it NPC only, rather than creating a new ability for the NPC.

But assuming that wasn't the case, so long as it had a reason [and that reason was potentially discover-able] I wouldn't mind. It is no more arbitrary than anything else. Maybe the Wizard split his soul with a prism, maybe he bargained with Nethys for a new spell or was just a particular genius at illusions the new spell being the result of years of study.

Of course so long as it wasn't over powered, I'd probably allow players who found the spell book to copy it.

Slightly different but it highlights the issue.

1) “assuming it was discoverable” and thus potentially a PC option is not what’s being talked about.

2) the examples you give are story based powers, not “he has different spells just because he’s an NPC Wizard”.

PCs can research unique spells in PF1 too, per the rules, if the DM doesn't disallow it. I take it you object to NPCs also having unique spells that they researched? If an NPC has a unique spell, is it a hard line for you that the PCs should always be able to recover it in scroll form off their corpse, even if their spellbooks are elsewhere or they're a cleric / druid / sorcerer who doesn't even use spellbooks?

”If the DM doesn’t disallow it.”

And no I wouldn’t object to an NPC having a unique spell they researched that a PC could then pick up, either form Book or Scroll or researching (a rule option) it themselves. The book saying something to the effect of “PCs can never learn this spell” is what I would have issue with. Even if it says that of course you and GM can work to make it a player ability, but you’re going against the default rules at this point, rather than them supporting you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

All this talk of ability scores makes me miss the old 2nd Ed AD&D roll under your score system, of course that only really works if the characters generally cap around 18.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:


PCs can research unique spells in PF1 too, per the rules, if the DM doesn't disallow it. I take it you object to NPCs also having unique spells that they researched? If an NPC has a unique spell, is it a hard line for you that the PCs should always be able to recover it in scroll form off their corpse, even if their spellbooks are elsewhere or they're a cleric / druid / sorcerer who doesn't even use spellbooks?

Well, I love spell research!

I think that the promise is clear: if the PCs find the scroll or spellbook, they can learn the spell. However, there's no obligation for the GM to make this possible at all times :)


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
MerlinCross wrote:
Are we talking 3.5 or Pathfinder? I know people in Pathfinder, myself included, that will lower your carrying capacity(It makes bloody sense why not?)

I'm talking about the actual Pathfinder rules, which don't have you recalculate carrying capacity for anything less than ability drain. I know that a lot of people did it differently, but that's sort of the point- the actual rules didn't see a whole lot of use, and I messed them up a lot. Paizo even did an Oracle curse that didn't have an actual drawback because of how ability damage rules actually work.

MerlinCross wrote:
Okay I'll give you on the Shadow killing you with STR damage. Unconscious then. And I have no problem with monster that ignored normal defenses. If only because people tend to get to a point where attacks don't bloody matter vs AC.

I suspect that attack and AC will be more balanced now that they don't have to deal with backwards compatibility.

MerlinCross wrote:
It's an issue with having info scattered all around the place. Really they should just reprint the core book with Unchained changes and be done with it.

Unchained is a bunch of optional rules, and too many things reference page numbers and the like in the CRB. If they wanted to make any major changes to something in the CRB, they'd have to basically make an entirely new edition of the game. (Which is why we're here!)


QuidEst wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Are we talking 3.5 or Pathfinder? I know people in Pathfinder, myself included, that will lower your carrying capacity(It makes bloody sense why not?)
I'm talking about the actual Pathfinder rules, which don't have you recalculate carrying capacity for anything less than ability drain. I know that a lot of people did it differently, but that's sort of the point- the actual rules didn't see a whole lot of use, and I messed them up a lot. Paizo even did an Oracle curse that didn't have an actual drawback because of how ability damage rules actually work.

Shrug, each DM does it their way that makes sense. Anything that does damage/drain/loss mid fight should first be applied to rolls that are used most in mid fight or big changes like Encumbrance or Acrobatics.

After combat then maybe we get into just what your loss of numbers actual means and only if they'll last long enough to pose an issue.

QuidEst wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Okay I'll give you on the Shadow killing you with STR damage. Unconscious then. And I have no problem with monster that ignored normal defenses. If only because people tend to get to a point where attacks don't bloody matter vs AC.
I suspect that attack and AC will be more balanced now that they don't have to deal with backwards compatibility.

Eh? Backwards to what 3.5? They'll still have to worry about it when transferring stuff. Even if it's just DM's porting things over.

QuidEst wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
It's an issue with having info scattered all around the place. Really they should just reprint the core book with Unchained changes and be done with it.
Unchained is a bunch of optional rules, and too many things reference page numbers and the like in the CRB. If they wanted to make any major changes to something in the CRB, they'd have to basically make an entirely new edition of the game. (Which is why we're here!)

Or they could have just done reprints. If most people are already doing Unchained, might as well put out a CRB that was unchained anyway for a year.

That's not to we can't have a new edition just that when PF2 gets their unchained stuff(5 years maybe?) we'll be back to cross referencing stuff from all the different books. Just wish there was an easier way.

It's why I tend to pick and choose what Unchained stuff I like/allow. And why I don't use Spheres of Power at all due to having to basically relearn and cross reference EVERYTHING again. This is more a complaint about publishing practices and how the books/rules are written out more than anything though.


QuidEst wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Are we talking 3.5 or Pathfinder? I know people in Pathfinder, myself included, that will lower your carrying capacity(It makes bloody sense why not?)
I'm talking about the actual Pathfinder rules, which don't have you recalculate carrying capacity for anything less than ability drain. I know that a lot of people did it differently, but that's sort of the point- the actual rules didn't see a whole lot of use, and I messed them up a lot. Paizo even did an Oracle curse that didn't have an actual drawback because of how ability damage rules actually work.

Eh, slight disagreement here. If it's the Curse I think it is (Promethean) then it does have a drawback, just not the one that's immediately obvious. You only naturally heal 1 Ability Damage per day, so the curse basically means you cannot naturally heal Con Damage, the one you would heal you get back the next day.

That said, I like the stacking debuff concept. It's easy enough to add a clause about dying or being rendered comatose/immobilized if the penalty is equal to your stat modifier, especially with how odd values seem to be a thing of the past (at least as far as we've seen so far.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

(No, I have not read all the comments/replies in this thread, so I have no idea if the following has already been addressed.)

The trait line of the stat block would be easier to read if the alignment-based traits were abbreviated to letters like in previous editions.

For example, I find "CE Giant, Humanoid, Large"
easier to grasp at a glance than "Chaotic, Evil, Giant, Humanoid, Large".


Shadows were detailed during the Glass Cannon podcast. They apply a stacking debuff as an action when they hit you (don't recall the name right now), and you die if it gets to a high enough level.


Cyouni wrote:
Shadows were detailed during the Glass Cannon podcast. They apply a stacking debuff as an action when they hit you (don't recall the name right now), and you die if it gets to a high enough level.

Sounds like the 5th Ed Shadow, reduces your Str, when you hit 0, you die.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Rysky wrote:

Major one that I realized no one has brought up yet: Spells.

What would the reaction be if only NPC Wizards could be the ones to cast mirror image?

An NPC only spell doesn’t trouble us - again though, the restriction would be in-game, not spelled out as a mechanical restriction. Some weird spell would be cast the PCs haven’t seen. They can respond how they like from there.

We don’t allow PCs to use a whole truckload of magic rituals but do allow NPCs to. I don’t see it as any different than that. The reason for each restriction may be different, but it’s still a restriction on PC access to abilities available to other people in world.

(I don’t see why I’d want to use mirror image in my campaign and not want it getting into the PCs’ hands, but if I did want that, I don’t see any issue with making it so. I wouldn’t place arbitrary restrictions - there’d have to be be reasons).

As another example to illustrate why it’s not a big deal for us - we generally play CRB only. But when I run adventures, I use them as written. That technically means there’s a whole bunch of NPC abilities closed off from the PCs - gunslinging, alchemisting and vigilanteing for example. If they loot a gun or an alchemist’s set of equipment they can never get it to work as well as their opponent did.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Weather Report wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
Shadows were detailed during the Glass Cannon podcast. They apply a stacking debuff as an action when they hit you (don't recall the name right now), and you die if it gets to a high enough level.
Sounds like the 5th Ed Shadow, reduces your Str, when you hit 0, you die.

From the pfsrd.

Strength Damage (Su)
A shadow’s touch deals 1d6 points of Strength damage to a living creature. This is a negative energy effect. A creature dies if this Strength damage equals or exceeds its actual Strength score.

Create Spawn (Su)
A humanoid creature killed by a shadow’s Strength damage becomes a shadow under the control of its killer in 1d4 rounds.

This is how shadows have always worked. I don't understand the confusion.


I am perfectly happy for monsters to have access to abilities that PC cannot get. Unless the PC somehow manages to turn themselves into that monster (not likely).

I think it would be silly if wolf were a class. Monsters should be built differently. But I hope for a bit more system than: just make it all up.

The concern is when humanoid NPCs have abilities outside of what the PCs can get. There are ways around this though. The DM could home brew a new class, or the NPC could have an unusual template.

However, I also think that PCs should be able to take steps to learn these new abilities. Although the price may be too high.

Dark Archive

Unicore wrote:
Seisho wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:
I still think they should give the ogre a reaction ability of some kind.
If you really want to give him AoO and you are good

I am hoping that there are a fair number of easy templates in the bestiary that can be thrown over the basic monster types. Leaving a general reaction off of ogres would make a lot of sense if Ogre guards can get a AoO type of attack.

I'd prefer a generic racial stat block, kind of an incomplete base that you always use and then add templates to it. For example, the "ogre base" might have 40 hit points, 15 AC, Fort +6, etcetera; and if you want a hard-hitting ogre, you apply the "Ogre brute" template on top of it. If your want a vigilant guard-type, use the "Ogre jailor" template. Both would add different bonuses and penalties to skills, ability scores, AC and saves. And naturally different kind of traits, reactions and attacks.

Maybe something like this (and this is just me typing something off the top of my head): +20 hp, +1 AC, +2 Fort/-1 Will, add 'Smite fallen' to ogre's reactions. And this 'Smite fallen' might be something like a free attack vs. anyone the ogre trips with its hook, probably with a hefty bonus. And maybe marking that creature as its 'prey' or 'quarry', thus granting the ogre further attack and/or AC bonuses?

In the end that basic ogre is just, well, a big bag o' hit points and nothing else. It's boring. It is able to trip enemies and dish out more damage on crits, but those are its only "gimmicks".

If PF2 is going for signature abilities and exception-based design, why not do it with all the monsters, especially ones that get used most often? Who cares how cool Elohim, Hundun or Vilderavn will be in PF2 -- you likely won't fight them as often as ogres, giant spiders, manticores and chimera.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malthraz wrote:

I don't care if I have 18 in charisma, or +4 i charisma. Paizo is concerned that changing it from 18 to +4 will causes problems with a decent minority of the player base.

I do not know. Maybe they are right.

I guess they are trialing it with monsters. Dipping their ogre toe in the water.

I'm of the opinion that if you make decisions that result in a better game mechanically, the minority that want things the same because they want things the same will grumble, and moan, and they might delay switching tot he new system - but most likely will end up there in the end - so you might lose some sales, or more likely delay some sales - but you give a much better system to the masses who want such a thing.

If the only thing Strength is used for is to determine what modifier to apply to a given roll, then why NOT simply record the strength as the modifier. +2 strength is no more arbitrary than 14 strength, and it at least results in a real usable number, instead of essentially being an index pointer to a line on a table that gives you your real usable number.

Also makes all those ability adjustment choices make more sense as just adding or subtracting 1 each.


Asgetrion wrote:
Unicore wrote:
Seisho wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:
I still think they should give the ogre a reaction ability of some kind.
If you really want to give him AoO and you are good

I am hoping that there are a fair number of easy templates in the bestiary that can be thrown over the basic monster types. Leaving a general reaction off of ogres would make a lot of sense if Ogre guards can get a AoO type of attack.

I'd prefer a generic racial stat block, kind of an incomplete base that you always use and then add templates to it. For example, the "ogre base" might have 40 hit points, 15 AC, Fort +6, etcetera; and if you want a hard-hitting ogre, you apply the "Ogre brute" template on top of it. If your want a vigilant guard-type, use the "Ogre jailor" template. Both would add different bonuses and penalties to skills, ability scores, AC and saves. And naturally different kind of traits, reactions and attacks.

Maybe something like this (and this is just me typing something off the top of my head): +20 hp, +1 AC, +2 Fort/-1 Will, add 'Smite fallen' to ogre's reactions. And this 'Smite fallen' might be something like a free attack vs. anyone the ogre trips with its hook, probably with a hefty bonus. And maybe marking that creature as its 'prey' or 'quarry', thus granting the ogre further attack and/or AC bonuses?

In the end that basic ogre is just, well, a big bag o' hit points and nothing else. It's boring. It is able to trip enemies and dish out more damage on crits, but those are its only "gimmicks".

If PF2 is going for signature abilities and exception-based design, why not do it with all the monsters, especially ones that get used most often? Who cares how cool Elohim, Hundun or Vilderavn will be in PF2 -- you likely won't fight them as often as ogres, giant spiders, manticores and chimera.

All this is why I wish the monsters were still based on the ABC system. Sure, start out with the ancestries being relatively limited if you want - but it makes a lot more sense for there to be a general 'Goblinoid' ancestry, with various tweaks and such to represent goblins, hobgoblins, etc, and then add appropriately nasty backgrounds and a class level or two.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Asgetrion wrote:

I'd prefer a generic racial stat block, kind of an incomplete base that you always use and then add templates to it. For example, the "ogre base" might have 40 hit points, 15 AC, Fort +6, etcetera; and if you want a hard-hitting ogre, you apply the "Ogre brute" template on top of it. If your want a vigilant guard-type, use the "Ogre jailor" template. Both would add different bonuses and penalties to skills, ability scores, AC and saves. And naturally different kind of traits, reactions and attacks.

Maybe something like this (and this is just me typing something off the top of my head): +20 hp, +1 AC, +2 Fort/-1 Will, add 'Smite fallen' to ogre's reactions. And this 'Smite fallen' might be something like a free attack vs. anyone the ogre trips with its hook, probably with a hefty bonus. And maybe marking that creature as its 'prey' or 'quarry', thus granting the ogre further attack and/or AC bonuses?

In the end that basic ogre is just, well, a big bag o' hit points and nothing else. It's boring. It is able to trip enemies and dish out more damage on crits, but those are its only "gimmicks".

If PF2 is going for signature abilities and exception-based design, why not do it with all the monsters, especially ones that get used most often? Who cares how cool Elohim, Hundun or Vilderavn will be in PF2 -- you likely won't fight them as often as ogres, giant spiders, manticores and chimera.

There need to be some bag-of-hitpoints monsters, especially at the lower CRs. It allows you to vary the pacing, putting in something uncomplicated between more exotic fights. The PCs can use whatever strategy they want, rather than needing to adapt. And, in a bigger fight, these enemies don't distract much from the main opponent when used as supporting bodies..

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The Ogre may also be 'just a bag of hit points' but it's an impressive bag of hit points. 60 HP is easily double what a fragile 3rd level PC might have, and probably half again as much as most Fighters. Its to-hit and damage are also both on par with an optimized Fighter of the same level.

Some monsters just having raw power rather than fancy tricks is useful and appropriate, and if anyone fits that description it's definitely an Ogre. I'd definitely expect some less simple (and simple minded) monsters to be available at low levels.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:
PCs can research unique spells in PF1 too, per the rules, if the DM doesn't disallow it. I take it you object to NPCs also having unique spells that they researched? If an NPC has a unique spell, is it a hard line for you that the PCs should always be able to recover it in scroll form off their corpse, even if their spellbooks are elsewhere or they're a cleric / druid / sorcerer who doesn't even use spellbooks?

It seems like you are quite deliberately misconstruing what people are saying. First conflating monsters with NPCs and now assuming "unique spell" on an NPC means that the NPC has to be a wizard who researched the unique spell. But let's play along.

Would you allow a PC wizard to research the same "spell"? What about a player multiclassing into cleric to get the same "cleric" spell? Or multiclassing into whatever "template" the NPC "divine caster" had to give them a unique NPC only ability? What about a fighter learning a power that an NPC warrior had?

If you're okay with consistently allowing the above, then have you really got NPC-only abilities? If the answer is no, then you've completely moved the goal posts of what people are concerned about.

People are worried about NPCs getting monster-only abilities under the premise that NPCs are really just monsters with a different flavour attached to them. And yes, NPCs can be built like PCs. But we haven't had any promise from Paizo that they consistently will be? (And IMO we've had strong indications they won't be most of the time). So saying "oh the PC wizard can just research the spell" doesn't really address the concern except in those specific instances where the monster-only ability is flavoured as a wizard spell and the GM is willing to hand out the monster-only ability to PC wizards.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
The Blog wrote:
Anything that doesn't come in a level entry is cast at its lowest level unless a level appears in parentheses.

I don't know if this has been commented on, but I'd rather the level always be included.

The less cross-referencing the better, in my view. Common spells are easy enough, but some of the mid-level spells aren't always so well known.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Hoping for each monster skill with an override modifier to be specifically fluffed up in the flavor text! This helps DMs describe things for their players, so the group can develop an intuition for its capabilities outside of observing the results of rolls.

So for Redcaps, I'd love to see lore describing lithe, springy (Acrobatics), but freakishly strong (Athletics) creatures, with specific examples of how they trick their victims (Deception), terrify the good and bully their minions (Intimidation), utilizing the features of their environment (Nature) to silently ambush lone travelers (Stealth). No need for the heavy-handed parentheticals - they're just to make my point.

Though I wouldn't call this fluff anymore, I'd call it integral. And perhaps it's already part of your development process! -- Thanks for creating a specific Exploration Mode to highlight roleplay; please give us many tools. Looking forward to consuming the playtest materials. :)


CraziFuzzy wrote:
I'm of the opinion that if you make decisions that result in a better game mechanically, the minority that want things the same because they want things the same will grumble, and moan, and they might delay switching tot he new system - but most likely will end up there in the end - so you might lose some sales, or more likely delay some sales - but you give a much better system to the masses who want such a thing.

Better is not a useful metric to use because it's in the eye of the beholder. D&D 4th edition was better balanced. It create better equalisation between classes in terms of player agency. The game was better when it came to allowing all PCs to have the same level of tactical options in combat. It was better at ensuring there were no mandatory classes and everyone could play whatever they want. It eventually got better monster math. It also created an atmosphere where another game could come along with less balanced mechanics, less balanced classes and much more lopsided tactical elements and agency for players and still become the success we know as Pathfinder.

Saying "sayonara" to the hardcore players to chase after a better game and the thereotical new players that will find the better game appealing is as crazy as chasing away new players in order to cater to the same dwindling playerbase you've always had.

I personally think there is a strong argument for iterative design that improves on the old while keeping the core ruleset consistent and alive (I'd also argue that's how Pathfinder first became a success). We'll have to wait and see how many playtesters agree and how much Paizo is willing to change to appeal to them (if there's very few who share this opinion I expect Paizo won't listen to it very much).

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:
The Blog wrote:
Anything that doesn't come in a level entry is cast at its lowest level unless a level appears in parentheses.

I don't know if this has been commented on, but I'd rather the level always be included.

The less cross-referencing the better, in my view. Common spells are easy enough, but some of the mid-level spells aren't always so well known.

That seems like it would confuse things rather than clarify them. You only need the level of the spell if it has a heighten effect. Putting a level on a spell that doesn’t have those effects is misleading. Worse, even if you know the baseline spell effect, you’d have to double check that the printed level didn’t change something.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
You only need the level of the spell if it has a heighten effect.

Or if you need to figure out if it's countered by other spell (let's say Illusion vs Detect Magic in this case).

Or if spell level affects Spellcraft DC. Or if Globe of Invulnerability (blocking low level spells) still exists.
Or considering that Paizo at any time in future COULD release new Heighten version of existing spell that didn't originally have one.

If every other spell displays it's spell level, I'd say you should have REALLY good reason to NOT doing so.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
KingOfAnything wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
The Blog wrote:
Anything that doesn't come in a level entry is cast at its lowest level unless a level appears in parentheses.

I don't know if this has been commented on, but I'd rather the level always be included.

The less cross-referencing the better, in my view. Common spells are easy enough, but some of the mid-level spells aren't always so well known.

That seems like it would confuse things rather than clarify them. You only need the level of the spell if it has a heighten effect. Putting a level on a spell that doesn’t have those effects is misleading. Worse, even if you know the baseline spell effect, you’d have to double check that the printed level didn’t change something.

You need it if you don’t know the lowest level.

I don’t really see what changes for those players who know the level if it’s reaffirmed in the statblock.

How is it misleading or what would you need to doublecheck if detect magic had (1st) after it in the sample efreet entry?

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:
Asgetrion wrote:

I'd prefer a generic racial stat block, kind of an incomplete base that you always use and then add templates to it. For example, the "ogre base" might have 40 hit points, 15 AC, Fort +6, etcetera; and if you want a hard-hitting ogre, you apply the "Ogre brute" template on top of it. If your want a vigilant guard-type, use the "Ogre jailor" template. Both would add different bonuses and penalties to skills, ability scores, AC and saves. And naturally different kind of traits, reactions and attacks.

Maybe something like this (and this is just me typing something off the top of my head): +20 hp, +1 AC, +2 Fort/-1 Will, add 'Smite fallen' to ogre's reactions. And this 'Smite fallen' might be something like a free attack vs. anyone the ogre trips with its hook, probably with a hefty bonus. And maybe marking that creature as its 'prey' or 'quarry', thus granting the ogre further attack and/or AC bonuses?

In the end that basic ogre is just, well, a big bag o' hit points and nothing else. It's boring. It is able to trip enemies and dish out more damage on crits, but those are its only "gimmicks".

If PF2 is going for signature abilities and exception-based design, why not do it with all the monsters, especially ones that get used most often? Who cares how cool Elohim, Hundun or Vilderavn will be in PF2 -- you likely won't fight them as often as ogres, giant spiders, manticores and chimera.

There need to be some bag-of-hitpoints monsters, especially at the lower CRs. It allows you to vary the pacing, putting in something uncomplicated between more exotic fights. The PCs can use whatever strategy they want, rather than needing to adapt. And, in a bigger fight, these enemies don't distract much from the main opponent when used as supporting bodies..

I get that, but that's a lot of hit points to hack though at lower levels, especially with (apparently) lower damage output in PF2. In relation to what a low-level fighter will inflict with a greatsword (1d12 + 4, plus power attack in most cases), it's almost a 4E-style "slugfest" with everyone focusing on a single enemy at a time. I'm not saying it's bad or wrong, it's just...well, in my opinion it might get old pretty fast.

Maybe there's some sort of middle ground to this? Perhaps these "Brute" monsters could have at least one signature ability that keys off their other abilities? For example, if the ogre's "gimmick" is to trip their foes, what if they get to "stomp" a fallen foe as a reaction? Either only when they succesfully trip someone, or maybe even once/round?

Hmh. Just thinking aloud.


I mean better in the eyes of the designers. I don't want them setting something they really want to do, and then deciding NOT to do it because of a vocal minority of players who can't deal with change. That is sort of the vibe I got from a few dev comments on the Paladin thread.

I wanted the Pathfinder playtest too be what Paizo devs would create of starting from scratch, without unnecessary baggage from the past.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
CraziFuzzy wrote:
I don't want them setting something they really want to do, and then deciding NOT to do it because of a vocal minority of players who can't deal with change. That is sort of the vibe I got from a few dev comments on the Paladin thread.

To be fair, they said that there was a strong difference of opinion on the design team, which led to the decision to only test the LG version of the Paladin and to reserve the decision about other alignments until after the playtest.

It was definitely not a "vocal minority of players who can't deal with change" who drove that decision, and that's a pretty disrespectful way to talk about people who hold a different view from you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
CraziFuzzy wrote:

I mean better in the eyes of the designers. I don't want them setting something they really want to do, and then deciding NOT to do it because of a vocal minority of players who can't deal with change. That is sort of the vibe I got from a few dev comments on the Paladin thread.

I wanted the Pathfinder playtest too be what Paizo devs would create of starting from scratch, without unnecessary baggage from the past.

They’re not building a new game from scratch, they have a huge amount of goodwill from their current fan base derived, at least in part, from approval for Pathfinder’s approach to RPG design and they would be foolish not to leverage that.

As ever in these kinds of things, we all focus on our individual preferences (or the few people we know). Paizo are always picking a path of compromise between thousands of such perspectives; tried-and-true vs innovative-and-fresh is one of several choices they are continually having to make.

Too far in either direction is likely to be commercially disastrous and they need to find the best middle ground. No matter where they land on the scale from boldly-innovative to sacred-cow-preserving, almost all of us would have picked a different spot on the spectrum.

PF2 isn’t going to be many people’s perfect game (even the designers, I suspect). They need to cast their net wider than any specific niche of gamers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CrystalSeas wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:
I don't want them setting something they really want to do, and then deciding NOT to do it because of a vocal minority of players who can't deal with change. That is sort of the vibe I got from a few dev comments on the Paladin thread.

To be fair, they said that there was a strong difference of opinion on the design team, which led to the decision to only test the LG version of the Paladin and to reserve the decision about other alignments until after the playtest.

It was definitely not a "vocal minority of players who can't deal with change" who drove that decision, and that's a pretty disrespectful way to talk about people who hold a different view from you.

Also, this idea that it will just be old players turned off doesn't seem like it will pan out. The game isn't a binary between people who have been playing 3P since forever and people who have never been exposed to table top gaming. There's a wide spectrum of folks with limited exposure to some system or another, and having some superficial similarities to what the majority of table top gamers are used to is nice for drawing people of all experience levels. It makes them feel slightly more at home when learning an intimidating new system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I just want to note it isn't a "hardcore players who want Ability scores vs theoretical new players" dichotomy. Everyone arguing for removing them right now is one of the hardcore players, evidenced by their arguing about it on an incredibly niche blog. Now yes new players are a concern for me, but they are my secondary concern over Ability Score just being a repeated waste of space throughout all materials.


Aristophanes wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
Shadows were detailed during the Glass Cannon podcast. They apply a stacking debuff as an action when they hit you (don't recall the name right now), and you die if it gets to a high enough level.
Sounds like the 5th Ed Shadow, reduces your Str, when you hit 0, you die.

From the pfsrd.

Strength Damage (Su)
A shadow’s touch deals 1d6 points of Strength damage to a living creature. This is a negative energy effect. A creature dies if this Strength damage equals or exceeds its actual Strength score.

Create Spawn (Su)
A humanoid creature killed by a shadow’s Strength damage becomes a shadow under the control of its killer in 1d4 rounds.

This is how shadows have always worked. I don't understand the confusion.

Neither do I, who is confused, and about what?

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Weather Report wrote:
Neither do I, who is confused, and about what?

I believe Aristophanes' point was that they were already like that in PF1, so them being like that in PF2 has nothing to do with what 5E did with them.

I'm betting you weren't implying otherwise, just making an observation, but people can get sensitive about the idea that Paizo is stealing ideas from 5E when that's not what's happening.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Neither do I, who is confused, and about what?

I believe Aristophanes' point was that they were already like that in PF1, so them being like that in PF2 has nothing to do with what 5E did with them.

I'm betting you weren't implying otherwise, just making an observation, but people can get sensitive about the idea that Paizo is stealing ideas from 5E when that's not what's happening.

Gotcha, that was not what I was thinking, at all, in fact, 5th Ed took ideas from PF1. I consider PF1/3rd Ed as the secret sauce to spice up 5th Ed. I have converted a few PF1 classes, monsters and spells to 5th Ed, lots of fun. I like something in between PF1 and 5th Ed (and you can swing one in the other's direction quite easily).


Jason Bulmahn wrote:

One of the things I love about the way we are doing monsters now is that the end results often end up close to what they were by doing all the math the first time around. The system that was supposed to be similar to PCs rarely was, requiring you to jump through a lot of hoops to make a balanced monster. Now we can simply make the monster what it needs to be, focusing instead on how to make it work well as part of the game environment....

...I understand that folks want to see exactly how a thing was put together, to have a better understanding of how to tinker with that monster. I would rather teach you what the monster needs to look like to be balanced and have you adjust it to that goal than to force you to apply formulas that are trying to do the same thing, but have little flexibility in their outcome without significant modification.
.

[Emphasis and typo-correction mine]

Ok. I am now, after reading all the blogs, (and all of this thread), completely ok with monsters using their own creation rules (like they already were).

Fine. But nowhere in this blog or thread do I remember reading where we will be able to find the information/tables/rules/guidelines for "what the monster needs to look like to be balanced". What am I missing? Has this been stipulated as being present in the Playtest?


OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0 wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

One of the things I love about the way we are doing monsters now is that the end results often end up close to what they were by doing all the math the first time around. The system that was supposed to be similar to PCs rarely was, requiring you to jump through a lot of hoops to make a balanced monster. Now we can simply make the monster what it needs to be, focusing instead on how to make it work well as part of the game environment....

...I understand that folks want to see exactly how a thing was put together, to have a better understanding of how to tinker with that monster. I would rather teach you what the monster needs to look like to be balanced and have you adjust it to that goal than to force you to apply formulas that are trying to do the same thing, but have little flexibility in their outcome without significant modification.
.

[Emphasis and typo-correction mine]

Ok. I am now, after reading all the blogs, (and all of this thread), completely ok with monsters using their own creation rules (like they already were).

Fine. But nowhere in this blog or thread do I remember reading where we will be able to find the information/tables/rules/guidelines for "what the monster needs to look like to be balanced". What am I missing? Has this been stipulated as being present in the Playtest?

So far, little has been explained in this regard. It seem very unlikely that Paizo is going to be super exact about PC creation and super hand-wavy about monster creation. That just not seem like Paizo.

I think it is sensible to let Paizo know just how important an in depth system for monster creation is to some of us. I think we have done a good job in this respect. But it is far too early to get our underpants in knots (not that you are, you seem like a perfectly reasonable lich thingy). We will just have to wait for it all to be revealed.


Steve Geddes wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:

I mean better in the eyes of the designers. I don't want them setting something they really want to do, and then deciding NOT to do it because of a vocal minority of players who can't deal with change. That is sort of the vibe I got from a few dev comments on the Paladin thread.

I wanted the Pathfinder playtest too be what Paizo devs would create of starting from scratch, without unnecessary baggage from the past.

They’re not building a new game from scratch, they have a huge amount of goodwill from their current fan base derived, at least in part, from approval for Pathfinder’s approach to RPG design and they would be foolish not to leverage that.

Part of the problem is that the current fan base isn't all they've got to appeal to, they also need new customers. The current fan base perhaps isn't buying enough to keep PF1 going, but they also include the people who are going to be loudest about hating any changes. A 4e-style online reception isn't impossible, but a 'meh, nothing much changed' reaction is almost as bad as I expect most people who aren't playing PF 1e would be hardly likely to suddenly start playing PF 2e 'Almost The Same Edition'.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0 wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

One of the things I love about the way we are doing monsters now is that the end results often end up close to what they were by doing all the math the first time around. The system that was supposed to be similar to PCs rarely was, requiring you to jump through a lot of hoops to make a balanced monster. Now we can simply make the monster what it needs to be, focusing instead on how to make it work well as part of the game environment....

...I understand that folks want to see exactly how a thing was put together, to have a better understanding of how to tinker with that monster. I would rather teach you what the monster needs to look like to be balanced and have you adjust it to that goal than to force you to apply formulas that are trying to do the same thing, but have little flexibility in their outcome without significant modification.
.

[Emphasis and typo-correction mine]

Ok. I am now, after reading all the blogs, (and all of this thread), completely ok with monsters using their own creation rules (like they already were).

Fine. But nowhere in this blog or thread do I remember reading where we will be able to find the information/tables/rules/guidelines for "what the monster needs to look like to be balanced". What am I missing? Has this been stipulated as being present in the Playtest?

I'm guessing that, no, it won't be in the playtest but will be in the P2e CRB. As things about the rules are very likely to change between playtest and final ruleset, it seems like a waste of time to "teach" us how to design monsters for playtest rules and then tweak that for the final rules.

The goal of the playtest is to put what they've designed through the wringer, not try our hands at designing monsters. It's like how they want us to use their ABC character-creation rules for the playtest rather than rolling or point-buy: so they can test what they've designed in the arena they've designed it for.

(Note that I'm saying this as someone who isn't at all sold on the just-pick-numbers-that-fit approach. I just think that it's fair that they want the playtest to focus on testing the playtest rules, not the community's collective talent at designing monsters.)


Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

In the interest of being clear. This sentence seemed a little vague.

"If a redcap sees a creature brandish a holy symbol of a good deity or use one for the Material Casting of a divine spell...."

I'm think the intent is that a PC could make a "brandish" action or cast a divine spell using the holy symbol (i.e. either would work). But another reading of it could be the redcap using a holy symbol as while casting the divine spell. It's not defined clearly. I had to re-read the sentence a few times to get the feel for intent.

Signed,

Capt Pedantic
(sorry)


Joana wrote:
...

Agreed. The devs have mentioned already that the playtest Bestiary will be rather bare-bones, and they don't want us fiddling with stuff that's supposed to be a controlled environment. I expect that in the official Bestiary or CRB, we will get something similar to the Unchained Monster Creation tables/rules.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Kizan wrote:

In the interest of being clear. This sentence seemed a little vague.

"If a redcap sees a creature brandish a holy symbol of a good deity or use one for the Material Casting of a divine spell...."

I'm think the intent is that a PC could make a "brandish" action or cast a divine spell using the holy symbol (i.e. either would work). But another reading of it could be the redcap using a holy symbol as while casting the divine spell. It's not defined clearly. I had to re-read the sentence a few times to get the feel for intent.

Signed,

Capt Pedantic
(sorry)

If you wanted it to read as the redcap using the holy symbol, it would need to say “or uses one”.

“If he uses it” vs. “if he sees Bob use it”.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Kizan wrote:

In the interest of being clear. This sentence seemed a little vague.

"If a redcap sees a creature brandish a holy symbol of a good deity or use one for the Material Casting of a divine spell...."

I'm think the intent is that a PC could make a "brandish" action or cast a divine spell using the holy symbol (i.e. either would work). But another reading of it could be the redcap using a holy symbol as while casting the divine spell. It's not defined clearly. I had to re-read the sentence a few times to get the feel for intent.
(sorry)

Not really, "sees a creature brandish a holy symbol of a good deity or use one for the Material Casting", means it not the redcap. If it was the redcap casting it should be uses one, because that would be grammatically correct.


Joana wrote:
...

Yes, nice, they approached the 5th Ed playtest in a similar fashion, though it turned out some of the playtest versions were more interesting than the final monster! Some drastic changes could occur between the playtest and next year's PF2 CRB.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Kizan wrote:
In the interest of being clear. This sentence seemed a little vague.

So far, so good. Even correctly written sentences can confuse people.

But, as the others have said, in order for that to be a clause* with two independent clauses instead of a clause* with a direct object clause, you'd have to use a different verb.

Love,
Queen Pedantic

*Remember that we're only talking about the first clause in conditional sentence.


Thebazilly wrote:
Joana wrote:
...
Agreed. The devs have mentioned already that the playtest Bestiary will be rather bare-bones, and they don't want us fiddling with stuff that's supposed to be a controlled environment. I expect that in the official Bestiary or CRB, we will get something similar to the Unchained Monster Creation tables/rules.

That's my assumption, as well. People shouldn't go into the playtest feeling like it's going to be a 100% complete game -- serviceable framework, yes, but not every possible thing included.

I imagine, however, that the flipping BRILLIANT people who hang out on this and some other PF forums I know are going to have the basics of the monster rules black-box engineered within an inch of its life, inside of the two weeks after release of the playtest rules. :) This is one of the many reasons why I love the various D&D communities.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Still digesting the new stat block but overall, I like it.

I do, however, want to see actual ability scores and modifiers rather than just bonuses.

Dark Archive

CraziFuzzy wrote:
All this is why I wish the monsters were still based on the ABC system. Sure, start out with the ancestries being relatively limited if you want - but it makes a lot more sense for there to be a general 'Goblinoid' ancestry, with various tweaks and such to represent goblins, hobgoblins, etc, and then add appropriately nasty backgrounds and a class level or two.

I'd prefer exception-based design being the norm; if that isn't going to happen, IMO it should be ancestries + simple templates at most. I love PF1, but it takes a lot of time and effort to put together high-level NPCs and monsters with class levels, at least if you want to challenge the PCs.

Dark Archive

Ampersandrew wrote:
Kizan wrote:

In the interest of being clear. This sentence seemed a little vague.

"If a redcap sees a creature brandish a holy symbol of a good deity or use one for the Material Casting of a divine spell...."

I'm think the intent is that a PC could make a "brandish" action or cast a divine spell using the holy symbol (i.e. either would work). But another reading of it could be the redcap using a holy symbol as while casting the divine spell. It's not defined clearly. I had to re-read the sentence a few times to get the feel for intent.
(sorry)

Not really, "sees a creature brandish a holy symbol of a good deity or use one for the Material Casting", means it not the redcap. If it was the redcap casting it should be uses one, because that would be grammatically correct.

Hmmm... so channeling does not qualify as "brandishing your holy symbol"?


Asgetrion wrote:
Ampersandrew wrote:
Kizan wrote:

In the interest of being clear. This sentence seemed a little vague.

"If a redcap sees a creature brandish a holy symbol of a good deity or use one for the Material Casting of a divine spell...."

I'm think the intent is that a PC could make a "brandish" action or cast a divine spell using the holy symbol (i.e. either would work). But another reading of it could be the redcap using a holy symbol as while casting the divine spell. It's not defined clearly. I had to re-read the sentence a few times to get the feel for intent.
(sorry)

Not really, "sees a creature brandish a holy symbol of a good deity or use one for the Material Casting", means it not the redcap. If it was the redcap casting it should be uses one, because that would be grammatically correct.
Hmmm... so channeling does not qualify as "brandishing your holy symbol"?

Depends on if you use the Material component action for it or not. So if you are doing the area burst version of Heal, then yes, it would be using 'one for the Material Casting of a divine spell'.

451 to 500 of 623 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Attack the Stat Block All Messageboards