Inspired by DMW's pointed thread, I figured I'd try and tackle the back-end math for monster skills aiming to find something that hits the desired sweetspot.
If you haven't followed his thread, it boils down to many monster skills, especially perception, being calculated as if they are completely optimized in certain skills, sometimes to the the point of being flat out better than an optimized PC in that particular skill. This is especially egregious in regards to Perception. Essentially many monsters would not only gain higher proficiency as they leveled but they were also getting the expected magic item bonuses in every single one of their "trained" skills.
Correctly calibrating Monster skills can be a bit tricky. First, you can't list every individual skill for ease of use considerations and you need some kind of cat all ie the Skills +X used for any unlisted skills. Secondly, you have to approximate specialization for certain skills which won't always coincide with ability modifies plus proficiency. Thirdly, you have to consider magical enhancements to specialized skills that on some level are expected.
My suggestions will overall bring Perception back in line, diversify the ranges of skills Monsters exhibit, and overall have them "make sense". The new ranges should allow specialized characters to demonstrate competence while offering the tools to build focused monsters.
My suggestions:
Skill +X: Equals 0+Level or Lowest Ability Mod + Level whichever is higher
Expert(E): Equals Level + 1 + Ability Mod
Master(M): Equals Level +1 + Ability Mod + an additional +1 at levels 5/10/15/20
Legendary(L): Equals Level + 1 + Ability Mod + an additional +1 at levels 2/5/8/11/14/17/20
Monster Specialization(S): +4
These skill levels model an approximate aggregate of expected proficiency and magical enhancement. Only a Monster's Legendary skills in a dominant skill should outpace an optimized characters. Moderately optimized PCs should be able to readily exceed Expert skills and match Moderate skills.
Monster Perception: Monsters generally are considered to have Expert Perception as a default. If they have physical attributes that enhance perception they are specialized, if they are skilled in perception they are Master or very rarely Legendary.
Monster Skills: Monsters with listed skills are generally Master level of proficiency or Expert for generic competence. Occasionally a Monster will have an iconic skill and is Legendary in that skill. Monsters with specialized advantages such as extra limbs, eyes, senses etc may be Specialized in a particular skill.
Lets look at a couple sample Monsters to see how they would change and in some cases be constructed differently to have greater variety in a monsters strengths and weaknesses, etc.
Level 0
Bobcat(Old): Perception +4; Skills -2, Acrobatics +4, Athletics +3, Stealth +5
Bobcat(New): Perception(E,S) +6; Skills +0, Acrobatics(M) +4, Athletics +0, Stealth(E,S) +8
Level 7
Hill Giant(Old): Perception +14; Skills +7, Athletics +15, Intimidation +13
Hill Giant(New): Perception(E) +8; Skills +7, Athletics(E) +14, Intimidation(M,S) +11
Medusa(Old): Perception +14; Skills +7, Deception +15, Diplomacy +15, Stealth +13
Medusa(New): Perception(E,S) +13; Skills +8, Deception(M) +11, Diplomacy(M) +11, Stealth(E) +12
Level 13
Adult Blue Dragon(Old): Perception +25; Skills +17, Acrobatics +26, Arcana +26, Deception +26, Diplomacy +26, Intimidation +23, Society +26, Stealth +23, Survival +26
Adult Blue Dragon(New): Perception(M) +19; Skills +16, Acrobatics(M) +19, Arcana(M) +19, Deception(M) +19, Diplomacy(M) +19, Intimidation(M) +19, Society(M) +19, Stealth(M) +19, Survival(E) +17
Level 20
Fire Demon(Old): Perception +35; Skills +26; Acrobatics +32, Arcana +35, Deception +35, Diplomacy +32, Intimidation +35, Religion +35, Society +35, Stealth +32
Fire Demon(New): Perception(M) +31; Skills +26; Acrobatics(M) +32, Arcana(M) +32, Deception(L) +36, Diplomacy(E) +29, Intimidation(L) +36, Religion(M) +31, Society(L) +34, Stealth(E) +28
Optimal PC Skill
Lvl1: +5
Lvl5: +12(Expert, +2 Skill Item)
Lvl10: +20(Master, +3 Skill Item)
Lvl15: +28(Legendary, +4 Skill Item, Ability Item)
Lvl20: +35(Legendary, +5 Skill Item, Ability Item)
The exactly placement of E/M/L skills for each monster is debatable, but what is more important is are these ranges going to be viable for non optimal and optimal pcs.
Let me know your thoughts. Does this go far enough to correct the existing skill imbalance? Does it go too far? Are we satisfied with using Generic Skill +X to estimate non specific skills?
I'm very curious to hear what DMW or Mark Siefter think of my suggestion.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
At the moment, the generic skill bonus for unlisted skills is added to the creature's Ability Mods to determine their total bonus. Your version seems to change this, which strikes me as a bad idea. It makes Ability Scores almost completely meaningless for anything beyond specialized skills, for one thing.
For other degrees of skill, making the bonus based on Ability Mod is interesting, but not something I think is likely to become official. Divorcing Ability Mod from their high skills is definitely a goal Paizo has for monster creation, and I don't blame them at all given how much easier it makes creating monsters.
Frankly, having a set of flat numbers (say +1, +3, or +5 based on level of specialty at 1st level, just for example) regardless of Ability Mod is extremely useful and makes monster creation much quicker.
I also don't like Legendary or Specialty Skills potentially taking them over optimized PC's. I'm honestly less and less convinced that monster of a given level ever need to exceed an optimized PC's bonus in said skill. That's a problem with the current system as well, rather than specific to your version.
I do like the general suite of Skill mods that your version winds up in more than the current version, however. I'm just not sure the method used to get there is ideal.
Yes, currently you manually add the ability mod to the unlisted skill's general modifier. The goal is to make using Monster's easier. For monster's who have a particularly high ability, giving them the non scaling Expert level makes it listed. If its a particular sticking point, the listed value is the same as a Monster being Trained in every skill, I'd use level -1 more generally if we're adding Ability Mods in.
See, just a second ago you're telling me my general modifier for unlisted skills was making "ability scores almost completely meaningless", and now you're telling me the design goal is to make them meaningless for a monster's listed skills. I'd rather a monster's listed skills have more variety and be tied to their abilities while their unlisted skills are more general. As far as monster Creation goes, its as simple as looking at a level table for the desired level of proficiency and adding in the relevant ability mod. No harder than calculating a Monster's to hit.
Having a flat mod that doesn't scale makes monster creation easier, but since it doesn't scale can be "too good" at lower levels and not good enough at higher levels. When combined with disregarding ability scores for focused spells you end up with really gamey and samey feeling monsters. When you're creating a Monster, we aren't looking at much work, certainly not more than we are expecting done in other areas.
I disagree, a monster with specialized appendages, ie lots of eyes or specialized senses for perception, or tentacles etc for swimming, or extra limbs for athletics should allow low level monsters to push past a PC in a very specific skill. I see Legendary skills being very rare for a monster, and the combination of the two for a Monster being something so rare I can't think of something that would qualify. I don't see Monsters pushing beyond a focused character very often, but when it happens you'd be looking very special.
Look at the Shadow, it has an arbitrarily high Stealth. I have no idea how the CR4 with +2 Dex gets a +13 Stealth. But, my way it could be Master or Legendary in Stealth and is obviously Specialized. If its Specialized and Legendary it would have a +12 my way.
I don't think Monsters should push beyond focused characters at the same level often, but when they do we should know why. It's because its a living shadow that is hiding from us, or its a freaking super strong giant at athletics, or its a damned succubus using diplomacy etc. It is because monsters are either specialized in a particular task, or have ability mods way higher than characters can reach. I think how often this should occurs is very low, and would almost never be for more than one or two skills.
Glad we agree the ranges these skills are falling in is closer to ideal, even if the method of calculating them is in disagreement. Do you think these fall into the right ranges at all levels? How about Perception, do you think the general Expert ie 1+Wis+Level for most monsters fixes the existing problem, and the use of Master/Legendary and/or Specialized for things with special senses, good noses, extra eyes, etc would get in the right ranges.
What method do you suggest for calculating Monster skills and perception(not sure they are any difference except prohibiting characters from boosting perception).
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Zman0 wrote: Yes, currently you manually add the ability mod to the unlisted skill's general modifier. The goal is to make using Monster's easier. For monster's who have a particularly high ability, giving them the non scaling Expert level makes it listed. If its a particular sticking point, the listed value is the same as a Monster being Trained in every skill, I'd use level -1 more generally if we're adding Ability Mods in. Oh, I figured the math would be different, I just prefer Ability Mods to matter on untrained Skills. As well as preferring more monsters to actually have less than Trained level in most skills.
Zman0 wrote: See, just a second ago you're telling me my general modifier for unlisted skills was making "ability scores almost completely meaningless", and now you're telling me the design goal is to make them meaningless for a monster's listed skills. I'd rather a monster's listed skills have more variety and be tied to their abilities while their unlisted skills are more general. As far as monster Creation goes, its as simple as looking at a level table for the desired level of proficiency and adding in the relevant ability mod. No harder than calculating a Monster's to hit. Yep. There's an existing dichotomy there which you basically reversed. My point is more or less that I prefer the dichotomy (if not the numbers) the way it currently is, since that makes monster creation vastly easier.
And to-hit is also relatively set in PF2 rather than being based on their Ability scores.
Zman0 wrote: Having a flat mod that doesn't scale makes monster creation easier, but since it doesn't scale can be "too good" at lower levels and not good enough at higher levels. When combined with disregarding ability scores for focused spells you end up with really gamey and samey feeling monsters. When you're creating a Monster, we aren't looking at much work, certainly not more than we are expecting done in other areas. Well, I meant a flat set of mods per level based on degree of specialization. For example, at 1st level, all monster skills could be either +1, +3, or +5 (or Ability -1 if Untrained), though I'd probably change those specific numbers a bit. At 13th, you could have +15, +18, or +21 depending on level of specialization (with an occasional +23 for those monsters that really are completely optimal in that skill).
This is basically what they're already doing, and I actually rather like it, I just think they should change the base numbers (which are too high at the moment).
Zman0 wrote: I disagree, a monster with specialized appendages, ie lots of eyes or specialized senses for perception, or tentacles etc for swimming, or extra limbs for athletics should allow low level monsters to push past a PC in a very specific skill. I see Legendary skills being very rare for a monster, and the combination of the two for a Monster being something so rare I can't think of something that would qualify. I don't see Monsters pushing beyond a focused character very often, but when it happens you'd be looking very special. I actually disagree. You're obviously correct from a verisimilitude standpoint, but from a gameplay perspective, I feel like a completely optimal PC should be the maximal possible character for that level with creatures that absolutely need a better modifier having to be higher level to do so. That makes level really matter and prevents PCs feeling ineffective.
Now, if more feats like Virtuosic Performer (which gives a flat +2 bonus to a Skill under some circumstances) become available, then what an 'absolutely optimal' PC can achieve goes up and creatures having +2 Skill or so above an optimal PC without such Feats become reasonable (though they'd need to be very rare)...but right now there simply aren't the Feats to support that.
Zman0 wrote: Look at the Shadow, it has an arbitrarily high Stealth. I have no idea how the CR4 with +2 Dex gets a +13 Stealth. But, my way it could be Master or Legendary in Stealth and is obviously Specialized. If its Specialized and Legendary it would have a +12 my way. That's partially an error (it should probably be +11 or +12), but as I note above, Dex actually has nothing to do with it. And I feel like either the Shadow should be higher level, or it should be within the PC range on Stealth. Of course, for something as focused on Stealth as a Shadow, an absolutely optimal +10 (or even +12, if +2 to a Skill Feats are made more available) is viable...but in your system, you could make the same monster with +4 Dex and give it a +14, which is way too high and one reason I'm against using stats as the basis for their specialty skills.
Zman0 wrote: I don't think Monsters should push beyond focused characters at the same level often, but when they do we should know why. It's because its a living shadow that is hiding from us, or its a freaking super strong giant at athletics, or its a damned succubus using diplomacy etc. It is because monsters are either specialized in a particular task, or have ability mods way higher than characters can reach. I think how often this should occurs is very low, and would almost never be for more than one or two skills. This I agree with, and these are the exact circumstances under which I'd be okay with the Virtuosic Performance style +2 over otherwise optimal characters (and indeed, Mark Seifter has noted that as part of the reason they're allowed)...but think that there need to be far more options for PCs to achieve this sort of bonus in order for it to be appropriate for monsters to have at all.
Zman0 wrote: Glad we agree the ranges these skills are falling in is closer to ideal, even if the method of calculating them is in disagreement. Do you think these fall into the right ranges at all levels? How about Perception, do you think the general Expert ie 1+Wis+Level for most monsters fixes the existing problem, and the use of Master/Legendary and/or Specialized for things with special senses, good noses, extra eyes, etc would get in the right ranges. I think it's a potential problem for high Wis monsters (who can exceed PC Wisdom sometimes). I do think Level +2 or so (maybe +3 at high levels) is a much better barometer for what most monsters should have in Perception than the current Level +4 and rising as levels go up. Some will naturally have more, but I'm not sure it should always be high Wisdom ones (animals with heightened senses seem more reasonable as the one with higher than normal Perception).
Zman0 wrote: What method do you suggest for calculating Monster skills and perception(not sure they are any difference except prohibiting characters from boosting perception). My basic suggestion would be the same as above on skills (ie: a set of default modifiers for three levels of monster skill). Then the monster has whichever level of competence in Perception is appropriate.
I'm not opposed to using Ability Mods on untrained skills. In this way, I'd make it Level -1 vs Level +0. Monsters weren't always getting the equivalent of being Trained, when the ability was higher than 0 or their lowest they suffered potentially a couple point penalty on that skill often resulting in being less than trained.
See, the big problem I am having is the devaluation of Ability Scores for Monsters. If we are just setting the skill modifier based on level of competency(unless it is unlisted), and we statically set to hit, and we statically set perception, what do we have Monster ability scores for? The relatively insignificant damage modifier on attacks, Saves, and Unlisted skills. That's it? Why do Monsters even have listed Ability scores then?
Sure, this method makes monster creation easier, but the monsters are turning into just cardboard cutouts. Outside of their special and flavorful special rules or actions, the Monsters are just a variant of level appropriate X + Y + Z. List a couple of ability modifiers to give the illusion of mattering. Why not just eliminate them completely.
I'm not really understanding the logical inconsistencies here. You are more than ok with ability scores not affecting to hit, AC, or named skills etc, but you want them to matter for unnamed skills? Why? Why not just simplify those too. No need to even give monster's ability scores. Just assign them a level appropriate unnamed skill mod and level appropriate damage modifier to reach the level appropriate per hit damage amount.
It might make monster creation simpler, but it is taking a pound of verisimilitude with it.
I understand the ease and appeal of flat mods per level based on competency. Sure, it is easier, but man it feels overly gamist. As above, ability scores just don't matter anymore.
Why can't a monster at a particular level be better than an optimal PC at that level. Why can't an immensely strong giant have a better athletics than an optimal fighter of the same level? Why can't the literal living shadow be able to achieve a higher stealth at the same level. As long as monsters with particular strengths beyond an equal level pc's ability has corresponding weaknesses to keep them level appropriate. Why can't they have strengths and weakness, why must they always be withing a very tight range? In the case of the Shadow, sure, its now higher level, and it loses what makes it special, if it isn't any better at stealth than any other level appropriate enemy who names stealth as a main skill. Why should an optimal PC always always always be better than an equal level enemy at something they choose. IMO this is a point where gameplay considerations rob too much verisimilitude. I would also stress under these monster creation rules that the combination of Specialization and Legendary skill be exceedingly rare and would need some kind of significant handicap in something else.
A modifier like that for perception would work if it is lower and generally scales slower. But, we are again going to run into a problem where monsters are going to feel samey. Monsters will mostly all fall withing that +/- 1 perception range for level appropriate. When a character that is mediocre at stealth is terrible against every level appropriate monster, even the "low perception" ones, where is the fun going to be had? Monsters rarely even end up using the 5 point range proficiency generally uses. If we were seeing a 5 point range from the best to the worst perceiving monsters it would be different. But, we're not, and boy is that going to wear on players.
Sure, we might see the occasional problem where a high wisdom enemy who was also very skilled in perception would be exceedingly difficult for even an optimized stealth character to overcome. Ok. Good. I am completely ok with that. From a practical sense, how many high wisdom enemies are there that we wouldn't want to have high perception? And if so, giving it the lowest perception track would merely result in a mid to competent perception for that level.
See, my basic suggestion is essentially the same kind of scaling modifier setup, except we use ability modifiers with Expert being just a flat +1. The big change needs to be a weighting towards the moderate end of the spectrum with optimized being used far more sparing, and almost never for perception. The amount of actual work for character creation is no more additional work than you are ok with DMs having to do on the fly for the Skill +X. I understand your concern about high Ability monsters, but if monster creation rules and especially official monsters are made with care to use the combination of high abilities, specialization, and high proficiency the problems are mitigated and we achieve much greater verisimilitude without sacrificing too much of the gamist balance. As for ease of monster creation, I argue the amount of additional work is effectively equivalent to the work expected of DM's on the fly currently and can be discounted. If you are going through the effort to create a monster, spending a minute adding ability mods to the relevant skills is trivilly easy.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion
|
