Mdt, I was following the conversation. If someone reads it strait through, I'm sure they will get it.
If you want to level a big bad for time passing, but you are absolutely not giving it the same chance of death or amount of work pcs have, you shouldn't change it's power just to artificially create a challenge. If the party levels three times for winning 17 encounters, and you want to give him a level for learning about his new wand, lovely - but don't level him 3-4 times just to keep the cr the same. That stuff sucks.
So should the DM actually play out encounters the bad guy had, or should he just make up combats and pretend they took place so the guy levels? I ask this because in AoW certain people gained levels, and it was described to the DM by the writer as being a result of dealing with some monsters.
PS:A social encounter is still an encounter, and getting those bad guys to keep throwing themselves at the PC's has to be challenging since those that go out don't come back. :)
..... shifting levels on bosses leads to powergaming.
What is the difference between that and not creating the boss until the fight? It has the same result of him being X levels above the party, and how does it lead to power gaming.
I agree with the level 10 guard part.
He never said that the cooperative storytelling roleplaying game is light on mechanics. Pathfinder is a cooperative storytelling roleplaying game. it isn't a tactical miniatures game. And people should stop treating it like that. If you wan to play a tactical miniatures game play Warhammer: The Game of Fantasy Battles(i am in no way trying to reignite the edition war), not Any ROLE-playing game. It is a game where you play a role. It isn't called a NUMBER CRUNCHIGN game...
There fixed it for you (emphasis mine).
It's that mentality that starts edition wars, saying "No disrespect" before or after saying "You're a Jerk!" doesn't make it not disrespectful.
Hama, I just wanted to point out that two of the people that have been adamantly arguing from you point of view, play 4E. It's all I play and mdt mentioned playing it as well (I think he even said as a preference, but I don't want to put words in his mouth).
Regardless of the system, the disagreement is between whether min/maxing is necessary to be successful in a Role-playing game. Primarily Pathfinder, as a lot of people have been discussing 15 point buy, on the Paizo forums.
Back on topic. I see no reason the BBEG shouldn't be capable of growing at the same time as the players, when it is a recurring villian. It's when they get away time and time again that makes the PC's really want to get him once and for all. If he isn't able to level as well, when they do fight him it will be very anti-climactic if they are 4+ levels higher than him.
Town guards and city-folk, they should not need to advance, they should be determined the first time, and remain, and at most gain maybe A level, depending on what is happening within the city itself.
As far as running AP's and players not surviving, I imagine it has nothing to do with the AP's difficulty (I only have RotRL, and never ran it as it doesn't work with my Homebrew). If you look at least at that one as an example of the PC's included to play with, their highest stats are:
Valeros 15 Dex
Seoni 15 Cha
Kyra 15 Wis
Merisiel 17 Dex
So are people saying that these characters were intended to die in the very AP they were included in because only 1 has a 17 and the others have a 15?
I don't know about any of the other AP's, or the ones that came out after Pathfinder came out though.
Edit: Also have the 1st two of CotCT:
Seelah 15 Str
Lem 16 Dex
Harsk 15 Dex/Con
Ezren 16 Int (On a Wizard!! [sarcasm]They must have included him so that the party would fail and he would bring them all down. Well played Paizo, very tricky. [/sarcasm])
He never said that the cooperative storytelling roleplaying game is light on mechanics. Pathfinder is a cooperative storytelling roleplaying game. it isn't a tactical miniatures game. And people should stop treating it like that. If you wan to play a tactical miniatures game play Warhammer: The Game of Fantasy Battles(i am in no way trying to reignite the edition war), not Any ROLE-playing game. It is a game where you play a role. It isn't called a NUMBER CRUNCHIGN game...There fixed it for you (emphasis mine).
It's that mentality that starts edition wars, saying "No disrespect" before or after saying "You're a Jerk!" doesn't make it not disrespectful.
Hama, I just wanted to point out that two of the people that have been adamantly arguing from you point of view, play 4E. It's all I play and mdt mentioned playing it as well (I think he even said as a preference, but I don't want to put words in his mouth).
Regardless of the system, the disagreement is between whether min/maxing is necessary to be successful in a Role-playing game. Primarily Pathfinder, as a lot of people have been discussing 15 point buy, on the Paizo forums.
Back on topic. I see no reason the BBEG shouldn't be capable of growing at the same time as the players, when it is a recurring villian. It's when they get away time and time again that makes the PC's really want to get him once and for all. If he isn't able to level as well, when they do fight him it will be very anti-climactic if they are 4+ levels higher than him.
Town guards and city-folk, they should not need to advance, they should be determined the first time, and remain, and at most gain maybe A level, depending on what is happening within the city itself.
As far as running AP's and players not surviving, I imagine it has nothing to do with the AP's difficulty (I only have RotRL, and never ran it as it doesn't work with my Homebrew). If you look at least at that one as an example of the PC's included to play with, their...
NPC elite array: 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. And those modules were 3.5, where humans had no stat bonuses. Now they have +2 in all their primaries.
Just as an aside; having played through most of Rise of the Runelords, with a party of six Pathfinder characters using a 20 point buy and very little modification to the module, I would be hard pressed to see the example party being able to complete it without intervention from the Dungeon Master.
I'm sure with alot of careful planning and luck it could be done, but there were quite a few encounters that our fairly optimised characters barely crawled away from.
|
The only problem with useing the pregenerated characters from any of the APs.
1: there base off a elite stat aray
2: there way under powered compared to most PC
3: they where writen as fluff not crunch so there are meny flaws becouse of fluff.
4: there feet slection is way off from being very usefull for a few of them.
Have you ever tryed runing a pergenerated character thow the AP there in? I am running kingmaker right now as writen. Using 15 point buy characters. All of the pregenerated characters are much less powerfull then the PC.
1: They got to use the points where they wanted did not have to follow the elite aray
2: Chose better feets then most of the Pregenerated characters.
Over all much more powerfull characters becous of a few changes.
Now lets look elite aray uses dump stats. Amiril Cha 8 Harsk Cha 6 Lini Str 6 Sajan Cha 8 Lem Str 8 Wis 8 Seltyiel Wis 8 Seelah Int 8 Seoni Str 8
And there caped high stat is 17. The elite stat set is.
15 14 13 12 10 8
The only problem with useing the pregenerated characters from any of the APs.
1: there base off a elite stat aray
2: there way under powered compared to most PC
3: they where writen as fluff not crunch so there are meny flaws becouse of fluff.
4: there feet slection is way off from being very usefull for a few of them.Have you ever tryed runing a pergenerated character thow the AP there in? I am running kingmaker right now as writen. Using 15 point buy characters. All of the pregenerated characters are much less powerfull then the PC.
1: They got to use the points where they wanted did not have to follow the elite aray
2: Chose better feets then most of the Pregenerated characters.
Over all much more powerfull characters becous of a few changes.Now lets look elite aray uses dump stats. Amiril Cha 8 Harsk Cha 6 Lini Str 6 Sajan Cha 8 Lem Str 8 Wis 8 Seltyiel Wis 8 Seelah Int 8 Seoni Str 8
And there caped high stat is 17. The elite stat set is.
15 14 13 12 10 8
He's not using the pregens.
Stat dumping wouldn't happen if the party was made of one dude.
The reason stat dumping happens is characters are built to fill roles. If one stat is getting dumped regularly, then that's an indictment on the GM not featuring that stat, and it's accompanying role, in their game.
Stat dumping wouldn't happen if the party was made of one dude.
The reason stat dumping happens is characters are built to fill roles. If one stat is getting dumped regularly, then that's an indictment on the GM not featuring that stat, and it's accompanying role, in their game.
I could agree with this. I don't see a lot of charisma or intelligence dumping in my homebrew games and I think that a fair amount of that is because of play style. I tend to have a lot of social encounters and use a wide range of skill checks in my games. Knowledge and profession skills are very important in my games. The way I set it up tends to make it very difficult to have one character handle all of the checks. For example; at a court ball the characters are trying to drum up support from the gathered nobility and major players, however their are too many for the face characters to talk too before the dinner begins so the other characters do their best to woo the less important lords. For getting a majority margin on their side they got fully experience for overcoming the encounter. I try to have about a third of all encounters be story encounters, so the mental statistics are important to everyone.
Also it was quite humorous when the dressed to the nines barbarin ended up dancing with a smitten eleven year old girl who was the daughter of one of the regions more powerful lords. His investment in Perform: Dance was quite useful.
If there aren't any game driven reason to have charisma, strength, wisdom, whatever statistic your dumping down, then I can't blame someone for doing it. If I was making a character for a game that I knew was going to be almost all combat than I wouldn't bother with social statistics or skills.
Of course I also do 25 point buy games, so it's not as needed.
Valeros 15 Dex
Seoni 15 Cha
Kyra 15 Wis
Merisiel 17 DexSo are people saying that these characters were intended to die in the very AP they were included in because only 1 has a 17 and the others have a 15?
I wouldn't say they are intended to die, and I won't say their dying is necessarily because of what their highest stat is, exactly, but certainly one or more of them will die in several of the APs run straight up.
And there you also run afoul of another common disconnect/disagreement: how seriously to take non-permanent death. In some players' view, a character that dies is dead to them (so to speak) and they aren't interested in being raised -- that character has 'failed'. Others don't care so much as long as the character is recoverable, and there's a lot of gray in between.
If you play most APs with the iconics, yeah, you're going to see a lot of character deaths. But you probably won't see a lot of TPKs, and depending on your playing preference maybe that's okay.
If I was making a character for a game that I knew was going to be almost all combat than I wouldn't bother with social statistics or skills.
It's actually even a little worse than that, in that even games with a lot of social interaction will not necessarily roll a lot of social interaction.
In one game I'm currently playing in, I have a fairly high CHR character and he is, effectively, the party face -- but my GM for that game settles everything with pure roleplay, not any kind of rolling. As a result it wouldn't really matter if my CHR was, say, 14 instead of 28 or if I had 0 ranks in Diplomacy instead of something like 10.
Pathfinder iconics stated above were made using 3.5 rules. All posted in adventure paths since Pathfinder was released have their human+2 in their primary stats. Erzen has Int18, Kyra has Wis17, Amiri has Str17 etc.
And they are all made from the same mold of Elite NPC Array stats, which in ALL cases is the same 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. Not one single iconic breaks this mold, ever.
These are not characters created with the concepts of SAD/MAD in mind. Only the wizard Erzen has been created with the any conscious notion/understanding that Int>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>all other stats by making him old, giving him an 18 at lv1, even using the rigid arrays.
So in a sense, he is the only iconic that is "min/maxed"
If I was making a character for a game that I knew was going to be almost all combat than I wouldn't bother with social statistics or skills.
It's actually even a little worse than that, in that even games with a lot of social interaction will not necessarily roll a lot of social interaction.
In one game I'm currently playing in, I have a fairly high CHR character and he is, effectively, the party face -- but my GM for that game settles everything with pure roleplay, not any kind of rolling. As a result it wouldn't really matter if my CHR was, say, 14 instead of 28 or if I had 0 ranks in Diplomacy instead of something like 10.
I whole heartily agree.
A particular instance of this sticks out to me from a couple years back. The party was fighting a group of assassin, little more than a thugs really, and we wanted to capture one of them alive. So the half-orc fighter's player starts shouting and throwing out some threats at the assassins leader, it was some decent role playing, not my style but whatever. Rather than have the player roll intimidate with maybe a small bonus (+2 perhaps) to the check, the Dungeon Master just has the assassin cave in (and wet him-self) to the threats.
The half-orc character had a 6 charisma and no ranks in intimidate.
Another one that was similar but from the enemy side; the party had tracked down the local orc warlord and as we came upon him the Dungeon Master starts talking about his scar covered body and the look of menace he had. When he spotted us, with no check mind you, the warlord starts shouting challenges and insulting our strength, the Dungeon Master tell us how intimidating he is and how frightened we should be because this the orc that cowed the local goblins and orcs to his banner. With out thinking about it I said something like "Wow, what's his charisma?" to which the Dungeon Master replied, absent mindedly "four".
Not really playing the character to his statistics.
|
I whole heartily agree.
A particular instance of this sticks out to me from a couple years back. The party was fighting a group of assassin, little more than a thugs really, and we wanted to capture one of them alive. So the half-orc fighter's player starts shouting and throwing out some threats at the assassins leader, it was some decent role playing, not my style but whatever. Rather than have the player roll intimidate with maybe a small bonus (+2 perhaps) to the check, the Dungeon Master just has the assassin cave in (and wet him-self) to the threats.
The half-orc character had a 6 charisma and no ranks in intimidate.
Another one that was similar but from the enemy side; the party had tracked down the local orc warlord and as we came upon him the Dungeon Master starts talking about his scar covered body and the look of menace he had. When he spotted us, with no check mind you, the warlord starts shouting challenges and insulting our strength, the Dungeon Master tell us how intimidating he is and how frightened we should be because this the orc that cowed the local goblins and orcs to his banner. With out thinking about it I said something like "Wow, what's his charisma?" to which the Dungeon Master replied, absent mindedly "four".
Not really playing the character to his statistics.
This goes to show that GMs are just as guilty as the players. Which as odd since the GM isn't limited in character creation like the players are.
This goes to show that GMs are just as guilty as the players. Which as odd since the GM isn't limited in character creation like the players are.
I've always been a big opponent of the idea that the Dungeon Master can't cheat, and I see things like that as evidence to that end.
Also when I run games the major non-player characters are limited to the same number of points as the player characters. Minor character get less depending on their level of importance/experience to the game world. Non-player characters not having to follow the same rules as the player characters is a pet peev of mine.
|
|
This goes to show that GMs are just as guilty as the players. Which as odd since the GM isn't limited in character creation like the players are.I've always been a big opponent of the idea that the Dungeon Master can't cheat, and I see things like that as evidence to that end.
Also when I run games the major non-player characters are limited to the same number of points as the player characters. Minor character get less depending on their level of importance/experience to the game world. Non-player characters not having to follow the same rules as the player characters is a pet peev of mine.
Does that mean when you run, when the PC's run into Merlin (Gandalf, Fizban, Elminster, Obi-Wan) he's built the same way as the players? If so, that's a poor wizard. GM should create their NPCs to suit the situation. Whether challenging the players, showing up with quest in hand, or ready for the epic showdown. Yes, I too dislike the GM special. I try to do everything by the rules when running. But I can still confound the players, just by omitting how I did to the players.
Does that mean when you run, when the PC's run into Merlin (Gandalf, Fizban, Elminster, Obi-Wan) he's built the same way as the players? If so, that's a poor wizard. GM should create their NPCs to suit the situation. Whether challenging the players, showing up with quest in hand, or ready for the epic showdown. Yes, I too dislike the GM special. I try to do everything by the rules when running. But I can still confound the players, just by omitting how I did to the players.
Anything that has class levels in my games has to obey the same rules as the player characters for how they are constructed. They get the same number of ability points, skills, feats, spells, etc that a Player Character of the same level would. I don't see why Non-Player Characters should be allowed to bend/break the rules.
Of course let it be known that I'm a -very- by the book kind of Dungeon Master.
Also my experience with things like Merlin, Gandalf, or Elminster is that it makes players groan and roll their eyes because their exceptations.
Removed some posts. Please be civil to each other!
|
|
AArdvark, i am not trying to insult anyone, but i have played 4th edition for several months, and it was mostly combat. Sorry, to me it feels more like a tactical miniatures game then a role playing game. If you enjoy playing it, good for you. I do not, and never will enjoy playing it. Or will ever play it again. That, however, doesn't mean that i think that the system is crap and that it should be destroyed and forgotten (ok maybe forgotten :D), it is good for some people, but not for me.
As a GM i see no reason to follow the same rules when making NPCs that the players should follow. Of course, that doesn't mean that i go against what is written in the rulebook, but that i can change an NPC depending on what i want it to do. If i need Grolk the orc warlord to suddenly be much more powerful than the players (so that he could be a challenging encounter, one that players would feel proud for defeating), i will simply add several levels to the NPC, improve his equipment and maybe add several lesser mooks to aid him. Maybe, i'll throw in a rumor or two about orc tribes going to war (how he gained levels), but probably not. A GM shouldn't feel constrained by the setting. If he doesn't like something, he can change it. He is there after all to tell a story, and to give the players a good, fun game. If that requirses leveling the BBEG two or three levels out of the blue, of course that is what he should do.
As for town guards, in any of my several (unfinished) settings, guards are usualy 1st level warriors or fighters with higher level characters being officers. But there is probably a one or two 10th level guard in any bigger town.
|
As for town guards, in any of my several (unfinished) settings, guards are usualy 1st level warriors or fighters with higher level characters being officers. But there is probably a one or two 10th level guard in any bigger town.
[irony]
If we look it from a strictly "rules" point of view a group of guardsmen that routinely "defeat" first level experts and commoners taking a few of them to jail (for drunken conduct and so on) every day gather about 200-300 XP each evening. Divide for a 2-3 man group and you get 100 XP/day.Even with the slow progression that get them to level 5 or 6 after a year of work and to level 10 in 5-6 years.
So if you strictly follow the rules a veteran guardsman is level 10.
[/irony]
I think in most games the local guardsmen are level 1-2 warriors, with a few sergeant or similar reaching level 4-5 and only the highest ranking officers in decently sized towns reaching higher levels in PC classes.
Similarly a apprentice smith (or any other class) will be a level 1 expert or even commoner, a master smith will be around level 4 and the richest merchants or the great crafters will get to higher level.
For them those level are a must or they would be routinely cheated by low level spellcasters.
Depends on if you consider a 1st level commoner suffering from Wis and Dex damage from the poison alcohol to actually be a challenging encounter for a 3rd level guard. :)
Yeah, the reason NPCs tend to taper off after awhile is they quit running into anything that's a challenge. People seem to be forgetting that if the encounter isn't a challenge, then you don't get EXP for it. So yeah, the NPC guard patrolling town who's a rookie goes up in level pretty quickly.
By the time he's 3rd or 4th level, there's pretty much nothing new for him, so it stops being a challenge. So no XP, no advancement, unless he goes into a new line of work.
|
|
Depends on if you consider a 1st level commoner suffering from Wis and Dex damage from the poison alcohol to actually be a challenging encounter for a 3rd level guard. :)
3.5 it would become a no XP encounter after a few levels, Pathfinder don't have that rule.
Even reducing the XP to the minimum award you get 50 xp for a CR 1/8 encounter.200 drunks in a year and he will get 1.000 xp. 15 years of service to get to level 5 with the normal (medium) track. Most of them would be level 7 the day they retire.
So using the same rules for PC and NPC advancement isn't a good idea. You will have a lot of middle level NPC overshadowing the beginner PC.
Yeah, the reason NPCs tend to taper off after awhile is they quit running into anything that's a challenge. People seem to be forgetting that if the encounter isn't a challenge, then you don't get EXP for it. So yeah, the NPC guard patrolling town who's a rookie goes up in level pretty quickly.By the time he's 3rd or 4th level, there's pretty much nothing new for him, so it stops being a challenge. So no XP, no advancement, unless he goes into a new line of work.
That is a 3.5 rule. AFAIK in Pathfinder you get your XP for killing a kobold even if you are level 15.
Yeah, the reason NPCs tend to taper off after awhile is they quit running into anything that's a challenge. People seem to be forgetting that if the encounter isn't a challenge, then you don't get EXP for it. So yeah, the NPC guard patrolling town who's a rookie goes up in level pretty quickly.By the time he's 3rd or 4th level, there's pretty much nothing new for him, so it stops being a challenge. So no XP, no advancement, unless he goes into a new line of work.
Depends on the town. Commoners may cease being a challenge, but arresting drunken adventurers probably poses a challenge. Some Barbarian goes on a bender and things get interesting :) In a small town they'll top out quickly, but in a large city with numerous adventurers and higher level characters, and serious criminals (mine has a serial killer and a vampire working it right now) they are going to face real challenges. If they live, it's all good.
My own assumption about NPCs is that they gain small amounts of experience in the practice of their professions. I figure about 1 xp per day per level as an average. It's not much, but it levels them up slowly. Using the PFRPG fast experience option (which is closer to the "old" 3.5 schedule) it takes about 3.5 years to go to 2nd level, and a twenty year veteran watchman is mid 7th level. A thirty year veteran, who's probably ready to retire, is about mid 9th level (by then he may be off the street and be a 7th level Warrior / 2nd level Expert paper pusher). It saves me figuring out the exact experience they get and gives me a rough estimate of what level a character is based on age. Some charcaters may split their levels among different classes (yeoman farmers in my Midlands usually split between Commoner or Expert and Warrior for example). That Watchman who retires after 30 years can keep going up. levelling up as a commoner until he toddles off to his final reward. If he lasts 80 years (making him about 100 or so) he might hit 14th level (9th level Warrior, 5th level Commoner). By then age and disease will have reduced his stats and rendered him less effective of course. Most people will probably last about 40 odd years after starting their first profession / class and top out about 10th - 11th level total. Oh, and if PCs want to go this route and spend 30 years getting to 9th level, they're welcome to do so :D
*edit* Oh, and one thing. Imo beginning adventurers should be lower level than experienced local NPCs. They start becomming important in the mid to high levels when their ability and gear are superior to the locals. Until then they're just low level working stiffs a bit above the common herd but not too tough. Ymmv.
Depends on if you consider a 1st level commoner suffering from Wis and Dex damage from the poison alcohol to actually be a challenging encounter for a 3rd level guard. :)3.5 it would become a no XP encounter after a few levels, Pathfinder don't have that rule.
Even reducing the XP to the minimum award you get 50 xp for a CR 1/8 encounter.
200 drunks in a year and he will get 1.000 xp. 15 years of service to get to level 5 with the normal (medium) track. Most of them would be level 7 the day they retire.So using the same rules for PC and NPC advancement isn't a good idea. You will have a lot of middle level NPC overshadowing the beginner PC.
That is a 3.5 rule. AFAIK in Pathfinder you get your XP for killing a kobold even if you are level 15.
Yeah, the reason NPCs tend to taper off after awhile is they quit running into anything that's a challenge. People seem to be forgetting that if the encounter isn't a challenge, then you don't get EXP for it. So yeah, the NPC guard patrolling town who's a rookie goes up in level pretty quickly.By the time he's 3rd or 4th level, there's pretty much nothing new for him, so it stops being a challenge. So no XP, no advancement, unless he goes into a new line of work.
This is why I always just stay in the woods and kill boars til I'm level 15.
I'll repeat, you don't get XP if there is no challenge. You don't get XP for walking to the store and buying bread unless you get attacked and fight a guy who can possibly hurt you. You wouldn't get XP for having a 5yo attack you. Nor for having a bee sting you.
Ergo, if it's not a challenge (5yo attacks a level 3 warrior = no challenge) then you get no XP. The reason there's no rules saying it is because like many other things in PF, PF assumes the GM is not a moron. 3.5 assumed he was a moron and had to be told that.
I'll repeat, you don't get XP if there is no challenge. You don't get XP for walking to the store and buying bread unless you get attacked and fight a guy who can possibly hurt you. You wouldn't get XP for having a 5yo attack you. Nor for having a bee sting you.
Ergo, if it's not a challenge (5yo attacks a level 3 warrior = no challenge) then you get no XP. The reason there's no rules saying it is because like many other things in PF, PF assumes the GM is not a moron. 3.5 assumed he was a moron and had to be told that.
Curiosity, you really think people don't get better with the practice of their profession even in a routine setting? Seems to me we're all wasting a lot of time in education and training then in rl and NPCs apparently don't require any routine training or practice in game world...
I'll repeat, you don't get XP if there is no challenge. You don't get XP for walking to the store and buying bread unless you get attacked and fight a guy who can possibly hurt you. You wouldn't get XP for having a 5yo attack you. Nor for having a bee sting you.
Ergo, if it's not a challenge (5yo attacks a level 3 warrior = no challenge) then you get no XP. The reason there's no rules saying it is because like many other things in PF, PF assumes the GM is not a moron. 3.5 assumed he was a moron and had to be told that.
I am going to have to disagree.
Common Sense does not equal rules. By the rules they get the XP, not in my games, but book says they get the XP.
PF assumes we played 3.5, not that the DM is not a moron, and therefore has incomplete rules. I am looking at you reach weapon and the diagonal square.
A 5 yr old is not a challenge. I am using this in a literal sense.
Example: If I am level 20 and I fight a CR 1/3 monster I get the XP by the rules. A 5 year old attacking me is not a CR anything.
In an actual game that I run I won't be giving any XP for a high level character killing a cat though.<---I know if I did not point that out someone would assume I had my level 20 parties killing cats and getting credit for it.
It seems to me that the experience and leveling rules do not model the real world very well. :)
Notably. But, to simulate a world some type of rules for ordinary people are useful, unless you plan on all first level NPCs or just arbitrarily assign levels. I find an age / experience based system simple and useful. With minor adjustments it can work for about any set of assumptions on NPC level relative to PC.
Huh,
I must live in an alternate universe then. I seriously know people in RL that just coast along. I mean it, they don't advance, they don't get better at what they do, they just have reached their level of comfort and competence and only work as hard as they have to to maintain their standard of living.
I find myself doing that sometimes, I'll look up from work and realize I haven't had an actual challenging assignment for a year or two. Iv'e not improved my skills, I've just coasted.
So, the idea of people who constantly get better and better until they die is a bit foreign to me. I see people improving while they're working their way up to where they want to be, but once they get there, not really putting any more effort into it. Unless something shocks them out of their routine. Like being fired, or transferred, or losing a loved one.
|
|
I had a Caster/Archer Summoner in a RotRL campaign. I started with this array: 13 13 13 13 13 16
And I believe I ended with this at 11th (all bonuses from all sources): 15 16 14 13 13 27
Worked pretty well. I was one of two casters in the party, doing a great job at it, and I could also hit and do damage with my specialized bow quite easily. In addition, I could do everything else moderately well.
I had a Caster/Archer Summoner in a RotRL campaign. I started with this array: 13 13 13 13 13 16
And I believe I ended with this at 11th (all bonuses from all sources): 15 16 14 13 13 27
Worked pretty well. I was one of two casters in the party, doing a great job at it, and I could also hit and do damage with my specialized bow quite easily. In addition, I could do everything else moderately well.
How did you manage a 27 high stat at level 11, starting from 16?
16 +2(level 4&8) +6 item is 24.
3 more from tome/other/non-enhancement buff seems easy enough to get if you really want
What else other than a tome gives a bonus? I am assuming you are using custom items, nothing official, not even in 3.5 that I know of.
Low stats are ok if the adventure (campaign/path)is thrust upon you
where i dont like stat dumps in in PFS. So the pathfinders have selected you to do their bidding....and you have 7 int and 7 cha...you will be a fine representative!
I hope no-one ever plays a character with more than 14 in charisma. That would be impossible. According to the only logic that can be derived from all the people who want cha 7 to be a wretched foulmouthed stink-golem with the personality of a diseased seagull, and cry foul when you play that character as "slightly introvert", a cha14+ character just cannot be played unless you've at very least done drama, have a good singing voice, is extrovert and winning in real life, and have absolutely NO personal flaws.
Not to mention Int14+. Holy cow! Where do I even start? Are you as a player part of Mensa? No? Then you cannot put more than 12 in intelligence. There is just no way you can portray such vast intellect, and letting you get away with having a higher score would be metagaming, as you get benefits while not enduring the disadvantages.
Wisdom 14+? Oh man. Your patience is so bottomless that you can never get upset with anything. The saints have you as a rolemodel, Ghandi and Mother Theresa are complete n00bs, and should teach children to strive to be like you.
Seriously, people. Just because the game caps 7 as the lowest a HERO can put in a stat does not mean it is in the retardation range. This whole mentality reeks of spoiled players who freak out as soon as they see a negative.
Mike Schneider: That sounds like a summoner to me. A real wizard should not limit himself. And sure, 18 is OK, especially for a 15 point buy game. But if there ever was a poster-child for "Get 20, disregard most everything else"-min/maxing, it is the wizard. No other class is quite as rewarded for having a 20 in their primary stat.
I know this was said a couple pages back but it should probably be posted a few more times, pure truth.
And I have to admit my DM (and myself) don't adjust encounters, ever, a str 10 barbarian faces the same threats as a str 20. We create an entire world, quick stat every creature in it and have a running world sitting in our heads (we've talked about it before, its kinda funny). whether the PC's move or not (and in our group they tend toward the not) the world keeps moving and the encounters will change. If the next room contained a boss fight and they get hold up in the room before it the BBEG could still be sitting there or he could have gone out to do what made him a BBEG. I usually have my npc's whole day planned and they follow it whether that means you have to go find adventure or be lead to it.
And to anyone saying "were just asking for you to lower that 20 to an 18" no I'm sorry an 18 is optimizing, an 18 without dump stats means it is your only good stat, so any 18 is generally followed by dump stats.
|
|
And to anyone saying "were just asking for you to lower that 20 to an 18" no I'm sorry an 18 is optimizing, an 18 without dump stats means it is your only good stat, so any 18 is generally followed by dump stats.
I don't think i understand what you mean here. If you could clarify. Then again i am drowsy and hung over and that probably contributes to my brain being dunked in a lard barrel.
As to pre building the world and being totaly unflexible, i find that unfair. As a GM i am here to tell a story and to have fun with my friends along the way. Not to say, oh, that cave, yeah it had a cr 20 dragon in it, yer all dead. You scale encounters to you player's level of power. That doesn't mean that all encounters should be a breeze, but if you design all your encounters for primary stat 20 character, any non minmax party will be hard pressed to do anything.
|
|
16 +2(level 4&8) +6 item is 24.
3 more from tome/other/non-enhancement buff seems easy enough to get if you really want
+2 from Race(human).
We played with ability ups every other level, provided we didn't pick the same back-to-back16+2(race)+3(levelup)+6(item) = 27.
It's a little high-powered.
You could probably better expect a: 16+2(race)+2(levelup)+4(item)=24.
What, you jealous? :)
Dude, I just got a horrible mental image of you "servicing" Mok at your table and it is going to haunt me the rest of the day. :)
Ahh, man, you just introduced an even more horrible image that is going to ruin another whole day. :)
Huh,
I must live in an alternate universe then. I seriously know people in RL that just coast along. I mean it, they don't advance, they don't get better at what they do, they just have reached their level of comfort and competence and only work as hard as they have to to maintain their standard of living.
An alternate universe from the game anyway. I understand what you are saying about rl. In a setting where survival is not so assured, surpluses are limited and there is little or no safety net it might be a bit different. People might be more motivated. Still, if you wanted to simulate it have the NPC do a Will save / Wisdom check of some kind to go up. Personally I keep it simple and assume that over time people will improve either because they want to or have to at some average rate.
I find myself doing that sometimes, I'll look up from work and realize I haven't had an actual challenging assignment for a year or two. Iv'e not improved my skills, I've just coasted.
Don't we all? But when push comes to shove, we move on. I'm not saying this should be taken as a continuous improvement, but that overall, with starts and stops, this is where they'll get over X years time.
So, the idea of people who constantly get better and better until they die is a bit foreign to me. I see people improving while they're working their way up to where they want to be, but once they get there, not really putting any more effort into it. Unless something shocks them out of their routine. Like being fired, or transferred, or losing a loved one.
I should have made it clear that this is a simplification / average of where they will be given an environment that requires them to improve. It could be slowed down, randomized a bit or otherwise modified by area / how dangerous life is in a region. And, of course, that doesn't preclude NPC "specials".
Well,
James Jacobs confirmed it was an intentional decision that XP be given for all encounters, no matter how minor or inconsequential. If you kill a cat in the forest, you get 50xp. Even if you're level 18.
Can't say I agree with it, but it's the RAW and RAI, so I will just take a giant weed whacker to it.
What really makes my teeth ache is the revelation that the idea is only the PCs use this rule, every other creature in the world ignores the concept and has no XP. So no matter what they do, they don't gain XP for it, and don't level up unless they are attached to the PCs somehow. BLECH! That makes my teeth hurt. I don't know how NPCs are supposed to progress on a world simulation level, seems like every one of them should be 1st level commoners.
Like I said, it makes my teeth hurt, and I'm weed whacking it in my own game with extreme prejudice. But I'll stop arguing the issue with regards to core rules.
EDIT : I would have much less of a teeth ache if it were just that only PCs gained XP for any encounter, but NPCs stop gaining for anything 4 CR's below them for example.
|
|
Huh,
I must live in an alternate universe then. I seriously know people in RL that just coast along. I mean it, they don't advance, they don't get better at what they do, they just have reached their level of comfort and competence and only work as hard as they have to to maintain their standard of living.I find myself doing that sometimes, I'll look up from work and realize I haven't had an actual challenging assignment for a year or two. Iv'e not improved my skills, I've just coasted.
So, the idea of people who constantly get better and better until they die is a bit foreign to me. I see people improving while they're working their way up to where they want to be, but once they get there, not really putting any more effort into it. Unless something shocks them out of their routine. Like being fired, or transferred, or losing a loved one.
You have learned to use Windov Seven and relevant applications?
It is similar to XP and precedent versions but it is not the same. 1 point in computer use.You have followed a few conference in a field or another? 1 point in some knowledge.
You follow the news? 1 point in local knowledge or history.
You have brought the new Paizo books? 1+ point in profession (Pathfinder DM). ;)
Your BAB is not going up but your skills are unless you are a complete recluse.
|
|
What else other than a tome gives a bonus? I am assuming you are using custom items, nothing official, not even in 3.5 that I know of.16 +2(level 4&8) +6 item is 24.
3 more from tome/other/non-enhancement buff seems easy enough to get if you really want
Constant Alter self in Medium humanoid form? You get a unnamed +2 to strength.
What else other than a tome gives a bonus? I am assuming you are using custom items, nothing official, not even in 3.5 that I know of.Constant Alter self in Medium humanoid form? You get a unnamed +2 to strength.
It's not unnamed it's a size bonus.