I'm trying to reverse engineer the skills for a generic homunculus to see how they go together, and it just doesn't make sense. Can anyone shed light on the matter?
A Homunculus has 2 hit dice, an INT of 10 (+0), WIS 12 (+1) and DEX 15 (+2). That should be a total of 4 skill points to go around.
Constructs do not have any class skills. However, any creature with a fly speed treats Fly as a class skill.
Its skills are listed as:
+10 Fly
+3 Perception
+12 Stealth
Fly: +1 rank, +3 class skill bonus, +4 size bonus, +2 DEX bonus = 10, okay
Stealth: +2 ranks, +8 size bonus, +2 DEX = 12, fine
Perception: +1 rank, +1 WIS = 2
But the description says +3 Perception. So ... where's that one extra skill point coming from?
Not as far as I can tell; there's no mention of such a thing in the construct creature type description ...
Tinalles wrote: I'm trying to reverse engineer the skills for a generic homunculus to see how they go together, and it just doesn't make sense. Can anyone shed light on the matter?
This is why stat blocks should have a breakdown of skills as they are harder to breakdown. Frankly I'd like to see online content have each clickable with the break down for attacks, damage bonus, AC, saves as well as skills (perhaps feats as well when dealing with bonus & class feats)
Tinalles wrote:
A Homunculus has 2 hit dice, an INT of 10 (+0), WIS 12 (+1) and DEX 15 (+2). That should be a total of 4 skill points to go around.
Constructs do not have any class skills. However, any creature with a fly speed treats Fly as a class skill.
Its skills are listed as:
+10 Fly
+3 Perception
+12 Stealth
Fly: +1 rank, +3 class skill bonus, +4 size bonus, +2 DEX bonus = 10, okay
Stealth: +2 ranks, +8 size bonus, +2 DEX = 12, fine
Perception: +1 rank, +1 WIS = 2
But the description says +3 Perception. So ... where's that one extra skill point coming from?
It's likely 2 ranks Stealth and 2 ranks Perception.
The fly is likely broken down as 0 ranks +4 size +2 DEX +4 GOOD maneuverability = 10.
-James
james maissen wrote: This is why stat blocks should have a breakdown of skills as they are harder to breakdown. Frankly I'd like to see online content have each clickable with the break down for attacks, damage bonus, AC, saves as well as skills (perhaps feats as well when dealing with bonus & class feats) That assumes several things.
(1) That the purpose of the Bestiary is to teach you how to deconstruct monsters.
(2) That the design staff has the extra time to properly format all of this extra information for the website.
(3) That the tech staff has the extra time to append all of this extra information to the website.
Sean K Reynolds wrote: james maissen wrote: This is why stat blocks should have a breakdown of skills as they are harder to breakdown. Frankly I'd like to see online content have each clickable with the break down for attacks, damage bonus, AC, saves as well as skills (perhaps feats as well when dealing with bonus & class feats) That assumes several things.
(1) That the purpose of the Bestiary is to teach you how to deconstruct monsters.
(2) That the design staff has the extra time to properly format all of this extra information for the website.
(3) That the tech staff has the extra time to append all of this extra information to the website.
Personally I think it's worth it.
Seeing the number of wrong stat blocks that I've seen in my life in the various incarnations of 3e I will tell you flat out that having these break downs is the right thing to do.
It's akin to showing your work in math class. One might get the right answer 17 times out of 20, but without doing out all the work yourself you'll never know when that other person has hit those other 3 in 20 times.
Moreover it you've ever tweaked a stat block, either to adjust for a different level of difficulty or to make one monster based loosely on another. Having a break down of the creature's stats is really essential.
Then finally there is the end user, who wants to know not only how everything works, but wants to make their own or to modify what they've been given. All of these are and should be the design goals in the first place. To them such breakdowns are the difference between being able to take what was given and having to try to deconstruct it in order to build it up from the ground. Honestly the way the bestiary is now (and all the stat blocks in 3e before it) REQUIRE one to learn to deconstruct stat blocks. It's an arcane process that doesn't need to be arcane. The work had to have been done.. so simply show it and make it easier for the reader to follow!
So I think honestly that it's not 'extra time' but rather quality time here. The same way in having a set format for stat blocks might take 'extra time' I see this as quality improving.
It also will serve to help reinforce rules that might have fallen under the radar for the players learning the game. In this instance the modifier to the fly skill by maneuverability class.
And that's before one factors in the odd error that will occur in published materials that would be readily found and corrected with a more transparent stat block system.
-James
Whether you call it quality time or extra time, it is extra work that needs to be done, which is work we're not putting into another product, which means we're late.
Remember also that things change at the last minute all the time (such as in the 4th editing pass before it goes to the printer), which means you'd have to change the separate file with all the mark-up, or remember that you made that change, and make sure that change goes online when the additional content is posted--which is months later, as there's a several-month delay between finishing a book and it going on sale. Which means there's a reasonable chance that in some cases the show-your-math version online isn't going to be the same stats as the in-print version... unless we double-check the printed version vs. the online version, which amounts to another development pass (which is two weeks of work for something the size of the Bestiary).
I understand that you like to get "under the hood" and see how the monsters are built, and there is a value for players to learn about that, but the primary purpose of books like the Bestiary is to present usable monsters for GMs, not to train GMs how to dissect monster stat blocks. Thus, the Bestiary is good at its primary purpose, and not good at the thing it was never intended to do. And making it do the second one involves a lot of work--work we can't fit into our tight product schedule.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
I understand that you like to get "under the hood" and see how the monsters are built, and there is a value for players to learn about that, but the primary purpose of books like the Bestiary is to present usable monsters for GMs, not to train GMs how to dissect monster stat blocks. Thus, the Bestiary is good at its primary purpose, and not good at the thing it was never intended to do. And making it do the second one involves a lot of work--work we can't fit into our tight product schedule.
How many mistakes in those stat blocks that have gone over that last minute editing are there? It's really easy to introduce mistakes like that if you don't have that work laid out.
When you give an answer to how many, how do you know? I could only surmise it's either wishful thinking or because you can see the breakdown of each of the monsters. How much time does that take to do by hand?
I can appreciate that it would take more time to have a more full statblock. Heck stating monsters out in the first place takes time. You could simply leave many skills and many feats open.. if they aren't integral to the monster after all, right? Why not do that? Less work per product so more products! Perhaps because it makes the product seem less fully done.
But if a DM wants to alter the skills a little, that's very reasonable and I'd even say common experience. How much work have you made it for them by not including the work that in all honesty you should have somewhere directly in front of you?
You don't see it as valuable, which is unfortunate as you have far more say than I do. But I do see it as both valuable and increasing the usefulness and quality of the product.
As to 'how many products would I like to see'? I'll tell you that I prefer ONE Paizo product to SEVERAL WotC products. Why's that? Because of the quality.
The less quality that you put in the less I care about all of the merchandise. The less support that you give to all of the material that you've already put out the less desire I have to purchase new material.
Perhaps I'm aberrant in that fashion, but I've seen slash and burn and I don't really care for it. I've also seen some nice steps in the right direction with Paizo and I'd like them to continue down that path rather than trails that have been blazed by others in the past.
-James
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
I' fairly certain you're in a small minority James. I love Paizo products. But if a skill rank is off by +/-2 here or there, I really don't notice.
First, because besides stealth and perception, monsters rarely are in situations where they need to make skill checks.
Second, if I want to add a skill to a particular statblock, it is way easier to just add the skill. The fact that he has more points written down doesn't matter since most minor encounters won't use those other skills ever.
Sure, if we are talking an NPC that will travel with the group or be in multiple scenes to where I want a real character, I either build it from scratch or steal it as is from an existing Paizo product.
But having a designer nitpick skill point minutia seems like a waste of valuable resources. They do use a spreadsheet to make their skill points correct 99% of the time. They have better things to do, like create creative and interesting monsters. Or new archetypes. Or alternate race traits. Or build your own race rules. Or epic levels. Or other stuff that will actually expand the game.
deinol wrote: I' fairly certain you're in a small minority James. I love Paizo products. But if a skill rank is off by +/-2 here or there, I really don't notice.
First, because besides stealth and perception, monsters rarely are in situations where they need to make skill checks.
Second, if I want to add a skill to a particular statblock, it is way easier to just add the skill. The fact that he has more points written down doesn't matter since most minor encounters won't use those other skills ever.
Sure, if we are talking an NPC that will travel with the group or be in multiple scenes to where I want a real character, I either build it from scratch or steal it as is from an existing Paizo product.
But having a designer nitpick skill point minutia seems like a waste of valuable resources. They do use a spreadsheet to make their skill points correct 99% of the time. They have better things to do, like create creative and interesting monsters. Or new archetypes. Or alternate race traits. Or build your own race rules. Or epic levels. Or other stuff that will actually expand the game.
First, I do love the Paizo products, I'm not sure where you got the idea otherwise. If I didn't I wouldn't much bother with this.
Second, I do care that the stat blocks are correct, that's the point in having them as opposed to more interesting facets of the creatures' nature, society and interactions. If I'm seeing a sacrifice in interesting information about the creature for mechanical/technical information.. it might as well be right!
Third, if monster skills don't matter then why bother to include them? To me it's part of the 3rd edition immersion that everything is beholding to the same laws of physics. It's reassuring and part about what I really like about this edition of D&D.
More with that.. say you were the original poster and were making a homunculous with higher HD. You really wanted it to fly as well as possible, so its next level you put a rank into fly. The OP would believe that would give it a +1 to the fly skill, when really it would give a +4 and in fact he could put more than just that one point into it if he really needed it to fly better. The OP took time to think about it and, like many of us from time to time, couldn't figure it out.
That it would honestly not be that hard to handle is the issue here... it just depends on figuring out a format for it that works easily enough.
Perhaps it would be as simple as Fly +10(0), Perception +3 (2), Stealth +12 (2). Perhaps it would be that they would have online content that would easily break this down for people.
As you say (and I agree I'm sure that) they have all of this laid out so as to avoid making mistakes, it's just a question of imparting that to the rest of us.
Consider that the DCs for many special abilities in the original 3e Monster Manual were never explained as DC 10 + 1/2HD + associated stat... but just listed. The 3.5 version came out and explained this and added to these abilities 'this is a CON based ability' or the like. It was not a horrendous change to do, but it was VERY helpful for DMs not to have to figure out what stat it had to be (after they had understood/divined the base formula that iirc was never stated).
The purpose of the books should be to facilitate. Every so often you have people come on the boards asking how to break down a monster's skills because they've spent a good deal of time trying to do so and failed. For everyone that's failed there are many who haven't bothered and just as many that have bothered and after spending time doing this instead of other DM planning did figure it out.
I just think that it's something that could easily be added in one facet or another that would ease this task. Heck at least PF is easier as there are no longer synergy bonuses for having 5 ranks in a skill (of course you have to guess whether a critter has 10 ranks or not if it happens to have skill focus or one of the paired skill feats).
To your last comment. I don't see it as wasting their time. As you're saying they ALREADY do this. The 'wasted' time would simply be sharing it with us and helping us not have to 'waste' time redoing it over and over again (or in other people's cases giving up).
-James
You are still ignoring his first point...
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
That assumes several things.
(1) That the purpose of the Bestiary is to teach you how to deconstruct monsters.
As has been said many many times before, things sometimes don't work out "by the numbers" and that design is equal parts art and mechanics. It is the same thing with magic item costs, sometimes they don't follow the numbers exactly. It comes down to a judgement call. How are you supposed to put that in?
+# : "Misc. Adjustment the Designers felt was necessary to make the idea of this monster work"??
The point of the book is to give a DM who doesn't have the time to design something, or the experience to create something appropriate. Basically it is a PnP object. Reverse engineering something so you know exactly where all the bits and pieces came from, was never the purpose of the book. Creature design is a whole seperate topic, and would be another book by itself, something akin to the Savage Species book. That book said here are the guidelines used, here are the loose numbers used, here are examples broken down. The Pathfinder Bestiary isn't that book, and was never marketed as such.
Other than that, if I want to design something, I do it. The Bestiary might at best serve as a starting point (nifty monster idea from reading something in it) but quite probably has nothing to do with it. Because if it existed in there, I wouldn't be making anything to begin with.
Basically it seems you want more than was intended from the product, and I can sympathize, but I think you are asking a bit too much. What you want is a different product and you are latching on to the item that is closest to what you want and making a complaint about it.
Skylancer4 wrote: You are still ignoring his first point...
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
That assumes several things.
(1) That the purpose of the Bestiary is to teach you how to deconstruct monsters.
As has been said many many times before, things sometimes don't work out "by the numbers" and that design is equal parts art and mechanics.
The point of the book is to give a DM who doesn't have the time to design something, or the experience to create something appropriate.
Basically it seems you want more than was intended from the product, and I can sympathize, but I think you are asking a bit too much. What you want is a different product and you are latching on to the item that is closest to what you want and making a complaint about it.
First, all the numbers SHOULD work out. If they do not.. it's not by design it's by ERROR. They can give a racial bonus, a racial bonus feat or even a special quality.. but if the numbers don't add up it's not design, but error.
Second, he was not saying that things don't work by the numbers, but rather that the bestiary shouldn't be made to be easily deconstructed. I disagree with this, as I see it a useful thing to give for advancing or altering monsters. If you elect to add HD, knowing where you can and can't put skill points and how much it will effect the skill adjustment is important.
Third I agree that the book's purpose should be the bolded part above. Refusing to list skill ranks only makes the DM's job harder and eats up their time when altering a monster. Thus it raises the bar where it should be providing a step ladder.
Last, I just want more out of the product than is being given. The information that I'd want put in there is information that had to be compiled in order to make the book so there is no further work in figuring out those numbers on the part of the developers but rather it is a hurdle for all the rest of us to figure it out.
Imagine if they didn't include some other information and simply left it to DMs to figure out. Perhaps they don't figure out attack bonuses. These are easily determined by BAB (function of HD and creature type), attacking stat (normally STR mod), size, feats, items, magic and misc. But not including it would mean that plug and play would be curtailed.
I think that making it harder to make small accurate adjustments to the monsters is a detriment to the work.
This seemed like a reasonable time to mention it again, as the OP couldn't figure out how something broke down and obviously spent time trying to do so. I'd rather that the products supply this and he could spend his time designing his adventures for this players.
-James
james maissen wrote: Second, he was not saying that things don't work by the numbers, but rather that the bestiary shouldn't be made to be easily deconstructed. No, I said that's not the purpose of the Bestiary, and that changing it to be such a thing would require a lot of work that we can't fit in our schedule.
james maissen wrote: If you elect to add HD, knowing where you can and can't put skill points and how much it will effect the skill adjustment is important. If you add X HD to a monster, you can always add X ranks to its skills, whether the creature has 0 ranks or maxed ranks, because the new max is equal to the old max plus X.
james maissen wrote: Refusing to list skill ranks only makes the DM's job harder and eats up their time when altering a monster. No, it doesn't. It makes the GM's job harder if you're trying to deconstruct a monster, but you don't need to know how many ranks it has or when it got feat X to know that by adding 2 Hit Dice, you have Y additional skill points, the max ranks for any skill goes up by 2, and it gains one new feat.
james maissen wrote: Last, I just want more out of the product than is being given. The information that I'd want put in there is information that had to be compiled in order to make the book so there is no further work in figuring out those numbers on the part of the developers but rather it is a hurdle for all the rest of us to figure it out. You are assuming that we have all of that information compiled in a show-your-math format that we can just plug into the book or website. For most of them, we don't, so we can't. As I told you, we'd have to figure them out from scratch and make sure they add up to what's presented in the book. Which is at least two weeks of work.
james maissen wrote: Imagine if they didn't include some other information and simply left it to DMs to figure out. Perhaps they don't figure out attack bonuses. These are easily determined by BAB (function of HD and creature type), attacking stat (normally STR mod), size, feats, items, magic and misc. But not including it would mean that plug and play would be curtailed. The differences is you can't easily use a monster without its attack bonus, that's why that info is provided for the GM. You CAN easily use a monster without its skill point totals listed. You are making a false comparison.
james maissen wrote: I think that making it harder to make small accurate adjustments to the monsters is a detriment to the work. And I think that obsessing over whether something should be +1 or +2 on a monster when you're customizing it is ignoring the "GM's best friend rule." The difference between a +1 or a +2 on a skill is negligible in the scope of an encounter.
james maissen wrote: This seemed like a reasonable time to mention it again, as the OP couldn't figure out how something broke down and obviously spent time trying to do so. I'd rather that the products supply this and he could spend his time designing his adventures for this players. I'd rather the bestiaries make it easier for people to play the game. Puzzling over how a monster's skill totals add up may be fun, or an interesting exercise in learning game design, but that's not playing the game.
And, stat blocks already are very cluttered. What you're proposing would make them even more cluttered and hard to read, and thus harder to use in-game.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
If you add X HD to a monster, you can always add X ranks to its skills, whether the creature has 0 ranks or maxed ranks, because the new max is equal to the old max plus X.
And if the OP did this with the Homunculous in question, he would get the fly skill wrong. If he were doing so with a creature with skill focus, he wouldn't know whether or not the bonus was +3 or +6.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
You are assuming that we have all of that information compiled in a show-your-math format that we can just plug into the book or website. For most of them, we don't, so we can't.
I was assuming this rather than that it was lost in waves of edits. That's too bad.
Well I've wasted enough of your time on this, we just see things differently. I know how much time I've spent figuring out stat blocks either in Monster Manuals or in modules and I know I'd rather that I didn't have to had done that. In the later case, depending upon the author you'd likely find an error as it's easy to make when you don't have to keep track and easy to miss when it's not laid out.
-James
james maissen wrote: The fly is likely broken down as 0 ranks +4 size +2 DEX +4 GOOD maneuverability = 10. Ahhh, yes, that clears it up. Missed that maneuverability bonus. Thanks.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
