| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There isn't really a "should", it's just a difference in approach that is valued by some and not by others.
People who prefer it probably sit near in the simulationist corner of the spectrum and regard rules as the way we represent the fantastical reality of the game world.
People who don't value it highly are probably more into the narrative side of RPGs where rules are just the way we regulate and provide objective limits on the stories we tell - they don't have direct analogs in the game world's reality.
I must be an exception, I guess :-)
Why should NPCs use rules that are unavailable to PCs who share the exact same characteristics as the NPCs, just because they are NPCs ?
It breaks my feeling of immersion in a consistent game world's reality
That's what I meant by the first group (I may well have used the wrong terms in regards to simulation vs narrative).
You regard the rules as representing the game world's reality, so you prefer the rules for PCs and NPCs be consistent.
There isn't really a "should", it's just a difference in approach that is valued by some and not by others.
People who prefer it probably sit near in the simulationist corner of the spectrum and regard rules as the way we represent the fantastical reality of the game world.
People who don't value it highly are probably more into the narrative side of RPGs where rules are just the way we regulate and provide objective limits on the stories we tell - they don't have direct analogs in the game world's reality.
I must be an exception, I guess :-)
Why should NPCs use rules that are unavailable to PCs who share the exact same characteristics as the NPCs, just because they are NPCs ?
It breaks my feeling of immersion in a consistent game world's reality
one reasom could be "because actually every ranger in the world should be different, PC classes have built in options because of balance reasons". For perfect inmersion, each single Hero and Villain should have their own custom class. It's not feasible, though, do we need some lego blocks.
But if we use the exact same lego blocks for regular PC and regular NPC it works wonders. It breaks up with BBEG, becsuse of action economy
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, NPC classes exist, and at least in my games, a player could take them if they wanted to. If I allow a player to have a troll PC, they will get regeneration and rend. If I allow a player to play a dragon, they will get flight, a breath weapon, spells, etc. The idea is that no option is restricted to NPCs just because they are NPCs. Options restricted because something is a dragon, or outsider, or ooze are fine - those options are restricted for an in-world reason. Restricting an option to an NPC (or as PC, even) creates a metagame distinction that can't be explained in character.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it's an important distinction to you, that's cool. It's not an objective good thing though. It's a preference thing.
Oh, I agree it's merely a preference. Although you seem to be missing the core of my point; I have an example:
Let's say there is a groups of orcs for the PCs to fight, and the GM gives them a new special ability - when one of them hits a foe, an adjacent ally can stand up from prone as an immediate action without provoking.
After the battle, one player wants to know about the ability. The GM says it's a special fighting style the orcs developed.
"Can I learn it?"
"No it's only known by that tribe."
"What if I play an orc from that tribe?"
"Sorry it's NPC only."
That's what I like to avoid.
If you're going to make a template that makes a foe into a "Boss," that template should still theoretically be available to PCs. They just shouldn't want to have to pay the price to get it. If the "Boss" template requires you to enslave a nation, build a giant ziggurat in the capital, and slowly collect drops of the liquefied cumulative suffering of the kingdom over decades, most PCs won't bother. But it's nice to know that they could.
If you're going to make a template that makes a foe into a "Boss," that template should still theoretically be available to PCs. They just shouldn't want to have to pay the price to get it. If the "Boss" template requires you to enslave a nation, build a giant ziggurat in the capital, and slowly collect drops of the liquefied cumulative suffering of the kingdom over decades, most PCs won't bother. But it's nice to know that they could.
That's what I meant. Paizo ALREADY give NPC abilities that are forbiden not only to PC, but to other NPC too. Jatembe has things unique to him. So does Baba Yaga, or Krune, or many others. A PC cant get Krune's unique abilities, not even becoming Runelord. They are unique to him.
A "boss template" is not needed for Paizo. They already treat NPC differently ehrn they want to. It's for the rest of GMs, do they have a guide of balanced and playtested abilities to chose from, if they don't want to jump into ubtested water and try it themselves.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So how do I get the Advanced Template? I'd like to play a character with that.
In my games? Pitch me a concept for an Advanced Human or whatever and we'll talk.
The natural armor thing where designers just tack on enough NA to meet an arbitrary AC based on CR is a pet peeve of mine. (Also that sentence had too many two letter abbreviations) I think it's lazy design. The benefit we're supposed to be getting from these unwieldy statblocks is internal consistency, and we lose that when a designer decides that because the monster is CR X, it must have Y Str and Z AC and W hp. Then the internal logic of the monster doesn't make sense, and we get issues like gunslingers hitting everything above CR12 on a 2 because natural armor is seen as the AC panacea. Or monsters that are running around with Str 40 not because they are strong like Superman, but because they need the to hit bonus.
Ideally a monster should be assigned stats based on what those numbers mean, and only then be assigned a CR as a representation of the sum total of their stuff. But that process is backwards from what I understand is the actual design process. It makes better monsters though.
|
I am beginning to entertain the heretical notion that action economy is not the problem at high levels. A single BBEG able to withstand any and all attacks that PCs can deliver in one round would be great on condition that he does not annihilate them on his own turn
What would be great IMO is an end to this rocket tag effect. Maybe through disjoining investment in offense and in defense, so that attacks are not overwhelming compared to defense
So how do I get the Advanced Template? I'd like to play a character with that.
In my games? Pitch me a concept for an Advanced Human or whatever and we'll talk.
Why wouldn't that work for a"boss template"? Boss (or "elite" or 'paragon" or "legendary", or whatever name you want) could be just like "Advanced" with a couple extra stufff (like sone resistance to crowd control or abilities to act out of your turn, etc). Make it a template just like Advanced (or Giant, or Vampire for that matter) and let GMs decide, like you, if they want to hive this template to their PCs, just like they can let their players br "Advanced" or "Giant" or "Vampire" or "fire infused" or "hslf-fiend" if they want
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am beginning to entertain the heretical notion that action economy is not the problem at high levels. A single BBEG able to withstand any and all attacks that PCs can deliver in one round would be great on condition that he does not annihilate them on his own turn
Problem with that is how.
There are two ways: one way is through defenses (AC, Saves,Inmunity),the other way through sheer hp or other ablative defenses (such as having 3-5 "free dodges", or igniring the first failed save).
Both share a problem: table variance. A lvl 20 guy with 1000hp, but normal defenses, will still fall in 1 round vs optimized damage dealers, while dragging the Combat a lot vs non optimized. It's a common problem in 4e, specially in first snd second Monster manuals. It was nicknamed "the padded sumo wrestling match".
The second option, having high AC, id frustrating for players (you want to hit and be meaningful), and it crashes with the problem of disparity. Anything hard enough to hit to make fighter miss, will make rogues unplayable, as they have a huge difference in to hit Bonus. Specially if we are talking about optimized fighter vs unoptimized rogue. You need a balance there, the BBEG being able yo survive, but thf Combat not being frustrating.
I think the action economy is easier to address, and also more important.
Adventure paths usually wrap up around level 15. I wonder if it would make sense to have Starfinder end at 15th level to directly work with the adventure path. It would also open up more pages for other needed rules like starships and robots.
I always prefer more options than less. The existing PF game works absolutely fine going to 20 despite the fact that AP's from Paizo usually stop at 15.
You are assuming that people only play AP's. The vast majority of the GM's I have played with over the years run their own adventures, many to level 20 and beyond.
Why limit the game that way? Not everyone even uses AP's. Why kill backwards compatibility with the existing system?
The number of levels should stay consistent with regular PF products. This GM's and players regardless of what normally happens in campaigns remains open to them.
Tactics mate, sorry, but running a level 13+ game in Pathfinder is such a massive chore that I strongly back any initiative towards making new d20 games which do not reach above 15th level or so. Actually, I am a bit dismayed that Paizo goes with level 20 for Starfinder.
Ah, I forgot how much I don't miss the "levels above X are unplayable" debate (with assorted values of X depending on poster) :)
Though I don't debate one of your points - it sure is work running a game at uber high level. I just didn't equate "lots of work" with "a chore that's not worth the effort." I always viewed it more as "let's see what they do with this ridiculous challenge."
Still don't, though currently a moot point given that one play group just hit level 13 and the other one varies from 5MR2 to 8MR2.
edit: P.S. Regardless of the rule books, there is nothing hard and fast about any level progression. I'm planning on taking my mythic campaign to something like MR20 - there's certainly nothing that stops me from doing so and I'll have no problem creating challenges for the characters, given what one of the end goals of the campaign is (and my past experience creating high CR challenges).