A few people have observed that NPC's numbers are completely arbitrary when it comes to their combat values. I've redone the Absalom Station Gang Members as soldier 2 NPCs which can be viewed here.
What do people think? Did I make any typos or mathematical errors?
For those who are bothered by the arbitrariness of the Starfinder NPCs, does this do anything at all for alleviating your concerns? Is there any point redoing the rest of the book's NPCs?
I like this - I'd like to see more.
I like the idea, but it seems like a lot of fine balancing especially as levels get higher. The reason PCs and NPCs have different math is because they wanted to make PvP from stuff like mind control much less deadly. I haven't had a chance to run any combats with the stat block and honestly everything seems fine as it is now but at higher levels I can see combat becoming a terrible, boring slog if the NPCs aren't balanced incredibly carefully. Obviously you're welcome to continue as you wish but just be aware that the game was not designed with PC vs PC combat in mind so there could be some unexpected side effects.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eh. I prefer the arbitrary stat generation of NPCs.
For something that's only going to be on stage for a few rounds, there's no point in spending a lot of time ensuring the stat block is 100% accurate. Just roll with it and move on.
Don't sweat the small stuff. The story is much more important than a stat block of some random Mook.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like the idea, but it seems like a lot of fine balancing especially as levels get higher.
Definitely. The idea that you can just blanket say "NPC of level X will always be CR Y" is well and truly wrong. But if enough people are interested I'll keep converting them while aiming to keep them at roughly the same CR.
The reason PCs and NPCs have different math is because they wanted to make PvP from stuff like mind control much less deadly.
I get that, and I think it's a great goal. The best mid to high level spell you can throw down is often confusion. However this statblock just seemed lazy. Ignoring HP, the AC values are so close to what they should be, I don't see the value in having them differ from what you would expect based on armor and dexterity score except because "eh, can't be bothered and that's not how we're building NPCs anymore". Now at higher level I definitely understand there's considerable value in doing it the new way. But at this level it just seemed a big meh.
Eh. I prefer the arbitrary stat generation of NPCs.
I expect many will. However Paizo built up their fan base on people who rejected D&D 4th edition and wanted to hold onto 3.5. The way NPCs were created played a big part in this. People liked being able to say "oh. That's a hobgoblin in breastplate wielding a broadsword. They're probably a fighter or antipaladin" and then make tactical decisions based on that information. Or they liked being able to say 'that NPC just threw down a fireball. I now know they're at least level X and likely have at least one other 3rd level spell." Unlike in 4th ed (or it appears Starfinder) where you would say "Oh, that's a hobgoblin. That tells me absolutely nothing because his armor is pure flavour, his weapon is arbitrary and who knows what made up abilities the DM has given him".
For something that's only going to be on stage for a few rounds, there's no point in spending a lot of time ensuring the stat block is 100% accurate. Just roll with it and move on.
Don't sweat the small stuff. The story is much more important than a stat block of some random Mook.
I heard this sentiment expressed (and even expressed it myself) quite a bit circa 2008-2009. Fast forward 8-9 years and 4th ed is in the history books, WotC barely produces any D&D material and Paizo's business is booming in large part by rejecting this sort of thinking.
Now whether or not Paizo will be able to embrace this style of thinking in 2017 and actually capture a fanbase (to be sure, there was a lot more wrong with 4th ed than just the NPC blocks) remains to be seen.
I like this - I'd like to see more.
Cool. I'll see about getting Jabaxa done in the next couple of days.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I heard this sentiment expressed (and even expressed it myself) quite a bit circa 2008-2009. Fast forward 8-9 years and 4th ed is in the history books, WotC barely produces any D&D material and Paizo's business is booming in large part by rejecting this sort of thinking.
Be careful with that kind of thinking. WotC may not have a fast release schedule, but they're dominating the market and continue to be number 1 every quarter on the ICv2 report since 5e release. That's 13 quarters in a row at this point, and there's no signs it's slowing down.
Paizo controls about 25-30% of the market, while 5e alone has roughly 65-70% of the market (the remainder is all the other games combined). In 2013, the entirety of the table top RPG market was $13 Mil, with Paizo controlling an amazing $10 Mil of that, but as of 2016, the table top RPG market has skyrocketed to nearly $30 Mil with Paizo saying their sales hadn't changed (nor had anyone else's), meaning WotC added nearly $20 mil to the entire market with 5e, and it continues to rise. And remember, WotC is still #1 on the charts, which means their sales and profits continue to surpass Paizo despite the slow release.
By that measure, the gaming community strongly desires a simpler gaming system. Paizo is seeming to embrace a bit of that in their NPC and monster design rules.
We'll see how Starfinder adds to the market. I'm hoping it'll add to Paizo in a significant manner, but don't be fooled: The gaming community loves the simplistic design of 5e.
Pathfinder is not a repudiation of that. Of 4e? Yes. But 4e didn't fail because of simplicity.
I concur with bookrat, being a player of both 5e and Pathfinder and now running starfinder myself. That said, it's a laudable goal and I'd like to see it, as an experiment to see how far you cantake it if nothing else.
I do see that the remade mooks have a serious problem, in that they are VASTLY less of a threat to PCs, and as the OP statted them out they're no longer a CR 2 threat collectively; they have +1 to hit instead of +6, and they they have at least 1 more rounds' worth of hit points apiece, meaning they're fairly nonthreatening and take longer to cut down, to boot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm actually tempted to try and do it exactly the other way round – i.e. play a Pathfinder adventure and retool all monsters and NPCs with the Pathfinder Unchained monster creation rules. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're going to severely unbalance your game if you do this without also fine tooling the NPC's stats to have low AC and high accuracy in order to keep up with PC balance, and at that point you've just created a massive time sink for yourself with no real benefit.
Eh. I prefer the arbitrary stat generation of NPCs.
For something that's only going to be on stage for a few rounds, there's no point in spending a lot of time ensuring the stat block is 100% accurate. Just roll with it and move on.
Don't sweat the small stuff. The story is much more important than a stat block of some random Mook.
My only real concern is that the NPC's Skills created with this method seem to be higher then they should be.
You're going to severely unbalance your game if you do this without also fine tooling the NPC's stats to have low AC and high accuracy in order to keep up with PC balance, and at that point you've just created a massive time sink for yourself with no real benefit.
That would be part of the retooling, yes. Anyway, I said I'm tempted, it's more like a thought experiment than an actualy intention.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find this whole discussion deeply ironic because I LOVED 4E monster rules. The rest I was mostly "meh" over, but the monsters were great.
4E got criticized, and fairly so, for embracing a video game style approach to table top gaming, and the translation did not work as well as they hoped. But NPCs are the one area where that's (I think) the correct approach. A PC style NPC is overly complex when the damn thing is only going to last a round or twelve. But one with abilities set up to compliment one another and chosen with a particular fighting style in mind? That kind of works. In fact, I'd been designing minor monsters with that in mind even before 4E based on what I observed in WoW. Give a monster approximately correct BAB, health pool, and saves; give one big attack or action, one or two more minor actions they could use every round, and call it a day.
It frustrated me to no end that there weren't nonmartial classes that could do the same for my PC, but then we got warlocks, dragon shaman, and dragonfire adepts and I was a happy potato.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you are perfectly fine choosing what you are doing. My experience as a GM and dealing with players doesn't mirror yours. I never had a player concerned that the NPC wasn't a "8th Level Fighter". They usually want it dead, looted up, and granting double XP.
Pathfinder RPG players will notice differences in rules and terminology used in Starfinder monster stat blocks. Most dramatically, monsters in Starfinder aren’t built using the same rules as player characters. Instead, they’re created using a system of benchmarks similar to those found in Pathfinder RPG Pathfinder Unchained, which allows even relatively new Game Masters to create interesting, balanced monsters to throw against their groups.
The choice to stat the NPCs as such was deliberate and the game is balanced around that. I also agree strongly with AnimatedPaper. Out of 4th's problems, the way it handled NPCs was not one of them.
However, I totally support your effort. I'll take a look <shhh, I'm at work right now> and will do my best to provide good ideas! My first would be, if you're going this route, why stick to three soldiers? You could add some panic of one of the gang members was an operative, and then one from the other side was a mystic. What happens if you make one of them an envoy? Could be interesting ...
Oh yeah, I support the project as well (since that wasn't at all clear) We're all here to have fun, and if this is how it works for you, go nuts.
Oh, they are meant to be wonky. Huh, ok, guess I'll put 'em back to how they were before tomorrow. Glad I'd only gotten as far as the gangers before checking. And they were just about to roll up on the DK boss fight too. Well, maybe I'll leave it alone after that fight. They've been doing just fine so far. Even though they've split the party.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
The choice to stat the NPCs as such was deliberate and the game is balanced around that. I also agree strongly with AnimatedPaper. Out of 4th's problems, the way it handled NPCs was not one of them.
Just to show how opinions vary, the way 4e handled NPCs was the tipping point for why I abandoned it.
Starfinder is better in this respect - for example, an NPC's equipment still affects its stats - but it's still a little past the edge of my comfort zone of emphasizing that the NPC is a game piece and not a character.
The choice to stat the NPCs as such was deliberate and the game is balanced around that. I also agree strongly with AnimatedPaper. Out of 4th's problems, the way it handled NPCs was not one of them.
Just to show how opinions vary, the way 4e handled NPCs was the tipping point for why I abandoned it.
Starfinder is better in this respect - for example, an NPC's equipment still affects its stats - but it's still a little past the edge of my comfort zone of emphasizing that the NPC is a game piece and not a character.
"Does NPC Equipment affect stats? I've not seen it showing up in AC for instance.
Also, I'm not 100% convinced that the "intentional" NPC vs PC balance is a good one.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
The choice to stat the NPCs as such was deliberate and the game is balanced around that. I also agree strongly with AnimatedPaper. Out of 4th's problems, the way it handled NPCs was not one of them.
Just to show how opinions vary, the way 4e handled NPCs was the tipping point for why I abandoned it.
Starfinder is better in this respect - for example, an NPC's equipment still affects its stats - but it's still a little past the edge of my comfort zone of emphasizing that the NPC is a game piece and not a character.
"Does NPC Equipment affect stats? I've not seen it showing up in AC for instance.
Also, I'm not 100% convinced that the "intentional" NPC vs PC balance is a good one.
NPC weapons determine their base damage dice and critical effects, and NPC AC seems to be the base from their worn armor with no Dex bonus.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to show how opinions vary, the way 4e handled NPCs was the tipping point for why I abandoned it.
Starfinder is better in this respect - for example, an NPC's equipment still affects its stats - but it's still a little past the edge of my comfort zone of emphasizing that the NPC is a game piece and not a character.
This is perfectly amazing. We RPG nuts tend to take stances on things because they make sense to us and never realize there are others out there that play differently. For me, 4.0 was the easiest edition to plan, stat and run out of every version of D&D from 1979 forward. But that's just for me, and is based upon my tastes and experiences, the way I run games and my players have responded, and how much time and effort I have available/want to put into design.
As for me, character doesn't come from the stats. It comes from how I play the npc, and no amount of numbers on a page are going to help me achieve that.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to show how opinions vary, the way 4e handled NPCs was the tipping point for why I abandoned it.
Starfinder is better in this respect - for example, an NPC's equipment still affects its stats - but it's still a little past the edge of my comfort zone of emphasizing that the NPC is a game piece and not a character.
This is perfectly amazing. We RPG nuts tend to take stances on things because they make sense to us and never realize there are others out there that play differently. For me, 4.0 was the easiest edition to plan, stat and run out of every version of D&D from 1979 forward. But that's just for me, and is based upon my tastes and experiences, the way I run games and my players have responded, and how much time and effort I have available/want to put into design.
As for me, character doesn't come from the stats. It comes from how I play the npc, and no amount of numbers on a page are going to help me achieve that.
Everyone can benefit from ideas outside their comfort zone occasionally. There's a weird dividing line in my head - for a truly "monstrous" monster, arbitrary stats don't bother me. A game can give any stats it wants to a medusa or a cyberhydra because monsters can operate by their own rules. But, I want "PC like" NPCs to follow the same rules as PCs. A human thug or security guard are perfectly viable PC concepts, and an NPC filling one of those roles shouldn't be special or different compared to what a PC can get. NPCs that can use equipment/treasure need to be PC-like enough to make using that treasure make sense mechanically.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me, any use of rules and statistics is what makes an NPC a game piece rather than a character. What makes it a character are it's motivations, plans, personality, and ideals.
The vast majority of my NPCs don't have stats written down at all. Unless I specifically plan for an NPC to be engaged in a fight with the PCs, then I don't even bother to stat him up. If the PCs surprise me and attack an NPC I didn't plan for, then I just throw something together real quick that's good enough for the one scene. If I was forced to make that npc on the spot using PC rules, then it would just waste time and slow the game down. Much better to ignore all that and throw some numbers down to use just for that scene. Once that scene is over, it's likely the PCs will never engage in a fight with the NPC again. And on the off chance that they do, it'll be because I planned for it and built the npc proper (most likely tying the npc into a greater story arc and making it more powerful as a recurring villain).
If the NPC is planned or unplanned for a fight against anyone else besides the PCs, then the numbers literally don't matter at all, the scene will play out how I dictate (because it's just me vs me). Doing anything else is a waste of time - time that is better spent making a better story and game for my players.
What rules I use to build an NPC is entirely irrelevant to the question of how immersive the npc is to the game, and it is not a common event to even use full PC rules at all when I can just quickly slap some numbers that are close enough.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
his weapon is arbitrary and who knows what made up abilities the DM has given him".
I'm late to this party, but I'm new to Starfinder, and this is exactly the discussion I wanted to have, after reviewing Incident at Absalom Station. I'm really displeased to see NPCs with special abilities that are just made up from nowhere. If an NPC belongs to a character race, has a standard class graft, and carries standard equipment, its abilities should be familiar to PCs with the same race and class.
I don't mind simplified rules for generating NPCs, but when a Vesk soldier uses some made up ability against the PCs, players are going to say, "Hey, that's cool. How can my character do that? Where are the rules for it?" If my reply is, "Oh, that's an ability only my NPC can have," the players are likely to be annoyed, and rightly so.
I think at least some of that "NPC of race+class has class ability unavailable to PCs" wasn't intentional in the first couple AP's. These were written while they were still finalizing the book(S) and rules, and I think at least some of it is stuff that was cut for space or because they noticed there was something really broken about how it was written. At least, I suspect that's what happened with Clara-247, anyway.
Personally, I've always been fine with NPC's having different abilities, as long as they're generally worse (or at least no better, mechanically) than the PC's abilities.
his weapon is arbitrary and who knows what made up abilities the DM has given him".I'm late to this party, but I'm new to Starfinder, and this is exactly the discussion I wanted to have, after reviewing Incident at Absalom Station. I'm really displeased to see NPCs with special abilities that are just made up from nowhere. If an NPC belongs to a character race, has a standard class graft, and carries standard equipment, its abilities should be familiar to PCs with the same race and class.
I don't mind simplified rules for generating NPCs, but when a Vesk soldier uses some made up ability against the PCs, players are going to say, "Hey, that's cool. How can my character do that? Where are the rules for it?" If my reply is, "Oh, that's an ability only my NPC can have," the players are likely to be annoyed, and rightly so.
This is something that happen in PF too. Since the start of Pathfinder.
In the very first adventure, Rise of Runelords, we had a Goblin Fighter with 3 arms and fire breath weapon, and later on we had a Mithral Mage built of metal with free Nat Armor and Fortification, a Conjurer so fat that had free Nat Armor and with a heart made of slime that made him inmune to crits, a fighter with spell resist and inmune to mind affecting spells. None of those were available to PCs.
Starfinder just made custom NPC build the base case, instead of arbitrarely selecting which NPC could have arbitrary stuff and which ones couldn't.
It is however a issue of taste. Those who don't like it, never will, just like those who don't care, never will.
It is however a issue of taste. Those who don't like it, never will, just like those who don't care, never will.
It's not just taste - in practice, GMs do need a way to resolve what happens when the PCs "acquire" an NPC (this can be via friendship, kidnapping, or whatever - I'm speaking generically), and then being applying persuasive tools (again, generically - this can include bribes, torture, etc) to get the NPC to teach/share these special abilities. The whole point of having a rulebook is to standardize rules across different games, so I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a standard way to resolve this sort of thing.
They also need a way to resolve acquired NPCs simply acting on behalf of the party - the rules for GMing require you to be able to assess what CR a party can handle, and those rules are based on assuming a set of PCs with PC stats. If you start using an NPC of CR X as a PC of Level X in your arithmetic for the party, particularly if you have a special snowflake NPC with special snowflake powers, you'll start wildly underestimating the party. That's not good for anybody.
I agree that NPCs that join the party will benefit if done with PC rules. Not really necesary (I have the goblin in my group now, as part of the crew, and he works well just with basic goblin skills), but I see how it will benefit the game.
I still don't see why this is needed to be done in the other 999 goblins out of 1000 which will NOT join the party, tho. If I ever feel the need to stat the goblin as a PC, I'll do it, without neeeding to spend effort changing every single NPC in the adventure.