| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, by all means, you are welcome to have your opinion and voice it,certainly. But this was created as the "please don't do this" thread, and I think it would be far more productive for everyone involved if the people in favor of it would have created their own thread to show their support, rather than come into this one to argue with the people they disagree with.
This is probably not the thread for you then, as this is 100% the exact opposite of the way many of us feel.I disagree IMMENSELY that it is not good in practice, because it HAS been good in practice for me time and time again.
Monsters working on different mechanics from PCs was an annoyance that added to the list of things that drove me away from 4e and it will do the same here to many others if that's the route they choose to go.
This is absolutely the correct thread for me to be in, as it is a thread about monster creation rules. And just because I say something different than the echo chamber, that doesn’t mean that I don’t deserve to be heard. If you don’t like a dissenting opinion, that is very literally your problem, not mine.
If this was the actual purported purpose of this, then maybe the title should have been something along the lines of "Thread for people who want the old monster creation rules back". Instead we have generalized name for monster creation rules, opening it up for comments for answers against.
Fair enough I suppose.
Just once I'd like to see threads not devolve into camps of yes or no hurling tomatoes at one another. Which in my opinion is best done by having the two opposing groups relegated to their own threads and let paizo see the activity in each and use that to determine the level of community opinion for or against something.
I tire immensely of the unending back and forth of forum debate.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree with the OP. (Also, Orthos, the OP did NOT say that we were only supposed to agree with him. It's listed as Monster Creation Rules.)
Now, I also don't want it to be like Starfinder. The huge attack bonuses for SF monsters are ridiculous, and I don't like how it worked, and after spending the better part of a year creating creatures with PF Unchained, I'm happier with that system. In part because I can choose to build a monster either way, and generally with similar results.
There are exceptions, though. I've wanted to build fey bruisers before, and the way baseline Pathfinder is set up, that's hard without artificially inflating their hit dice to obscene levels, or their stats, or other things. PF unchained allows this. I've had other problems with other monsters, like constructs, but I'm not going to belabor the point.
Quite simply, I hope monster creation is closer to PF Unchained than PF or Starfinder.
It's not as if naming it explicitly so would have worked, anyway. The "get off my lawn" thread was explicitly named and described as for those uninterested in converting, and the pro PF2 people still flooded in to incite debates and argue against peoples' reasons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't mind monsters having different rules to a degree. I'll certainly be happy if I can create a dragon's stat block without having to constantly fiddle with the number of hit dice it has.
I do hope that classed NPCs play by PC rules. I like to let players occasionally grab NPCs as party members, and I like to allow old PCs to crop up as major NPCs in a game. Keeping the stats on a 1:1 basis works best for that stuff.
I very much hope that whatever happens to monster stats makes it easy enough to occasionally slap class levels on top of it. I'll be pretty sad if I have to say goodbye to my unicorn rangers and giant shamans.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trying to have a proper discussion of what we find important in monster creation rules is way more valuable than creating two separate echo chambers of for and against.
Not everyone on the forum wants to put forth the effort to do that and it sucks, but only by challenging ideas can we refine them, and maybe even stumble upon a better solution than classic or unchained only.
My actual preference is both system, because they serve different purposes for me. The unchained system is great when I need something to challenge the players in a certain way and don't have the time or willingness to make something expansive for like a literal snow crab that regenerates until removed from the blizzard.
But the royal court full of dragons playing at normal people? Get a full block each as they'll interact with the party in combat in various ways
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose ill just have to do what I usually do. State my disagreement and withdraw from the thread rather than get pulled into another blasted debate.
I don't have the energy for this anymore. Maybe I'm just too old and cranky, or more accurately too overworked, to have the time and mental stamina to spent hours in debate anymore.
You win, internet. Enjoy your victory, I suppose.
Now, I also don't want it to be like Starfinder. The huge attack bonuses for SF monsters are ridiculous, and I don't like how it worked, and after spending the better part of a year creating creatures with PF Unchained, I'm happier with that system. In part because I can choose to build a monster either way, and generally with similar results.
The Starfinder combat balance is one of those things that looks great on paper, but would have greatly benefited from a public playtest.
Seconded so very very very hard.
The fact that 3.5 and PF use the exact same sets of rules and assumptions for PCs as for NPCs and monsters is probably THE biggest allure of the system for me as a GM, and I know I'm not alone in that regard.
WTF. That's one of the system's biggest strengths.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can make and eat a plain turkey sandwich faster than I can a pizza. That does not make the turkey sandwich better than the pizza.
Not always and in all respects, certainly. How much of a virtue it is depends on what you're trying to juggle, and how precious time is.
If you're coming to a party and you want everyone to appreciate how what a beautiful meal you've brought, then spending some quality time preparing the dish is entirely warranted, and it's not a bad thing that it might take some effort. You may want to be able to consider how the ingredients fit together, may want to experiment a few times before getting it just right, may want to spend some time on dressing up the dish for aesthetics as well as taste. It would be far cooler to roll in with a potato gratin than a bowl of potato chips!
If all your friends are coming over for a party and they expect to be fed, and you already spent most of your available time putting up streamers, then how long something takes to make suddenly becomes much more salient. It would be nice to make the potato gratin, but being able to pour in some potato chips - or if you're feeling healthy, baby carrots and hummus - is an absolute blessing.
Being a player is often (though not always) like being in the first situation, and GMing is often (though not always) like being in the second. And having potato chips in the cupboard doesn't prevent you from making a gratin when you have the time to.
This isn't even getting into SF's horrid rules about skills and the like for it's monster creation and how ridiculously unbalanced they are. Monsters only get three skills. Oh you want to calculate that big monster's stealth? Sorry it doesn't have a stealth in it's entry and it has no HD number and it's dex is meaningless so you can't do it the normal way of calculating ranks+Dex mod. Just make something up. Oh your PC's complained it was too high? Well have fun explaining that you don't have rules for it, you just made up a number, I'm sure they'll appreciate that.
Starfinder's system is unbalanced, but the underlying system isn't actually bad - similar rules exist in Pathfinder Unchained (page 194)
Guh, I don't want to see this monster system because I already know Paizo is going to ignore the people who want their monsters using the same rules everyone else does.
That's a big presumption. Since they haven't directly saying they are using the simplified monster creation, so there is no reason to presume that the decision has already been made.
Monsters that don't work the same (as in don't have the same abilities as PCs. I've seen systems that claim the build rules are different when all they mean is that you don't have to follow the same careful advancement system) tend to just be too weak, too shallow, and too bland to be interesting.
This is a great example of a way 5e fails to satisfy my consumer needs.
Amen! Some 5e monsters are cool. But the vast majority are just indistinguishable meatbags without any skill proficiencies or special abilities. They got HP, AC and melee attack. How lame!
Amen! Some 5e monsters are cool. But the vast majority are just indistinguishable meatbags without any skill proficiencies or special abilities. They got HP, AC and melee attack. How lame!Monsters that don't work the same (as in don't have the same abilities as PCs. I've seen systems that claim the build rules are different when all they mean is that you don't have to follow the same careful advancement system) tend to just be too weak, too shallow, and too bland to be interesting.
This is a great example of a way 5e fails to satisfy my consumer needs.
Interesting. But, you should check out an AD&D 1st. Edition Monster Manual, as the creatures are largely the same way.
I'm trying to wrap my head around how long it takes people to write up a monster, NPC and PC for Pathfinder. A monster takes me about 15-20 minutes, less for NPC and maybe 20-30 minutes for a PC. What are these hours people talk about to create them? How does it take hours to write down the numbers and do arithmetic for a 10d10 HD outsider with some SLAs and resistances? NPC's are super easy because there's literally hundreds of them that you can easily modify from the NPC codex, modules and AP's and then rename them if you're that concerned about time.
System mastery makes a huge difference here. I can make a first-level PC pretty quickly, but the time goes up exponentially with level. I'm constantly cross-checking to make sure that I understand some bit of rulestext, and so on. Your point about SRD database of NPCs is certainly taken, though; whether it's salient to the tradeoffs of the new edition depends on how back-compatible statblocks are and how much Paizo/3pp blasts the content hose out of the gate.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
About a month ago a friend of mine decided to run Carrion Crown. He decided that he wanted to switch out some of the vermin and haunts of the adventure for undead, and he wanted them to be interesting. I offered to build them for him with the Simple Monster Creation rules from Pathfinder Unchained. We decided on four creatures, a CR 1/2 skeletal dog, a CR 1/2 skeletal villager, a CR 1 skeletal mage/healer, and a CR 1 zombie tank. Making these creatures with classic rules, using all the charts and such, probably would've taken me an hour, possibly an hour and a half.
In half an hour I had them complete. The zombie tank didn't have enough hit points, so I used some of the advice in the book and decided to give it the HP for a CR 2, but to keep it from hitting too hard (fitting my friend's design goals) I gave it the damage of a CR 1/2. For the healer mage, I combined two abilities. Magic Attack doesn't allow negative energy, but has an infinite number of uses, while Channel Energy has 8 uses/day and deals the damage I listed in a 30 ft. radius burst (with a save), so I went with an 8/day ranged touch negative energy bolt.
Sorry about the formatting, I didn't feel like trying to tag all of these.
Skeleton Dog CR/HD 1/2
Init +6; Perception +5 (darkvision 60 ft.)
Size small; Speed 40 ft.
Defenses
AC 13 (touch 13, flat-footed 13); Fort +1, Ref +1, Will +2; CMD 12 (16 vs. trip)
hp 11; DR 5/bludgeoning; Immune cold, mindless, undead traits
Attacks
Melee bite +1 (1d4+3 plus trip)
CMB -1 (+3 trip)
Statistics
Str +3, Dex +2, Wis +1; Stealth +5
XP 200; NE undead
Skeleton Townsfolk CR/HD 1/2
Init +7; Perception +5 (darkvision 60 ft.)
Size medium; Speed 30 ft.
Defenses
AC 11 (touch 10, flat-footed 10); Fort +0, Ref +3, Will +2; CMD 11
hp 10; DR 5/bludgeoning; Immune cold, mindless, undead traits
Attacks
Melee 2 claws -2 (1d4+2)
CMB +1
Statistics
Dex +3, Str +2, Wis +1
XP 200; NE undead
Skeleton Necrothrower CR/HD 1
Init +7; Perception +6 (darkvision 60 ft.)
Size medium; Speed 30 ft.
Defenses
AC 12 (touch 10, flat-footed 10); Fort +1, Ref +3, Will +4; CMD 12
hp 15; DR 5/bludgeoning; Immune cold, mindless, undead traits
Attacks
Melee claws +1 (1d4+2 plus 1 negative energy)
Ranged necrotic bolt (range 30 ft.) +2 ranged touch (2d6 negative energy) 8/day
CMB +2
Statistics
Dex +3, Cha +2, Str +1
XP 400; NE undead
Zombie Juggernaut CR/HD 1
Init +0; Perception +6 (darkvision 60 ft.)
Size medium; Speed 20 ft.
Defenses
AC 16 (touch 6, flat-footed 16); Fort +2, Ref +2, Will +3; CMD 14
hp 26; DR 5/slashing; Immune mindless, undead traits
Attacks
Melee slam +2 (1d6+2)
CMB +2
Statistics
Str +2, Cha +1
Special Qualities staggered
XP 400; NE undead
The system was relatively simple, flavorful, and straightforward, and a heck of a lot faster than the other method once I was used to it.
Edit: And they don't have skills because mindless undead don't get them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seconded so very very very hard.
The fact that 3.5 and PF use the exact same sets of rules and assumptions for PCs as for NPCs and monsters is probably THE biggest allure of the system for me as a GM, and I know I'm not alone in that regard.
I agree with this. One of the things I disliked about the version of D&D that came after 3rd was that the PC and NPC version of a monster could be completely different.
If the GM can't get something in the ballpark of where he wants it I'm find with him saying the monster has a +3 to attack or a penalty to saves because <insert reason>. Hoever, as a GM and player I prefer for all creatures to have the same base.
WTF. That's one of the system's biggest strengths.Seconded so very very very hard.
The fact that 3.5 and PF use the exact same sets of rules and assumptions for PCs as for NPCs and monsters is probably THE biggest allure of the system for me as a GM, and I know I'm not alone in that regard.
Exactly.
(You do realize that "allure" means "something that appeals and draws me to it" right?)
I’m guessing he saw “allure” and mistakenly thought it said “failure”.
So, overall, I'm not too thrilled about what we're getting (Goblins as PC races? No thanks. Catfolk would be way more interesting to me).
My biggest fear though is that you'll use Starfinder's NPC/monster creation system. Which is awful. Please don't. Stick with the 3/3.5/PF system. All creatures should be running off the same ruleset.
No. 100 times no. As a GM I’m done with Pathfinder because dealing with all the stupid details with feats and skills and class abilities and blah blah blah that I need to do just to scale different monsters is fatiguing.
Simplify the monsters so they can be easily run on the fly would be a win. Monsters following the same rules as player characters is good in theory, but in actual practice isn’t.
I know this is a few months late, but I agree here. The creation rules for Starfinder mean I can spend ONE DAY on making a session, and everything is complete. A real NPC gets a proper player creation go through, but for monsters to fight, or townsfolk to befriend and work alongside, the monsters and templates numbers are great.
And I've never run one straight off the numbers given in the CR chart, so players have never had the chance to memorise the table and just "know" an appropriate level monster's EAC or KAC, attack bonuses, etc.
I'm even making monsters FOR FUN with the Starfinder rules, and keeping the feats that only pump a stat "out of sight" is great too, seeing you're only aware of the feats that give an in-combat action (power attack listed, improved initiative buffs and disappears).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know about the monster creation but at least npcs can be created the same way as pcs
I was thankful for the easy to use starfinder creation rules, but I see why some think of them as suboptimal
And as Charlatan said - the easy way to make monsters and adversaries make it really incredibly easy to make monsters for a new session
heck there was a site that put the rules into a tool and you could build a monster in less then 5 minutes in the middle of the darn session - THAT can be a lifesaver
no chance if every npc and monster is build with the full vreation set
I would build every halfway important npcs by hand, but for monsters and a-dime-a-dozen adversaries - PLEASE gimme those easy creation rules
I for one love the focus on easy monster building in PF2e. If you want NPCs to be built as PCs, they've said explicitly that the rules for that still work. I'm probably still going to not do that, but it's there if you want it. It's partially a matter of time, but also partially just a whole matter of having to cudgel the damn system to make it work. I've GMed systems where enemies and PCs are built the same, but those tend to be classless (usually point buy) systems. In those, it's super easy to build enemies and PCs the same way, because you know the parameters of everything, and can just build to what works in those parameters. The monster creation system that PF1e uses makes it stupid easy to under- or over-build monsters, in terms of power level, so it's never just as simple as creating a monster (as if even that wasn't a time sink), it's always build a monster, then find ways to tone it up or down so it's actually reasonable for the PC's level and the intended threat of the monster.
PF2e doesn't ask me to do that, and without even seeing the finished product, even if it's like starfinder, that's way better than PF1e.