RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is very true. Having written and developed hundreds of monsters in PF1, the idea that they "work like PCs" is at best misleading. It would be better to say "they sort of seem like they work like PCs, but not really." Let's say we're building a high CR martial-oriented fey in PF1. I don't know, maybe the wild hunt leader. Linda built those and they were awesome. You're not going to look at the CR and be like "Oh well that CR means it has that many Hit Dice." You're going to instead be more like "Oh, I need to hit how many HP with those d6 fey Hit Dice? OK, how many HD and how much Con do I need to give so that I can do that and hit a reasonable Fort bonus without blowing the Will or Dex into the stratosphere because they are strong." It's a constraint propagation problem (like the popular sudoku for those not into algorithms/AI) that isn't anything like how a PC works, since you have free access to manipulate the variables until they give you the numbers you want, it just takes a long time and gives you weird results you might not need like "Well, I guess now that I gave my monster 40 HD, it has 20 feats to assign." The best indicators of just how much it's a misdirect are any monster that has a bespoke racial bonus to the DC of an ability like the PF1 imp "The save DC is Constitution-based, and includes a +2 racial bonus." That basically just means "Even sudokuing the stats didn't give me the number I wanted, so I just raised it anyway." Really it's no different than just picking reasonable numbers.As for monsters, that was just a hassle. Looking through several stat-tweak feats just to see if Combat Reflexes is there, having space taken up by abilities that exist just to get around pre-requisites, having to reverse-engineer skill mods on familiars to see what ranks they had... it was messy and took up time. Hit dice had to outscale CR, so it was only so PC-like anyhow.
Mark, I completely agree that this is a problem with PF1 monster design. I'd argue that this doesn't require the solution to be that monsters use different rules than PCS though. If instead you broke apart creature type from HD/BAB, you could solve for this problem and still use the same rules for PCs. If creature types were more limited in what game affects they had, acting more lile subtypes in that they'd give some abilities, and HD and saves and attack bonuses instead were tied to monster role, you could have a martial, a caster, and a skilled/hybrid role monster progression which could each be used by any creature type, and still use the same rules chassis as PCs.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess, if you want to fiat literally everything you didn't intend to use that creature for.
For example, a Pathfinder cat has +6 to climb, including the +4 racial (so, basically, a completelly ad-hoc value, pretty similar to basically just giving it fiat).
That means a cat is quite worse at climbing than the average mammoth, which has +11 to climbing based on STR alone. Because rules are rules, and you HAVE to give +11 to mammoth because they HAVE to follow the rules for PCs. So mammoths HAVE to be better at climbing than cats.
|
For example, a Pathfinder cat has +6 to climb, including the +4 racial (so, basically, a completelly ad-hoc value).
That means a cat is quite worse at climbing than the average mammoth, which has +11 to climbing based on STR alone. Because rules are rules, and you HAVE to give +11 to mammoth because they HAVE to follow the rules for PCs. So mammoths HAVE to be better at climbing than cats.
In this example, it doesn't matter what ability scores you associate climbing with, it won't stop the mammoth from climbing, because you've decided to follow rules that don't require grasping appendages.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In this example, it doesn't matter what ability scores you associate climbing with, it won't stop the mammoth from climbing, because you've decided to follow rules that don't require grasping appendages.For example, a Pathfinder cat has +6 to climb, including the +4 racial (so, basically, a completelly ad-hoc value).
That means a cat is quite worse at climbing than the average mammoth, which has +11 to climbing based on STR alone. Because rules are rules, and you HAVE to give +11 to mammoth because they HAVE to follow the rules for PCs. So mammoths HAVE to be better at climbing than cats.
I follow those rules to allow cats climb. ;)
EDIT: Also, trunks are grasping appendages.
It needs to be better than just increasing those traits' numbers. For example, a CR 12 creature has more and stronger (in scope, not just value) traits than a CR 4 creature. There would need to be a system similar to the PC level system where a monster gains "monster feats" and other additional abilities that can be specialized to that given monster.
This is a big issue with monster advancement in P1E right now, as increasing a monster's HD does not increase its actually difficulty by 1 CR unless it gets super inflated. The designer needs to figure out how the scope of its abilities change as the monster increases in CR, and that requires some home-brewed decisions.
This seems like something pretty easy to do, though. "Every X monster levels, gain Y feats (or whatever)." The new approach certainly seems to work better for this.
Mark, I completely agree that this is a problem with PF1. I'd argue that this doesn't require the solution to be that monsters use different rules than PCS though. If instead you broke apart creature type from HD/BAB, you could solve for this problem and still use the same rules for PCs. If creature types were more limited in what game affects they had, acting more lile subtypes in that they'd give some abilities, and HD and saves and attack bonuses instead were tied to monster role, you could have a martial, a caster, and a skilled/hybrid role monster progression which could each be used by any creature type, and still use the same rules chassis as PCs.
Listen to how much more work that is for so little gain, and it's still very wonky. You have to fight against the system itself to do things it wasn't meant to do. The monsters still have attacks, saves, and hit points, so they still run on the same basic chassis. Trying to force them to operate in every way like PCs is both unnecessary and actively fighting against rules that weren't meant to portray that.
|
|
In this example, it doesn't matter what ability scores you associate climbing with, it won't stop the mammoth from climbing, because you've decided to follow rules that don't require grasping appendages.For example, a Pathfinder cat has +6 to climb, including the +4 racial (so, basically, a completelly ad-hoc value).
That means a cat is quite worse at climbing than the average mammoth, which has +11 to climbing based on STR alone. Because rules are rules, and you HAVE to give +11 to mammoth because they HAVE to follow the rules for PCs. So mammoths HAVE to be better at climbing than cats.
I follow those rules to allow cats climb. ;)
EDIT: Also, trunks are grasping appendages.
I see that this discussion is getting pedantic and tangential.
Back on-topic, Mark's posts are, as always, encouraging hints at P2E's new maths.
One thing I really do not want is for an ability to work one way for PCs and a different way for NPCs.
|
|
On that note the reason Starfinders math was presented the way it was was to make fights more consistent and less swingy.
This is, as noted, less necessary in PF2 since its math has been redesigned from the ground up for this purpose, while Starfinder was somewhat tied to PF1 math.
Personally I have literally never looked at a bestiary monster and thought "how do they get that number".
I do this all the time. It's an interesting and useful exercise in the current edition. I'd slightly prefer to be able to do the same in PF2, but it's hardly a deal breaker.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm 100% okay with PCs and NPCs being built with different rules, as long as the results can be interpreted in ways that clearly link narrative reality with game mechanics.
PC classes need to be balanced enough that different players don't feel left out, but stuff that a PC can do repeatedly might be broken, while an NPC who only lives for 4 rounds of combat can get away with it without breaking the setting.
What I don't want is stuff like, "Oh, he's CR 10? Okay, his AC is 25. Why? Because."
4e did this poorly.
Like, 4e had this super basic guideline -- too basic in fact. Pick the challenge rating. Most monsters have a base AC of 14, then a Fort/Reflex/Will defense of 12. You add the monster's level to that to get the final defense. Soldiers have base AC 16, brutes base AC 12, and you might push one defense up a point or two and the others down, but that was it.
Why does the CR 10 orc chieftain have AC 24, and the CR 10 dragon have AC 24, and the CR 10 drow duelist have AC 24? Because. There were no mechanics that interacted with gear, or lowered ability scores, or anything like that. You might get a bonus to attack, but you'd never change your opponent's defense.
It made for an okay tactical game, but for roleplaying, you want the mechanics to be clearly associated with the world.
How to do it well.
Actually, I liked some of the ideas of 4e, not the execution. It was handy having some guidelines for different styles of monster having different stats, and trying to keep the math simple so enemies were easy to design.
'Lurkers' had fewer HP, and tended to do spike damage -- they require a round of setup, but do high damage that round. Otherwise they're not that threatening, but they might hide well, or phase into walls, or fly overhead waiting for an opening to strike.
'Soldiers' didn't do a lot of damage, but they had higher defenses. 'Brutes' did a lot of damage but were easy to hit. 'Controllers' were generally vulnerable and did little damage, but applied status effects more easily. 'Artillery' were precise at range, but not a big threat once you got up close.
A typical encounter had 4 or 5 normal enemies with CR equal to your level.
Then there were 'elites' whose defenses and attack bonuses were the same as other monsters of their CR, but they were worth double XP, and basically had twice as many HP and either took more actions or did double damage. You'd use them for skilled foes, so instead of 4 normal foes, there might be two elites, or one elite and some minions.
Finally, there were 'solos,' enemies intended to be able to take on a whole party at once. Early designs were a bit wobbly, but eventually they figured out the importance of action economy, and built solos so you couldn't trade one PC action to deny the 5x power of a solo. Like, if you tried to stun a dragon, it'd just lose one of its attacks.
But you want the stats to be derived from something real in the narrative.
With PF2, maybe there's a table that says, "A CR 10 soldier's target AC is 25. Start with this suite of ability scores - 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8. Once you've determined their Dexterity modifier, give the NPC armor and/or a shield. If their AC is still below 25, give them up to +5 AC from a dodge bonus, which reflects an agile fighting style. It's alright to have an AC below 25, but if you go above 25 know that you're making the foe more resilient than usual for his CR."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In this example, it doesn't matter what ability scores you associate climbing with, it won't stop the mammoth from climbing, because you've decided to follow rules that don't require grasping appendages.For example, a Pathfinder cat has +6 to climb, including the +4 racial (so, basically, a completelly ad-hoc value).
That means a cat is quite worse at climbing than the average mammoth, which has +11 to climbing based on STR alone. Because rules are rules, and you HAVE to give +11 to mammoth because they HAVE to follow the rules for PCs. So mammoths HAVE to be better at climbing than cats.
I follow those rules to allow cats climb. ;)
EDIT: Also, trunks are grasping appendages.
I see that this discussion is getting pedantic and tangential.
Back on-topic, Mark's posts are, as always, encouraging hints at P2E's new maths.
I beg your perdon if I sounded pedantic, but I disagree it's tangential. It's a direct consequence of using rules created with PC in mind, to build monsters.
Climbing ask for a "free hand". Pythons don't have free hands, therefore they are bad climbers.
Climbing is based on strength. That makes lions better at climbing than cats, because they are stronger. It also makes male lions better climbers than lionesses, just to stay in the same kind of appendages.
Now, PF1 solve many of this issues, because they break the rules they say they follow, and give totally ad-hoc fiat stuff to monsters when needed (such as a totally fiat +4 to climb to cats, just to offeset the fact that they have a pretty low climbing stat by the rules). They give "climb movement speed" to pythons. And so on. The thing is, if they already ignore the PC creation rules as a standard basis, giving ad-hoc fiat stuff to monsters whenever they feel they need it... why the struggle against the rules? Why not make it a rule, instead of an exception that is then used basically in every other monster?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I beg your perdon if I sounded pedantic, but I disagree it's tangential. It's a direct consequence of using rules created with PC in mind, to build monsters.
Climbing ask for a "free hand". Pythons don't have free hands, therefore they are bad climbers.
Climbing is based on strength. That makes lions better at climbing than cats, because they are stronger. It also makes male lions better climbers than lionesses, just to stay in the same kind of appendages.Now, PF1 solve many of this issues, because they break the rules they say they follow, and give totally ad-hoc fiat stuff to monsters when needed (such as a totally fiat +4 to climb to cats, just to offeset the fact that they have a pretty low climbing stat by the rules). They give "climb movement speed" to pythons. And so on. The thing is, if they already ignore the PC creation rules as a standard basis, giving ad-hoc fiat stuff to monsters whenever they feel they need it... why the struggle against the rules? Why not make it a rule, instead of an exception that is then used basically in every other monster?
What rules are they breaking? Climb speeds and racial bonuses to skills, while "ad-hoc", are also abilities that PCs can gain. Everything aside from a monster's abilities, which are the true exceptions that allow it to deviate from the norm, follow the same rules that a PC can expect to follow.
This is completely different from removing a monster's ability scores and skills because the GM won't directly use them, which is something I get wary of when monsters following different rules than PCs is brought up. For an extreme, check out how Numenera handles PC-NPC interactions.
Yes, but climb speed and racial bonuses to climb exist to "fix the problem" that arise with Pythons and Cats being pretty bad climbers by the rules, because the rules for monsters climbing follow the rules for PC climbings, and plenty of the assumptions that work for PC (such as "it's an humanoid, has hands, needs those hands to climb, and the stronger he is, the better he climbs") are not assumptions valid for snakes, small felines, elephants, or oozes. Then you need an exception for the exception, and so on.
A cat in PF2 would have climb listed, just like it has in PF1, because it's something that is relevant for a cat. An elephant would not, just like an elephant does not in PF1 too. The difference is you no longer work with the assumption than an elephant has +11 to climb because it has +33 to STR.
|
|
The P1E elephant stat block doesn't include climb as a skill either. In order to remove the implicit association between strength and climbing, you need to remove ability scores from monsters entirely. This has side effects like, for example, needing to specify how much a beast of burden like a trained elephant can pull (or making do with "a lot"), instead of just basing it off of that creature's strength.
Perhaps climb was a bad example to get specific about given that, from what I understand, it's been folded into Athletics? You'd still need state that the elephant can't use Athletics to climb, unless monsters can't use PC skills at all, creating another visible disconnect between them and PCs.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The P1E elephant stat block doesn't include climb as a skill either. In order to remove the implicit association between strength and climbing, you need to remove ability scores from monsters entirely. This has side effects like, for example, needing to specify how much a beast of burden like a trained elephant can pull (or making do with "a lot"), instead of just basing it off of that creature's strength.
No, you have to remove the association that Skills for Monsters are calculated like Skills for PC.
Like, the assumption that a cat "has" to have climb X because that's the number of ranks he can put based on the number of hit dice, plus "class skill" modifier, plus the ability modifier, plus a racial modifier, and in order to have more, he needs to level up and raise the number of HD (and thus the HP, BAB, and saves). A cat could have Climb 12 because it makes sense that cats are pretty good at climbing, without being forced to give them either huge strength, or a big pool of HD (and hp, BAB and saves because of that) so he can have enough ranks.The fact that PC add STR to climb even if they are not trained at it does not mean elephants HAVE to follow the same guidelines. Just like it makes sense that humans can't climb without free hands, but pythons do.
|
|
No, you have to remove the association that Skills for Monsters are calculated like Skills for PC.
Like, the assumption that a cat "has" to have climb X because that's the number of ranks he can put based on the number of hit dice, plus "class skill" modifier, plus the ability modifier, plus a racial modifier, and in order to have more, he needs to level up and raise the number of HD (and thus the HP, BAB, and saves). A cat could have Climb 12 because it makes sense that cats are pretty good at climbing, without being forced to give them either huge strength, or a big pool of HD (and hp, BAB and saves because of that) so he can have enough ranks.The fact that PC add STR to climb even if they are not trained at it does not mean elephants HAVE to follow the same guidelines. Just like it makes sense that humans can't climb without free hands, but pythons do.
So how does the GM decide how well the elephant climbs (or stealths or drags or swims) when these aren't listed because the designer didn't assume they would be needed?
Improvise.
Because ultimately the designer can only do so much if your players insist on dropping elephants into pits.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So how does the GM decide how well the elephant climbs (or stealths or drags or swims) when these aren't listed because the designer didn't assume they would be needed?No, you have to remove the association that Skills for Monsters are calculated like Skills for PC.
Like, the assumption that a cat "has" to have climb X because that's the number of ranks he can put based on the number of hit dice, plus "class skill" modifier, plus the ability modifier, plus a racial modifier, and in order to have more, he needs to level up and raise the number of HD (and thus the HP, BAB, and saves). A cat could have Climb 12 because it makes sense that cats are pretty good at climbing, without being forced to give them either huge strength, or a big pool of HD (and hp, BAB and saves because of that) so he can have enough ranks.The fact that PC add STR to climb even if they are not trained at it does not mean elephants HAVE to follow the same guidelines. Just like it makes sense that humans can't climb without free hands, but pythons do.
I have been playing this hobby for 25+ years. I have never needed to decide how well an elephant climb. I expect the same the next 25+ years.
Why would I want a rule for something I won't need?
EDIT: If I absolutely need to, because some unforeseen circumstance, to decide how well an elephant climbs, in the next 25 years, I'd go with common sense ("pretty badly. no need to check") instead of following a rule that makes no sense ("awesome, because it's based on strength").
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really strongly don't like this, because it is pushing a very wide range of entities into a small number of extremely conservative boxes.
Actually, I liked some of the ideas of 4e, not the execution. It was handy having some guidelines for different styles of monster having different stats, and trying to keep the math simple so enemies were easy to design.'Lurkers' had fewer HP, and tended to do spike damage -- they require a round of setup, but do high damage that round. Otherwise they're not that threatening, but they might hide well, or phase into walls, or fly overhead waiting for an opening to strike.
'Soldiers' didn't do a lot of damage, but they had higher defenses. 'Brutes' did a lot of damage but were easy to hit. 'Controllers' were generally vulnerable and did little damage, but...
As opposed to unofficially monsters serving the same exact roles? All 4E did there (and I liked the concept, if not the execution) was codify something that had already existed. It made it easier to design monsters to fulfill certain roles, which they already would try to fulfill anyway.
I mean, compared to a wide range of 1HD humanoid creatures who all serve almost the same exact purpose? What does this approach lose, rather than gain by having guidelines for different functions? This wide range of entities you mention almost all fall into the same categories, anyway, only without strong guidelines to help them serve that role.
I really strongly don't like this, because it is pushing a very wide range of entities into a small number of extremely conservative boxes.
Starfinder only has three boxes, combatant, expert, and spellcaster. But what they also have is a wide variety of grafts that can be added to change the theme and abilities of the three basic boxes and complete permission to GM fiat as needed especially in the special abilities. If I need a fly person to have full ability to crawl on floors and ceilings I can just type up a Wall Crawler special ability that says exactly that.
I don’t want my NPCs to be boring to play. One of the things I really like about PF, and to be honest it’s strongest strength for me in opposition to 5E which I like too, is its complexity.
So yeah sometimes it is too much. Too many skills, useless or overly specific feats, and numbers. But every time your players come across a Martial Artist for example, they don’t know if he is a Figther, a Core or Unchained Monk or a Brawler. Because you could have built a decent vilain with each of theses classes. NPCs in 5E are boring as **** to play, even more when compared to the PCs who can do 4 actions a round at level 3.
What we need is quick class archetypes and numbers if you got to use a guard or something, but otherwise just let’s keep the fun NPCs to play. I will always remember the face of my group the first time they got in a fight with a fluid Monk. That was gold.
And this is not for make the game hard. I got easy on my players most of the time. But easy does not means boring or simple.
In games like the qxyoher system you got intrusions to make things interesting. In games like Warhammer you got the omnipresent letality of the system. Same for L5R. Moreover these games are way less focused on the rules than Pathfinder.
In PF you got Races/Classes/Archetypes and I love that. Of course I am only speaking of the rules part. Roleplay is very important too. But I like my variety of options.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seems to me the primary problem here isn't "monsters aren't built like PCs" it's "creature type is unavoidably linked to one chassis for HD". That's really easy to fix without removing symmetry.
Well, "creature type is unavoidably linked to one chassis for HD" is a part of the problem for a fey warrior, but not for the imp that actually needed the deepest kludge of a bespoke bonus (especially given outsider is the most flexible possible chassis), but there isn't actually real symmetry between PCs and monsters in PF1, just the illusion of symmetry. That doesn't mean there is no value in that; the illusion of symmetry can make the result feel "more legitimate" in a strange intangible way that using benchmarks could seem "handwavey" in a similar way, but the truth is that there's not really a difference other than the difficulty of sudokuing to get to the right numbers.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is exactly the method of designing 3.x/PF monsters that I was disliking earlier in the thread. It's like you've taken all the benefits of the 3.x/PF monster system and deliberately set thing up for them to work against you. My understanding is that this "backwards" (to me)monster design comes from being assigned a CR to start and trying to reverse engineer everything to fit within that parameter.
To me, if you want to design a monster that actually flows and works well within the PF1e system, you pick abilities and stats that seem reasonable from its story role in the setting. This monster has a 22 Strength because it's a little bit stronger than the strongest real-world humans. It has a +4 natural armor because it's got a thick hide but not a shell. It has 7 HD because it's Large and a little tough. Then just let the derived stats fall where they may and assign a CR based on what you get. I've used this version in home games for decades and it works great for me.
I do understand my idealized version works much better for a home GM designing a monster rather than a professional designer told to have a monster of CR5 by Friday. The thing is, as a home GM, I'd much rather have "designers have to fudge the occasional number, GMs have a system that makes internal sense," than "all numbers are just fudged."
Except it doesn't work.
Let's say I want to build a high level martial fey, for my game, which we are currently playing at 17th level. I'm going to build a high level swordmaster of the fair folk, for example.
Let's start by the first problem: Feys have 1/2 BAB. Soooo my high level swordmaster attack is going to suck, badly. How can I change that? I can give him more strength. But we are talking about lvl 18 CR here. He is like 9 points below full BAB. I "could" give him STR 40 or something to compensate, but that does not make sense at all, does it? He is a fairly good swordmaster, but he's not hulk. Even STR 20 might be a stretch. I could give him Finesse, though....
Again, your issue is that you start with CR and work backwards. If you start with concept and work forwards, yes your monster may not be an appropriate challenge for your current party, but you don't have to throw the monster away. I've got pages of home-designed monsters that I keep and pull out when they're appropriate.
Also, when I run non-AP games, my adventures can be very sandbox and thus all challenges are what they are. They don't relate to the PCs level much at all. (I'm actually concerned about how well PF2e will even support this style of play. I'm getting a sense that the system will break down when two individuals of vastly different levels (>10 difference)interact, but I'm waiting until I see the playtest to be sure.)
Also on a monster stat note, please please please don't go the route of stripping away SLAs form creatures like outsiders to make them "simpler." When a demon has 20 SLAs, five of which are actually useful in combat, you know what the other 15 are - adventure hooks.
"Simplified" NPCs make me very nervous because I'm very much a "use every part of the NPC" sort of GM. I can't think of any part of a PF1e monster/NPC stat block that I haven't needed at some point while running a game. I may not need to know this session whether the ogre has an odd Knowledge skill or some weird prereq feat, but I sure might need to know it another time. In fact I wish there was more information in PF1e stat blocks - skill ranks in addition to total modifiers, for example.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm getting a sense that the system will break down when two individuals of vastly different levels (>10 difference)interact, but I'm waiting until I see the playtest to be sure.)
Uh...PF1 already breaks down pretty completely in the face of that kind of level difference. Really, I think breakdowns of this sort are inevitable if you want level to matter, which PF2 clearly intends it to.
Also on a monster stat note, please please please don't go the route of stripping away SLAs form creatures like outsiders to make them "simpler." When a demon has 20 SLAs, five of which are actually useful in combat, you know what the other 15 are - adventure hooks.
"Simplified" NPCs make me very nervous because I'm very much a "use every part of the NPC" sort of GM. I can't think of any part of a PF1e monster/NPC stat block that I haven't needed at some point while running a game. I may not need to know this session whether the ogre has an odd Knowledge skill or some weird prereq feat, but I sure might need to know it another time. In fact I wish there was more information in PF1e stat blocks - skill ranks in addition to total modifiers, for example.
This however I strongly agree with. It's the whole reason I can't run D&D5e, actually. Their monster design is, in most cases, almost exclusively in-combat abilities making it impossible to tell what the monsters in question are capable of outside a fight, and thus what role it can serve in the world. I just can't deal with it.
That said, dropping the total number slightly wouldn't be the end of the world as long as they still have what's necessary to fit their in-universe niche, including their out of combat options in that regard.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hope they include bloodied as a thing, because that was actually a pretty nifty mechanic for shifting momentum in a fight.
[I really liked DnD4e's bloodied, and the various rule interactions with it. Also, it screatched an itch my brother and I had decades ago about the lack of effect of hit point loss, Gygaxian concepts of HP as an abstraction notwithstanding....]
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm getting a sense that the system will break down when two individuals of vastly different levels (>10 difference)interact, but I'm waiting until I see the playtest to be sure.)Uh...PF1 already breaks down pretty completely in the face of that kind of level difference. Really, I think breakdowns of this sort are inevitable if you want level to matter, which PF2 clearly intends it to.
I'll admit here I'm thinking mostly in terms of skills - I like how in PF1e low level character's skill investment creates a situation where they can compete with high level characters who have not invested in the skill - a 1st level castle guard can still detect a 10th level fighter in full plate with no Stealth ranks. That's a feature to me. It's also a feature that the actual skilled 10th level character can basically ignore those guards.
But the skill system is mostly a tangent in this thread so I'll leave it at that.
|
|
I'll admit here I'm thinking mostly in terms of skills - I like how in PF1e low level character's skill investment creates a situation where they can compete with high level characters who have not invested in the skill - a 1st level castle guard can still detect a 10th level fighter in full plate with no Stealth ranks. That's a feature to me. It's also a feature that the actual skilled 10th level character can basically ignore those guards.
But the skill system is mostly a tangent in this thread so I'll leave it at that.
We actually don't know exactly how such match ups will work. Mark cited an 11-12 point difference between a specialist and someone utterly unskilled in a skill at 7th level.
Now, every level someone has on you narrows that, as does being Trained, but even so, a real specialist might well be able to effect relatively unskilled people 5 or 7 levels higher, depending.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And of course the fun part comes when you have to play with benchmarks and abilities so a momster is actually rewarding to defeat rather than a slog or outright deadly.. I remember a criticism of a 3pp monster i qrote that said the monatera hp was a bit low from its cr. It kind of failed to mention that the monster itself killed people in their sleep invisibly from a separate plane of existence. So the CR wasnt a measure of its ability but a stop gap to ensure gms didnt try to put it in front of players incapable of handling its weirdness before they were ready.And no one can be perfect about this. Bestiary 1 orcs bein an early example.
Yes, this very much so!
Now all that being said, this is for adversaries, monsters most often (NPCs in PF1 you don't have the toggles you do with monsters, so you usually just put up with the numbers being really problematic or use tricks like prebuff spells or one-use items if you are allowed a tactics entry). For PF2, we wanted the best of both worlds: the ability to fully use the PC system for NPCs and get a great NPC if you want to spend the time and have the cognitive load of remembering all those feats (possibly for multiple NPCs at once), and the ability to stat NPCs quickly that are less complicated to run but still are fun adversaries or allies.
This gives me hope :3
Mark, I completely agree that this is a problem with PF1 monster design. I'd argue that this doesn't require the solution to be that monsters use different rules than PCS though. If instead you broke apart creature type from HD/BAB, you could solve for this problem and still use the same rules for PCs. If creature types were more limited in what game affects they had, acting more lile subtypes in that they'd give some abilities, and HD and saves and attack bonuses instead were tied to monster role, you could have a martial, a caster, and a skilled/hybrid role monster progression which could each be used by any creature type, and still use the same rules chassis as PCs.
Agree, I think this was one the best ideas in 4th, basically you eliminate Racial HDs, all Monsters becomes Races with LA that use NPC classes, and Level = CR, maybe one day we will see it :)
About the last time I ever played the EverQuest RPG (which I really loved)Still nice to see people enjoying earlier projects I worked on. :)
Well, then it's my pleasure (and more than a little honor) to meet you! If it helps, my complaints are with the basic D20 engine, but you folks did some great stuff with it. I have many fond memories of playing in that setting, especially with my Iksar Monk. To this day, still easily one of my favorite settings, and we certainly had a lot of fun.
One thing I also liked was that races were powerful compared to the norm in that game. I'm hoping that the addition of Ancestry Feats and the like takes lessons from all the cool stuff you did on the EQRPG, and may its spirit live on! (Or at least let's go on a corpse run to go get it....)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not at all uncommon for an elephant to need to ascend or descend a slope steep enough to force a climb check. Sure logic dictates an elephant isn't going to be able to ascend a vertical cliff-face, but that's not the only scenario where climb is needed.So how does the GM decide how well the elephant climbs (or stealths or drags or swims) when these aren't listed because the designer didn't assume they would be needed?No, you have to remove the association that Skills for Monsters are calculated like Skills for PC.
Like, the assumption that a cat "has" to have climb X because that's the number of ranks he can put based on the number of hit dice, plus "class skill" modifier, plus the ability modifier, plus a racial modifier, and in order to have more, he needs to level up and raise the number of HD (and thus the HP, BAB, and saves). A cat could have Climb 12 because it makes sense that cats are pretty good at climbing, without being forced to give them either huge strength, or a big pool of HD (and hp, BAB and saves because of that) so he can have enough ranks.The fact that PC add STR to climb even if they are not trained at it does not mean elephants HAVE to follow the same guidelines. Just like it makes sense that humans can't climb without free hands, but pythons do.
I have been playing this hobby for 25+ years. I have never needed to decide how well an elephant climb. I expect the same the next 25+ years.
Why would I want a rule for something I won't need?
EDIT: If I absolutely need to, because some unforeseen circumstance, to decide how well an elephant climbs, in the next 25 years, I'd go with common sense ("pretty badly. no need to check") instead of following a rule that makes no sense ("awesome, because it's based on strength").
Common sense is still a better answer for that than "the elephant will roll with +11 because that is what he gets if we follow PC rules".
Pick a DC for your steep slope. Now try to imagine who "should" have an easier time climbing it, an elephant or a cat. Now check who would, if you follow PC rules for them.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, your issue is that you start with CR and work backwards.
Yes. Because if I'm designing a Fey Swordmaster to be the BBEG for my game this weekend and my players are level 17, giving it random stats and producing a fey that happens to be CR5 does not help me at all.
I hope they include bloodied as a thing, because that was actually a pretty nifty mechanic for shifting momentum in a fight.[I really liked DnD4e's bloodied, and the various rule interactions with it. Also, it screatched an itch my brother and I had decades ago about the lack of effect of hit point loss, Gygaxian concepts of HP as an abstraction notwithstanding....]
I think Starfinder version is better
I think Starfinder version is betterI hope they include bloodied as a thing, because that was actually a pretty nifty mechanic for shifting momentum in a fight.[I really liked DnD4e's bloodied, and the various rule interactions with it. Also, it screatched an itch my brother and I had decades ago about the lack of effect of hit point loss, Gygaxian concepts of HP as an abstraction notwithstanding....]
Starfinder doesn't have any effects on becoming "bloodied" / running out of Stamina.
Unless you're just talking about the existence of Stamina as a separate pool from HP to begin with. In which case, yes, I do like that, and like how Stamina recovers faster. The combined total of HP and stamina is too high for my tastes, but I know that's because there are so few options for healing in Starfinder; it just feels off. In PF, I would probably just say half your HP is actual HP, and the other half is Stamina.
I have not played Starfinder, yet, but the two point pools (Stamina & Hit Points) and two ACs (E & K) really puts me off, for some reason. I am very pleased Flat-footed is now a condition, but it looks like Touch is in, which I don't think is necessary, now that everyone has the same attack bonus and use their spellcasting modifier for spell attacks.I think Starfinder version is betterI hope they include bloodied as a thing, because that was actually a pretty nifty mechanic for shifting momentum in a fight.[I really liked DnD4e's bloodied, and the various rule interactions with it. Also, it screatched an itch my brother and I had decades ago about the lack of effect of hit point loss, Gygaxian concepts of HP as an abstraction notwithstanding....]Starfinder doesn't have any effects on becoming "bloodied" / running out of Stamina.
Unless you're just talking about the existence of Stamina as a separate pool from HP to begin with. In which case, yes, I do like that, and like how Stamina recovers faster. The combined total of HP and stamina is too high for my tastes, but I know that's because there are so few options for healing in Starfinder; it just feels off. In PF, I would probably just say half your HP is actual HP, and the other half is Stamina.
I am actually pretty cool with touch AC as something reserved solely to be targeted by limited per day use resources. So spells and bombs, but not bullets. You can't do those things very often, so they should at least be a little more reliable when you do.
I have not played Starfinder, yet, but the two point pools (Stamina & Hit Points) and two ACs (E & K) really puts me off, for some reason. I am very pleased Flat-footed is now a condition, but it looks like Touch is in, which I don't think is necessary, now that everyone has the same attack bonus and use their spellcasting modifier for spell attacks.I think Starfinder version is betterI hope they include bloodied as a thing, because that was actually a pretty nifty mechanic for shifting momentum in a fight.[I really liked DnD4e's bloodied, and the various rule interactions with it. Also, it screatched an itch my brother and I had decades ago about the lack of effect of hit point loss, Gygaxian concepts of HP as an abstraction notwithstanding....]Starfinder doesn't have any effects on becoming "bloodied" / running out of Stamina.
Unless you're just talking about the existence of Stamina as a separate pool from HP to begin with. In which case, yes, I do like that, and like how Stamina recovers faster. The combined total of HP and stamina is too high for my tastes, but I know that's because there are so few options for healing in Starfinder; it just feels off. In PF, I would probably just say half your HP is actual HP, and the other half is Stamina.
For the AC bit in starfinder, you just have to know that SF doesn't have touch AC; EAC basically replaces it. Spells and energy weapons go against EAC rather than KAC.
For the HP vs stamina, it was both to deal with less healing being in the game and also a common issue players and GMs tend to have trouble visualizing - the fact that HP doesn't just represent actual physical damage to your character. Since the very beginning, HP has been this nebulous combination of actual physical harm, simply getting tired, and having your luck spool down when pressed. Having a stamina pool to represent the more nebulous aspects means that taking "damage" is initially just light nicks and close shaves, then once you're at actual HP you are finally taking real damage.
Anyway, as to Touch AC in PF2, they haven't clarified it yet. But I still think the best and simplest way to represent it would simply be that Touch AC = 10 + your Reflex save bonus. I guess it could still have other modifiers on top of that, like whatever enhancement bonus your magic armor gives you, but then it starts to be another complicated calculation... unless magic armor bonuses in PF2 actually DO raise your saves like the old cloak of resistance??? They did say they wanted magic armor to feel more dramatic the same way magic weapons are now more dramatic. I guess we'll see.
(Another route they could go is magic armor gives Fortification: every +1 from your armor is a 10% chance to negate critical hits. There's other things they could do too. But that is maybe getting off topic.)
Again, your issue is that you start with CR and work backwards.
Yes. Because if I'm designing a Fey Swordmaster to be the BBEG for my game this weekend and my players are level 17, giving it random stats and producing a fey that happens to be CR5 does not help me at all.
I had simple solution to that problem, I had "Prowess" (Ex): the monster gains BAB equal to its HD." Special monster ability (you could also have one that gives good save type).
I had simple solution to that problem, I had "Prowess" (Ex): the monster gains BAB equal to its HD." Special monster ability (you could also have one that gives good save type).Again, your issue is that you start with CR and work backwards.
Yes. Because if I'm designing a Fey Swordmaster to be the BBEG for my game this weekend and my players are level 17, giving it random stats and producing a fey that happens to be CR5 does not help me at all.
Yes, arbitrary ad hoc bonuses given at whim by the developers so the sudoku finally works is the standard PF solution.
I still think if you need to fill monster creation with lots of exceptions to make it work because you struggle vs the rules, it is better to change the rules
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which gets back to the arguement they were making. PF1 NPCs/Monsters don't follow the same rules as PCs, hell they don't even follow their own rules. You made up a rule to fix a problem in the system. A problem that comes up nearly every time you try to create something of a set concept and CR.
This is very important and bears reiterating a thousand times. Not only did monsters not run on the same exact rules as PCs, they didn't even run on the rules for monsters. There are so many issues with the same as it is that these types of fudges are basically a requirement, which means the system isn't working as intended.
Fixing the math and approaching it from a more practical way is going to be a huge boon for this edition.