In Starfinder, it seems like the best strategy is to recruit NPC allies and biff their damage.
It’s interesting to make diplomacy the key ability but it’s not much fun.
Different rules for PC and NPC, and different rules for PC and monsters, are two different things. Asking that an elven fighter NPC needs to use both hands to grapple because an elven fighter PC needs both hands to grapple, it is not the same than asking the same for a kraken, a python, a gelatinous cube, or a spell like Black Tentacles.
Yeah, certain monster types automatically being crap at combat and certain saves is ridiculous.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.
1/2 BAB for Undead is cool for Liches, but stupid for death knights.
The opposite is also true. Some outsiders, which are pretty much casters, have a huge BAB just because they are outsiders. If you want to give high HP pool and high DC to a devil who is a wizard-type master of contracts and spells, you give him a lot of attack bonus as a side effect.
Right now I am constructing a character from Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Lost Cities of Golarion. That supplement says, "Mightiest of Storasta’s inhabitants is the mad treant Carrock (NE male giant fiendish treant druid 15), ruling from the cyclopean mound of Carrock’s How at the city’s heart." Pathfinderwiki says he is a blight druid rather than a regular druid, which seems appropriate.
I was fortunate that the NPC Codex has a 15th-level elf druid named Creeping Death that had an appropriate theme for Carrock. Thus, I am going to start with Creeping Death, modify him to the Blight Druid achetype, and then give him the stats and abilities of a fiendish treant.
How will PF2 change this process?
I can dig that, I look forward to seeing its implementation. As for spells, though, what about cantrips, seems unfair if the wizard can continually attack a lower AC. As for bullets ignoring armour, that doesn't even really make sense, armour does help stop bullets, as far...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.
So I believe the only cantrip damage reference we have is Telekinetic Volley, which Mark said did 1d10 base damage BECAUSE IT TARGETS REGULAR AC. The implication is pretty clear that touch AC cantrips hit for less damage than weapons.
Though we don't know a lot of about damage numbers, or how many hit points creatures will have, especially with scaling. So I'm not really sure what to expect.
Do you want your players to treat NPCs who use diplomacy the same way they respond to NPCs who use mind control?Diplomacy should only work on NPCs.Yeah, another weird thing in 5th Ed, what is the point of Intimidate in the monster's skills, what, do you win an opposed roll, and tell the player "Yeah, you're intimidated.", players don't like being told things like that.Players also hate Fear, Charm, Mind Control, Confusion, Sleep, and any number of effects that removes them.
But they keep showing up in NPC/Monster ability/spell lists so...
Do you? Does the moment your players hear "Roll Diplomacy" do they start muttering "I didn't want this" or "Should have stabbed him/her".
Players seem to hate any game mechanic that results in either loss of their character/agency OR Tells them how they SHOULD feel.
DM: You FEEL like you should help this person.
Player: Meh not really. Yeah I'll help but because he got a 25 on the roll. Sigh let's go guys.
I'm sure you can figure out a way to play around the mental block most players have but up front causes a bit of a roadblock.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Diplomacy should only work on NPCs.Diplomacy is definitely something a little different from Intimidate. But even so, if Diplomacy skill unlocks / feats allow tasks that simulate the effects of various Enchantment spells and bard abilities or exist in a similar space, then those should definitely work on PCs just like Intimidate can be used to inflict fear on PCs.I second this, why people can simulate been hurt by an imaginary sword but cant simulate been intimidated by an imaginary imposing foe or been persuaded by an imaginary charming con-people?
So you can dump your mental scores all you like without any weaknesses or negative consequences other than saving throws?
I understand your point, but it encourages players to be murderhobos. You can avoid Diplomacy checks by avoiding charismatic NPCs and stabbing the persistent ones.
Players should feel comfortable talking to an NPC without fear of losing some control of their character.
Anyone who feels that they should stab Galadriel because she is charming and charismatic, IS already a murderhobbo.
I am ok with some simplification of Monster and NPC creation rules however they better be more than the Starfinder ones cause those are flat out garbage
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am ok with some simplification of Monster and NPC creation rules however they better be more than the Starfinder ones cause those are flat out garbage
Oh, man. I like the idea in theory. In practice, though? I mean...let me walk you through a typical weekend.
New player: I love this. I've got so many stories that I'd like to tell.
Me: That's great! How can I help out?
New player: I'm not sure about running combat. I'd like to <epic battle sequence> or <chase sequence>. How can I do that?
Me: Well, you... <pauses>. Well, there's this Monster Creation chart. I'd suggest using the numbers from that to start out with. Or, here's how you can calculate a challenge...<30 minute exposition>. Also, you'll want to start running in the lower levels. So, if you'd like to put together a 2-3 level scene, I'd be happy to help!
New player: Great! So I'd like to include several zombie snakes who...
Me: Great! And I didn't even need to explain action economy...
<two weeks later>
Me: So we've had a lot of questions about running scenes/arcs/etc. Uhm, we're going to host a workshop. No, make that a series of workshops. Each workshop will cover a few topics and offer an open Q&A. There's just a lot to cover, so we are doing a series.
Tl;Dr:
* Something expandable, but quickly learnable.
* Offer multiple actions per round as an ability for BBEGs, instead of making the GM add more creatures. Call it the Solo Boss Template or something. I'm tired of the Action Economy discussion. AE is important, but the way action economy is currently so slanted, I've had new GMs come back just so discouraged from it...and this, after clearing all of the hurdles to learn how to build creatures, to put together their first adventure, and so on.
* Please use charts. Charts over text. Clear headers. Bullet points. Some of the best GMs are storytellers first, and GMs are always the bottleneck in getting more games together. Make the entry point as straightforward as possible. This doesn't mean "dumb it down," it means hire extra technical writers for this section.
* Please mention the importance of communicating with players. It's okay to offer ideas to help new players learn the system, for example. Or, be sure and communicate about mechanics like anathema. While this might seem like common sense, there are some games out there that are more "secretive," whereas Pathfinder can be more like a conversation.
* Please include "passive check" rules or guidelines. There's an old fear that causes some players to go: I stop every 5 feet and check for traps. This bogs things down, and we can do better.
PCs have an annoying level of unnecessary detail for a GM. My enemies usually have more flavor than fluff. My PCs never notice that my enemies consist of three stats and 1-3 special attacks, many of which I make up on the spot. They do, however, notice that my combats are wicked fun. I have exactly 0 problem with NPCs having simple or different stats than PCs.
For me, no, magical charming is different than some daft skill check that forces you to be Diplomacised.Do you?Do you want your players to treat NPCs who use diplomacy the same way they respond to NPCs who use mind control?Diplomacy should only work on NPCs.Yeah, another weird thing in 5th Ed, what is the point of Intimidate in the monster's skills, what, do you win an opposed roll, and tell the player "Yeah, you're intimidated.", players don't like being told things like that.Players also hate Fear, Charm, Mind Control, Confusion, Sleep, and any number of effects that removes them.
But they keep showing up in NPC/Monster ability/spell lists so...
So would Intimidate also be some daft skill check?
Going through MuddyVolcano's list:
* Something expandable, but quickly learnable.
One reason I favor using the PC creation rules for NPCs is that I already know how to create PCs. I simply want a few shortcuts where I don't need to make five dozen small decisions about feats and skills. My current shortcut is copying from the NPC Codex, Game Mastery Guide, and Bestiaries.
* Offer multiple actions per round as an ability for BBEGs, instead of making the GM add more creatures. Call it the Solo Boss Template or something. I'm tired of the Action Economy discussion. AE is important, but the way action economy is currently so slanted, I've had new GMs come back just so discouraged from it...and this, after clearing all of the hurdles to learn how to build creatures, to put together their first adventure, and so on.
I am finishing up the Iron Gods adventure path where two villains had mythic abilities to take two turns per round. It made them more powerful, especially whenever they focussed on a single party member, but it was not enough to counteract the action economy advantage of the party.
What would be more balancing would be giving a lone villain a way to shrug off a few early attacks and battlefield control from the party members rather than a way to make more attacks against the party. A Villain Cheat plot armor, like the Hero Points from the Advanced Player's Guide, used solely for defense, evasion, and nullification.
* Please use charts. Charts over text. Clear headers. Bullet points. Some of the best GMs are storytellers first, and GMs are always the bottleneck in getting more games together. Make the entry point as straightforward as possible. This doesn't mean "dumb it down," it means hire extra technical writers for this section.
Structured instructions for quick reference. Possibly make the stat block even more modular to line up directly with the easy-construction structure.
* Please mention the importance of communicating with players. It's okay to offer ideas to help new players learn the system, for example. Or, be sure and communicate about mechanics like anathema. While this might seem like common sense, there are some games out there that are more "secretive," whereas Pathfinder can be more like a conversation.
I don't see how this ties in with creating opponents. My long-suffering wife has to deal with spoilers because I often bounce ideas off of her in constructing the next challenge. She does not like the spoilers.
* Please include "passive check" rules or guidelines. There's an old fear that causes some players to go: I stop every 5 feet and check for traps. This bogs things down, and we can do better.
In many ways this relates to the Wand of Cure Light Wounds issue. Players prepare for the worst hazard that could be in front of them: a boss battle, a killer trap, a very long dungeon crawl, or hostile paranoid villagers. But most of the time, it is an average encounter, a minor trap, a short dungeon crawl, or hopeful villagers, so the preparation was wasted. I deal with this by letting the PCs conduct a lot of Information Gathering to know what to prepare for.
Intimidate as a way to inflict shaken and frightened for a few rounds is very reasonable.
"The NPC intimidated your character into going on a quest for him" is daft.
never worked regardless. Intimidate, for social actions, only lasts for a little while. You could get someone to agree to go on a quest with intimidate, but the once the intimidator is out of sight the person (PC or NPC) is totally free to say "Screw that guy, he's a jerk"
Now how said NPC responds after the PCs head off and not do his quest, well, that for Mob Bosses to know.
Intimidate as a way to inflict shaken and frightened for a few rounds is very reasonable.
"The NPC intimidated your character into going on a quest for him" is daft.
never worked regardless. Intimidate, for social actions, only lasts for a little while. You could get someone to agree to go on a quest with intimidate, but the once the intimidator is out of sight the person (PC or NPC) is totally free to say "Screw that guy, he's a jerk"
Now how said NPC responds after the PCs head off and not do his quest, well, that for Mob Bosses to know.
Honestly if role played on both sides decently, there shouldn't be an Intimidate check.
Cue up music from the Godfather and have at it. Bonus points if they see them ice a member of the family. "You disrespected me. Ice 'em"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There isn't a problem with Sense Motive, or any other social skill. Just like Knowledge Arcana, or the ability to cast spells, they represent talents the character has that the player may not. And some players are shy but want to play an outgoing charismatic character, or have trouble reading other people but want to play an insightful and perceptive character. That's fine, that's what the skills and ability scores are for. Likewise, a naturally charismatic player shouldn't get away with manipulating everyone when their character dumped Charisma to 7 and didn't take any skills.
Good role playing should certainly provide circumstance bonuses though~