| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That are two monsters of We dont know how many - I think we should wait for the playtest bestiary
and I think not every monster should be loaded with effects, makes it too complicated
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
http://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lksk?Attack-the-Stat-Block
https://imgur.com/a/anTO6jOI was having a look at the ogre and redcap statistics, and I could not help but notice that they were very bland in terms of attack effects. The ogre and the redcap can trip if they forgo dealing damage, and the redcap has an admittedly neat trick with its stomp, and that is it. In contrast, the much higher-level grim reaper has actual rider effects on its attacks.
I think that one way to make monsters more interesting would be to give most of them rider effects on their attacks ala D&D 4e, such as forced movement, temporary penalties, or temporary conditions. Ogres could shove people 5 feet with a successful hit, and redcaps could frighten 1 on their non-stomp attacks; even very tiny riders like these could go a long way towards making monsters feel distinct and flavorful.
I believe plague zombies with sickened riders and some sort of reactive effect have been mentioned in some podcast or something.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ogres were specifically designed not to have riders. They are a big lump of HP that can hit stuff.
The redcap actually does have quite a bit going on in it's start block, maybe not in terms of attack effects, but certainly other abilities.
It seems highly likely that other creatures will have attack riders. If for some bizarre reason they do not, then just put your own in.
Paizo seems to have shown at least a little bit of interest in this direction and I'm fairly happy about it. Not every monster needs to be completely statted out ala 4e, but as long as the option will exist and perhaps thematic abilities given as examples then I'll be happy.
If nothing else I import combat stuff from 4e all the time to spice up the monotomy that can be 3.P creature and encounter/combat design. Was one of those changes I genuinely loved from the system. Encounter design and monster creativity jumped up the roof and was very dynamic with the introduction of conditions such as bloodied but was also rather simple to set up while still generating fun results.
Though its a shame it took 3 MM printings to finally fix the math issue.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Meanwhile, I've been playing Monster Hunter, and I want some rules for huge monsters where you can target different body parts to whittle them down slowly.
Like, instead of one CR 6 wyvern, have a CR 4 head as its primary body part (that can bite and grab and throw), CR 1 wings (wing buffet or fly), and a CR 1 tail (swipe or sting).
Maybe it looks like:
Head - 40 hp. 2 actions per round. Can bite (1 action), grab (1 action, but only on a successful bite), or combat maneuver (usually bull rush or throw.
Wings - 20 hp. 2 actions per round. Can fly (1 action), wing buffet (2 actions that deal damage and trip), or raise shield (1 action, improves AC, lets it use reaction to shield block).
Tail - 15 hp. 1 action per round, one extra reaction per round. Can sting (1 action), or tail swipe (1 action). Can also tail swipe as a reaction when someone provokes an opportunity attack.
Body - The monster as a whole has a total of 75 hp, and damage to any body part also damages the body, but excess damage to a body part is wasted. The other body parts can use their actions to have the body Move its speed, but the body can't Move more than 3 times in a round.
Basically you just took three monsters and stapled them together, but you get more interesting flavor.
Crayon, I disagree with your disagreement. What slows the game down is cognitive load and shallow optionality, which is a problem 4th edition often had because you had different powers that worked slightly different in ways that made it hard to determine what your best tactics were. Also, the stat mods from attacks weren't systematized, and were small and fiddly and short of duration.
Small riders are great ideas, especially if they use familiar game mechanics from a limited subset of options.
That said, I have my own dislike of Frightened 1 as a mechanic, because mental attacks usually have no counterplay. If someone shoves or grapples you, it forces you to adjust your plans, but you can do something to resist. Fear and charm and such usually just rely on dice, not choices.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I must disagree. Effects of the type described slow down the game too much and ought to be kept to a bare minimum.
Same here. Rider effects are either way too good or trivial and not worth tracking. 4e monsters definitely aren't the model to follow, as they were still terribly uninteresting giant bags of HP. Just annoying with all sorts of temporary conditions that could end rather variably at the start or end of your or their turns. The abilities were as forgettable as their 'branding' naming schemes.
|
That said, I have my own dislike of Frightened 1 as a mechanic, because mental attacks usually have no counterplay. If someone shoves or grapples you, it forces you to adjust your plans, but you can do something to resist. Fear and charm and such usually just rely on dice, not choices.
Maybe Frightened 1 should read "On your turn, if you first action isn't to move at least 5 feet away from the object of your fear, then you lose your first action"?
Too far down this path and monsters just get gimmicky. That way lies 4e.
I think for humanoid races, level of identity with regard to ancestry and heritage could be expressed to better differentiate. The other thing is having their tactics and fighting styles better represented. Pact tactics, prey on the weak, anti-caster, racial prejudice, etc.
Maybe Frightened 1 should read "On your turn, if you first action isn't to move at least 5 feet away from the object of your fear, then you lose your first action"?
This also works with those higher Frightened states.
Frightened 1/2/3 would be: "You must use your 1/2/3 first actions to move at least 5ft away from the source of your fear or lose that/those actions."More fear = more running or standing there peeing your pants.
I would like such an effect more than just a boring "-x to rolls". When I saw fear working this way in 5e, I liked it immediately.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe Frightened 1 should read "On your turn, if you first action isn't to move at least 5 feet away from the object of your fear, then you lose your first action"?This also works with those higher Frightened states.
Frightened 1/2/3 would be: "You must use your 1/2/3 first actions to move at least 5ft away from the source of your fear or lose that/those actions."More fear = more running or standing there peeing your pants.
I would like such an effect more than just a boring "-x to rolls". When I saw fear working this way in 5e, I liked it immediately.
5th Ed fear is pretty cool, it has a standard Condition definition, but some monsters add extra effects to it.
While I'm fine with the thematics of 5e frightened, I dislike a lot of how it plays. I'd rather tell someone that their fear is playing havoc with their aim, rather than telling them that because they're frightened they can't move closer to fight the creature in spite of their fear. I also dislike that a lot of 5e frightened effects force you to flee -I think both points are because they're a bit too close to PC mind control which I like to shy away from. I think I'm more fine with Fleeing in PF2 playtest (as previewed in Phantasmal Killer) because Frightened automatically ticks down.
I suppose I'd also be alright if frightened gives a -X penalty be could be ticked down by running away. That actually makes it a choice for players.
While I'm fine with the thematics of 5e frightened, I dislike a lot of how it plays. I'd rather tell someone that their fear is playing havoc with their aim, rather than telling them that because they're frightened they can't move closer to fight the creature in spite of their fear. I also dislike that a lot of 5e frightened effects force you to flee -I think both points are because they're a bit too close to PC mind control which I like to shy away from. I think I'm more fine with Fleeing in PF2 playtest (as previewed in Phantasmal Killer) because Frightened automatically ticks down.
I suppose I'd also be alright if frightened gives a -X penalty be could be ticked down by running away. That actually makes it a choice for players.
I haven't played much 5e, I just found it nice thematicly.
I agree that a non-domination-status should not force a player to do stuff. That's why i find the option of not running but instead losing the action important. Heck I would even be okay with that Frightened making each square moved towards the target count as 2 squares (3 on Frightened 2 and so on). Maybe additionaly have -X on attacks because of shaky hands because that version is not so restrictive.I would just find it nice to have some creative status effects and not Frightened, Fatigued, Sickened and so on all only give -X to slightly different attributes.
While I'm fine with the thematics of 5e frightened, I dislike a lot of how it plays. I'd rather tell someone that their fear is playing havoc with their aim, rather than telling them that because they're frightened they can't move closer to fight the creature in spite of their fear. I also dislike that a lot of 5e frightened effects force you to flee -I think both points are because they're a bit too close to PC mind control which I like to shy away from. I think I'm more fine with Fleeing in PF2 playtest (as previewed in Phantasmal Killer) because Frightened automatically ticks down.
I suppose I'd also be alright if frightened gives a -X penalty be could be ticked down by running away. That actually makes it a choice for players.
I haven't played much 5e, I just found it nice thematicly.
I agree that a non-domination-status should not force a player to do stuff. That's why i find the option of not running but instead losing the action important. Heck I would even be okay with that Frightened making each square moved towards the target count as 2 squares (3 on Frightened 2 and so on). Maybe additionaly have -X on attacks because of shaky hands because that version is not so restrictive.I would just find it nice to have some creative status effects and not Frightened, Fatigued, Sickened and so on all only give -X to slightly different attributes.
I think losing the action unless move borders on control, hence why I'm iffy on it. If it were like sickened (burning actions to try to end it) but as a move to auto tick down then I think it could work.
I think it's possible to do 'riders on attacks' without it being gimmicky. You just need the right suite of riders.
As an example of bad riders, there was a 4e Fighter power that let you charge, and you added your Constitution modifier to the damage (I guess because you're heavy and hit them with your bulk?), and anyone who make an attack of opportunity against you as you charged also took damage equal to your Con mod. Which encouraged you to, I dunno, trundle through a bunch of people to deal minimal damage while taking a lot of hits in response. Blech.
But imagine instead a system that set up five or six 'standard' riders that you can expect to see a lot.
They'd be like what you can do with combat maneuvers -- bull rush, trip, grab -- but also dirty trick stuff like temporarily blinding or hitting them in the gut to sicken them, or binding their weapon to give them an attack penalty (because fully disarming someone is probably too strong).
Then you have a common suite of mechanics, sort of like 'keyword' abilities in Magic: the Gathering. Since you see them regularly, the cognitive load to translate them from in-world narrative to in-game mechanics would be lessened.
Rider effects when done well, can help balance the action differences between a big solo monster versus a party of PCs. Otherwise, they can be a lot to track. yeah.
What if we ended up with some GSM templates? Giant Solo Monster, that is.
What if, past a certain number of PCs, "Boss Monsters" received 4 actions on their turn?
Some of these were floated around in the PF1e Homebrew Forums. I'd love to see this become mainstream.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rider effects when done well, can help balance the action differences between a big solo monster versus a party of PCs. Otherwise, they can be a lot to track. yeah.
What if we ended up with some GSM templates? Giant Solo Monster, that is.
What if, past a certain number of PCs, "Boss Monsters" received 4 actions on their turn?
Some of these were floated around in the PF1e Homebrew Forums. I'd love to see this become mainstream.
How about 'no boss monsters' and instead of video game style bullet sponges compensating with extra actions and reactions, we design reasonable encounters?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How about 'no boss monsters' and instead of video game style bullet sponges compensating with extra actions and reactions, we design reasonable encounters?
So when the heroes ride forth to challenge the dragon that is burning the city, what, do we want the dragon to also have three smaller dragons to make up for the poor action economy?
There's always been a difference between 'high CR' monsters that are meant to be fought on their own by lower-level parties, and 'high CR' monsters that are supposed to be part of a group of enemies for high-level parties.
If you design a CR 10 large red dragon so that it's able to take on a party of 6th level characters because, for instance, its breath weapon is as strong as five normal actions by level 6 PCs, and it has defenses or reactions to reduce the number of actions the PCs can take (fear aura intimidating you at the start of the fight, tail slaps that knock you away so you have to use another action to get close enough to attack), then that might play wonderfully with that 6th level party, but it would be less useful when a 14th level party goes up against a wizard who has three CR 10 dragons as his minions.
How about 'no boss monsters' and instead of video game style bullet sponges compensating with extra actions and reactions, we design reasonable encounters?So when the heroes ride forth to challenge the dragon that is burning the city, what, do we want the dragon to also have three smaller dragons to make up for the poor action economy?
There's always been a difference between 'high CR' monsters that are meant to be fought on their own by lower-level parties, and 'high CR' monsters that are supposed to be part of a group of enemies for high-level parties.
If you design a CR 10 large red dragon so that it's able to take on a party of 6th level characters because, for instance, its breath weapon is as strong as five normal actions by level 6 PCs, and it has defenses or reactions to reduce the number of actions the PCs can take (fear aura intimidating you at the start of the fight, tail slaps that knock you away so you have to use another action to get close enough to attack), then that might play wonderfully with that 6th level party, but it would be less useful when a 14th level party goes up against a wizard who has three CR 10 dragons as his minions.
Options:
Yeah, 5th Ed has a pretty cool deal with Legendary actions: though they should have gone one step further and simply declared that after each PC takes an action, the monster takes one.Rider effects when done well, can help balance the action differences between a big solo monster versus a party of PCs. Otherwise, they can be a lot to track. yeah.
What if we ended up with some GSM templates? Giant Solo Monster, that is.
What if, past a certain number of PCs, "Boss Monsters" received 4 actions on their turn?
Some of these were floated around in the PF1e Homebrew Forums. I'd love to see this become mainstream.
Legendary actions and the flexibility of breaking up movement in 5e are the two things I think I'm going to miss. That's a fun idea for legendary actions, though I think it needs a cap or it gets stupid with really large armies (unless the monster is literally a roiling wave of lava or something).
How about 'no boss monsters' and instead of video game style bullet sponges compensating with extra actions and reactions, we design reasonable encounters?So when the heroes ride forth to challenge the dragon that is burning the city, what, do we want the dragon to also have three smaller dragons to make up for the poor action economy?
Nope.
There's always been a difference between 'high CR' monsters that are meant to be fought on their own by lower-level parties, and 'high CR' monsters that are supposed to be part of a group of enemies for high-level parties.
I suspect your definition of 'always' is different than mine. But prior to 4e, it never involved even more bloated HPs or bonus actions, legendary actions or bonus reactions.
If you design a CR 10 large red dragon so that it's able to take on a party of 6th level characters because, for instance, its breath weapon is as strong as five normal actions by level 6 PCs, and it has defenses or reactions to reduce the number of actions the PCs can take (fear aura intimidating you at the start of the fight, tail slaps that knock you away so you have to use another action to get close enough to attack), then that might play wonderfully with that 6th level party, but it would be less useful when a 14th level party goes up against a wizard who has three CR 10 dragons as his minions.
Not sure why you'd do any of this. The first just seems a mismatch, and the second looks like both a total TPK and a conscious effort to undermine the uniqueness and accomplishment of defeating the first dragon. 'Bosses later go on farm status' is also terrible.