A Mu Spore Walks into a bar... and nobody notices


General Discussion

1 to 50 of 58 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

18 people marked this as a favorite.

Lately I've been wrestling with perception and stealth and hiding and +1/ LVL skill increases.

It seems broken to me that creatures like a Mu Spore have a +28 hide and sneak. How could you not notice a Mu spore?

Or that a hill giant (+7 sneak) is quieter than a Bobcat (+5 sneak).

The additional problem is since these skills (perception and stealth) are the most commonly used for initiative, and the transition from exploration mode to encounter mode is so rapid, low level creatures and characters have very little chance of avoiding the notice of or escaping from higher level creatures. I think this has the potential to be a huge narrative problem.

I'm not sure how to fix it.

Reflexively I want to say no more +1/lvl for any skills, just use TEML proficiency. To be fair, I think +1/lvl works great for attacks. I love how boss encounters feel tough and I'd like to keep it that way. The problem comes where skills and combat overlap like grappling. Anyone have a grand solution?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

The thing is that a Mu Spore still needs cover to stealth, just like everything else.

And if a Mu Spore is hiding behind something big enough to give it cover relative to you, I imagine it's relatively possible not to notice it.

That said, there definitely is still some weirdness there (like the hill giant vs bobcat example you give).

I don't think getting rid of the +1/level is the answer, though.

Liberty's Edge

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Snickersnax wrote:
Anyone have a grand solution?

I suspect I'm in the minority, but get rid of +1/level entirely. If everything's supposed to be a coin flip, just own it and turn this into a d2 based system. Otherwise, use fractional BAB and saves and allow for the narrative possibility of a 20th level wizard who isn't also an expert tracker, healer, debater, and lockpick.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I imagine these gargantuan creatures shake the ground when they walk; I'm not sure how they move around like church mice.


18 people marked this as a favorite.

Getting rid of the +1/level is at least part of the answer, though.

The truth in the hill giant vs. bobcat example is that they're different levels. The hill giant ISN'T as quiet as a bobcat... for adventurers of the 'appropriate level'.

What the devs have gained in PvM is that it is straightforward to create challenges for a party. What they have lost is any sort of comparative power between challenges of different levels.

Essentially, the devs have created a VERY party-centric ruleset. If you look at almost any of the rules without putting the party into the middle of it, it looks very weird.

The way you have to read the relative hill giant and bobcat stats is, "Is the hill giant better at X vs. an appropriate-level party than a bobcat is vs. its appropriate-level party?'

Naturally, given the title of the thread, this _completely_ breaks down once the party is no longer involved, such as 'can a townsperson notice X'? The PF2E rules straight-up can't answer that.

It's an interesting approach to the rules, and while I don't think it's going to work out for them, the approach has its merits.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
NemisCassander wrote:


The way you have to read the relative hill giant and bobcat stats is, "Is the hill giant better at X vs. an appropriate-level party than a bobcat is vs. its appropriate-level party?'

No, I've read it as a hill giant and a bobcat are sneaking up on the same party of any level. The hill giant is better at it than the bobcat, and it seems weird.


Snickersnax wrote:
NemisCassander wrote:


The way you have to read the relative hill giant and bobcat stats is, "Is the hill giant better at X vs. an appropriate-level party than a bobcat is vs. its appropriate-level party?'

No, I've read it as a hill giant and a bobcat are sneaking up on the same party of any level. The hill giant is better at it than the bobcat, and it seems weird.

But the hill giant is expected to be encountered by a higher level party than the bobcat, and therefore better at detecting.


Snickersnax wrote:
I imagine these gargantuan creatures shake the ground when they walk; I'm not sure how they move around like church mice.

On the bright side. This makes them rather good at pretending to be part of the terrain.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
NemisCassander wrote:


Essentially, the devs have created a VERY party-centric ruleset. If you look at almost any of the rules without putting the party into the middle of it, it looks very weird.

One of the recent surveys had a question that said something to the effect of : Are you aware that DCs are based on the obstacle or monster and NOT on the party?

Because of this close relationship between party level and the obstacles, it seems like they are entangled in an uncomfortable way.

For example the DC for exploring hexes in Part 4.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrSwordopolis wrote:
If everything's supposed to be a coin flip, just own it and turn this into a d2 based system

...

This doesn't even sound as bad as you probably intended. It would get the game rid of some unnecessary complexity, while achieving basically all of the same goals.

Imagine if everyone hit with 2 and miss with 1, but they can get more damage based on class & equip, or additional effects on hit.

Casters hit & miss the same way, they deal less damage, but have stronger effects.

Level increase would be represented by additional hit points and "condition removal" points
(hit points are basically condition points for death)

It wouldn't feel much different from now but it would surely be a faster and simpler game


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Unless they changed the rules, doesn't he Spore have to make a stealth check like every round?

I would assume if so, and enough dice, you're bound to hit a 20 sooner or later.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Dark Sephiroth: I'm not sure if I popularized the 'coinflip' metaphor for PF2E, but I've seen it a lot.

And I don't even mean it ironically. It just seems a shame that they've apparently created a d2 system even if they didn't realize it. It's even better modeled, IMO, by a 2d4 system as I've stated elsewhere, but yeah...

Snickersnax: Yeah, I know. Every DC and roll has to have a party member on one side of it, or the game makes very little sense.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

The thing is that a Mu Spore still needs cover to stealth, just like everything else.

And if a Mu Spore is hiding behind something big enough to give it cover relative to you, I imagine it's relatively possible not to notice it.

That said, there definitely is still some weirdness there (like the hill giant vs bobcat example you give).

I don't think getting rid of the +1/level is the answer, though.

This is a dimly lit and very large bar (big enough to fit a gargantuan creature)... everything has concealment, the Mu Spore has no problem sneaking through.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
MerlinCross wrote:

Unless they changed the rules, doesn't he Spore have to make a stealth check like every round?

I would assume if so, and enough dice, you're bound to hit a 20 sooner or later.

Only if the GM decides to move to encounter mode. If you're in exploration mode, then it only needs to make one check.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

What if a Mu spore is reading over your shoulder right now?

Feel free to turn around and look: can you beat a +28 to Stealth?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wandering Wastrel wrote:

What if a Mu spore is reading over your shoulder right now?

Feel free to turn around and look: can you beat a +28 to Stealth?

I got a 14. I see naught but the stagnant gloom of a cavernous room, inviting chairs of ivory, and the regrettable outcome of a burst pipe.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Snickersnax wrote:
NemisCassander wrote:


The way you have to read the relative hill giant and bobcat stats is, "Is the hill giant better at X vs. an appropriate-level party than a bobcat is vs. its appropriate-level party?'

No, I've read it as a hill giant and a bobcat are sneaking up on the same party of any level. The hill giant is better at it than the bobcat, and it seems weird.

Right, except your wrong.

The game is built around the "treadmill" concept. The bobcat is a lower level enemy than the hill giant. You should never have a party encounter both at the same time. And so the developer opinion is essentially you shouldn't compare the stats of things at different levels.

Mechanically it works absolutely fine.

But I do understand how that rankles with most people.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I like it thematically, but only for the humor of one day leveling up and finally being able to see the Mu Spore that had been there all along.

The idea that a party that should be encountering hill giants will only ever encounter super bobcats, or bobcat generals or what have you, is a rather silly one. Though, to be fair, it would make sense to narrate a bobcat encounter rather than roll dice on it. Treating low level encounters like alarm traps would probably make some amount of sense, but you'd want rules for when a creature transitions from combat threat to alarm trap.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Wandering Wastrel wrote:
Feel free to turn around and look: can you beat a +28 to Stealth?

If I turn around and look over my shoulder enough times, I'll get a natural 20 and see everything!

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Firstly, the Hill Giant only has a +6 (you add ability Mods to untrained Skills on monsters, and it has a -1)...and in all likelihood that'll get reduced to +2 or +4 due to monster skills all being too high and Untrained penalties having gotten worse.

Indeed, assuming a Hill Giant receives the Stealth of an untrained PC of it's level, it'll have a +2. That seems reasonable.

The Mu Spore is a bit of a trickier situation, but again if it is merely reduced to PC level bonuses on skills it's Stealth becomes 'only' +20, which is pretty high, but not nearly as absurd (especially given it's need for cover to hide in).


Wandering Wastrel wrote:

What if a Mu spore is reading over your shoulder right now?

Feel free to turn around and look: can you beat a +28 to Stealth?

I'm not sure they fit in dorm rooms.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is part of the reason I'm against the +1/lvl. I don't like that a high level character can wade through a sea of low level zombies and not get touched. Villains using a quantity over quality method goes out the window.

Also, if you don't add your level to everything, it makes the proficiency system mean more. That +1 means more now because the percentage raised is larger.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BeatenPinata wrote:

This is part of the reason I'm against the +1/lvl. I don't like that a high level character can wade through a sea of low level zombies and not get touched. Villains using a quantity over quality method goes out the window.

Also, if you don't add your level to everything, it makes the proficiency system mean more. That +1 means more now because the percentage raised is larger.

That's... actually not true at all. Whether you're rolling with a +25 against a DC 35 or a +5 rolling against a DC 15, getting a +1 still takes you from 55% success to 60%.

A +1 to your existing bonus always ups your percentage chance on success by 5%, no matter the number of the existing bonus and DC (unless the bonus and DC were far enough apart that you would succeed/fail on a 2/19 already, in which case the math has already fallen apart or you're way above or below your paygrade and we have bigger issues). This seems to be something I've seen ignored almost every time someone says the "treadmill effect" makes small bonuses not matter.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
BeatenPinata wrote:
This is part of the reason I'm against the +1/lvl. I don't like that a high level character can wade through a sea of low level zombies and not get touched. Villains using a quantity over quality method goes out the window.

I am strongly of the opinion that high level characters should be able to wade through armies of low-level mooks untouched, and villains who are that tactically lazy/dumb deserve to go out the window (and down fifty metres into the lava moat). Cutting a swathe through an army of low-level mooks is what gives high-level that legendary, Hercules or Cuchulainn feel.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snickersnax wrote:
I imagine these gargantuan creatures shake the ground when they walk; I'm not sure how they move around like church mice.

Mu spores have a 30ft. perfect fly speed; I've always thought of them as silent like a drifting blimp.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I'm getting a little tired of seeing people make the "d2 system" comment. That's not remotely true, and even in the limited situations where it is somewhat true, it's a gross oversimplification. 45%, 50%, 55%, and 60% are all meaningfully different chances of success.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
I am strongly of the opinion that high level characters should be able to wade through armies of low-level mooks untouched, and villains who are that tactically lazy/dumb deserve to go out the window (and down fifty metres into the lava moat). Cutting a swathe through an army of low-level mooks is what gives high-level that legendary, Hercules or Cuchulainn feel.

On the other hand, imagine the amazing battle in the Mines of Moria if, upon hearing of the multitudes of approaching goblins, Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas, Boromir and Gandalf had just shrugged, stood their ground and cut down the approaching forces.

True, the sheer number of goblins involved would have meant plenty of natural 20s to cause the occasional hit, but the point stands--the concept of retreating before superior numbers of unskilled enemies is a storytelling (and fantasy) trope. There's valid precedence for either method, and certainly I wouldn't call the occasional villain (or GM) who utilizes a mook swarm to be lazy or dumb given the occurrences of such scenarios in the past.

(See also: Star Wars people running from inferior Stormtroopers, Neo fleeing from a hundred inferior Agent Smiths, most zombie films and literature, real life insect or animal swarms, and so on.)


Ultrace wrote:
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
I am strongly of the opinion that high level characters should be able to wade through armies of low-level mooks untouched, and villains who are that tactically lazy/dumb deserve to go out the window (and down fifty metres into the lava moat). Cutting a swathe through an army of low-level mooks is what gives high-level that legendary, Hercules or Cuchulainn feel.

On the other hand, imagine the amazing battle in the Mines of Moria if, upon hearing of the multitudes of approaching goblins, Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas, Boromir and Gandalf had just shrugged, stood their ground and cut down the approaching forces.

True, the sheer number of goblins involved would have meant plenty of natural 20s to cause the occasional hit, but the point stands--the concept of retreating before superior numbers of unskilled enemies is a storytelling (and fantasy) trope. There's valid precedence for either method, and certainly I wouldn't call the occasional villain (or GM) who utilizes a mook swarm to be lazy or dumb given the occurrences of such scenarios in the past.

(See also: Star Wars people running from inferior Stormtroopers, Neo fleeing from a hundred inferior Agent Smiths, most zombie films and literature, real life insect or animal swarms, and so on.)

Swarms IRL are scary for the same reason swarms are in PF: the inability to target individual members. That's not a concern of power level.


The Sideromancer wrote:
Swarms IRL are scary for the same reason swarms are in PF: the inability to target individual members. That's not a concern of power level.

But swarms in Pathfinder are the virtual embodiment of the concept. Numerous enemies that individually are nothing more than a nuisance becoming a threat due to their numbers. Why can't that be extrapolated to a macro level to say that large numbers of creatures typically much bigger than an ant, wasp, bee or bat *also* pose a genuine threat? PF1 has the Zombie Horde which is essentially a swarm of zombies, but I don't think a group needs to reach colossal size before it becomes a threat even to characters levels higher than individual members of the group.


Because they lose a smaller swarm's biggest strengths: the members can be cut down, and they take up enough space to get in each other's way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

High level monsters being virtually untouchable by low level monsters is nothing new in Golarion or PF1. It is in fact pretty much the sole reason many APs exist; the only reason the armies of low level monsters follow the boss creatures is because the mooks are in awe of the sheer power those bosses possess. Leveling up a party in these APs and going from book 1 to book 6 involves working your way up this power ladder.

LotR is just a bad example to use. Gimili and Legolas each killed more than 40 orcs in a single battle. Even then, there's a case to be made the Fellowship wasn't especially high level characters. If you want to run an adventure where low level monsters are a threat, run a low level adventure. Or level up the monsters-- The Uruk-hai that killed Boromir were basically just orcs with their levels pumped up higher.

Now, as for stealth: I will note that the Mu Spore is also a creature that could very well appear to just be a chunk of landscape if it isn't moving.

I do sometimes miss having size modifiers to stealth-- familiars don't seem as sneaky as they should be, for example. Though I guess with the familiar at least someone might dismiss it if it makes sense to see such an animal around.

One fairly easy solution though is to add a stealth bonus appropriate to the monster, even if it isn't especially sneaky. You specifically list it not just for creatures that are good at stealth, but also ones whose stealth score is notably worse than their generic skill bonus would suggest. Of course, it seems rather unlikely that a GM would have such a creature ever roll stealth in the first place, so a good case can be made that you shouldn't clutter up the statblock with such useless information and just let GMs do what makes sense in the story. That won't account for some GMs who don't apply common sense or fictional consistency, but I'm not sure that should be a big priority.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

So one thing I've been thinking about is that since monsters do not need to be built with PC rules, do we really need to give monsters +level to everything?

It seems like we can just write down a number for the skills which represent how this thing is likely to behave. So if I want an enormous creature which is bad at hiding I can just omit a stealth score or write down "Stealth: -4" without worrying where that comes from.

I for one am completely happy with +Level to everything being exclusively a PC and PC-analogous NPC thing. An adventurer gets a broad exposure to everything by going on adventures, a monster which does not exactly travel need not.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:
Snickersnax wrote:
NemisCassander wrote:


The way you have to read the relative hill giant and bobcat stats is, "Is the hill giant better at X vs. an appropriate-level party than a bobcat is vs. its appropriate-level party?'

No, I've read it as a hill giant and a bobcat are sneaking up on the same party of any level. The hill giant is better at it than the bobcat, and it seems weird.

Right, except your wrong.

The game is built around the "treadmill" concept. The bobcat is a lower level enemy than the hill giant. You should never have a party encounter both at the same time. And so the developer opinion is essentially you shouldn't compare the stats of things at different levels.

Mechanically it works absolutely fine.

But I do understand how that rankles with most people.

Yep works fine for metagaming and mechanical stand point but when using it to make an immersive logical game word it is ridiculous.


Yeah, I almost wish they had done like enemy "archetypes" even though it's not an archetype as we would normally discuss with any Pathfinder game mechanics.

What I'm suggesting is you have a "zombie archetype" with stats for zombies as they hit different level points, not every level but maybe every 3rd and gaining unique/special abilities as they grow. Potentially with names to differentiate and create variants of different kinds of zombies without them really being unique monsters.

This way, any one particular creatures doesn't fall that far behind in level compared to the party and could be used at any level.

This would require a lot more time for the devs to create each monster entry, but ultimately I think it would be worth it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Cylerist wrote:

Yep works fine for metagaming and mechanical stand point but when using it to make an immersive logical game word it is ridiculous.

It's always interesting (I mean genuinely interesting, I'm not being facetious) to see what breaches from reality do and don't bother people.

Being able to survive a fall from the upper stratosphere, being able to fire a crossbow twice in six seconds, or a creature with a 60-foot wingspan 180'ing on a dime are all generally accepted, but stealth rules in particular seem to be a thing that people have a strong intuitive opinion of how it "should" work.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

So one thing I've been thinking about is that since monsters do not need to be built with PC rules, do we really need to give monsters +level to everything?

That's a fair point. I can think of a few hypothetical abilities that would force a need for all skills to be advanced, but as long as nothing targets skills exclusively it should work out. Just make sure that the hypothetical "deadly dance off" feat allows the choice between a perform check or a will save and they'll be fine.

[small]"you are captivated by the jabberwock's exotic dancing routine"[/small]


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ultrace wrote:
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
I am strongly of the opinion that high level characters should be able to wade through armies of low-level mooks untouched, and villains who are that tactically lazy/dumb deserve to go out the window (and down fifty metres into the lava moat). Cutting a swathe through an army of low-level mooks is what gives high-level that legendary, Hercules or Cuchulainn feel.

On the other hand, imagine the amazing battle in the Mines of Moria if, upon hearing of the multitudes of approaching goblins, Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas, Boromir and Gandalf had just shrugged, stood their ground and cut down the approaching forces.

I don't know if Legolas and Gimli would be level 10 or level 20 or somewhere in between, but in the battle of Helms Deep they they kill 83 orcs between them. This seems like a feat that I would want my character to be able to do somewhere between level 10 and level 20, maybe sooner...


Captain Morgan wrote:

High level monsters being virtually untouchable by low level monsters is nothing new in Golarion or PF1. It is in fact pretty much the sole reason many APs exist; the only reason the armies of low level monsters follow the boss creatures is because the mooks are in awe of the sheer power those bosses possess. Leveling up a party in these APs and going from book 1 to book 6 involves working your way up this power ladder.

LotR is just a bad example to use. Gimili and Legolas each killed more than 40 orcs in a single battle. Even then, there's a case to be made the Fellowship wasn't especially high level characters. If you want to run an adventure where low level monsters are a threat, run a low level adventure. Or level up the monsters-- The Uruk-hai that killed Boromir were basically just orcs with their levels pumped up higher.

Now, as for stealth: I will note that the Mu Spore is also a creature that could very well appear to just be a chunk of landscape if it isn't moving.

I do sometimes miss having size modifiers to stealth-- familiars don't seem as sneaky as they should be, for example. Though I guess with the familiar at least someone might dismiss it if it makes sense to see such an animal around.

One fairly easy solution though is to add a stealth bonus appropriate to the monster, even if it isn't especially sneaky. You specifically list it not just for creatures that are good at stealth, but also ones whose stealth score is notably worse than their generic skill bonus would suggest. Of course, it seems rather unlikely that a GM would have such a creature ever roll stealth in the first place, so a good case can be made that you shouldn't clutter up the statblock with such useless information and just let GMs do what makes sense in the story. That won't account for some GMs who don't apply common sense or fictional consistency, but I'm not sure that should be a big priority.

I feel like my favourite example of a high stealth big monster is a kraken sneaking around on land in heavy fog.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
Cylerist wrote:

Yep works fine for metagaming and mechanical stand point but when using it to make an immersive logical game word it is ridiculous.

It's always interesting (I mean genuinely interesting, I'm not being facetious) to see what breaches from reality do and don't bother people.

Being able to survive a fall from the upper stratosphere, being able to fire a crossbow twice in six seconds, or a creature with a 60-foot wingspan 180'ing on a dime are all generally accepted, but stealth rules in particular seem to be a thing that people have a strong intuitive opinion of how it "should" work.

I literally just watched a video where someone shot a crossbow twice in 6 seconds

Literally survived a fall from the stratosphere


MaxAstro wrote:

The thing is that a Mu Spore still needs cover to stealth, just like everything else.

And if a Mu Spore is hiding behind something big enough to give it cover relative to you, I imagine it's relatively possible not to notice it.

That said, there definitely is still some weirdness there (like the hill giant vs bobcat example you give).

I don't think getting rid of the +1/level is the answer, though.

actually that's a good question: what constitutes level of cover for larger creatures? because it infinitely amuses me that someone could potentially CREEEEEED a mu spore behind a lamppost--aww, it has a special mention that such size discrepancies are up to the DM.

another option is concealment, which is even more fuzzy: it's literally anything that can mess with sight (mist, dim light, etc) but isn't a physical barrier (which presumably would be cover)
so watch out for any particularly wide (what's it's acrobatics to squeeze?) dim alleyways i guess.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
Cylerist wrote:

Yep works fine for metagaming and mechanical stand point but when using it to make an immersive logical game word it is ridiculous.

It's always interesting (I mean genuinely interesting, I'm not being facetious) to see what breaches from reality do and don't bother people.

Being able to survive a fall from the upper stratosphere, being able to fire a crossbow twice in six seconds, or a creature with a 60-foot wingspan 180'ing on a dime are all generally accepted, but stealth rules in particular seem to be a thing that people have a strong intuitive opinion of how it "should" work.

Few people have personal experience with extremely long falls, speed-firing crossbows, or with having wings... but most people have regular experience with sneaking and/or with things that use stealth. In fact, this morning I tried to sneak out of bed and into the kitchen to make coffee without waking anyone up, and turned around to see that my cat had successfully stealthed up behind me to demand breakfast. People have real-life context for what is involved in being or not being seen/heard/noticed - and thus they have opinions that it is completely ridiculous and game-breakingly-non-immersive to have something the size of a barn being less noticeable than a small stealth predator.

YMMV.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hoestly though I think SIZE should matter. Size is ignroed so far and I don't care for that.


DrSwordopolis wrote:
Snickersnax wrote:
Anyone have a grand solution?
I suspect I'm in the minority, but get rid of +1/level entirely. If everything's supposed to be a coin flip, just own it and turn this into a d2 based system. Otherwise, use fractional BAB and saves and allow for the narrative possibility of a 20th level wizard who isn't also an expert tracker, healer, debater, and lockpick.

Yes, outside the playtest, I omit +Level. I have also tried +1/2 and +1/4, at least it is an easy thing to houserule/tweak (+2 x Level for really big numbers!), seems like it was designed that way, which is nifty.

With +Level treadmill:

20th-level Fighter, AC 45, +34 to hit
Pit Fiend, AC 44, +35 to hit
Fire Giant, AC 28, +20 to hit
Ghoul, AC 15, +7 to hit

Without:

20th-level Fighter, AC 25, +14 to hit
Pit Fiend, AC 24, +15 to hit
Fire Giant, AC 18, +10 to hit
Ghoul, AC 14, +6 to hit. The ghoul should have an attack of +1, but is has an extra +5, because.

I prefer the latter.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
Hoestly though I think SIZE should matter. Size is ignroed so far and I don't care for that.

For AC, Attacks, and Grappling?

I am glad to see the absurd grappling modifiers go, big strong creatures already have enough advantage, and depending on the shape/physicality of the monster, Large+ does not necessarily make it better at grappling/wrestling.

I think it should matter more for weapon damage (it's a bit all over the place).


Uh lets see maybe not an attack bonus but skill modifiers and weapon damage. AC probably doesn't matter since mosnters are built different but If PC's get the option of playing larger races then i probably should have some effect.

Hmm I wonder If just a flat extra die (to damage) for going bigger would be to much?


Vidmaster7 wrote:

Uh lets see maybe not an attack bonus but skill modifiers and weapon damage. AC probably doesn't matter since mosnters are built different but If PC's get the option of playing larger races then i probably should have some effect.

Hmm I wonder If just a flat extra die (to damage) for going bigger would be to much?

Skills, seems like size would only effect some some skills. As for weapon damage, yeah, a simple extra die of weapon damage for each size larger than Medium, could work.


Yeah not all skills obviously it shouldn't work on like knowledge checks etc. Maybe even only certain actions of some skills.


Vic Ferrari wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:

Uh lets see maybe not an attack bonus but skill modifiers and weapon damage. AC probably doesn't matter since mosnters are built different but If PC's get the option of playing larger races then i probably should have some effect.

Hmm I wonder If just a flat extra die (to damage) for going bigger would be to much?

Skills, seems like size would only effect some some skills. As for weapon damage, yeah, a simple extra die of weapon damage for each size larger than Medium, could work.

I think that's sort of already happening, since larger creatures tend to be higher level so size already has a correlation with damage dice.

But from what I've seen of the bestiary, larger creatures get larger static damage modifiers instead of more damage dice than equal level smaller creatures. That's also consistent with how Enlarge and giant totem barbarians work.


Captain Morgan wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:

Uh lets see maybe not an attack bonus but skill modifiers and weapon damage. AC probably doesn't matter since mosnters are built different but If PC's get the option of playing larger races then i probably should have some effect.

Hmm I wonder If just a flat extra die (to damage) for going bigger would be to much?

Skills, seems like size would only effect some some skills. As for weapon damage, yeah, a simple extra die of weapon damage for each size larger than Medium, could work.

I think that's sort of already happening, since larger creatures tend to be higher level so size already has a correlation with damage dice.

But from what I've seen of the bestiary, larger creatures get larger static damage modifiers instead of more damage dice than equal level smaller creatures. That's also consistent with how Enlarge and giant totem barbarians work.

Monster damage seems a bit arbitrary, like + 2 x Str mod to some attacks, and/or double or more weapon damage dice.


Vic Ferrari wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:

Uh lets see maybe not an attack bonus but skill modifiers and weapon damage. AC probably doesn't matter since mosnters are built different but If PC's get the option of playing larger races then i probably should have some effect.

Hmm I wonder If just a flat extra die (to damage) for going bigger would be to much?

Skills, seems like size would only effect some some skills. As for weapon damage, yeah, a simple extra die of weapon damage for each size larger than Medium, could work.

I think that's sort of already happening, since larger creatures tend to be higher level so size already has a correlation with damage dice.

But from what I've seen of the bestiary, larger creatures get larger static damage modifiers instead of more damage dice than equal level smaller creatures. That's also consistent with how Enlarge and giant totem barbarians work.

Monster damage seems a bit arbitrary, like + 2 x Str mod to some attacks, and/or double or more weapon damage dice.

Maybe, but it is hard to say that when we know there are rules to monster building we haven't gotten yet.

That being said, if the numbers do feel arbitrary I wouldn't especially care. With the diversity of critters in the bestiary it would actually be weirder if they did all follow the same rules. And from I've seen, critters at least follow the same rules as higher or lower members of their genus or species. IE, a grizzly seems consistent with a cave bear.

1 to 50 of 58 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / A Mu Spore Walks into a bar... and nobody notices All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.