Twitch Stream (Nov 9th)


General Discussion

51 to 100 of 243 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

6 people marked this as a favorite.

In page 33 of Doomsday Dawn, there is an enemy called Henah the Antipaladin. At first I thought this would be a great opportunity to see how Second Edition builds human enemies. But the result is, just another custom monster. I know she cannot possibly have antipaladin levels because that class doesn't exist in the playtest, but Paizo didn't bother to give her other class levels(fighter levels would fit, I guess). Will the humanoid enemies have no class levels in Second Edition? Will the runelords or other powerful mages have no wizard levels? Will serpentfolk or veiled masters have no class levels? I really don't want that. Monsters should advance via class levels, instead of building a monster with unique stats and abilities and calling him a wizard.


I think a problem both spells and attacks might play better if they increased their success chance, but anything that does that is also going to increase the critical success chances because of the +10 system.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Aenigma wrote:
75%? I'm so surprised at seeing so many people like the new way of building monsters. I have always thought monsters should have statistics more like PCs as they used to. But to my surprise people don't seem to prefer this nice old way.

I’m not surprised there’s a significant number of fans who like it. The issue of “monsters using pseudo PC rules” vs “monsters developed in parallel” has always had two vocal camps on the forums. If asked to put a figure on it, I would have punted for close to 50/50.

If I had to guess why it’s got such high support in the surveys, it would be that the former camp correlates strongly with the PF1>PF2 crowd. As such, the self selection issue will amplify the response of those who prefer a separate monster-generation system.

Having said that, going with the preferences of those keen for PF2 would seem to make sense to me.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
ErichAD wrote:
I have to say I'm generally disappointed by the poll results. Though I'm pleasantly surprised that a bunch of people weren't interested in maintaining wands as is. Still, people wanting artifacts in first printing, liking the icons,

Liking Icons is the one that made me the most crestfallen. Not only do they give me difficulty, due to my vision impairment (hard to differentiate the 2 and 3 action symbol, at a glance), I find them aesthetically unpleasant and cheap, think so about 4th Ed, too. Icons are great for CCGs, but I have never dug them in RPGs. If the entire layout, formatting, order, colours, icons, etc, doesn't change, rather drastically, I have a feeling when I open my copy of PF2, I might have a "My eyes!" moment.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
pauljathome wrote:
Cyouni wrote:


Jason was asked about this, and he's mathematically confident in that answer, with a variance of about 2.5%.

Uh, thats nice. Did he pull that number out of somewhere or did he actually try and justify a completely unjustifiable statement (there is NO way that ANYBODY has any clue how well the surveys actually represent reality. At BEST, he has some vague evidence that suggests some kind of correspondence)

given a large enough sample size and the correct statistical tools, a standard deviation of 2.5% is perfectly viable, they haven't lifted the curtain to show us how they are do the modelling, and frankly while it's live they shouldn't, but saying their is no way is flatly false, their is, polling uses a few thousand responses to model elections, and has been fairly close for years.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

IIRC most posts (though not all) I read that decried +lvl to everything were talking about skills and gave very specific examples. Many of them IMO actually wished for a RAW way to not have +lvl to a few skills as part of better characterizing their concept.

I too think that an additional level which would be "Untrained without +lvl" would be the best solution, maybe as an option similar to dumping stats

And it would be something you choose so that your character is inept at a few chosen skills. Not a baseline for all PCs where your character is inept at everything except a few chosen skills

Silver Crusade

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

The monster-monster making rules don't concern me that much, the NPC rules do.

If I want to make an actual NPC Wizard (and not have them break the game due to the math) I want them to have levels of Wizard, not say have them be a level 15 human with a bunch of Arcane SLAs tacked on.

And that's without getting into Classed NPCs having Class based abilities that PCs can never get...


Well as far as the monsters and PCs being made by different rules thing goes it doesn't matter to me until I want to make a monster into a PC race But I guess they can add rules for that later on like they did in that one book whose name escapes me atm.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
Well as far as the monsters and PCs being made by different rules thing goes it doesn't matter to me until I want to make a monster into a PC race But I guess they can add rules for that later on like they did in that one book whose name escapes me atm.

There is 3rd Ed's Savage Species (monsters as classes), some great ideas, but ECL botches the deal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Savage species was a good book. There is some good 3-rd party stuff out there for PF1 as well that lets you level as a race the "In the company of" series is pretty solid. I was just thinking of that paizo book that had the race builder rules in it.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

There is a big difference in saying "this system is good", "this sytem is becoming better", "I will spend money on this system", "I will play this system" and, more importantly, "I will switch from PF1 (or other RPG) to PF2".

Will paizo ever ask these questions?

My anwsers.

1. This system is good.

Yes, it's not garbage. I'd never said it's bad, I just don't like it.

2. This system is becoming better.

Definitively. It's much much better than when it started (I guess this is the 95% data they get from the surveys.)

How ever.

3. I will spend money on this system.

In this current form, not a single penny.

4. I will play this system.

Nope. I will ignore it as I do with many other variances of D&D.

5. I will switch.

Definitivily not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hmm I'll try

1. Its approaching it yes

2. yes it is improving

3. Yeah I'll definitely buy the core.

4. Most likely I will give the finished product a shot

5. To be seen.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
I was just thinking of that paizo book that had the race builder rules in it.

That sounds cool, which PF book is that?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Rob Godfrey wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
Cyouni wrote:


Jason was asked about this, and he's mathematically confident in that answer, with a variance of about 2.5%.

Uh, thats nice. Did he pull that number out of somewhere or did he actually try and justify a completely unjustifiable statement (there is NO way that ANYBODY has any clue how well the surveys actually represent reality. At BEST, he has some vague evidence that suggests some kind of correspondence)
given a large enough sample size and the correct statistical tools, a standard deviation of 2.5% is perfectly viable, they haven't lifted the curtain to show us how they are do the modelling, and frankly while it's live they shouldn't, but saying their is no way is flatly false, their is, polling uses a few thousand responses to model elections, and has been fairly close for years.

Unless I'm misunderstanding something, I'd be concerned about whether or not the 30,000 responses are a representative sample of the audience (aka population) that Paizo is seeking to generalize about. The closed response surveys do ask for some basic demographic data, and I'm assuming that Paizo has similar data on the characteristics of their audience/population. So, they could weight responses appropriately so that they more accurately resemble the audience/population. Though such weighting would do virtually nothing about the selection bias. Finally, have there been 30,000 surveys completed or 30,000 individual respondents? It looks like the former, so there could be as few as 3,000 or so respondents, assuming that each respondent completed all the surveys.

All in all, based on the methodological information that is available, I'd be extremely wary of drawing any statistically significant generalizations one way or another from the playtest survey process.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
I was just thinking of that paizo book that had the race builder rules in it.
That sounds cool, which PF book is that?

Sigh fine I'll look it up i'm not at home or I would just look on my shelf.

There we go "advanced race guide" I think is the one with the race builder rules.


15 people marked this as a favorite.

All this talk on statistic is starting to feel like "The statistic don't represent me so they must be wrong"


Fallyrion Dunegrién wrote:

There is a big difference in saying "this system is good", "this sytem is becoming better", "I will spend money on this system", "I will play this system" and, more importantly, "I will switch from PF1 (or other RPG) to PF2".

Will paizo ever ask these questions?

My anwsers.

1. This system is good.

Yes, it's not garbage. I'd never said it's bad, I just don't like it.

2. This system is becoming better.

Definitively. It's much much better than when it started (I guess this is the 95% data they get from the surveys.)

How ever.

3. I will spend money on this system.

In this current form, not a single penny.

4. I will play this system.

Nope. I will ignore it as I do with many other variances of D&D.

5. I will switch.

Definitivily not.

1. Yeah. Though, too byzantine, sterile, and revolutionary for my taste.

2. Yes, but only in tiny areas (often ones I have the least interest in), nothing underlying, chassis considering.

3. The CRB, absolutely, for several reasons. Beyond that, in its current state, nothing.

4. At this point, cannibalisation is what I am looking to it, for.

5. There is no switching, for me; I play different RPGs, and different versions of RPGs for different experiences. That is why I do not refer to past editions in the past tense, they are still here and being DMed/played. It is a question of; will I add this to a game I desire to play. So far, no.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Vidmaster7 wrote:
All this talk on statistic is starting to feel like "The statistic don't represent me so they must be wrong"

The statistics don't represent me...and if the methodology is solid, (we have no reason to suspect it isn't), that makes me an outlier.


Rob Godfrey wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
All this talk on statistic is starting to feel like "The statistic don't represent me so they must be wrong"
The statistics don't represent me...and if the methodology is solid, (we have no reason to suspect it isn't), that makes me an outlier.

Now that is reasonable. You of course submitted a survey yes?

Silver Crusade

13 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Honestly, I'm happy beyond measure that the "Monsters NPC aren't built from the same Lego bricks as PCs" direction took hold. Having just emerged from an adventure path finale where I spent 6 hours building i.a. 3 PF1 high-level classed enemies statblocks using HeroLab only to have one of them die in an instant (heal + Reach Spell vs. undead can be brutal) and the whole final fight taking LESS THAN THE TIME USED TO BUILD THE STATBLOCKS I'll sell my kidney for a system which will make coming up with high level opponents more time-effective.

I don't care about the fact that having NPCs not use PC classes prevents all the little tiny duckies in my brain from falling into correct rows and sitting pretty. Never had much of these ducks to begin with, anyway.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
All this talk on statistic is starting to feel like "The statistic don't represent me so they must be wrong"
The statistics don't represent me...and if the methodology is solid, (we have no reason to suspect it isn't), that makes me an outlier.
Now that is reasonable. You of course submitted a survey yes?

yup, done them all as I finished that part of the playtest.


Rob Godfrey wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
All this talk on statistic is starting to feel like "The statistic don't represent me so they must be wrong"
The statistics don't represent me...and if the methodology is solid, (we have no reason to suspect it isn't), that makes me an outlier.
Now that is reasonable. You of course submitted a survey yes?

yup, done them all as I finished that part of the playtest.

So then how much of an outlier are you. is it like every single thing brought up you were on the other side of? (just curiosity I'm not trying to make some weird point which I realized I was sounding like it.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
All this talk on statistic is starting to feel like "The statistic don't represent me so they must be wrong"
The statistics don't represent me...and if the methodology is solid, (we have no reason to suspect it isn't), that makes me an outlier.
Now that is reasonable. You of course submitted a survey yes?

yup, done them all as I finished that part of the playtest.

So then how much of an outlier are you. is it like every single thing brought up you were on the other side of? (just curiosity I'm not trying to make some weird point which I realized I was sounding like it.)

Somethings I like (Primarily opening Paladins, and more solid crafting rules) But I really don't like the 3 actions + reaction system, or the niche protection (Paladins are TANKS things with the keyword TANK wear heavy armour, punish people for not hitting them, yada yada yada) items having levels feels far to much like tabletop WOW (or one if the pretenders to it's crown), plus the removal of slots etc (I really like magic christmas tree, feels magitek like a fantasy cyberpunk idea of buying upgrades, and lots of magic gegaws gives options and versatility in a way that one super duper powerful weapon doesn't, plus the baked in assumption that at lvl x you have weapon y, and the monsters stats reflecting that assumption adds to the running to stand still, grindy feeling that +1/lvl promotes in the first place.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hmm well you definitely seem of a different opinion then me on most things. I do agree on your paladin point. My idea was to break it into two classes one would be the knight which would do all the defending stuff and The paladin would have more classic abilities (and maybe some outsider inspired ones.) The +level thing to me is the same as the previous edition of D&D but made simpler so I have no problem with that. For magic items I woudl like to see them increase scope instead of just buffing checks. The items having level things is a nifty tool for new dms so you don't accidentally give out a staff of the magi to a 1st level wizard so that one doesn't bother me. I could see the weapon bonus being to much maybe half it between level and magic weapon. I am neutral about slots. (also isn't it a bit odd to complain about it being too much like wow in one sentence then praise a mechanic that was a lot like wow in the next?).

The big one really Is i feel the 3 action system is the biggest improvement they made.

So it appears to be a mix of something we can agree on and not others so pretty standard. I see flaws in the current system but I also see room for improvement and expect it while some of the more negative views seem not to expect any improvement at all and that seems to me to be the biggest chasm. (basically pessimistic view vrs optimistic.)

Dark Archive

Igor Horvat wrote:

Fractional math is the problem??

Who is in the target group? 1st grade of elementary school students?

And how often do you change stuff on character sheet? do you level up 2 or 3 times per session?

I really hope that they will give us optional rules in Core without +1/lvl treadmill.

I do not want skill ranks back like in 1stEd, and kind of like the intrained/expert/master/etc... system. but it could go with more levels(ranks)

I would got form 0(untrained) to +7(max) with no +1/lvl "free" bonus.

That way when you spend resource(class based, ancestry based, bonus feats, general feats) you increase skill bonus by +1

+2 max at 1st level(2 trainings used)

+3 at 3rd lvl

+4 at 7th

+5 at 11th

+6 at 15th

+7 at 19th

similar can be used for attacks, AC, spells, saves, etc...

Agreed, inclusion of an optional rule in the core rule, not the folowing year's hardback, allowing to easily deflate the math will benefit the 2nd ed. I cannot speak for everyone, but it will determine whether or not it played in the circles I've been running. Broadest appeal early should be the goal.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
The big one really Is i feel the 3 action system is the biggest improvement they made.

That is not really an improvement, more as porting something over from the previous edition (Unchained RAE).


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
The big one really Is i feel the 3 action system is the biggest improvement they made.
That is not really an improvement, more as porting something over from the previous edition (Unchained RAE).

I think it doesn't really matter where it comes from. Whether taken from an optional rulebook, an older iteration of the game, a different game system, or if it's truly new, a good idea is a good idea. I think Vidmaster's point here is more, someone who dislikes PF2's action economy is really an outlier. I mean, the vast majority of folks on the forum as well as in the surveys really like it. It's often cited as the #1 improvement over the PF1 game experience. Personally, I wasn't aware of this option's existence in Unchained, and I'm seriously thinking of bringing that rule over in the middle of my PF1 campaign.

There's nothing wrong with being an outlier, mind you. Everyone's position is equally respectable as it reflects the type of game they enjoy. But we have to accept that Paizo can't bring all outliers into the tent, unfortunately.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Rysky wrote:

The monster-monster making rules don't concern me that much, the NPC rules do.

If I want to make an actual NPC Wizard (and not have them break the game due to the math) I want them to have levels of Wizard, not say have them be a level 15 human with a bunch of Arcane SLAs tacked on.

And that's without getting into Classed NPCs having Class based abilities that PCs can never get...

Wait, I thought it was said that we could still build NPCs using PC rules (though we also have the option of using the easy monster building rules instead).

Has something changed?...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Porridge wrote:
Rysky wrote:

The monster-monster making rules don't concern me that much, the NPC rules do.

If I want to make an actual NPC Wizard (and not have them break the game due to the math) I want them to have levels of Wizard, not say have them be a level 15 human with a bunch of Arcane SLAs tacked on.

And that's without getting into Classed NPCs having Class based abilities that PCs can never get...

Wait, I thought it was said that we could still build NPCs using PC rules (though we also have the option of using the easy monster building rules instead).

Has something changed?...

No, that hasn't changed. Also, it's super easy to tack on PC levels now because of all the simplified math.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Vidmaster7 wrote:

Hmm well you definitely seem of a different opinion then me on most things. I do agree on your paladin point. My idea was to break it into two classes one would be the knight which would do all the defending stuff and The paladin would have more classic abilities (and maybe some outsider inspired ones.) The +level thing to me is the same as the previous edition of D&D but made simpler so I have no problem with that. For magic items I woudl like to see them increase scope instead of just buffing checks. The items having level things is a nifty tool for new dms so you don't accidentally give out a staff of the magi to a 1st level wizard so that one doesn't bother me. I could see the weapon bonus being to much maybe half it between level and magic weapon. I am neutral about slots. (also isn't it a bit odd to complain about it being too much like wow in one sentence then praise a mechanic that was a lot like wow in the next?).

The big one really Is i feel the 3 action system is the biggest improvement they made.

So it appears to be a mix of something we can agree on and not others so pretty standard. I see flaws in the current system but I also see room for improvement and expect it while some of the more negative views seem not to expect any improvement at all and that seems to me to be the biggest chasm. (basically pessimistic view vrs optimistic.)

Slots are a thing cRPGs in general took from the TT game, so that ones a wash (yes WOW has it, so did ADD 2e) happen to prefer it to the 'total number of items allowed' system, especially as you can swap things out on the fly with a slot system, allowing you to tailor to the situation (hmm ring of fire resistance this room, then lightning res the next or w/e) yes you could abuse it, but doing so used up resources to have multiples that could have been spent on having 'better', where as a Investment system (Or attunement or what have you) leads to being stuck with the items you invest. Also, I am pessimistic that it will end up being a system I want to play, not that it wont be a system that can be played, if that makes sense.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

If you don't consider the new action economy a "new thing for the edition", than I don't think anything in the game is actually new, given that I am sure some variation of every system in the game has popped up somewhere else.

Also, regarding monsters, I am with some of the folks here. Most of the time I don't care if the monsters have different stats, but it does feel weird when things like goblins or other NPCs are playing by different rules. At the very least, design them around the equivalent level of a player character of that race, and don't give them extra bonuses not available to those characters.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
WatersLethe wrote:
Porridge wrote:
Rysky wrote:

The monster-monster making rules don't concern me that much, the NPC rules do.

If I want to make an actual NPC Wizard (and not have them break the game due to the math) I want them to have levels of Wizard, not say have them be a level 15 human with a bunch of Arcane SLAs tacked on.

And that's without getting into Classed NPCs having Class based abilities that PCs can never get...

Wait, I thought it was said that we could still build NPCs using PC rules (though we also have the option of using the easy monster building rules instead).

Has something changed?...

No, that hasn't changed. Also, it's super easy to tack on PC levels now because of all the simplified math.

They have said you can build an NPC with class levels like a PC and not have it break the math, but I still have my concerns after seeing the math thus far of how enemies operate and how differently it is to PCs of a similar level (Attack bonus, AC, Saves, DCs, etc).

The PCs having low to-hit but high AC and it's reversed for NPCs/Monsters is a major thing that turned me off from Starfinder.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Yuck! Some people actually want skill ranks back? :{ :p :P

YES. I hate the "proficient skill" setup. I want to invest specific amounts in specific skills and have no bonus to other skills. The fact that this doesn't work well with +level is a testament to how bad such a system truly is.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
All this talk on statistic is starting to feel like "The statistic don't represent me so they must be wrong"

I mean, I'm personally very disappointed that the statistics don't represent me. I'm extremely unhappy with where this edition is going and I'd like to see it change, but it is what it is I guess. I just might never play pathfinder again once the PF1 games dry up.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
MMCJawa wrote:

If you don't consider the new action economy a "new thing for the edition", than I don't think anything in the game is actually new, given that I am sure some variation of every system in the game has popped up somewhere else.

Also, regarding monsters, I am with some of the folks here. Most of the time I don't care if the monsters have different stats, but it does feel weird when things like goblins or other NPCs are playing by different rules. At the very least, design them around the equivalent level of a player character of that race, and don't give them extra bonuses not available to those characters.

Is there anything gained by them playing by different rules, apart from not feeling weird? I mean, practically, what difference does it make if my Centaur Wizard is build over an hour-long process of making choices for every class levels, noting down every ability they get from class levels (heavens have mercy if my brain is wired so that I need to include and analyze EVERY ability, including stuff that doesn't really matter for an NPC who is going to last 18 seconds of combat) and making sure he has all the headbands and belts necessary to keep up with rocket tag champions the PCs are over just eyeballing the target numbers, giving him enough spells to properly challenge the PCs at the level I want to, one fun reaction ability and maybe one fun action ability to mix things up?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Several more steps in the right direction, and I think I can safely say most of the issues I have with the current playtest system have been addressed or mentioned. Looking forward to next August!


gwynfrid wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
The big one really Is i feel the 3 action system is the biggest improvement they made.
That is not really an improvement, more as porting something over from the previous edition (Unchained RAE).
I think it doesn't really matter where it comes from. Whether taken from an optional rulebook, an older iteration of the game, a different game system, or if it's truly new, a good idea is a good idea. I think Vidmaster's point here is more, someone who dislikes PF2's action economy is really an outlier. I mean, the vast majority of folks on the forum as well as in the surveys really like it. It's often cited as the #1 improvement over the PF1 game experience. Personally, I wasn't aware of this option's existence in Unchained, and I'm seriously thinking of bringing that rule over in the middle of my PF1 campaign.

I like the 3 action economy, I was just remarking that it isn't a new deal; such as UTEML, and other parts of the new game.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:

If you don't consider the new action economy a "new thing for the edition", than I don't think anything in the game is actually new, given that I am sure some variation of every system in the game has popped up somewhere else.

Also, regarding monsters, I am with some of the folks here. Most of the time I don't care if the monsters have different stats, but it does feel weird when things like goblins or other NPCs are playing by different rules. At the very least, design them around the equivalent level of a player character of that race, and don't give them extra bonuses not available to those characters.

Is there anything gained by them playing by different rules, apart from not feeling weird? I mean, practically, what difference does it make if my Centaur Wizard is build over an hour-long process of making choices for every class levels, noting down every ability they get from class levels (heavens have mercy if my brain is wired so that I need to include and analyze EVERY ability, including stuff that doesn't really matter for an NPC who is going to last 18 seconds of combat) and making sure he has all the headbands and belts necessary to keep up with rocket tag champions the PCs are over just eyeballing the target numbers, giving him enough spells to properly challenge the PCs at the level I want to, one fun reaction ability and maybe one fun action ability to mix things up?

Yes, a consistent world is gained.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:

If you don't consider the new action economy a "new thing for the edition", than I don't think anything in the game is actually new, given that I am sure some variation of every system in the game has popped up somewhere else.

Also, regarding monsters, I am with some of the folks here. Most of the time I don't care if the monsters have different stats, but it does feel weird when things like goblins or other NPCs are playing by different rules. At the very least, design them around the equivalent level of a player character of that race, and don't give them extra bonuses not available to those characters.

Is there anything gained by them playing by different rules, apart from not feeling weird? I mean, practically, what difference does it make if my Centaur Wizard is build over an hour-long process of making choices for every class levels, noting down every ability they get from class levels (heavens have mercy if my brain is wired so that I need to include and analyze EVERY ability, including stuff that doesn't really matter for an NPC who is going to last 18 seconds of combat) and making sure he has all the headbands and belts necessary to keep up with rocket tag champions the PCs are over just eyeballing the target numbers, giving him enough spells to properly challenge the PCs at the level I want to, one fun reaction ability and maybe one fun action ability to mix things up?

I'm not that mad with the new monster system, but the "new" monster creation is practically just grabbing a static level appropriate stat block and putitng a different coat of paint in it. The variance in numbers among monsters at some levels can be dreadfully low. The burden will now be on making that Centaur stand out as more than "Numbers roughly equal to optimized fighter with full items + some special power".

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
what difference does it make

In case it comes up.

Not strict combat numbers but maybe that neat little spell memorized or having a non-obvious Skill.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I still hope the developers would change their mind and restore the original monster building system. The possibility would not be that low, wouldn't it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:
#GiveUsDinosaurFort

#DinosaurFortorriot


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:
Aenigma wrote:
75%? I'm so surprised at seeing so many people like the new way of building monsters. I have always thought monsters should have statistics more like PCs as they used to. But to my surprise people don't seem to prefer this nice old way.

They're too restrictive. All fey have d6 hit dice, good R and W saves and 6+ skill ranks per level. All of them. All animals have the same base - mammals, reptiles, fish. All aberrations. You should not be able to look at an aberration of all things, decide it's got roughly so many hit points, d8, so x number of levels and then know it's BAB, saves and number of skill ranks.

They don't offer any diversity for statistics within the creature types

And this was the perfect opportunity to fix that by building a more flexible version of those same rules, rather than declaring "NPCs and PCs are no longer made from the same components".

And I understand why they went with the latter, as its easier to write in a balanced format, but I still dislike it. Especially for NPCs.

Even if the previous version wasn't perfect, it still implied that any generic opposing wizard NPC was still an actual wizard, and not just a styrofoam prop with some automated spell capabilities once per day.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:

If you don't consider the new action economy a "new thing for the edition", than I don't think anything in the game is actually new, given that I am sure some variation of every system in the game has popped up somewhere else.

Also, regarding monsters, I am with some of the folks here. Most of the time I don't care if the monsters have different stats, but it does feel weird when things like goblins or other NPCs are playing by different rules. At the very least, design them around the equivalent level of a player character of that race, and don't give them extra bonuses not available to those characters.

Is there anything gained by them playing by different rules, apart from not feeling weird? I mean, practically, what difference does it make if my Centaur Wizard is build over an hour-long process of making choices for every class levels, noting down every ability they get from class levels (heavens have mercy if my brain is wired so that I need to include and analyze EVERY ability, including stuff that doesn't really matter for an NPC who is going to last 18 seconds of combat) and making sure he has all the headbands and belts necessary to keep up with rocket tag champions the PCs are over just eyeballing the target numbers, giving him enough spells to properly challenge the PCs at the level I want to, one fun reaction ability and maybe one fun action ability to mix things up?

On the micro level, no, it doesn't. On the macro level, it can make an enormous difference.

Here's the thing. After using them in play, players don't look at the aspects of their PCs in a vacuum. They measure them against the rest of the game world. What that means is that if the mechanics that the rest of the game world runs off operates radically differently to the PCs, then the players will be constantly reminded that they are their own special little snowflakes with their own special little rules and their characters will never be a normal part of the game world (for better or worse). This is absolutely horrible for immersion.

Now, if NPCs are designed carefully so that they don't look much different to the sort of hypothetical class they would have if they were built like PCs, then this macro problem won't come up. The bad news is that we have multiple threads on things like random students having vastly better skills than highly trained and skilled PCs, or PCs being stuck with an obnoxious requirement for magic weapons so they can do level relevant damage, or non-spell DCs being broken due to the lack of proficiency boosts, or all creatures (including NPCs that shouldn't look that different to PCs) having better stats across the board for no in game reason, all of which would have been avoided by a decent NPC builder and a system that was robust enough that the designers didn't feel the need to just fiat their way around dogfooding their own game*. This is definitely a real problem that PF2E has not made large efforts to avoid. While building NPCs like PCs or having dedicated PC-like or PC-lite rules for NPCs isn't without it's downsides, it at least guarantees that the GM's players won't be constantly be reminded that their PCs will never ever be like anyone else for meta-game reasons that have absolutely no basis in the setting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It feels like "making the monster stand out" has never had anything to do with statblocks, which players aren't even privy to in the course of play. A Starbucks can be six lines or 12 pages and most of what players are going to get out of it is "special abilities".

Silver Crusade

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Snowblind wrote:
Here's the thing. After using them in play, players don't look at the aspects of their PCs in a vacuum. They measure them against the rest of the game world. What that means is that if the mechanics that the rest of the game world runs off operates radically differently to the PCs, then the players will be constantly reminded that they are their own special little snowflakes with their own special little rules and their characters will never be a normal part of the game world (for better or worse). This is absolutely horrible for immersion.

But they will always be special snowflakes. They always face level-appropriate over-coma-able challenges (unless they're purposefully suicidal or the GM is a dick or the GM is interested less in a game where everybody has fun and more in a Fantasy Reality Simulator 2018), because APL+6 challenges aren't really fun for anybody unless you're a Colette Brunel. The PCs, for sake of game balance and their own enjoyment, accumulate wealth on rate no equal-level NPC does. Come PF2 they have Hero Points which literally make them the most snow-flakey of snowflakes in existence.

So you're already playing a bunch of superheroes who work on a different set of parameters and rules than the rest of the universe. Your entire immersion rests upon assumptions such as "nobody looks closely at economy", "we're fine with falling and suffocation rules being what they are" and "we're not even considering what a medium level caster could do to a city full of innocent people before she could be stopped". If you're fine with all of the above, you should have no problem with the fact that the goblin Archmage doesn't work word by word like your Wizard does.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

I think the benefits of having NPCs following PC rules would be the following:

Yes, that little weirdness of "why does it work this way for x but not y" is resolved on the GM end.

Players are not left questioning, if they are say, a goblin, why an equivalent "level" goblin is strangely so much more powerful than they are or can do weird things they can't

If a player character dies and needs to be replaced, it's easier to just hand a NPC constructed off of PC rules to them than have convert one over. Or if a NPC otherwise joins a party.

It gives a player an option to see new tactics and abilities employed against them, which might spur their own ideas or guide there character development

It broadens the potential possibility of character races, although admittably I think the Ancestry rules are basically going to already throw a wrench in this (It's going to be very hard, without a robust list of ancestry feats, to take a monster from a bestiary and make it into a playable race, even if the basic race traits are there

I will grant, none of the above are deal breakers (and I am perfectly fine with more "monstrous" beings operating by there own rules). I also acknowledge how time consuming this can be to construct a NPC with lots of levels, but to me this is resolvable via a NPC codex type book, which I tend to use for this purpose versus more customizable texts.

Silver Crusade

16 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
MMCJawa wrote:

I think the benefits of having NPCs following PC rules would be the following:

Yes, that little weirdness of "why does it work this way for x but not y" is resolved on the GM end.

Players are not left questioning, if they are say, a goblin, why an equivalent "level" goblin is strangely so much more powerful than they are or can do weird things they can't

If a player character dies and needs to be replaced, it's easier to just hand a NPC constructed off of PC rules to them than have convert one over. Or if a NPC otherwise joins a party.

It gives a player an option to see new tactics and abilities employed against them, which might spur their own ideas or guide there character development

It broadens the potential possibility of character races, although admittably I think the Ancestry rules are basically going to already throw a wrench in this (It's going to be very hard, without a robust list of ancestry feats, to take a monster from a bestiary and make it into a playable race, even if the basic race traits are there

I will grant, none of the above are deal breakers (and I am perfectly fine with more "monstrous" beings operating by there own rules). I also acknowledge how time consuming this can be to construct a NPC with lots of levels, but to me this is resolvable via a NPC codex type book, which I tend to use for this purpose versus more customizable texts.

Agreed, but also to expand on,
Quote:
Yes, that little weirdness of "why does it work this way for x but not y" is resolved on the GM end.

Not only does this apply for Class abilities but also for weapons as well.

Player: Wow, he was rolling a lot of dice with all of his attacks, I bet that sword is cool.

GM: No, it's just a plain scimitar.

Player: ... oh, what class was he?

GM: he doesn't have one, he's just higher level than you is all.

Player: ...

Conversely replace the above with the NPC being able to toss the scimitar through the air so that it ricochets off the PCs back to his hand.

Player: Cool! A throwing-returning weapon!

GM: It's not magical, it's just something he can do.

Player: Can I learn-

GM: No.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
MMCJawa wrote:
Players are not left questioning, if they are say, a goblin, why an equivalent "level" goblin is strangely so much more powerful than they are or can do weird things they can't

This.

MMCJawa wrote:
If a player character dies and needs to be replaced, it's easier to just hand a NPC constructed off of PC rules to them than have convert one over. Or if a NPC otherwise joins a party.

This. NPCs often join the party in my games, at least for a quest or two. Having them play like monsters makes them not fit in the party.

MMCJawa wrote:
It gives a player an option to see new tactics and abilities employed against them, which might spur their own ideas or guide there character development

This, so much. There have been several times I or one of my group has seen an NPC do something cool and said, "Oh, wow, what was she? My next PC is going to be that."

And pre-Paizo, my group always ignored the NPCs chapter and built NPCs like PCs. Going into published modules felt like cheating, since the party was going up against bad guys with one hand tied behind their backs (lower ability scores, lower wealth, etc.). One homebrew campaign I was running, I wanted to create a nemesis for one of the PCs so I literally just took his character sheet, changed the name, and slapped on a template.

I know there are good reasons to go the other way with this, but NPCs that don't play* like PCs are a dealbreaker to me.

* If they can find a way to build NPCs their way that run like PCs when they aren't limited to one encounter per day, that'd be fine. The stat blocks don't have to look the same, but I want them to feel seamless in play.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:
Aenigma wrote:
75%? I'm so surprised at seeing so many people like the new way of building monsters. I have always thought monsters should have statistics more like PCs as they used to. But to my surprise people don't seem to prefer this nice old way.

They're too restrictive. All fey have d6 hit dice, good R and W saves and 6+ skill ranks per level. All of them. All animals have the same base - mammals, reptiles, fish. All aberrations. You should not be able to look at an aberration of all things, decide it's got roughly so many hit points, d8, so x number of levels and then know it's BAB, saves and number of skill ranks.

They don't offer any diversity for statistics within the creature types

That is Trivially fixable. The change of type-based hit die to something role-based could be done in two paragraphs.

It's not a very good case for overhauling everything.

51 to 100 of 243 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Twitch Stream (Nov 9th) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.