Twitch Stream (Nov 9th)

[The Once and Future Kai]

I like the Beastiary set-up for creatures/monsters.... Not such a fan for NPCs. NPCs don't need the same creation rules as PCs but they shouldn't be using the same set-up as a Griffon or Aboleth. There should be some common ground between NPCs and PCs (such as bonus weapon die).

[PossibleCabbage]

I guess the question is "how do we make PCesque antagonists credible threats at high levels without making the party absurdly wealthy from scavenging all those magic items?". I mean, " special rules for NPCs" is almost certainly the cleanest way to do it, but are there other solutions?

[Tarik Blackhands]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I guess the question is "how do we make PCesque antagonists credible threats at high levels without making the party absurdly wealthy from scavenging all those magic items?". I mean, " special rules for NPCs" is almost certainly the cleanest way to do it, but are there other solutions?

Starfinder's method of having items sell back at 10% market value certainly would stop the absurd wealth bit.

[Themetricsystem]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I guess the question is "how do we make PCesque antagonists credible threats at high levels without making the party absurdly wealthy from scavenging all those magic items?". I mean, " special rules for NPCs" is almost certainly the cleanest way to do it, but are there other solutions?

I still think allowing NON STACKING Weapon Dice from Proficiency would be perfect.

Oh so you have a Fighter with Master Prof in Longswords? Cool he adds 2 Dice to the Attack. Oh it's only a +1 Longsword? Who cares? Oh he just found a +3 Heavy Pick? Cool, let him use that instead.
In this way you can simply state what level of Training the NPC has for a given attack/weapon (PROBABLY something that should be included in statblocks anyhow) and you can derive decent Damage.

Sure this is a minor buff to pretty much ALL classes that get Expert Weapon Profs early on, but it only amounts to letting them use mundane Weapons about half as effective as a truly magical one.

[WatersLethe]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I guess the question is "how do we make PCesque antagonists credible threats at high levels without making the party absurdly wealthy from scavenging all those magic items?". I mean, " special rules for NPCs" is almost certainly the cleanest way to do it, but are there other solutions?

There's a pretty strong argument that shifting power from magic weapons to the character would go a long way to fixing that.

If magic items aren't accounting for so much of a character's combat prowess, you can more reasonably 1. fight enemies that don't have magic items or 2. give out more magic items.

It wouldn't have to be a huge change. Even if magic items only provide half the damage they do now, that could make the difference.

[MaxAstro]

For me here's the big difference with the new monster rules:

Making a monster from scratch in PF1e took hours. If the monster had class levels, it could take all day for a single monster.

Without there even being monster building rules available yet, I was able to build a level appropriate monster for PF2e in about 30 minutes.

You'll have to argue some pretty big drawbacks to convince me that isn't a win.

[PossibleCabbage]

Tarik Blackhands wrote:

Starfinder's method of having items sell back at 10% market value certainly would stop the absurd wealth bit.

To me, that the PCs can only ever sell anything for 1/10 of its value no matter what they do is stranger than having NPCs getting special rules. It's definitely a less appropriate rule for a fantasy setting. I mean in a fantasy world we would expect the most valuable stuff to come from buried tombs or the bloody hands of dead necromancer tyrants anyway.

[EberronHoward]

Gorbacz wrote:

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.

Yeah, I'm definitely part of the "PCs and NPCs should have different rules" camp, but not out of any philosophical outlook of which one is "more right". I started out with 3ed D&D, and I had to soldier through a lot of wasted time with that system because it put aesthetics above results. My experience with other systems that did it the other way was much better.

If I could find a system that made "PC=NPC" work, I'd happily play it. I think too many designers of those kinds of game just give up on balance when they create PC/NPC equity, trusting in some 'invisible hand' to lead games like this to success. It also doesn't help that "PC=NPC" games are given patches like feats meant only for monsters to shore up weaknesses, which IMO violate the spirt of PC/NPC equity if they're only meant to be taken by monsters.

[The Once and Future Kai]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I guess the question is "how do we make PCesque antagonists credible threats at high levels without making the party absurdly wealthy from scavenging all those magic items?".

Tying bonus weapon damage die to proficiency for PCs and NPCs resolves the issue, in my opinion. NPCs don't need a magic weapon to be threatening currently...it's just strange that PCs need one to be threatening.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, " special rules for NPCs" is almost certainly the cleanest way to do it, but are there other solutions?

I think there's amble design space here for a solution that checks both boxes. NPCs can have special rules that don't overtly clash with PC rules. They don't have to operate by the same rules...they just need to "feel" like they're playing the same game to the PCs.

I'd definitely like to see special rules for NPCs that simplify creation, ensure "threat", and allow for interesting interactions. But that's all on the GM side of things - on the PC side NPCs should not feel like they're playing by different rules.

[HidaOWin]

90% of Monsters/NPCs live for 6-30 seconds of in game time, I think the core game making the opposition simpler to build and run is just a good thing.

The remaining 10% is fertile ground for a some sort of enchanced foes supplement, where you can custom build your more rounded NPC. However in the core, streamlined monsters/NPCs is only a boon.

[Snowblind]

Gorbacz wrote:

...

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.

Here's the thing. While you are correct, unless the GM/adventure writer is bad at their job, it isn't immediately obvious that the game is structured this way from how it is played at a table, especially if the GM preps situations that can resolve dynamically instead of fixed encounters, and hands out wealth in a sane way. The PCs are special, but it isn't constantly rubbed in their faces.

I agree that with the way hero points get spammed in PF2E, they also aren't doing any good for immersion. Fortunately, they tend to get hoarded for get-out-of-death-free cards so that mitigates the problem somewhat, but they are an issue the way they are used. That said, if the swingy lethality of PF2E combat was dialed down, I would not be sad to see them go.

Quote:

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".

You have to think about it a fair bit to notice just how broken the economy is. Rocking up to a dedicated magic shop in a major city as a bunch of differently-moral persons-of-no-fixed-abode and hawking all the crap you found at half price isn't unreasonable at a first glance.

Falling rules are only ridiculous in extreme cases that virtually never come up in normal gameplay.

I just looked up the PF2E suffocation rules and holy christ are they terrible and they should be changed, so I agree with you that they are bad but that isn't actually helping your case.

Nihilistic murderous full casters rampaging through a city aiming for maximum casualties is also something that virtually never comes up, so you only notice if you dive through the caster spell lists and really think about it.

Quote:

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.

Please go back and read the post you literally just responded to. Here, let me help you...

Snowblind wrote:

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

...
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.
...
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.

Notice the bit where I explicitly said that your **insert race here** archmage in and of itself isn't a problem. It is when the archmage and virtually every other NPC in the campaign work by their own rules in ways that are reasonably obvious, even ones which you would expect in setting to function fairly similarly to PCs, that causes the game's immersion to suffer. And no, every NPC being obviously different to the PCs in fundamental ways is not equivalent to a bunch of extreme edge cases, subtle emergent worldbuilding problems, and #$&^y rules that also should be changed.

The Once and Future Kai wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I guess the question is "how do we make PCesque antagonists credible threats at high levels without making the party absurdly wealthy from scavenging all those magic items?".

Tying bonus weapon damage die to proficiency for PCs and NPCs resolves the issue, in my opinion. NPCs don't need a magic weapon to be threatening currently...it's just strange that PCs need one to be threatening.

...

The problem is that proficiency is all over the map for PC classes. I mean, Monks get master weapon proficiency at 13th, and Paladins at 15th. Meanwhile, Fighters get it at 3rd. You would basically have to redo weapon proficiencies for all classes and rearrange class features to suit. Which is doable, but decidedly nontrivial.

[Shisumo]

In what ways do you consider the difference to be "reasonably obvious" from the player-at-the-table perspective?

[Loreguard]

The Once and Future Kai wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I guess the question is "how do we make PCesque antagonists credible threats at high levels without making the party absurdly wealthy from scavenging all those magic items?".

Tying bonus weapon damage die to proficiency for PCs and NPCs resolves the issue, in my opinion. NPCs don't need a magic weapon to be threatening currently...it's just strange that PCs need one to be threatening.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, " special rules for NPCs" is almost certainly the cleanest way to do it, but are there other solutions?

I think there's amble design space here for a solution that checks both boxes. NPCs can have special rules that don't overtly clash with PC rules. They don't have to operate by the same rules...they just need to "feel" like they're playing the same game to the PCs.

I'd definitely like to see special rules for NPCs that simplify creation, ensure "threat", and allow for interesting interactions. But that's all on the GM side of things - on the PC side NPCs should feel like they're playing by different rules.

I'm all for the rules being separate enough that it doesn't seem like you've 'broken' the rules to have a 1HD fey creature that has magical abilities more like a 3rd level sorcerer. Or a 2hp scorpion with an extremely high(20) DC poison that does 1d6 base damage. In the old rules it seemed like you had to fill out the proper number of feats, or invent super-powerful feats that granted effects more like multiple feats worth of abilities to a specific creature. Making it understandable that these sorts of variations are absolutely within scope and design in the rules is a great thing. Suggestions on how to consider and rate these from a CR or level standard is also quite useful.

However, I also don't like the idea of them just being number pulled out of the air which wouldn't come anywhere close to something on average from a similar PC build, unless it is specific to the creature in question. The base-lines should make sense and be at least somewhat consistent with what a PC might be expected for most creatures.

A mundane peasant goblin raider shouldn't probably have better baseline skills and higher to hit than a goblin fighter using their preferred weapon. A gnoll shouldn't be doing 2d8 with their 1d8 simply because that is what the number say they should be doing at that level without more of an explanation. If all 5th level monsters that are melee based should be doing 2dX damage by default, without magical items, well then we should expect something similar from a PC fighters at 5th level. Let [level + Proficiency bonus (potentially + size bonus)]/5 be a minimum mundane multiplier bonus, which wouldn't stack with magic damage multipliers, but would allow non-magic weapons do extra damage at higher levels. My example, perhaps a large size might give a +1 bonus, leaving a 3rd level ogre with an expert combat proficiency would make it to +5/5 which could qualify it for a boost in its damage due to its skill/size. (of course if small gave a -1 penalty to this it might disadvantage some small folk who fight without magical weapons, which might be seen as either a good, or bad thing.)

Have baseline expectations of what might be expected at a particular level, so the GM can make an easy opponent, or a hard to kill but not very lethal opponent, or a dangerous glass cannon opponent, all to help get the right flavor. But encourage them to piece together the abilities, from components that may often be available from certain classes. If the Gnolls need extra damage at that level, with mundane weapons, give them sneak attack damage, and encourage them to overrun their opponents like goblins do, so they should normally get this extra damage.

Have the average baseline skill of a creature of a particular CR/Level be generally close to what a PC of similar level would have for a untrained skill. Have signature skills of a creature (basically ones the creature would be invested in) have bonuses similar to what an optimized character of that level would be. Specify if they should be considered U/T/E/M/L, and feel free to assign them some skill feats if they make sense. Do they have to always add up exactly, no, but make them in general fall somewhere in the expected range. (not all consistently two to five higher than a PC of seemingly expected level would be capable of mustering)

Does every monster ability have to be something that a PC can get, no.. especially not necessarily at the level a monster gets it. However, I'd rather monsters normally be built more from familiar and relatively consistent building blocks. Just provide a much better flexibility with what blocks you put together for the monsters.

[pauljathome]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I guess the question is "how do we make PCesque antagonists credible threats at high levels without making the party absurdly wealthy from scavenging all those magic items?". I mean, " special rules for NPCs" is almost certainly the cleanest way to do it, but are there other solutions?

Automatic Bonus Progression.

I know it won't happen but it IS the answer to lots and lots of problems

[Thebazilly]

MaxAstro wrote:

For me here's the big difference with the new monster rules:

Making a monster from scratch in PF1e took hours. If the monster had class levels, it could take all day for a single monster.

Without there even being monster building rules available yet, I was able to build a level appropriate monster for PF2e in about 30 minutes.

You'll have to argue some pretty big drawbacks to convince me that isn't a win.

Thiiiiiiiiiiiiis.

Modifying the encounters in Doomsday Dawn is so, so easy.

When I ran Curse of the Crimson Throne, it was before the PF hardcover came out, and I spent hours converting NPCs to the new system. It led to a lot of resentment on my part when the players one-shotted them.

My group has also played Way of the Wicked. Our GM for that AP has said he had much the same issue. (From about Book 2 onward, I think he customized every single encounter to up the difficulty.)

[wizzardman]

Shisumo wrote:

In what ways do you consider the difference to be "reasonably obvious" from the player-at-the-table perspective?

I'm not Snowblind, obviously, but I think a lot of other people in this thread have provided some examples of "reasonably obvious", such as martial attackers with multiple damage dice (as if they were using a magical weapon) inherently, without actually having a magical weapon (or sneak attack, etc).

Other examples probably include:

All NPCs of Species X being able to do something inherently that a PC of Species X is not able to

NPCs at around the same power level as the PCs (or less) having unusually high skill bonuses

Abilities from an NPC's educational or experience background that cannot be replicated by any PC build

NPC spellcasters with a bunch of high level spells, but no mid or low level spells that could have saved their butts, despite PCs of an equivalent level having the slots available

[Shisumo]

wizzardman wrote:

Shisumo wrote:

In what ways do you consider the difference to be "reasonably obvious" from the player-at-the-table perspective?

I'm not Snowblind, obviously, but I think a lot of other people in this thread have provided some examples of "reasonably obvious", such as martial attackers with multiple damage dice (as if they were using a magical weapon) inherently, without actually having a magical weapon (or sneak attack, etc).

Okay, this one does seem like it might be at least a little weird. It hasn't come up so far in my games, but I can see how it might. However...

wizzardman wrote:

All NPCs of Species X being able to do something inherently that a PC of Species X is not able to

This does not appear to be the case in the current mode of the game.

wizzardman wrote:

NPCs at around the same power level as the PCs (or less) having unusually high skill bonuses

Looking over the NPCs in the Bestiary, none of them seem to have any skill ratings more than a point or two higher than a PC of the same level could have, at worst - since the players don't know exactly what level their opponents are, I'm not sure how they would know that's off. (Also, the NPCs numbers are going to be adjusted in the final game anyway...)

wizzardman wrote:

Abilities from an NPC's educational or experience background that cannot be replicated by any PC build

Such as?

wizzardman wrote:

NPC spellcasters with a bunch of high level spells, but no mid or low level spells that could have saved their butts, despite PCs of an equivalent level having the slots available

Every listed "classed" NPC caster in the Bestiary has exactly the right number of spells for their equivalent level.

[Skeld]

I GM for my group. For nearly everything that's not a bestiary "stock" opponent, I rebuild them from scratch (NPCs, monsters with levels, etc.).

I'm baffled at how that takes people hours.

-Skeld

[Deadmanwalking]

I like a consistent world. I'm also fine with the monster creation paradigm Paizo appears to be aiming for here.

This is partially because, by the current paradigm, a lot of the complaints being brought up don't apply.

For one thing, from what they've said, it is entirely legal to stat up NPCs using the PC rules. Not all of them are done that way, but the PCs are not categorically different from all NPCs in using them. That definitely adds verisimilitude.

For another thing, NPCs of Level X are not intended to be more powerful than PCs of Level X and with the math fixing they're doing, they presumably won't be.

For a third thing, they've put some notable effort already into NPCs not having abilities PCs of the same Ancestry can't get. Goblins got the ability of NPC Goblins to skitter around as an Ancestry Feat option, for example.

And finally, in many ways this is really not that different from PF1. Monsters were always a grab bag of exceptions and unique weirdness to make the math work, and the monster creation guidelines in PF2 being used to make NPCs can easily just be thought of as the PF2 equivalent of NPC Classes (an asymmetrical option from PF1).

All that said, I do have a handful of real issues with the current monster rules (them getting inherent bonus dice on damage when PCs are incapable of ever doing so is by far the biggest), but them being created in an asymmetrical fashion is not inherently a problem.

[Meraki]

Shisumo wrote:

wizzardman wrote:

Abilities from an NPC's educational or experience background that cannot be replicated by any PC build

Such as?

Well, I'm not wizzardman, but one example would be the character called an antipaladin in chapter 2 of Doomsday Dawn. I might be wrong, but I don't think either of her abilities exist in PC-building rules.

This is a particularly glaring issue if your games, like mine, involve heavy interaction with NPCs outside of combat and/or a lot of recruitment of NPCs as allies. (Heck, a lot of the APs encourage this at certain points. My party is just about to meet everyone's favorite elf in Crimson Throne.) An example from my playtest game: the MVP of the climactic encounter of chapter 2 of Doomsday Dawn was...the ally the PCs have the opportunity to find. He cleaned up a lot of the enemies there while the PCs had a much smaller effect overall. That's not an especially good feeling as a player.

Part of this might be due to monster math being noted to be overkill, and I don't mind monsters having other rules to a certain extent, but at least for humanoid NPCs, I'd rather they stick with PC rules.

[Deadmanwalking]

Meraki wrote:

Well, I'm not wizzardman, but one example would be the character called an antipaladin in chapter 2 of Doomsday Dawn. I might be wrong, but I don't think either of her abilities exist in PC-building rules.

This is because there are no Antipaladin rules in the PC rules yet, not because such things will never be available to PCs.

I have no objection to NPCs of unusual Classes (or unusual Class options) previewing material that will be available to PCs when those Classes are published in their entirety, and frankly I don't think doing so has anything to do with the PC/NPC creation differences.

[Captain Morgan]

I think damage dice are really the only tangible way the monster/NPC rules being different is acually apparent in practice. Which is decently tough nut to crack. I like that my players aren't being handed a dozen +1 weapons to keep track of just to sell later, for example, and I also like how potency adds damage dice because that's exciting.

An automatic bonus progression seems trivial to house rule in (or provide a variant for) but there might be something to the idea of a non-stacking damage dice increase as you level up. Have it lag behind the actual magic weapon curve a little, like only adding one extra damage dice by the time your character would be getting a +2 weapon. That way your +2 weapon still matters but you aren't hitting for 1st level damage without one, and NPCs can still be threatening without magical weapons too. But that does get rather fiddly and doesn't allow for this whole PC = same level monster = same level NPC thing that I'm really digging.

[Deadmanwalking]

Captain Morgan wrote:

An automatic bonus progression seems trivial to house rule in (or provide a variant for) but there might be something to the idea of a non-stacking damage dice increase as you level up. Have it lag behind the actual magic weapon curve a little, like only adding one extra damage dice by the time your character would be getting a +2 weapon. That way your +2 weapon still matters but you aren't hitting for 1st level damage without one, and NPCs can still be threatening without magical weapons too. But that does get rather fiddly and doesn't allow for this whole PC = same level monster = same level NPC thing that I'm really digging.

The easiest solution to this, and one many people would be very pleased with, is to just say that you get this non-stacking bonus based on Proficiency (with Expert in weapons giving you one extra die, Master granting two, and Legendary three).

There's a very specific and targeted problem with this in regards to 3rd level Fighters, but a solution for that seems like it could be worked out.

[Lyee]

Can... can we just give the dice based on level? An extra dice at 4/8/12/16/20?

I have no issue with the level 12 Wizard doing 4d8 with a mundane weapon. It's not far better than a cantrip. Especially if he's not boosted strength. Doubly if he's not an expert in the weapon and it's not an expert/master weapon. I can't possibly imagine it breaking everything.

It solves the fighter-gets-proficiency-early issue. Especially since when it's based on proficiency... fighters had no reason to be getting dice before barbarians, or monks, or rangers, or paladins - these would all be getting potency runes at around the same level. Just give it to them at that level.

[Edge93]

Lyee wrote:

Can... can we just give the dice based on level? An extra dice at 4/8/12/16/20?

I have no issue with the level 12 Wizard doing 4d8 with a mundane weapon. It's not far better than a cantrip. Especially if he's not boosted strength. Doubly if he's not an expert in the weapon and it's not an expert/master weapon. I can't possibly imagine it breaking everything.

It solves the fighter-gets-proficiency-early issue. Especially since when it's based on proficiency... fighters had no reason to be getting dice before barbarians, or monks, or rangers, or paladins - these would all be getting potency runes at around the same level. Just give it to them at that level.

Yeah, this is the camp I eventually ended up in. Martials already have enough tricks to make them ace at physical combat without needing a big baseline damage difference. One thing I love about PF2.

My only problem is it kinda weakens Disarming, but capping applied property runes by weapon quality as they are now but still having it come from your level (Even the best Fighter can only do so much with a dull knife) could help that. It's easy to have multiple useable weapons but you can't just carry a dozen blades so you can never be truly disarmed.

[Rysky]

I would love for extra damage/abilities being tied to profiency.

Also regarding Goblin Skitter, was that available form day one or was it added after complaints about all the NPCs Gobbos having it?

[Lyee]

Yeah. Taking someone from 4d12+5 to 4d4+5 is still over a 50% damage decrease, and that's before property runes like fire, keen, swift, etc. Disarming might need a really minor buff, but they can 100% fix that. I'm way more happy that the heroic fight can punch something for significantly more than the city guard, or actually deal damage in an anti-magic field, than I am worried about disarm.

[Captain Morgan]

Disarming could be a minor debuff if it is easier to do. Currently, it is REALLY hard to do but can absolutely tank a martial's DPS.

[PossibleCabbage]

What if we did damage dice progressing with level but had it progress slower than the potency runes do? So you can use your highest level magic item to up the potency rune in your best weapon, but you aren't required to invest heavily in backup weapons to make them functional?

Like I see no reason a 12th level character couldn't be terrifying with a random broom or barstool.

[Tarik Blackhands]

Frankly I say scrap potency runes entirely and just tie damage to proficiency as everyone else has been saying. Paizo wants to make magic items interesting and fun? Good start to doing that is scrapping the dull gimmie options like anything resembling the Big 6.

[Deadmanwalking]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

What if we did damage dice progressing with level but had it progress slower than the potency runes do? So you can use your highest level magic item to up the potency rune in your best weapon, but you aren't required to invest heavily in backup weapons to make them functional?

Like I see no reason a 12th level character couldn't be terrifying with a random broom or barstool.

This honestly seems like around the sweet spot in terms of making both weapons and characters cool. It's also the area most monsters live in (if you look, most 12th level monsters have 3 dice of damage, not the 4 a PC of that level can manage with a +3 weapon).

If you make that flatly by level, that probably translates to something like bonus dice at 8th, 12th, 16th, and 20th, but you can give bonus dice a few levels earlier (say, 6th, 10th, 14th, and 18th) without it making weapons useless.

Proficiency would also work fine for the most part...except for Fighters, where it just kicks in too quickly.

[Charlie Brooks]

I'm fairly certain that one of the larger surveys covered the idea of tying damage to level instead of items. If you want that change (or want to make your voice heard in the other direction), I highly suggest taking that survey of you haven't already.

[Lyee]

I'm definitely on board removing potency runes entirely, and sticking to weapon quality for to-hit bonus, level for damage dice, and property runes stay as-is.

5/9/13/17 or 6/10/14/18 for extra dice might be okay, if 4/8/12/16/20 turns out to be on the powerful end.

[Deadmanwalking]

Charlie Brooks wrote:

I'm fairly certain that one of the larger surveys covered the idea of tying damage to level instead of items. If you want that change (or want to make your voice heard in the other direction), I highly suggest taking that survey of you haven't already.

There are some phrasing issues there. I believe that the question regarded removing Potency Runes entirely. Which is something that not everyone who's suggesting getting inherent extra dice is actually a fan of.

I, for example, said that I liked Potency Runes and how they worked, which is true, but not complete.

[Cellion]

Lyee wrote:

I'm definitely on board removing potency runes entirely, and sticking to weapon quality for to-hit bonus, level for damage dice, and property runes stay as-is.

5/9/13/17 or 6/10/14/18 for extra dice might be okay, if 4/8/12/16/20 turns out to be on the powerful end.

A while back, I advocated weapon quality granting the damage bonus instead of potency runes (with only 3 damage bumps @5th, 11th and 17th for Expert, Master and Legendary quality weapons respectively), then adding in a +1 damage/2 levels scaling feature to martial classes to compensate for the lost damage. Weapon potency runes would still be around to provide +1 to hit per rune.

Its a bit of a middle ground.

I'm not a huge fan of tying damage bumps to proficiency. I like the idea that you can be more accurate, but less damaging, and less accurate but more damaging.

[Vic Ferrari]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

For one thing, from what they've said, it is entirely legal to stat up NPCs using the PC rules. Not all of them are done that way, but the PCs are not categorically different from all NPCs in using them. That definitely adds verisimilitude.

Yes, they seem to be going the 5th Ed route: generally, an NPC might be an assassin, bandit, mage, or what-not, an approximation, but NPCs can also be built just like PCs (up to the DM).

[wizzardman]

Meraki wrote:

I'm not wizzardman

You're better off, trust me. That jerk has to work on occasion.

Shisumo wrote:

This does not appear to be the case in the current mode of the game.

Goblin Scuttle (the reaction ability that allows a goblin to step when an ally ends a move action adjacent to them) is listed on all goblins listed in the Bestiary, but is not available to PC goblins as a feat or racial ability. While this does not necessarily declare that Goblin Scuttle is a racial ability, but when every non-custom (and probably the majority of custom) goblins feature this ability, its hard to say that "all Goblins can Goblin Scuttle" is not strongly implied.

And honestly, this is going to become more of an issue later, as more "PC" races make it into the Bestiary, and more "NPC" races with strong unique abilities (such as Hobgoblin's Formation or the Orc's 100%-superior-to-halforcs-because-we-can-do-this-all-day Ferocity) get playable "versions" of themselves.

And yes, sure, PCs are unique and special, yadda yadda. But players typically don't like being told that they're special because they're actively worse than most members of their species, even if its only in one way.

Shisumo wrote:

Looking over the NPCs in the Bestiary, none of them seem to have any skill ratings more than a point or two higher than a PC of the same level could have, at worst - since the players don't know exactly what level their opponents are, I'm not sure how they would know that's off. (Also, the NPCs numbers are going to be adjusted in the final game anyway...)

We'll see what the numbers look like after the Playtest. If they're fair, then I won't worry about it. But my previous experiences with NPC-segregated statting systems have shown that designers tend to... stop paying as much attention to the numbers after a while. Monsters get special upgrades so they can do X; NPCs get extra skills so they always win this skill check, no matter how hard the PCs try to catch up. It can leave players feeling rather cheated.

Shisumo wrote:

Abilities from an NPC's educational or experience background that cannot be replicated by any PC build

See above, re: Goblin Scuttle. See the Bugbear Fighter with Bushwhacking Flail, or the Drow Fighter with Skewer. I'm not trying to harp on these too much, but with this and the adventures we've gotten so far, its not too hard to find NPC rules that PCs simply don't get access to

Shisumo wrote:

Every listed "classed" NPC caster in the Bestiary has exactly the right number of spells for their equivalent level.

I'll grant you that one as of right now. I don't necessarily trust that this will stay consistent.

And honestly that's one of the biggest reasons I'm arguing for NPC and PC creation rules to be the same. *Especially* for non-monsters. I'm not trying to argue that "the designers will cheat and do weird things", but mistakes happen, exceptions slip by, rules get approved that shouldn't have, etc. I don't trust separated systems to remain balanced against each other. I don't really trust a continuous system to remain balanced either, but flaws are much more obvious in a continuous system than in separated systems. I won't have to run the numbers twice to know if something is broken.

Edit: As Rysky pointed out, Skitter is actually now available to PCs (it wasn't available as of Playtest version 1, which is what I was referencing as I worked on this post).

If the plan is to provide all NPC abilities that every member of that species gets as feats available to the PCs, then I can accept the current situation. Hell, if that applies to abilities provided to "Species X Fighter" as well (or "Species X Class" in general), then I'm extra-okay with it. But I don't expect that'll be viable; rather, I suspect many of those abilities aren't balanced for PCs, and won't be available outside of houserules.

[Vic Ferrari]

3rd Ed/PF is the only edition to design monsters as PCs, so, it is an outlier. Monsters and NPCs (often monsters) also sometimes have unique features in AD&D (like Drizzt and his % chance to instantly kill).

[Joana]

^This is why 3.x is my favorite edition.

[wizzardman]

Vic Ferrari wrote:

3rd Ed/PF is the only edition to design monsters as PCs, so, it is an outlier. Monsters and NPCs (often monsters) also sometimes have unique features in AD&D (like Drizzt and his % chance to instantly kill).

Not all Drow are Drizzt. A lot of my concerns are focused around situations where the default, generic, straight from the Bestiary NPC versions of PC-capable species all have abilities that PCs of the same species can't mach.

[Deadmanwalking]

wizzardman wrote:

If the plan is to provide all NPC abilities that every member of that species gets as feats available to the PCs, then I can accept the current situation. Hell, if that applies to abilities provided to "Species X Fighter" as well (or "Species X Class" in general), then I'm extra-okay with it.

I feel like this is a pretty likely outcome, actually. Or something very much like it anyway.

wizzardman wrote:

But I don't expect that'll be viable; rather, I suspect many of those abilities aren't balanced for PCs, and won't be available outside of houserules.

Here I disagree. I think the balance point on most 'monster' abilities that are on PC-appropriate species is pretty reasonable. Orc Ferocity would definitely be too powerful...but frankly Orc Ferocity is too powerful for a monster ability, too (it makes them invulnerable as long as they don't get hit twice in a round...that's a bit much, y'know?). And the Hobgoblin's Formation ability, while quite good for certain groups, seems perfectly reasonable as an Ancestry Feat to me.

[wizzardman]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

I feel like this is a pretty likely outcome, actually. Or something very much like it anyway.

If that remains consistent, I'll be fairly satisfied. I'd still rather have them running on the same rules system, but as long as the two can generally "match", I can wallpaper over most of the other differences (in my own games or in Society play).

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Here I disagree. I think the balance point on most 'monster' abilities that are on PC-appropriate species is pretty reasonable. Orc Ferocity would definitely be too powerful...but frankly Orc Ferocity is too powerful for a monster ability, too (it makes them invulnerable as long as they don't get hit twice in a round...that's a bit much, y'know?). And the Hobgoblin's Formation ability, while quite good for certain groups, seems perfectly reasonable as an Ancestry Feat to me.

...Yeah, honestly, Ferocity was exactly the one I was thinking of when I said some of these will probably not be PC-appropriate, and if that's nerfed to being once-per-day as well (or maybe half-nerfed to 3/day, and then the PC ability is buffed to match or turns into a 'spend a resonance mk2 point' or something), then I think that's a fair compromise.

And I'd really like to see Formation as a racial feat (or Pack Attack from Gnolls). I don't think most of these abilities are unfairly balanced. I just... don't really expect to get them, and won't until I actually see them on paper. I've seen too many examples from all the other systems out there that don't keep PCs and NPCs sync'd, where NPCs just get whatever is convenient, even if it means PCs feel like chopped-up, half-boiled versions of NPC concepts.

[Vic Ferrari]

wizzardman wrote:

Like I said, a lot of my concerns are focused on abilities found on the most commonly encounter versions of various NPCs species (hence the mentions of abilities found on goblins, hobgoblins, and orcs). I don't mind if unique NPCs have abilities that PCs can't match -- especially ones that have entire lines of novels specifically dedicated to how awesome they are.

So, common representatives of a race must match up to PCs, but NPCs (which are all unique), have free reign to have whatever unique abilities?

[wizzardman]

Vic Ferrari wrote:

So, common representatives of a race must match up to PCs, but NPCs (which are all unique), have free reign to have whatever unique abilities?

Common representatives of a species (or class) must have abilities that PCs can also have, while uncommon or unique representatives of a species or class can have abilities befitting whatever makes them special compared to most others (but probably shouldn't have abilities that don't have thematic justification, or it gets weird).

All Drow can have Darkvision, but Drizzt can have "% murderchance", though I'd prefer if he had a source of it, or was particularly known for having the "% murderchance" ability and had to pay for it at some in-system or in-universe cost.

Essentially, PCs should have access to anything about their species that's not particularly special, but NPCs can have special things if they have a special reason for having them, and are themselves special.

[Vic Ferrari]

wizzardman wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

So, common representatives of a race must match up to PCs, but NPCs (which are all unique), have free reign to have whatever unique abilities?

Common representatives of a species (or class) must have abilities that PCs can also have, while uncommon or unique representatives of a species or class can have abilities befitting whatever makes them special compared to most others (but probably shouldn't have abilities that don't have thematic justification, or it gets weird).

Right, so, what's the problem?

[wizzardman]

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Right, so, what's the problem?

Well, like I said in the posts above, if there are traits that every member of species X in the Bestiary has, and those are the versions most likely to be encountered in any DM's game (which they are, because this is the base Bestiary), and PCs can't get access to that trait, then the game is either providing common representatives of that species that have abilities the PCs can't have, or uncommon representatives of that species that aren't marked as uncommon and will be the most common versions used.

[Shisumo]

wizzardman, I don't mean to call you out directly, but you do seem to be taking a lot of assumptions about how the game might turn out and treating them more like facts. The arrival of Goblin Scuttle as a heritage feat in 1.5 demonstrates that Paizo is indeed aware of the issue you're concerned with. Moreover, none of those concerns are at all inherent to the idea of NPCs being built differently than PCs. Is it fair to ask you to take a more wait-and-see approach, now that you've put your concerns out there?