|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can make a high level monster with class levels in PF1E in 30-45 minutes from scratch. It's not anywhere near an all day task.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.
I can also do this. This is entirely because I am an excellent rules mechanic, and it's still 30 to 45 minutes, and becomes more like an hour if we're talking a straight 15th level character with PC level equipment. And all that is per character, to boot. I have, in fact spent a whole day (or at least three or four hours) statting up enemies if I wanted to stat up several different enemies for PCs to fight in the same session.
People should not need to have my unusually high level of rules competence in the specific area of character creation in order to run Pathfinder games in which they create their own monsters. That's the height of ivory tower game design and fairly unpleasant for a lot of people.
The chief problem with skill points is the flat cost per level.It really isn't. The chief problem is fiddliness and bookkeeping. Even accountants often find the process of assigning and keeping track of skill points overly laborious, and that's a bad sign.
I can't say I get it honestly. I can see a problem with skill points from the perspective that spending them has too little yield, meaning that the system has an increment problem, but "fiddliness and bookkeeping" is pretty vague.
The cost increases when you have higher skill levels available because buying the lower increment gets you less. You end up with reduced access to skill feats and fewer reliable skills. I'm curious what your interpretation is; what trade off makes them equal in your eyes?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Jason has mentioned he's made a monster with the new rules in 5-10 minutes. If you assume that's a what high system mastery looks like, that's still a small fraction of 30 to 60 minutes. Meanwhile folks that needed a couple hours can do it in 30 to 45 minutes.
Reducing the time needed to build flavorful and well balanced monsters to 1/6th of what it used to be seems like a win. Especially when running those monsters is such a comparative joy as well.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't say I get it honestly. I can see a problem with skill points from the perspective that spending them has too little yield, meaning that the system has an increment problem, but "fiddliness and bookkeeping" is pretty vague.
Uh...no it isn't, but I'll try and clarify. The problem with Skill Points is the vast number of them, this is especially true relative to how meaningful they are, but the problem is more absolute than that. Distributing potentially hundreds of points, and certainly over 100 on most skill characters, is simply much more bookkeeping than most people want to do for one specific subcategory of their character's abilities. Even if those abilities were vastly more powerful, the bookkeeping would remain a serious issue.
Keeping track of how many you get is logistically difficult and unpleasant, with many people just not having the right number on their character sheet due to math errors of one sort or another, and even those who don't needing to spend more time fiddling with skill points than any other character resource except maybe money. This extends even to the creators of the game on occasion. The bookkeeping is simply overly onerous, especially for the benefit gained.
The cost increases when you have higher skill levels available because buying the lower increment gets you less. You end up with reduced access to skill feats and fewer reliable skills.
This is not universally true at all. It's only true of Skills you want to get Skill Feats in, and only if you want to get those with a higher Proficiency requirement. That's true in some cases but definitively not all of them, and is often true for fewer Skills than you have the Skill Ranks to raise.
Let's look at an Intimidate based Barbarian, for example. She is 16th level and has taken literally every Intimidate Skill Feat (this is arguably even a solid decision). That's seven of her nine Skill Feats right there, and of the other two, one is pre-chosen by Background and will never require more than Trained, and the other (in her case) is Multilingual (for character reasons).
She obviously needs Legendary Intimidate, because that's her whole schtick, but the 'optimal' version of having two Master Skills aside from that? Not relevant in the least. Four Expert ones is equally viable in almost every possible way.
I'm curious what your interpretation is; what trade off makes them equal in your eyes?
A 15th level character can have either two Master and one Legendary Skill, or three master and one Expert, or two Master and three Expert. There is no way to get more Expert Skills other than 'cashing in' some of your possible Master or Legendary options for more Expert ones. The inherent opportunity cost is almost exactly the same. The Skill Mastery Rogue Archetype Feat is something of an exception to this, but it's a very niche and specific one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't see the appeal of skill ranks at all. Like I've not played a PF1 character who put more than 0 but less than [Level] ranks in a skill, since it's pretty much pointless to do so.I've frequently had 1 rank in class skills, or enough ranks in something to hit a threshold such as auto-passing a specific ride check.
Exactly, there is plenty of relatively low DC checks in the game that it can be very reassuring to bring to auto-pass, including accounting for Armor Check Penalty. Basic riding checks, basic swimming in flat water, etc. You don't need max ranks for those, but you need more than 0 or possibly more than 1.
Another one, that may oftenly involve MORE ranks yet not requiring "max" up to 20th level: UMD. If you are happy using Wands you never need to hit more than DC20, so once you hit +19 from ranks, CHA, Class Skill, other bonuses, more ranks don't help that usage. Since UMD minimum DC is 20, putting 1 rank/level into it isn't really giving you much value until you get +10 to +15 (and one approach is ignoring it until grabbing +INT item would give you at least +15). But if you are totally happy just using Wands and don't need higher DC usages of UMD, why wouldn't you consider putting ranks into Climb, Swim, Ride thru low-mid levels, and then switch to putting 3 ranks/level into UMD to hit DC20 reliability at same level you would by putting 1 rank/level into it AND you get baseline low-mid DC functionalit in Climb, Swim, Ride.
This is the point of Objective DCs, as opposed to universally level-scaled DCs, that not every skill task is Level-scaled, and (in rank model) minimal ranks can and are be 100% sufficient for limited scope of tasks. Now, really ranks aren't required for that dynamic, it's really more like 4-5 tiers that are relevant, which Skill Proficiency roughly matches. Not that Proficiency tiers are numerically so important vs +Level, Stats, and d20 variance, but that tasks are gated by Proficiency means you can either do them or not. Unfortunately, the Objective DCs (/modifiers) are woefully undeveloped in Playtest so we can't really see that in action.
I think removing the +1 level system for skills, could work, and would be more "realistic" as long as, no skill ranks. skills only increase with stats and 5 proficiency levels. and the DC's get readjusted to compensate.
im not a fan of the -4. -2 is far more realistic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I think I agree with you Deadmanwalking. I like Potency runes, and think they contribute to the game making magical items shine. However, I agree that there needs to be a way for PCs (or even NPCs) to get scaling damage at higher levels, not unlike the monsters do.
To make the magic items remain relevant, as others have suggested, the progression should in general probably lag behind what you might expect someone might have access to with respect to magic weapons.
Actually, a relatively simple base line that could be made would be to say that when using a manufactured weapon for melee or ranged attack, your baseline for determining damage bonus could be simply based on your attack bonus. It could be as simple as +10 = 2dX; +20 = 3dX; +30 = 4dX; +40 = 5dX. Just doing a quick glance through the bestiary searching for Damage #x and looking at Melee attacks that are based on a weapon, rather than some special attack, or natural weapon, many of these are actually matching up pretty closely.
So potentially level + ability + item bonus + proficiency /10 round down could potentially become a non-stacking non-magical minimum extra dice damage for standard manufactured weapons. IT could even be used as a general standard for natural weapons, but they are likely a little arbitrary anyway, so different monsters may have more or fewer dice damage associated with their particular natural attacks. I see some examples where the monsters get less than that, but it seems to be somewhat close, that it might be a good starting point.
I think removing the +1 level system for skills, could work, and would be more "realistic" as long as, no skill ranks. skills only increase with stats and 5 proficiency levels. and the DC's get readjusted to compensate.
IMHO the whole point of all mechanics working on same paradigm is it allows them to interface, i.e Athletics vs Attack or AC. Now you probably can make that work if you can assume Skill DCs themself don't assume +Level, but when Skill vs Attack/AC usages occur you would add +Level to the Skill. Really, that isn't even particular to Skill vs Non-Skill, I think we could imagine checks vs Objective DCs not using +Level, but checks vs Level-Scaled DCs including enemy opposed Skill Checks, could use +Level on top Skill modifier.
Playtest is rough sketch of basic ideas, as so is more "fundamentalist" in approach since it's testing basic ideas. Hybrid targeted approaches can certainly be more viable in final game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for the writeup. It's an impressive number of surveys recieved.
With a bit of a stats background - Paizo sent out a general direction survey a long time ago (about 1-2 years) asking about how one played Pathfinder, the products one purchased, and the direction they wanted to see the game go. As I filled it out I told my wife it looked like another edition was coming. I'd hope that they are using that data to try and to 'weight' the playtest surveys to get that excellent confidence interval.
I am really pleased to see that Jason thinks they should have released a converted adventure. I was dead keen to try the playtest and grabbed 2 copies of the core rules and also the adventure. And then realised it wasn't an adventure and was just a collection of set pieces. That combined with the difficulty of understanding the core rules meant I didn't participate. I would have been all over a 3-6 session module/adventure.
Whilst I think one of the best attractions of Pathfinder is the ability to slap class levels, feats, and Hit Dice progression on monsters I can see why I'm a minority.
Assigning skill ranks or whatever is not going to be more "realistic" because people don't level up in real life.
Assigning skill ranks or whatever is not going to be more "realistic" because people don't level up in real life.
people most certainly level up skill wise. watch the first trial of a NEW ADA then watch thier 20th.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I don't generally think that 10% is honestly a reasonable value to use as the base, I'm more than willing to argue that something more like the 50% that was typical in Pathfinder is more than reasonable.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.10% market value for rare magic items that can't easily be made or found makes no sense whatsoever and is totally divorced from anything even remotely resembling a rational market. The economy doesn't have to make a ton of sense, but +4 Shocking weapons aren't that common. The idea that someone will pay ten times more for one because it's in the magic item store than if they bought it directly from the adventurer that pulled it out of the dungeon is just not working for me at all.
....
So would I. I don't have any problem with 50%, and I don't believe I ever said I did. 10% is absurdly low.
People like to complain about the 50% you get from selling things in pathfinder, and say... how come the shop down the street can sell for more. The reason is quite simple. The shop down the street has quite a few things, of which quite a few people want, and who quite a few people know. They aren't selling the longsword for 100% price, they are selling their whole inventory for normal 100% price, and a small subset of those items get sold every certain period of time.
The reason a particular adventurer can't just turn around and sell an item for 100%. They are defining the object they want to sell and the time they want to sell it ('now') and they may not even be known, or considered reliable, so it is perfectly reasonable for the sale price to reflect this.This can be seen in what happens in real life. Car dealers generally get more for the cars, because they have the inventory and people come to them when they want something. They have to maintain the inventory, but they get to charge more, and offer to fix up the car if need be and something come up. Private party sales of cars, the buyers pay less, because they know they can get the price down because the person selling it probably really wants to sell it sooner rather than later.
Yes. I agree with all of that. If your plan is "come into town, sell stuff, go back to the dungeon" (which is fairly common for adventurers), you're going to take a hit on the value. The most common buyers will be people looking to resell or repurpose, and they will want to make a profit so they won't pay market value. The value you get in selling to them at a discount is you don't have to spend any time dealing with it. You get an immediate buyer, get gold you can spend, and you're on your way. They deal with then trying to find a buyer and get a profit out of it.
That's fine. 10% is not fine. At that rate, it makes far more sense for multiple adventuring groups to band together into a guild and start up their own shops, because even if they only push their sales up to 50% of market value by having their own shops, that is four times more revenue on the same inventory and it's still half of what everyone else is selling the same thing for, which will make finding demand very easy (including from other adventurers, mercenaries, and anyone else who can use the stuff adventurers often find).
While a car dealership can get more for a car than a private seller, it's not ten times the private sale number. Hell, pawn shops around here give you more than 10% of their sale price even before haggling.
50% as a number works fine. 10% destroys my suspension of disbelief that this is anything other than a number chosen strictly for the game reason of being able to dump tons of stuff on PCs as loot without letting them actually acquire wealth.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Assigning skill ranks or whatever is not going to be more "realistic" because people don't level up in real life.people most certainly level up skill wise. watch the first trial of a NEW ADA then watch thier 20th.
People grow in skill in real life. They don't level up. There's no arbitrary point where after 3 cases the ADA goes "ding!" and is now a better lawyer.
Levels are themselves unrealistic. Which is fine, because they are easy to understand and track for game purposes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I don't generally think that 10% is honestly a reasonable value...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.
Starfinder is no role model for economy, I would even go as far as saying that's the worst part of the game. The ever-increasing prices going beyond any common sense, with huge costs by later levels. I mean, if you take 2 seconds to think about it you'll see how insane is the price tag on some items, specially utility items costing more than permanent weapons and don't get me started on grenades and how awful they are. Urgh I'm annoyed just by thinking about it.
I would definitely would love if there were alternative rules for it in the future.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Assigning skill ranks or whatever is not going to be more "realistic" because people don't level up in real life.people most certainly level up skill wise. watch the first trial of a NEW ADA then watch thier 20th.
People grow in skill in real life. They don't level up. There's no arbitrary point where after 3 cases the ADA goes "ding!" and is now a better lawyer.
Levels are themselves unrealistic. Which is fine, because they are easy to understand and track for game purposes.
I don't know man, I leveled up IRL like two weeks ago and I'm still living down that rush, are you sure you're paying attention?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Keeping track of how many you get is logistically difficult and unpleasant, with many people just not having the right number on their character sheet due to math errors of one sort or another, and even those who don't needing to spend more time fiddling with skill points than any other character resource except maybe money. This extends even to the creators of the game on occasion. The bookkeeping is simply overly onerous, especially for the benefit gained.
I guess I didn't realize how many players balk at the idea of occasionally doing math or consistently keeping track of fairly permanent numbers. Concessions like this would seem to be at odds with the increase in metacurrencies though, so I'm not completely convinced that's the reason.
I'm convinced enough to stop arguing about it though, thanks for the clarification.
Thanks for the writeup. It's an impressive number of surveys recieved.
With a bit of a stats background - Paizo sent out a general direction survey a long time ago (about 1-2 years) asking about how one played Pathfinder, the products one purchased, and the direction they wanted to see the game go. As I filled it out I told my wife it looked like another edition was coming. I'd hope that they are using that data to try and to 'weight' the playtest surveys to get that excellent confidence interval.
I am really pleased to see that Jason thinks they should have released a converted adventure. I was dead keen to try the playtest and grabbed 2 copies of the core rules and also the adventure. And then realised it wasn't an adventure and was just a collection of set pieces. That combined with the difficulty of understanding the core rules meant I didn't participate. I would have been all over a 3-6 session module/adventure.
Whilst I think one of the best attractions of Pathfinder is the ability to slap class levels, feats, and Hit Dice progression on monsters I can see why I'm a minority.
Speaking as someone who is converting an AP, it isn't as hard as you'd think.
And you can still slap class levels, feats, and HD (Level) progression onto monsters. It is in many ways easier.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yuck! Some people actually want skill ranks back? :{ :p :PYES. 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.I hate making a 5th level character and having to asign ever single point for skills and really those little points don't mean anything besides a bonus. Its tedious and my whole group feels the same way. assigning Skills has been the least fun part of our D&D experience since 3.0.
The current skill system is a good start that needs polishing. the prof system needs to expand more for when you increase an prof (yes like catfall #Catfallisperfectskillfeat). Which I still have hopes for.
I do not need to 96 little skill points to break up between 11 skills to somehow maximize my role playing ability with my character. saying trained or master or legendary is way more role play friendly.
You might hate it, but some of us enjoy a little bit of granularity and want to have that back.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can make a high level monster with class levels in PF1E in 30-45 minutes from scratch. It's not anywhere near an all day task.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.
I can also do this. This is entirely because I am an excellent rules mechanic, and it's still 30 to 45 minutes, and becomes more like an hour if we're talking a straight 15th level character with PC level equipment. And all that is per character, to boot. I have, in fact spent a whole day (or at least three or four hours) statting up enemies if I wanted to stat up several different enemies for PCs to fight in the same session.
People should not need to have my unusually high level of rules competence in the specific area of character creation in order to run Pathfinder games in which they create their own monsters. That's the height of ivory tower game design and fairly unpleasant for a lot of people.
I don't really see anything wrong with expecting people, especially DMs, to have a decent understanding of the system they're playing.
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really see anything wrong with expecting people, especially DMs, to have a decent understanding of the system they're playing.I can make a high level monster with class levels in PF1E in 30-45 minutes from scratch. It's not anywhere near an all day task.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.
I can also do this. This is entirely because I am an excellent rules mechanic, and it's still 30 to 45 minutes, and becomes more like an hour if we're talking a straight 15th level character with PC level equipment. And all that is per character, to boot. I have, in fact spent a whole day (or at least three or four hours) statting up enemies if I wanted to stat up several different enemies for PCs to fight in the same session.
People should not need to have my unusually high level of rules competence in the specific area of character creation in order to run Pathfinder games in which they create their own monsters. That's the height of ivory tower game design and fairly unpleasant for a lot of people.
That's not "decent understanding of the system they're playing". Decent understanding means handling Stealth rules or knowing how LOS works. NPC building is "masterful understanding". It's about the pinnacle of system mastery in 3e/PF. Just like you can't realistically expect every person you work with to hold a PhD in the given field, the expectation of every DM out there being DeadManWalking is unrealistic or perhaps even disingenuous for people who don't reach such level of proficiency because they don't pursue it for whatever reason.
So, it takes half an hour to an hour to build one high-level statblock with masterful understanding of the system. Some people with masterful understanding of the system have jobs, families and other hobbies which compete for our free time.
Which also means that my time preparing RPG game sessions is competing with other forms of entertainment. RPGs are pretty ugly time-consuming. D&D 3e/PF are VERY time-consuming in this regard. Once I'm faced with having to spend a couple of hours preparing for a game night, the prospect of:
a) using a less time-consuming RPG (5e or even better, Dungeon World)
b) ditching RPGs altogether and breaking out Gloomhaven or Descent
becomes appealing. So I'll welcome anything that makes my job (because it's a job, given the amount of time and intellectual engagement it requires) of prepping games easier.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Although I do wish ever DM had the understanding of DeadManWalking.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I didn't realize how many players balk at the idea of occasionally doing math or consistently keeping track of fairly permanent numbers. Concessions like this would seem to be at odds with the increase in metacurrencies though, so I'm not completely convinced that's the reason.
It has to do with the scale of the absolute numbers. Keeping track of X/10 is much easier for most people than keeping track of X/128, even if X is exactly the same number.
Why this is could be debated, but it's clearly true for most people most of the time.
And many characters are actually going down in total number of metacurrencies. Non-casters are going up by one or so (depending on how Resonance/Focus works out), but casters previously often had at least four or five, and that total number is definitely getting pared down (since most of them are combined into Spell Points). I definitely wouldn't say the net number of metacurrencies most PC groups have to keep track of is going up.
I'm convinced enough to stop arguing about it though, thanks for the clarification.
No problem, I'm always happy to clarify my posts for ease of discussion.
I don't really see anything wrong with expecting people, especially DMs, to have a decent understanding of the system they're playing.
Being able to do PF1 character creation quickly is not a 'basic understanding'. It's an advanced one, and in a very specific area that has almost nothing to do with any other aspect of running the game. It's also fairly math intensive in its way, which is fine for me because I'm one of the naturally best people I've ever met at basic math (the only person I've met who's legitimately better is going to school for accounting because he wants an easy job he can turn his brain off for), but is a bit of a tall order for those less naturally adept at math to accomplish both accurately and quickly.
|
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
If only it was math. It's also being able to tailor the feats/spells/items on the NPC and to make all the choices a player makes over the course of several years in half an hour.
That's also making some very important decisions. Are the NPCs optimised? If yes, how? Are the NPCs built with out-of-combat spells and abilities, or are they laser-focused killers made to challenge the party at utmost? Since the PF1 CR system isn't perfect and treats a 2h human Fighter 10 the same as it treats whip-wielding human Rogue 3/Monk 3/Wizard 3/Expert 2 and the same way it treats a Hill Giant Cleric 3, you need to be aware of the discrepancy and its consequences set against the party.
It's a lot of science and a lot of art. It's the single most demanding element of 3e/PF gaming, and even armed with Hero Lab and having spend a truckload of money on it, you're still uphill. If somebody says they're handling this in minutes and see no issue, well, all the power to you, but even us experienced GMs find the process demanding, cumbersome, and frequently, too much work for what you get out of it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If only it was math. It's also being able to tailor the feats/spells/items on the NPC and to make all the choices a player makes over the course of several years in half an hour.
To be clear, I didn't intend to say it was only math, I was just mentioning math as one factor. I agree entirely with all the additional difficulties you cite as well.
That's not "decent understanding of the system they're playing". Decent understanding means handling Stealth rules or knowing how LOS works. NPC building is "masterful understanding". It's about the pinnacle of system mastery in 3e/PF. Just like you can't realistically expect every person you work with to hold a PhD in the given field, the expectation of every DM out there being DeadManWalking is unrealistic or perhaps even disingenuous for people who don't reach such level of proficiency because they...I don't really see anything wrong with expecting people, especially DMs, to have a decent understanding of the system they're playing.I can make a high level monster with class levels in PF1E in 30-45 minutes from scratch. It's not anywhere near an all day task.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.
I can also do this. This is entirely because I am an excellent rules mechanic, and it's still 30 to 45 minutes, and becomes more like an hour if we're talking a straight 15th level character with PC level equipment. And all that is per character, to boot. I have, in fact spent a whole day (or at least three or four hours) statting up enemies if I wanted to stat up several different enemies for PCs to fight in the same session.
People should not need to have my unusually high level of rules competence in the specific area of character creation in order to run Pathfinder games in which they create their own monsters. That's the height of ivory tower game design and fairly unpleasant for a lot of people.
Stealth rules and LOS are very basic concepts, you can't play without knowing them. Being able to build NPCs isn't a master level task, it's one of the main responsibilities of a DM.
10-15 hours of study is sufficient to have an understanding of basic build concepts and solid feat selection that will make NPC creation fairly quick. The rest comes from experience.
To be clear, I have both a job and a family, and manage to find time for this without it even being my most time-consuming hobby or neglecting anything else.
I just take issue with pandering to those who don't take the time to really learn the game and making it shallower for those of us who enjoy it.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like "building NPCs is part of the GM's job" and noting that it might not be a strength of some otherwise excellent GMs (I mean, I'd rather sit at the table with someone who's excellent at narration and improvisation than someone who can build good monsters) is a strong argument for making NPC creation simpler.
It is after all easier to give the GM fewer things to manage than to somehow make "thinking on your feet" easier.
I just take issue with pandering to those who don't take the time to really learn the game and making it shallower for those of us who enjoy it.
Well, you’re in luck, I have seen nothing about creating monsters or NPCs that make the game “shallow”. One can develop them to their heart’s content. The emphasis seems to be on your vision of the monster/NPC in question, as opposed to making the vision fit a PC paradigm that it didn’t quite fit into anyway.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Being able to do PF1 character creation quickly is not a 'basic understanding'. It's an advanced one, and in a very specific area that has almost nothing to do with any other aspect of running the game. It's also fairly math intensive in its way, which is fine for me because I'm one of the naturally best people I've ever met at basic math (the only person I've met who's legitimately better is going to school for accounting because he wants an easy job he can turn his brain off for), but is a bit of a tall order for those less naturally adept at math to accomplish both accurately and quickly.
I'm positively atrocious at math and can create an NPC reasonably quickly, but I also have a lot of experience doing so (it would have taken me a lot longer when I was just starting out with the system) and a decent memory for things related to words. So I'm not sure it's the math that bogs people down so much as the huge variety of options for character building.
I really wouldn't mind a more streamlined system for NPC creation, but I want that to also fit naturally in with what PCs can do. What I don't want is for NPCs to A) be able to do things PCs of the same class can't learn (without an in-universe reason why they know it--"she invented this spell and won't share it" is perfectly fine) and B) be flat-out better than a PC specializing in the same area. The second concern may well be fixed when they change the monster math, but I'm not certain.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm positively atrocious at math and can create an NPC reasonably quickly, but I also have a lot of experience doing so (it would have taken me a lot longer when I was just starting out with the system) and a decent memory for things related to words. So I'm not sure it's the math that bogs people down so much as the huge variety of options for character building.
Calculating all numerical bonuses quickly and correctly is a pure math thing. Simple, but still pure math. As are Skill Points, which are the area I see most people screw up the most in PF1 NPC creation.
That said, as I noted above, math is only one part of the issue, just one I was using as an example there.
I really wouldn't mind a more streamlined system for NPC creation, but I want that to also fit naturally in with what PCs can do. What I don't want is for NPCs to A) be able to do things PCs of the same class can't learn (without an in-universe reason why they know it--"she invented this spell and won't share it" is perfectly fine) and B) be flat-out better than a PC specializing in the same area. The second concern may well be fixed when they change the monster math, but I'm not certain.
The second certainly seems intended to not be an issue after the math update they've mentioned. As for the first...I'm not actually sure that's ever been an issue in PF2. Indeed, none of the actually listed NPCs in the Bestiary have any abilities not available to PCs of the same Class and Ancestry.
I think that an average GM should be able to use a relatively simple set of rules that can be fleshed out to very quickly create a reasonably well balance creature relatively simply by them having some tables, talking about things like ranges for exceptional, good, average, poor, atrocious values/ranges for things by level, including HP, Attack bonuses, Damage per attack, Defense bonuses, and other abilities. Certain guidance like being careful not to combine good or exceptional attack bonuses, with similarly good damage per attack on the same creature should be avoided. Or exceptional or good HP with exceptional or good defenses for instance, unless its damage potential is atrocious for instance.
So moving pegs up and down, insuring certain paired pegs don't go too high together without a balancing downward movement of another counter-peg. You can have Sewer Oozes on one end with Glass animated creatures that might do surprising damage but are awfully easy to destroy.
What might take more talent is converting a monster made for a different game system and inserting it into a converted adventure path for the second edition of the game. Trying to juggle the values in the old system and finding the appropriate ones in the new one may be a much more advanced function than some GMs may excel at. Although, I'd probably recommend viewing it first as finding an appropriate challenge for the new game, and worry less about specific details of the original monster in the first game. However, some people might be good at getting many of those details left in place in a balance way, while keeping the overall challenge right, and keeping the flavor. But that is all a high expectation to expect from everyone.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a reason designing a Monster was a part of RPG SuperStar. Doing it correctly with all the nuts and bolts is a challenge in PF1
Yup the only reason I could do it relatively fast is because I would find a similar monster to the one I'm creating and repurpose it's stats or add class levels to it then add something unique about them. Building them from scratch is hell.
When comparing 3.x/P1E ranks to current system, I think we're missing part of picture in that we don't have real Objective DCs, we only have Scaling DCs which distort the picture by removing the thresholds which ~7-20 (?) effective skill tiers ((proficiency+stat_variation+other, low to high level) are arrayed against. I mean AFAIK there isn't even same rationale for Objective DC checks to use +Level for character roll, albeit Objective & Scaled DCs were effectively on different scale that may be confusing. ~5 basic Proficiency tiers seems appropriate to real relevent level of granularity even in 3.x/P1E context, where +1 rank mostly didn't mean real change in how you would make decisions with skill, only immediately around certain thresholds... So ~5 Proficiency tiers that were consistently impactful in decision and outcome feels fine.
The small numeric value of Proficiency tiers (vs Level and Stat) does feel odd, and I wonder how that might change. Breaking it down by "you must have this proficiency to make this check" is fine, but I feel having e.g. +2 higher proficiency should also have stronger effect on results of same checks low/no-proficiency characters can make... Let's say significantly higher chances to get Critical Success Result (and avoid Crit Failure), although there is de facto reality that many other numbers (stats items) are also in play to achieve similar end the entire conceit of Proficiency-limited checks seems based on Proficiency being a very big deal.
I do wonder how Proficiency Tiers could translate numerically otherwise (than just direct bonus), what if higher Tiers raised your minimum roll in addition to flat bonus to roll? That allows more numeric impact from Proficiency Tier without increasing Proficiency impact on high end of rolls, specifically impacting Crit Failure chance. Obviously this would impact Assurance in a big way, and generally reduce d20 variation at high proficiencies, but the scale of other bonuses also provides more de facto variation amongst characters at that level so high level variation probably wouldn't over-all be less than low-level. That could even apply to attack math, although stuff like Nat1 should probably stand regardless of roll modification due to Proficiency. I mean even a minimum roll of 5 isn't going to hit vs serious opposition, although it does play into Crit Fail chances, but it has real differences when facing "trash mob" opposition and the like (while still allowing "trash mobs" chance to compete with their high rolls).
I'm still unsure of the goal re: Objective DCs though, I saw Seifter write that their lack in playtest material was not representative of their goal, but aren't sure of what goal is, or what is considered the range of possibilities for that area. It's not hard to imagine them disappearing (this would be seriously negative for me, but thaaaat game dynamic is certainly possible) and it's also not hard to imagine them existing largely as in 3.x/P1E. That has been a black hole so far, and still is as we exit playtest which didn't really touch that obviously.
...That's not "decent understanding of the system they're playing". Decent understanding means handling Stealth rules or knowing how LOS works. NPC building is "masterful understanding". It's about the pinnacle of system mastery in 3e/PF. Just like you can't realistically expect every person you work with to hold a PhD in the given field, the expectation of every DM out there being DeadManWalking is unrealistic or perhaps even disingenuous for people who don't reach such level ofI don't really see anything wrong with expecting people, especially DMs, to have a decent understanding of the system they're playing.I can make a high level monster with class levels in PF1E in 30-45 minutes from scratch. It's not anywhere near an all day task.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.
I can also do this. This is entirely because I am an excellent rules mechanic, and it's still 30 to 45 minutes, and becomes more like an hour if we're talking a straight 15th level character with PC level equipment. And all that is per character, to boot. I have, in fact spent a whole day (or at least three or four hours) statting up enemies if I wanted to stat up several different enemies for PCs to fight in the same session.
People should not need to have my unusually high level of rules competence in the specific area of character creation in order to run Pathfinder games in which they create their own monsters. That's the height of ivory tower game design and fairly unpleasant for a lot of people.
NPCs can still be built the longhand way, just like PCs, so you aren't losing anything. And monsters can still have class levels added to them just like PCs. There's simply a more streamlined option for other people.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
NPCs can, but monsters can't (at least on the bestiary for the playtest). Further, it's blatantly obvious that the monsters in there were designed in the more slipshod way. I would think the developers could take the time to fully build out monsters and make sure the rules for it are available.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
NPCs can, but monsters can't (at least on the bestiary for the playtest). Further, it's blatantly obvious that the monsters in there were designed in the more slipshod way. I would think the developers could take the time to fully build out monsters and make sure the rules for it are available.
I don't even know what you are suggesting here. I mean, there are problems the developers have acknowledged in where monsters are currently pegged, but I don't really see what that has to do with the actual monster building rules. Which we are going to get released, by the way, they just weren't a priority for the Doomsday Dawn testing period. (Quite the opposite, in fact, since they don't want people making their own monsters for. Those purposes.)
Nor do I really see what the old monster rules had that you are worried is going to be gone. The only thing I can really name is that PF1 monsters got a stupid number of feats cluttering up their statblocks. Seems like if you miss that, you can just give monsters skill and general feats at the same rate PCs get them. It strikes me as rather pointless, but what ever floats your boat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Deadmanwalking: Yeah, I'm pretty sure I mess up skill points pretty frequently, even with a calculator, but it's usually minor enough not to matter. I think the new skill system really helps this issue, though, even if NPCs were built like PCs--no more skill ranks.
I really wouldn't mind a more streamlined system for NPC creation, but I want that to also fit naturally in with what PCs can do. What I don't want is for NPCs to A) be able to do things PCs of the same class can't learn (without an in-universe reason why they know it--"she invented this spell and won't share it" is perfectly fine) and B) be flat-out better than a PC specializing in the same area. The second concern may well be fixed when they change the monster math, but I'm not certain.The second certainly seems intended to not be an issue after the math update they've mentioned. As for the first...I'm not actually sure that's ever been an issue in PF2. Indeed, none of the actually listed NPCs in the Bestiary have any abilities not available to PCs of the same Class and Ancestry.
That alleviates a good chunk of my concerns, thanks. If the more streamlined stat blocks still fit into what PCs can do, then I can just add the other stuff as needed instead of having to remake everything. I know they did add the Goblin Scuttle as a goblin anceestry feat in the updates, so I'm taking that as a promising sign.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
NPCs can, but monsters can't (at least on the bestiary for the playtest). Further, it's blatantly obvious that the monsters in there were designed in the more slipshod way. I would think the developers could take the time to fully build out monsters and make sure the rules for it are available.I don't even know what you are suggesting here. I mean, there are problems the developers have acknowledged in where monsters are currently pegged, but I don't really see what that has to do with the actual monster building rules. Which we are going to get released, by the way, they just weren't a priority for the Doomsday Dawn testing period. (Quite the opposite, in fact, since they don't want people making their own monsters for. Those purposes.)
Nor do I really see what the old monster rules had that you are worried is going to be gone. The only thing I can really name is that PF1 monsters got a stupid number of feats cluttering up their statblocks. Seems like if you miss that, you can just give monsters skill and general feats at the same rate PCs get them. It strikes me as rather pointless, but what ever floats your boat.
They were consistent across the board with PCs and NPCs. Unified systems are much easier go work with than asymmetric ones if you make the effort to learn them, because you have a direct translation from one creature type to another. For example, it makes it straightforward to do classed monsters, which I have no idea how you would do correctly in PF2.
To clarify, I'm saying I would like the devs to build monsters from the ground up instead of the "ehhh, here-ish" method.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They were consistent across the board with PCs and NPCs. Unified systems are much easier go work with than asymmetric ones if you make the effort to learn them, because you have a direct translation from one creature type to another. For example, it makes it straightforward to do classed monsters, which I have no idea how you would do correctly in PF2.
Actually, you do it exactly how you did in PF1: You take the monster and add Class levels. They've explicitly said as much and it works fine.
There may well also be something like Class Grafts/Templates, but the direct method still works fine.
To clarify, I'm saying I would like the devs to build monsters from the ground up instead of the "ehhh, here-ish" method.
They're doing this in PF2 at least as much as they ever did in PF1, and probably quite a bit more. PF1 creatures were basically just built with whatever HD and stats happened to match the CR they were being built for. I suspect the PF2 creation rules are actually quite a bit more explicit than that...
Now, they left those creation rules out of the playtest, but that was an intentional choice to reduce variables, not because they didn't exist or won't be in the final game.
They were consistent across the board with PCs and NPCs. Unified systems are much easier go work with than asymmetric ones if you make the effort to learn them, because you have a direct translation from one creature type to another. For example, it makes it straightforward to do classed monsters, which I have no idea how you would do correctly in PF2.Actually, you do it exactly how you did in PF1: You take the monster and add Class levels. They've explicitly said as much and it works fine.
It actually works better than in PF1, where class levels on monsters were worth less or more depending on how well they suited the monster's original concept, or depending on how many levels they had vs their original CR.
Not to mention how the extra stat boosts they get change up the equation.