| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We hit an issue yesterday while playing an SFS adventure : There was a monster with a Swoop Hammer, but nowhere in its stat block was an indication of the Unwieldy special property of the Swoop Hammer.
At first, we thought that being a monster we should apply the stat block and consider he was able to wield the Swoop Hammer like no character could. But then, we realized that he could also have a range weapon, and because the stat blocks never give precision about the number of hands necessary to wield a weapon, he could full attack with both a Swoop Hammer and a rifle despite having just 2 arms.
So, we ended up with the logical solution of using the Swoop Hammer Unwieldy property despite not being specified.
If it was intended for the monster to use a Swoop Hammer as a "wieldy" weapon, then, it should have been specified in its stat block, to avoid any discussion. And if it was just something forgotten, then, a FAQ entry indicating that monsters using weapons are using the stats of the actual weapon the players can use unless something is specified in the stat block would be nice, in my opinion.
An unwieldy weapon cannot be used as part of a full attack. using a second wieldy weapon (un un wieldy weapon?) wouldn't help that.
An unwieldy weapon cannot be used as part of a full attack. using a second wieldy weapon (un un wieldy weapon?) wouldn't help that.
That's the whole point: Is it unwieldy? :)
RAW, it's not, RAI, it must.
I assume all the statistics and qualities of a weapon carry over (examples: critical effects, range increments, capacity and usage, and special qualities like archaic, unwieldy, analog, etc.) even when used by an NPC (whether a playable race or not).
My understanding is that the default is every race has two "hands" (whether actual hands, tentacles, claws, or something else) with which to manipulate objects unless stated otherwise.
While it's not RAW, is it possible the monster was just big enough that a melee weapon which is unwieldy for a human or vesk wouldn't be unwieldy for it?
While it's not RAW, is it possible the monster was just big enough that a melee weapon which is unwieldy for a human or vesk wouldn't be unwieldy for it?
Actually, it's RAW. Monster stat blocks are supposed to contain everything about the monsters. As monsters are not following the PC rules, the weapon properties are not supposed to be carried over to the monsters.
I assume all the statistics and qualities of a weapon carry over (examples: critical effects, range increments, capacity and usage, and special qualities like archaic, unwieldy, analog, etc.) even when used by an NPC (whether a playable race or not).
That's what I call the logical interpretation: using character rules for monsters using weapons. It allows the DM to handle situations like: An enemy is disarmed and takes whatever other weapon lies next to him.
In my opinion, it should be added to a FAQ. With a few rules for specific cases (disarmed monster using another weapon is the one coming to my mind, as there are proficiency questions, for example).
Sounds like the monster in question is the gatecrasher which has the ability to wield two-handed weapons in one hand and ignore the unwieldy rule.
Sounds like the monster in question is the gatecrasher which has the ability to wield two-handed weapons in one hand and ignore the unwieldy rule.
Obviously not, but it's an interesting creature, in that it tend to go in the logical rule direction we have followed.
And if it was just something forgotten, then, a FAQ entry indicating that monsters using weapons are using the stats of the actual weapon the players can use unless something is specified in the stat block would be nice, in my opinion.
When creating an NPC that uses weapons, you give them the weapon. With all the weapon's stats. It doesn't need a FAQ when that's already the rule.
It would be nice for writers to include special qualities in stat blocks as a reminder, but that's not how they've written them. Looking through AA1, they include crit effects, but leave off things like archaic, nonlethal, automatic, etc.
When creating an NPC that uses weapons, you give them the weapon. With all the weapon's stats. It doesn't need a FAQ when that's already the rule.
Monsters from the bestiary are not following NPC creation rules. And I completely agree that we should apply all the weapon special properties. It's more something that is missing.
Also, things like ammunition and usage are very important (especially with weapons like Shirren-eye rifles).
Current system forces DMs to search for weapons in the rules to properly play monsters. It defeat the concept of having simple stat blocks.
When creating an NPC that uses weapons, you give them the weapon. With all the weapon's stats. It doesn't need a FAQ when that's already the rule.Monsters from the bestiary are not following NPC creation rules. And I completely agree that we should apply all the weapon special properties. It's more something that is missing.
Also, things like ammunition and usage are very important (especially with weapons like Shirren-eye rifles).
Current system forces DMs to search for weapons in the rules to properly play monsters. It defeat the concept of having simple stat blocks.
Fairly certain they follow that aspect of the rules at least... There are quite a few monsters that break the guidelines in the NPC creation rules, but they're close, and I believe all the weapons are exact in damage dice. Unless you're talking about SFS statblocks specifically?
But I agree that statblocks should include more detailed weapon stats. Things like unwieldy, or blast, or line, or... I could go on. Damage and crit effect might tell you next to nothing about how the weapon actually works.
Actually, it's RAW. Monster stat blocks are supposed to contain everything about the monsters.
That's not raw it's a guideline.
It's definitely not true. Starfinder uses nested rules within rules. Creatures have grab but don't always list what that does. Creatures use lasers but don't tell you how that will interact with the players force field.
As monsters are not following the PC rules, the weapon properties are not supposed to be carried over to the monsters.
This is a monk level leap of logic. Not raw. Raw is not "anything i can make an argument for".
The statement "relevant weapon properties SHOULD be printed in the stat block" is something that I believe to be true.
The idea that properties someone didn't write in the stat block, that are part of the weapon, is not something that I could possibly justify as logical without some source indicating that it is the intended use of monsters.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I follow the logical argument of "use all weapon properties" and am also annoyed that I have to waste time looking them all up.
The statement "relevant weapon properties SHOULD be printed in the stat block" is something that I believe to be true.
The idea that properties someone didn't write in the stat block, that are part of the weapon, is not something that I could possibly justify as logical without some source indicating that it is the intended use of monsters.
Somehow that second sentence fell apart, midpost, I realize. It was supposed to say that the idea that those properties that aren't written on the stat block shouldn't be used is not something I could justify. But somehow important words are missing.
Reminds me of when the goons in AP 1 had clubs that were technically archaic, but there was no notation that they did -5 damage to players that had modern armor.
Reminds me of when the goons in AP 1 had clubs that were technically archaic, but there was no notation that they did -5 damage to players that had modern armor.
That's because they were future clubs! lol.
I always check all the gear on all mobs, if there's anything important I add it to the .doc about the encounter (alongside its stats). Makes it easier/faster when dividing up the loot.
|
While it's not RAW, is it possible the monster was just big enough that a melee weapon which is unwieldy for a human or vesk wouldn't be unwieldy for it?Actually, it's RAW. Monster stat blocks are supposed to contain everything about the monsters. As monsters are not following the PC rules, the weapon properties are not supposed to be carried over to the monsters.
I think you're overstretching that. Monsters/NPCs aren't built the same way as PCs, but their gear doesn't magically change rulesets when it changes hands. You don't have to bother with hit dice, levels, skill points or ability points anymore, but the gear is just the gear. It's an impersonal object, it works the same for PCs and monsters.
Rather, you're bumping up against one of Paizo's really bad habits: being too thrifty with word count in the wrong places. Starfinder weapons are a bit more fiddly than Pathfinder weapons. They have many different ranges, battery sizes and capacity per shot usages. But Paizo takes for granted that we know them all by heart, and spares the word count from the statblock.
An NPC laser pistol without listed range doesn't default to 0 or infinite range either.
When not specially listed, how do you determine the DCs of weapons in the hands of an NPC or monster? The calculations are based on character levels, which NPCs don't have.
DCs for weapons aren't based on character level, they're based on item level and ability modifiers.
When not specially listed, how do you determine the DCs of weapons in the hands of an NPC or monster? The calculations are based on character levels, which NPCs don't have.
I've been defaulting to their 'ability DC' from the table.
|
Some weapons that explode or cause critical hit effects (see page 182) allow the target to attempt a saving throw. The DC of such a saving throw is typically equal to 10 + half the weapon’s item level + one of your ability modifiers. Unless stated otherwise, the ability modifier corresponds to the ability score you’d normally use to make an attack with that weapon (Dexterity for a ranged or thrown weapon, and Strength for a melee weapon). Any penalty you would normally take to your weapon attack roll also applies to this DC, including penalties from the weapon’s range increment.
Sidebar on page 181 of the CRB.
Lau already touched upon it, but NPC creature (and spaceship) entries assume that the reader knows the non-damagedice stats from the weapon used.Now, take the drow noble arms dealer from the Alien Archives as example.
Ranged LFD sonic pistol +21 (2d8+11 So; critical deafen [DC 20])
So, what important bits are lacking?
- Range (40 ft.)
- Capacity (40)
- Amounts of charges/cartridges used per shot. (4)
- Special attribute (Boost 1d6)
Since those bits are missing, does that mean that:
- The drow arms dealer has an infinite range with his pistol?
- Has unlimited ammo?
- Doesn't consume charges/shot?
- Cannot use the Boost ability of his pistol?
If the answer to any of those questions is yes, then by all means, ignore the unwieldy property of the Swoop Hammer for NPCs.
(The Drow Noble Arms dealer has further issues, since he's carrying 2 spare batteries that don't fit into his gun).
The Drow Noble Arms dealer has further issues, since he's carrying 2 spare batteries that don't fit into his gun.
You can always use smaller batteries, just not bigger batteries. Which way does the arms dealer go?
It could be that the drow are just cheap and don't like buying the more expensive batteries.
|
|
The Drow Noble Arms dealer has further issues, since he's carrying 2 spare batteries that don't fit into his gun.You can always use smaller batteries, just not bigger batteries. Which way does the arms dealer go?
It could be that the drow are just cheap and don't like buying the more expensive batteries.
He goes the wrong way: 80 charge batteries for the 40 charge gun.
He goes the wrong way: 80 charge batteries for the 40 charge gun.
He's got them overclocked so they make a huge impressive boom with the buyers.