| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hello there,
Not sure yet if I'm going to jump into 2e or not, so I was doing a little research in order to understand the rules. I began with character creation, and you find me struggling already...
I tried to create a Hellknight signifer, and then realised that one such NPC has been published (Hellknight Paravicar, Creature 11, from Character Guide).
And its stats baffle me. I must certainly miss something obvious, because I don't understand how it has, for instance, such high AC and HP or saves, so much higher that what I got with my mock-up character.
- from Creature level and Divine spontaneous spells I assume it must be a 11th level sorcerer.
With Con +2 and being human, its HP should be 8+11*(6+2) = 96. But it is listed with 145 HP! What am I missing here? I found 1 feat that increases HP, but it would only give 11 more...
- with likely no proficiency in heavy armors and wearing a +1 Hellknight Plate, its AC, as far as I understand it, should be 10+7 =17.Yet it's listed as being AC 30! How is it possible?
- being expert in will saves and having +3 Wis, its Will save should be +7. It actually is +23. What could possibly explain such a huge difference?
Thanks for your help!
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
PCs are not built with the same mechanics as NPCs in this edition. That’s what’s tripping you up.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for your quick answers! It makes a lot of sense.
I'm disappointed that 2e went down this road (asymmetrical game) too... I didn't realize at first sight. It looks so unrealistic!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The asymmetrical design is specifically to make the game challenging for a group of PCs. I prefer it myself as a single PC of equal level wasn't much of a challenge for a group.
Even in PF1 the challenge rating of a PC designed NPC was far lower than what a party would face. If you wanted to make an enemy something a single PC was able to take on as an equal, you could create something of similarly lower challenge.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
- with likely no proficiency in heavy armors and wearing a +1 Hellknight Plate, its AC, as far as I understand it, should be 10+7 =17.Yet it's listed as being AC 30! How is it possible?
- being expert in will saves and having +3 Wis, its Will save should be +7. It actually is +23. What could possibly explain such a huge difference?
Thanks for your help!
As a side note, two corrections here. Hellknight Armiger is a requirement for Signifer, so it'd be trained in heavy armour, making 10+7+13 for 30.
Similar in Will, with +3 Wis and +15 proficiency for +18. Assuming Cleric, could even be master with +20, and if you built it like a PC, might have 20 Wis with resilient armour for a +23.
Remember that proficiency includes level when trained or higher.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks Cyouni, this is very helpful! I completely missed that point! With the character level added to the proficiency bonus, the Signifer stats are not that much out of reach anymore.
Regarding the asymmetrical design, I can understand its value from the GM's point of view, but I don't find it that great from a player's perspective: as a player, I want to stand on equal footing with a NPC that should be roughly equivalent to my PC.
Deriven Firelion: you seem to regret that a single PC of equal level wasn't much of a challenge for a group. I find it rather normal and logical: IMHO a single character should be of a higher or much higher level to be a threat to a whole group. In PF1, TL was equal to CL+1 or +2, maybe it was overestimated.
Anyway, thanks everyone for your answers, it'll be easier for me to understand the rules now!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for your quick answers! It makes a lot of sense.
I'm disappointed that 2e went down this road (asymmetrical game) too... I didn't realize at first sight. It looks so unrealistic!
Yeah... But it works. The CR system won't break down and be unwieldy. You can have certainty that you're building the encounter with the intended difficulty rather than making a gamble and dealing with it while in battle.
It also ensures that monsters aren't just cannon fodder that don't have any impact in the combat (by being killed by a PC in a single round routine like it happened in PF1e).
If you want to have an easier time building characters just go here:
Pathbuilder2e web.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
In PF1, NPCs and PCs "followed" the same rules. But not really, because Paizo would look at the numbers on a monster, and fiddle with the HD, strength, etc. So you would end up with fey having massive amounts of HD, CR 14 monsters with the strength of the Terrasque, and custom fixes or loot exceptions for class-leveled NPC antagonists at high levels. All to hit certain target numbers.
In PF2, you just give them the target numbers. No more hoops, no more unintended side effects. All of the build rules are now for the PCs, and only an optional alternate tool for making NPCs.
And yeah, including level in proficiency bonus is important!
Many thanks Lightning Raven!
This app is amazing! Is it official? It's so much easier than tediously filling the tables I was painfully constructing. I've always liked the character creation part of RPGs, even the most complex ones, but I must admit PF2 is a bit overwhelming in this area.
I do agree with you, Malk_Content. I was previously misguided by the fact that I grossly overestimated the power of NPCs over PCs because I didn't know about adding the level to the proficiency. My bad!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Many thanks Lightning Raven!
This app is amazing! Is it official? It's so much easier than tediously filling the tables I was painfully constructing. I've always liked the character creation part of RPGs, even the most complex ones, but I must admit PF2 is a bit overwhelming in this area.
I do agree with you, Malk_Content. I was previously misguided by the fact that I grossly overestimated the power of NPCs over PCs because I didn't know about adding the level to the proficiency. My bad!
The app is not official, even though in my opinion it should've been a long time ago. The app existed ever since the First Edition and in that edition it was far more important than this one, because there are a lot of tricky bonuses and interactions in character creation, but the designer outdid himself with the Pathbuilder app. However, there's a recent official project that will mirror D&DBeyond. Here: https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6shup?Announcing-Pathfinder-Nexus- Unleash-Your
Also, by the way, there's an alternative set of rules (found in the Gamemastery Guide and available as an unlockable feature in the APP) that removes the level bonus to all proficiency if this is more your speed. It changes the game a little bit, but it exists so that people can more readily adjust the game to their desires, like the game was designed to be.
Currently, the most used alternative rule set is the "Free Archetype Feats" variant, but I only suggest it once you have more experience because while it doesn't increase the power of PCs directly, it greatly increases complexity.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks Cyouni, this is very helpful! I completely missed that point! With the character level added to the proficiency bonus, the Signifer stats are not that much out of reach anymore.
Regarding the asymmetrical design, I can understand its value from the GM's point of view, but I don't find it that great from a player's perspective: as a player, I want to stand on equal footing with a NPC that should be roughly equivalent to my PC.
Deriven Firelion: you seem to regret that a single PC of equal level wasn't much of a challenge for a group. I find it rather normal and logical: IMHO a single character should be of a higher or much higher level to be a threat to a whole group. In PF1, TL was equal to CL+1 or +2, maybe it was overestimated.
Anyway, thanks everyone for your answers, it'll be easier for me to understand the rules now!
A NPC of the same level will be roughly of the same power as a PC. In fact, you can build a NPC with PC rules : the result will be more well-rounded, but the building will take more time. The NPC/monster building method just goes straight to the results.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
And you'll be left with multiple feats/abilities that will never come into play in those 3 rounds of combat the NPC exists for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A NPC of the same level will be roughly of the same power as a PC. In fact, you can build a NPC with PC rules : the result will be more well-rounded, but the building will take more time. The NPC/monster building method just goes straight to the results.Thanks Cyouni, this is very helpful! I completely missed that point! With the character level added to the proficiency bonus, the Signifer stats are not that much out of reach anymore.
Regarding the asymmetrical design, I can understand its value from the GM's point of view, but I don't find it that great from a player's perspective: as a player, I want to stand on equal footing with a NPC that should be roughly equivalent to my PC.
Deriven Firelion: you seem to regret that a single PC of equal level wasn't much of a challenge for a group. I find it rather normal and logical: IMHO a single character should be of a higher or much higher level to be a threat to a whole group. In PF1, TL was equal to CL+1 or +2, maybe it was overestimated.
Anyway, thanks everyone for your answers, it'll be easier for me to understand the rules now!
Yeah, if you want a Thieves' Guild NPC, you just give them the skills you'd expect (stealth, thievery, deception), a dagger with an appropriate to-hit, the sneak attack function, and the Basic Stats (AC, HP, Saves, Movement). It took you 2 minutes, and now you can mass copy them making tiny adjustments here and there and you now have an army of Thieves' Guild members that are as distinct enough from each other as you'd like. If you did it by hand on a character sheet, you'd spend about 4 minutes each to make the cast of NPCs you'd want
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, if you want a Thieves' Guild NPC, you just give them the skills you'd expect (stealth, thievery, deception), a dagger with an appropriate to-hit, the sneak attack function, and the Basic Stats (AC, HP, Saves, Movement). It took you 2 minutes, and now you can mass copy them making tiny adjustments here and there and you now have an army of Thieves' Guild members that are as distinct enough from each other as you'd like. If you did it by hand on a character sheet, you'd spend about 4 minutes each to make the cast of NPCs you'd wantA NPC of the same level will be roughly of the same power as a PC. In fact, you can build a NPC with PC rules : the result will be more well-rounded, but the building will take more time. The NPC/monster building method just goes straight to the results.Thanks Cyouni, this is very helpful! I completely missed that point! With the character level added to the proficiency bonus, the Signifer stats are not that much out of reach anymore.
Regarding the asymmetrical design, I can understand its value from the GM's point of view, but I don't find it that great from a player's perspective: as a player, I want to stand on equal footing with a NPC that should be roughly equivalent to my PC.
Deriven Firelion: you seem to regret that a single PC of equal level wasn't much of a challenge for a group. I find it rather normal and logical: IMHO a single character should be of a higher or much higher level to be a threat to a whole group. In PF1, TL was equal to CL+1 or +2, maybe it was overestimated.
Anyway, thanks everyone for your answers, it'll be easier for me to understand the rules now!
And at higher levels a lot more time than that; unless the guild's passing out standard equipment packages (something I found eye-rolling in PF1) you'd have to comb through for minor items and consumables to get enough bonuses to contend. And casters needed to have all their buffs precast to contend because goodness knows the PCs w/ their extended duration spells were incoming like souped up commandos.
That reminds me of when Paizo staff were sharing their run-through of an AP back in Dungeon magazine, so 3.5. They were infiltrating a cult's HQ and came to an enormous arena/temple with unique priests scattered all around. Surprised, the PCs closed the door. Naturally I supposed it was to buff and charge, yet nope. They waited. And waited. And waited. The players/PCs were perfectly content with their positioning; heck, they only had to guard a narrow doorway. They had no time crunch or other need to push forward. Moreover, they figured the priests were likely buffing themselves w/ spells & consumables, much like Divine Favor which only lasted a minute or Shield of Faith which should expire in ten minutes or less. If the enemies wanted their buffs to be effective (and in terms of balance, they needed them to be), they had to assault the PCs in the corridor.
Things went well for the PCs.
Meanwhile in PF2, all those enemies would have had the necessary numbers baked into their stats and would require few if any buffs.
I know of many PFS1 scenarios where the bosses (et al) had all of their buffs running. I did appreciate those authors that gave the enemy reasonable methods of timing their buffs, yet most handwaved it. Some had buffs that should've expired during the boxed-text monologue! So yeah, I actually find the PF2 system not only more balanced for play purposes, but more realistic without the PF1 hoops necessary for said balance. And no more stalls when the Dispel Magic strips out half the buffs (on either side for that matter). No more do the bandits need to start combats by swigging potions more valuable than what rewards they'd expect in any normal robbery.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
And you'll be left with multiple feats/abilities that will never come into play in those 3 rounds of combat the NPC exists for.But it can be useful for NPCs that are intended to not just be one-combat enemies or just skill providers.
Pretty rare, but occasionally useful. And it's good that the results are about the same - more rounded, more depth, but balanced the same way as PCs.
From my experience of running PF1 and now PF2, there are three kind of NPCs:
1. Combat encounters that last 3 rounds, so you really don't need their skill feats or non-combat class features (60%)
2. Social encounters where all you need from the NPC mechanically is their odd skill value, and in PF2 you can just pull out of general rules without statting up the NPC (30%)
3. The odd deep recurring NPC that won't be done well with just a combat statblock (10%)
PF1 forced you do to make every one of them like if they were number 3, now you don't have to and you can tailor your method to what you actually need.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That reminds me of when Paizo staff were sharing their run-through of an AP back in Dungeon magazine, so 3.5. They were infiltrating a cult's HQ and came to an enormous arena/temple with unique priests scattered all around. Surprised, the PCs closed the door. Naturally I supposed it was to buff and charge, yet nope. They waited. And waited. And waited. The players/PCs were perfectly content with their positioning; heck, they only had to guard a narrow doorway. They had no time crunch or other need to push forward. Moreover, they figured the priests were likely buffing themselves w/ spells & consumables, much like Divine Favor which only lasted a minute or Shield of Faith which should expire in ten minutes or less. If the enemies wanted their buffs to be effective (and in terms of balance, they needed them to be), they had to assault the PCs in the corridor.
Things went well for the PCs.
I remember cornering a certain judge in an AP and he dove into a room and locked the door behind him.
We could hear him buffing himself while we tried to no avail to break the locked door down.
Then my PC decided to hold the door closed. Pretty easy with STR 18. And we just waited until his debuffs disappeared.
And by that time our Rogue had figured out how to open the lock.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The core reason NPCs are numerically a little different than PCs in PF2 is because feat design in PF2 is centered around giving players more options and choices in activities than in boosting raw numbers. For PCs raw number boosting is very, very closely tied to immutable class features.
If NPCs were built the same way, GMs would be overwhelmed with NPCs having to have a bunch of decision points that almost never get used or are very complicated to use well.
As a result, the much easier thing to do is not let NPCs be as complex in design, but have numbers that require PCs to coordinate and use feats and tactics together to exceed.
It was a pretty radical shift, and one not loved by all, but any experience GMing sessions in play and or having to modify or create your own encounters and the incredible flexibility of the decision really shines through. Having 1 equal level enemy face off against a PC in a one on one encounter, even social encounter or skill challenge should be seen as a severe, boss-level encounter, and not a typical threat.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure yet if I'm going to jump into 2e or not
DO IT! Pathfinder 2E is great, and I’m saying that as a hard core D&D 3.X / PF 1 fan.
Also, my eye twitches at NPC / Monster design not at least pretending to follow PC-build rules, but I’ve been GMing 2E basically since launch, and while I hate to admit it, it makes prepping games way easier. And my players, at least, don’t seem to even notice.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The core reason NPCs are numerically a little different than PCs in PF2 is because feat design in PF2 is centered around giving players more options and choices in activities than in boosting raw numbers. For PCs raw number boosting is very, very closely tied to immutable class features.
...
It was a pretty radical shift, and one not loved by all, but any experience GMing sessions in play and or having to modify or create your own encounters and the incredible flexibility of the decision really shines through. Having 1 equal level enemy face off against a PC in a one on one encounter, even social encounter or skill challenge should be seen as a severe, boss-level encounter, and not a typical threat.
^This bears emphasis.
In PF2, unlike 3.x/PF1, NPCs of equal level to the PCs are significant challenges as a baseline by system mechanics (in fact, they can be slightly overtuned if the PCs aren't at the top of their game; especially at lower levels). The PCs will need to use their special actions (and possibly teamwork) in play smartly to compete, instead of just relying on the PCs' "build" for higher numbers.
In PF2, success in the game is focused around using your actions (especially your third action in a round) wisely to set up other actions for your character or allies, remove actions from or require additional actions by enemies, add bonuses, or apply penalties. Basically, PF2 rewards in play decisions more than piling up numbers during character generation and performing the same action over and over during play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Deriven Firelion: you seem to regret that a single PC of equal level wasn't much of a challenge for a group. I find it rather normal and logical: IMHO a single character should be of a higher or much higher level to be a threat to a whole group. In PF1, TL was equal to CL+1 or +2, maybe it was overestimated.
Regret? I stated what occurred in PF1. Nothing more, nothing less. I prefer the tighter math that allows me to easily simulate a powerful fighter without me having to create a detailed PC in the same fashion as a PC only 5 or 6 levels higher.
And if I feel like making an NPC in the fashion as a PC, that option is still available. I can simply analyze the final numbers on the PC, compare it to the challenge chart, and get a better idea of what that challenge is within the system.
People seem to have this idea that you can't use symmetrical design to create an NPC or enemy. You can. Absolutely nothing is stopping you.
As a DM you can design a level 10 fighter to fight a level 10 fighter and nothing in the PF2 system is stopping you from doing this.
PF2 just created a simpler, more effective system for designing a challenge appropriate to a group of a PCs. But in no way is the PF2 system stopping you from symmetrically designing an NPC like a PC to be a challenge.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The interesting thing to me is the hard disconnect between the two. Monsters have a toolkit. PCs have a toolkit. You never mix them. This is particularly noticeable in the case of the Summoner, where you get to build part of your PC using the monster toolkit... but that part of the PC only uses the monster toolkit, and every build resource that gets applied to it is converted along the way. It's not like 3.x/PF1 where you could start with a monster chassis and then add gear and class levels.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The core reason NPCs are numerically a little different than PCs in PF2 is because feat design in PF2 is centered around giving players more options and choices in activities than in boosting raw numbers. For PCs raw number boosting is very, very closely tied to immutable class features.They're also a bit different because their level is meant to indicate their challenge to a party of four PCs, not a strict one-to-one comparison.
I mean one equal level opponent is a trivial challenge for a party of four. Four 40 XP enemies is meant to be an extreme encounter, where the odds are 50-50. So an NPC or monster of X level is pretty much meant to equal a fully geared PC.