Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 8204458" data-attributes="member: 12731">You're getting the right point, but I'm not sure for the right reasons.PF2 NPCs play the same in the sense that they use the same end interface (numbers like AC or Will saves) and obey the same fundamental rules (such as "you can only take the actions you have available on your character sheet plus those of the CRB").But PF2 NPCs are created very differently from PF2 PCs. Their stats obey a completely different set of rules (by which I mean "no rules" since it's table look-up only). They have none of the feats available to players (though designers frequently give them unique actions that mimic some of the most iconic feats for each class).They also can be equipped with special actions that simply have no counterparts for player characters. They can (and frequently do) have considerably better numeric values (and not just for obscure defense values but for highly visible ones like their attack bonus).However, they rarely have substantial recovery resources, which of course is the single most important reason heroes routinely overcome them, despite being outclassed at first blush.---So, yes, you're quite right in not letting any of this matter to you. That's the goal and purpose.But they don't play the same at the table, not really.And that's because they really aren't using the same rules at all. Yes they have three actions just like you do. Yes they can take Jump and Hide actions just like you can.But when you dig a little deeper under the hoods the cracks become obvious. When you're interacting beyond the basic trading of blows with monsters in general and NPCs in particular you'll note monsters often lack crucial skill proficiencies. Actions particularly with the physical fields of Athletics and Acrobatics are significantly constrained in important ways and then there are player-side feats like Combat Climber of Quick Squeezer to negate them. True some monsters are created by writers paying attention and so have corresponding unique abilities to achieve the same thing. But most don't. At high level, if you take the Cloud Jump feat, you will consistently be able to trivially win any long-jumping contest against a monster trying to play by the rules (as opposed to, say, having a Fly Speed), simply because without this specific feat, you can never jump longer than your Speed. And unless the monster's speed is three times as fast as yours you have won before the event even started.Social interaction is governed by a little rule on page 246-247 called "Changing Attitudes", notably how player characters are immune to it. Skills like Diplomacy are otherwise extremely potent in Pathfinder 2 (bordering on the magical) simply because of how widely scores vary across levels. Just as a player hero with a decent Charisma score needs no magic to pretty much do whatever he wants to a villager four or five levels below him (because any roll will likely be a critical success even if the GM decrees an ad-hoc +2 or +5 modifier to the DC for the PC suggesting something outrageous), an NPC can't do the same to a PC against that player's will.---I'm not stating this to hate on the system. In fact, I am supremely convinced this is the way to go (because otherwise creating high-level NPCs become a nightmare for the GM).I'm saying this because I am convinced pretending NPCs use the same rules as PCs is not the way to go. It is too obvious they really aren't.It is much better imo to 1) acknowledge the disparity and then 2) actively ignore it, accepting it as a price worth paying. After all, I quit DM'ing third edition specifically because NPCs had to be created as PCs, so I know that while the price is not trivial it is most certainly preferable to the alternative, which is not to play at all, or only to play the simplest of games where (N)PC creation is not a time-consuming endeavor.Have a nice day.</blockquote>

Verification