Forum

But its a d20 system with absolutely no numerical modifiers, so anything higher than 20 (or 19 if you still count 20 as a critfil) is meaningless. To the point when you start using other mechanics like bonus dice, the actual attribute number doesnt mean anything. You might as well just have an ability on the monster sheet that says "very strong: roll an extra d6 when making str rolls" rather than saying they have str 30.

But its a d20 system with absolutely no numerical modifiers, so anything higher than 20 (or 19 if you still count 20 as a critfil) is meaningless

Not necessarily - my solution was to provide bonus dice for attributes above 20 and, given they can stack, massively powerful creatures can get multiple bonus dice. There’s still a benefit to attributes that exceed the normal range.

IMO i think that the npc should list their STR, CON and WILL on their character sheet. Specifically if a character has a damage die, then they can have an appropriate value (such as 13 if they have a d4), while they can list CON/Will in case they have several stacks of ROBUST/focused (otherwise it is easy to calculate what their CON/WIL is, sense it is equal to their HP/WP), but otherwise if nothing else is listed assume a standard value, like 9 similar to the Skill Base Chance.

This makes it easy to keep track off, and it is primarily these three attributes that are used for effects against spells and such.

I agree. STR, CON and WILL would not be to much to ask for. Since they are used to oppose things like spells, poisons, etc.

IMO i think that the npc should list their STR, CON and WILL on their character sheet. Specifically if a character has a damage die, then they can have an appropriate value (such as 13 if they have a d4), while they can list CON/Will in case they have several stacks of ROBUST/focused (otherwise it is easy to calculate what their CON/WIL is, sense it is equal to their HP/WP), but otherwise if nothing else is listed assume a standard value, like 9 similar to the Skill Base Chance.

This makes it easy to keep track off, and it is primarily these three attributes that are used for effects against spells and such.

I agree. STR, CON and WILL would not be to much to ask for. Since they are used to oppose things like spells, poisons, etc.

Poisons mostly. Spells and disarms are addressed

IMO i think that the npc should list their STR, CON and WILL on their character sheet. Specifically if a character has a damage die, then they can have an appropriate value (such as 13 if they have a d4), while they can list CON/Will in case they have several stacks of ROBUST/focused (otherwise it is easy to calculate what their CON/WIL is, sense it is equal to their HP/WP), but otherwise if nothing else is listed assume a standard value, like 9 similar to the Skill Base Chance.

This makes it easy to keep track off, and it is primarily these three attributes that are used for effects against spells and such.

I agree. STR, CON and WILL would not be to much to ask for. Since they are used to oppose things like spells, poisons, etc.

Poisons mostly. Spells and disarms are addressed

Are they? What page for spells?

I agree. STR, CON and WILL would not be to much to ask for. Since they are used to oppose things like spells, poisons, etc.

Poisons mostly. Spells and disarms are addressed

Are they? What page for spells?

In the proper context, sure.

Like why no one thinks it's weird that orcs and goblins are immune to Sleep when they are outside of combat?

Or notice how their layout in the book is like the other monsters and not like Common Animals.

While the Non-Monster ability needs to be clarified, I think when people stop reading it with assumptions (or deliberate intentions for some), it becomes clear that orcs and goblins are indeed monsters even though their "monster attacks" are simply standard melee combat. So page 84 covers Dodging & Parrying, Disarm & Grapple, Toppling on page 84.

And Spells are covered with "no effect on monsters."

I assume this is why people are talking about NPCs in the Bestiary section. Because there are NO NPCs in the Bestiary.

On that note, in the Adventure section (where the NPCs are), I'm still a fan of weak/strong Attribute/Skill in two tiers for weak/strong NPCs. On that note, I think Common Animals should be moved to the Adventuring section since their game mechanics with PCs are more like NPCs.

Something similar for monsters would need three tiers, I think.

Poisons mostly. Spells and disarms are addressed

Are they? What page for spells?

In the proper context, sure.

Like why no one thinks it's weird that orcs and goblins are immune to Sleep when they are outside of combat?

Or notice how their layout in the book is like the other monsters and not like Common Animals.

While the Non-Monster ability needs to be clarified, I think when people stop reading it with assumptions (or deliberate intentions for some), it becomes clear that orcs and goblins are indeed monsters even though their "monster attacks" are simply standard melee combat. So page 84 covers Dodging & Parrying, Disarm & Grapple, Toppling on page 84.

And Spells are covered with "no effect on monsters."

I assume this is why people are talking about NPCs in the Bestiary section. Because there are NO NPCs in the Bestiary.

On that note, in the Adventure section (where the NPCs are), I'm still a fan of weak/strong Attribute/Skill in two tiers for weak/strong NPCs. On that note, I think Common Animals should be moved to the Adventuring section since their game mechanics with PCs are more like NPCs.

Something similar for monsters would need three tiers, I think.

TBH, I find your interpretation that Orcs etc are in the bestiary because they are actually ‘Monsters’ to be strained given their entry specifically has a “Non-Monster” line. The entry under Orcs (as an example) says:

“Non-Monster: Orcs do not count as monsters in combat, but as ordinary NPCs.”

It’s pretty clear on a plain reading that they are are not considered monsters in combat and and treated like other NPCs. That means they are subject to spells and effects (eg. the Entangle spell, poison etc) that affect NPCs while they are in combat. I agree you could read that they are treated as monsters outside of combat, but it’s a very strained (IMO) interpretation of the intent of an entry called “Non-Monster” and I expect the reason for the “in combat” part of the sentence is actually just because the main time anyone will be interacting with their stat block is in combat. I would suggest the real reason for putting Orcs, goblins etc. in the Bestiary rather than in the Adventuring chapter (with the rest of the NPCs) is because they are not available as PCs and their descriptions needed to be expanded on more than was possible in the Adventuring chapter - hence putting them in the Bestiary chapter (noting that it’s not the Monsters chapter, it’s a collection of monsters and other things, including non-PC humanoids and common animals, that together form a Bestiary chapter).

TBH, I find your interpretation that Orcs etc are in the bestiary because they are actually ‘Monsters’ to be strained given their entry specifically has a “Non-Monster” line. The entry under Orcs (as an example) says:

“Non-Monster: Orcs do not count as monsters in combat, but as ordinary NPCs.”

It’s pretty clear on a plain reading that they are are not considered monsters in combat and and treated like other NPCs. That means they are subject to spells and effects (eg. the Entangle spell, poison etc) that affect NPCs while they are in combat. I agree you could read that they are treated as monsters outside of combat, but it’s a very strained (IMO) interpretation of the intent of an entry called “Non-Monster” and I expect the reason for the “in combat” part of the sentence is actually just because the main time anyone will be interacting with their stat block is in combat. I would suggest the real reason for putting Orcs, goblins etc. in the Bestiary rather than in the Adventuring chapter (with the rest of the NPCs) is because they are not available as PCs and their descriptions needed to be expanded on more than was possible in the Adventuring chapter - hence putting them in the Bestiary chapter (noting that it’s not the Monsters chapter, it’s a collection of monsters and other things, including non-PC humanoids and common animals, that together form a Bestiary chapter).
[/quote]

"IN combat."

Thus there is an OUT of combat mode. If FL wanted them to be treated as ordinary NPC all the time, one would assume Non-Monster would read: "Orcs do not count as monsters but as ordinary NPCs." Which offers very little ambiguity with no "strained" reading on either side.

There is no could be interpretation and it is not a strained understanding, though reading it the opposite way shows a lot of common assumptions of play. In reading the adventures, Orcs are both combat and social adventures. I agree the ability could be written to clarify one way or the other -- but we can agree to disagree until then.

TBH, I find your interpretation that Orcs etc are in the bestiary because they are actually ‘Monsters’ to be strained given their entry specifically has a “Non-Monster” line. The entry under Orcs (as an example) says:

“Non-Monster: Orcs do not count as monsters in combat, but as ordinary NPCs.”

It’s pretty clear on a plain reading that they are are not considered monsters in combat and and treated like other NPCs. That means they are subject to spells and effects (eg. the Entangle spell, poison etc) that affect NPCs while they are in combat. I agree you could read that they are treated as monsters outside of combat, but it’s a very strained (IMO) interpretation of the intent of an entry called “Non-Monster” and I expect the reason for the “in combat” part of the sentence is actually just because the main time anyone will be interacting with their stat block is in combat. I would suggest the real reason for putting Orcs, goblins etc. in the Bestiary rather than in the Adventuring chapter (with the rest of the NPCs) is because they are not available as PCs and their descriptions needed to be expanded on more than was possible in the Adventuring chapter - hence putting them in the Bestiary chapter (noting that it’s not the Monsters chapter, it’s a collection of monsters and other things, including non-PC humanoids and common animals, that together form a Bestiary chapter).

"IN combat."

Thus there is an OUT of combat mode. If FL wanted them to be treated as ordinary NPC all the time, one would assume Non-Monster would read: "Orcs do not count as monsters but as ordinary NPCs." Which offers very little ambiguity with no "strained" reading on either side.

There is no could be interpretation and it is not a strained understanding, though reading it the opposite way shows a lot of common assumptions of play. In reading the adventures, Orcs are both combat and social adventures. I agree the ability could be written to clarify one way or the other -- but we can agree to disagree until then.

Personally I think the “in combat” is just superfluous words and used because, in general, you are only interacting with the ‘mechanics’ of an orc’s (or whatever “non-monster” entry) stat block (and thus needed to determine whether they are affected by spells etc) in combat situations. Reading the entire entry, the “non-monster” header (to me) indicates they are not intended to be treated as monsters. But I agree, let’s agree to disagree until it’s clarified (or if not clarified, let’s just agree to disagree and run it how we prefer in our respective games )

The Manticore on p93 still has wings but still doesn't have flight as a mode of movement, nor is it mentioned under Monster Attacks.