Unwritten Design rules?


RPG Superstar™ 2010 General Discussion

Star Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9

So I'm nosing through the entries, reading the technical commentary, and it strikes me that there seem to be a number of "unwritten" monster design guidelines being thrown out there...

From McGee's Astrumal:

SKR wrote:


Improved Natural Attack is mainly used for advancing an existing monster; if you want your new monster to have a better natural attack, just give it the better damage.

Mr. Schneider also mentions this in the lahamu. So what trumps? What you think damage should be, or the basic damage for size? Or what about realizing that you want it to have a greater damage for its size and then using the existing mechanics to provide that greater damage? When you say "just give it," you're turning this from more mechanic to more black art-- and that's fine, because I think it's always been a black art, but this adds to the obfuscated nature of it.

jason bulmahn wrote:


Void body grants entropic shield... This should have been summarized in the monsters block.

The gibbering mouther doesn't have the confusion effect in the block...why would it be done here? Referencing the effect saves wordcount and avoids the pitfall of accidentally (unintentionally) changing the mechanic.

jason bulmahn wrote:


Smoke Vulnerability should probably have a different name. Vulnerability is reserved for a specific effect that deals with damage or conferring a save penalty. Since this is an entirely different affect, it should have a different name to avoid confusion.

The intellect devourer has a "vulnerable" ability that doesn't deal with a save condition or damage, but hedging out the creature... if vulnerable is something we should consider a 'keyword,' then we should know.

jason bulmahn wrote:


- The creature has one too many feats.

Admittedly, it probably should have been labelled a bonus feat if it was one, but how do bonus feats get adjudicated? Do they affect CR? How? What's the adjustment for bonus feats? The horse doesn't have anything indicating why it has Run. The ant entry doesn't explain Toughness. Is there a mechanic in play here, or no?

jason bulmahn wrote:


For example, it has undead Hit Dice, but construct traits and DR. This makes it really hard to nail down whether or not it is on target for its CR.

As long as you look at Table 1-1, does it matter? And DR doesn't seem have a calculation for CR, other than the amount-- which is inferred by the hit dice. Or do you have an internal calculus for adjusting a CR when the monster has DR?

...

It seems as if there might be a number of unspoken guidelines apparent because they're internal standards, but are not in the appendices as RAW. Is it possible that the appendices need an errata or a supplement pdf?

Don't get me wrong-- I appreciate the collective insight of the judges and the time spent evaluating the entries. I'd be lying if I didn't use the commentary as a guidepost for voting and for technical reference. I think those reasons alone drive me to ask, "Are there unwritten design rules for monsters?"

I look forward to your response...

-Ben.

Contributor, RPG Superstar 2009, RPG Superstar Judgernaut

I'll take a stab at answering at least part of what you're referencing with the following:

Spoiler:

The Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook wrote:

Monster Creation

Creating a monster is part science and part art. While most monsters follow a general pattern of their overall power and abilities as related to their Challenge Rating (CR), there are many exceptions. Some monsters, for example, have significantly more hit points or a higher AC than the average for their CR, but make up for this advantage by being weak in other areas. Other monsters have significantly higher average damage, but have a lower attack bonus.

Building the Monster
The following guidelines are provided to assist in monster creation and to help balance a creation for its CR....

So, in that respect, yes...there are some unwritten rules. The monster creation rules provided in the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook are most definitely guidelines, though a bit better defined than say, the rules for creating a wondrous magic item. So, comparisons do need to be drawn to other previously-published creatures, which you've done in some of the examples you cited. And, each freelancer has to address which elements make for a properly balanced monster in relation to its defined CR.

But that's just my two-cents,
--Neil

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8 aka AWizardInDallas

Interesting analysis; well done. Unfortunately, to be safe, I can only specifically comment once the round is over. However, I will say that sometimes monster design (or any design for that matter) seems largely a matter of personal philosophy and individual philosophies would be near impossible to capture in a rules set. That's why the non-technical judge commentary varies so widely (which is a good thing). Some take an old school approach to monster design, others want science and biology and still yet others take the John Lennon approach and just imagine. :)

Another thing seems for sure: the ability to compare and contrast against what came before is also essential.

Contributor

{Mr. Schneider also mentions this in the lahamu. So what trumps? What you think damage should be, or the basic damage for size?}

Neither, they're both trumped by the damage a monster of its CR should do, as listed in the Bestiary.

{Or what about realizing that you want it to have a greater damage for its size and then using the existing mechanics to provide that greater damage?}

Because "using the existing mechanic" has its limits--if you just go by size and INA (which you can only take once), your really cool melee-focused CR 18 Medium demon ends up doing about the same damage as your CR 6 animal. Now, you can give the demon something like Str 30 to increase the damage, but then the dice become insignificant compared to the flat damage from the demon's Str bonus. Or you could layer on effects like poison and bleed, but that makes the monster more complex, and high-level monsters are annoying because they're complex to run. So sometimes it's just easier to say, "this Medium demon's freaky giant jagged claws deal 2d8 damage" even though a typical Medium creature's claw only does 1d6.

{When you say "just give it," you're turning this from more mechanic to more black art-- and that's fine, because I think it's always been a black art, but this adds to the obfuscated nature of it.}

Is it any different than saying "this monster has a +2 racial bonus to Perception checks" (which means all monsters of that type get it) as compared to giving the monster the Alertness or SF (Perception) feat in its Bestiary listing (which means unless the GM rebuilds the monster as a custom variant, essentially all monsters of that type get it)?

Finally, INA is a boring feat (for most monsters it just means +1 damage on one type of attack). If you're creating a new monster, and the "best" feat you can think of for it is INA, that's pretty sad. Improved Bull Rush, Improved Trip, Dodge, or any of the new feats in the PFRPG are all more interesting than a damage increase.

Case in point: there's only one monster in the Bestiary that has the INA feat (the shaitan, and I'm not really sure why she has it instead of something else). Even monsters in the 3.5 MM that had it (such as the lion) don't have it in PFRPG--there are better and/or more interesting feats to get.

{The gibbering mouther doesn't have the confusion effect in the block...why would it be done here?}

Because the GM has to take an action to gibber, it's not something that's always active; the astrumal's void body ability *is* always active, and can't be turned off (except of course in an area where Su abilities don't work). Also, the mouther's gibbering doesn't affect any of *its* stats; the void body ability should be listed in the AC line so you remember to roll the miss chance.

{Referencing the effect saves wordcount and avoids the pitfall of accidentally (unintentionally) changing the mechanic.}

The monster in question had over 100 words to spare. The point of the stat block is to provide the GM enough information to prevent, "oh, crap, he should have been immune to your attack last round" from happening. If you can reference a helpful thing, you should.

jason bulmahn wrote:


Smoke Vulnerability should probably have a different name. Vulnerability is reserved for a specific effect that deals with damage or conferring a save penalty. Since this is an entirely different affect, it should have a different name to avoid confusion.

The intellect devourer has a "vulnerable" ability that doesn't deal with a save condition or damage, but hedging out the creature... if vulnerable is something we should consider a 'keyword,' then we should know.

{Admittedly, it probably should have been labelled a bonus feat if it was one, but how do bonus feats get adjudicated?}

(1) If it's a real-world monster, and it should have feat X as an ability but our determination of its HD mean it doesn't have enough feats to select that feat, it gets it as a bonus feat.
(2) If another game rule says the creature doesn't have feats (say, mindless vermin), but a particular feat would be really appropriate to the creature (say, an ant's Toughness), your choice is to give it the feat as a bonus feat or to create a brand-new ability that duplicates the effects of that feat--in which case just giving it the bonus feat is cleaner.

{construct shell on an undead base creature:)
{As long as you look at Table 1-1, does it matter?}

Yes, because the section on Hit Points says that outsiders and constructs tend to have lower hit points (mainly because of their many immunities). So what do you count this hybrid monster as?

{And DR doesn't seem have a calculation for CR, other than the amount-- which is inferred by the hit dice. Or do you have an internal calculus for adjusting a CR when the monster has DR?}

Yes, you compare it to other monsters of that CR and the wealth level of a PC of that level. DR 5/magic on a CR 2 monster is very significant because most level 2 characters don't have magic weapons. DR 10/adamantine is significant on a CR 10 monster because most level 10 characters don't have adamantine weapons. In both of these cases, the DR should affect the monster's CR... unless you adjust its AC and hit points to compensate for it (if the DR monster is easier to hit and has fewer hit points than the non-DR monster, it balances out).

{It seems as if there might be a number of unspoken guidelines apparent because they're internal standards, but are not in the appendices as RAW. Is it possible that the appendices need an errata or a supplement pdf?}

Nope, there's an art element to it--much of which involves comparing it to the many "baseline" creatures at important CRs. We can't provide math for everything, it would be too long and would still allow people to cheese-out monsters to be unbeatable or put together fail-combos where the monster is way too weak for its level despite matching what's on the charts.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32 , Star Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7, Star Voter Season 8

Sean, this is really interesting, especially after this round. You should think about expanding this into some sort of design article. I definitely learned some things reading this and the judge's comments.

Scarab Sages Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Case in point: there's only one monster in the Bestiary that has the INA feat (the shaitan, and I'm not really sure why she has it instead of something else).

Probably cause some freelancer designed the monster right near the end of 3.5 but before PF and was trying to design it "by the book" or some silly thing like that. :)

Seriously, if people want a completely unofficial fix, dump INA and replace it with Greater Bull Rush; it complements the shaitan's stone curse ability much better, as well as makes them better teamwork mashers when you encounter several of them at a time.

Star Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9

Sean K Reynolds wrote:


...A lot about considering mechanics...

This reads as though there's a lot more art than mechanics in the peanut butter cup-- valuing the die range over a high strength, or just handing out the feats when it 'seems' right.

I didn't have access to the word counts, so I didn't have the benefit of seeing there was so much room to play with in the block. (100 words is substantial for this size entry, I think.) Given the leeway, a short phrase indicating the effects of entropic shield would be helpful.

[Side note: Gibbering's a free action. To me, that means it's always on, but the Mouther may shut it off.]

Your comments about INA are helpful, but then if the internal consensus is that INA should only be used for advancement, why not note that in the feat description?

Sean K Reynolds wrote:


Yes, because the section on Hit Points says that outsiders and constructs tend to have lower hit points (mainly because of their many immunities). So what do you count this hybrid monster as?

Personally? I would have compared golems on Table1-1 and seen that the clay golem has hit points of a CR 8 creature, even though it's a CR10, that the flesh golem is -1 CR for hp and that the ice golem is about right at CR 5. Stone and iron golems are about -3 CR. Considering the retriever, a demon/construct hybrid, I find the hit points are just below the average for CR... I probably would have surmised that the construct hp guideline tends to apply more stringently at higher CRs than lower CRs. It's always lower, but not always that much lower-- that's what the Bestiary shows me.

Considering undead are using d8s, constructs d10...there's a 1hd difference between the two at CR5 on Table1-2, so I probably would have given the higher HD with the lower die type to slightly decrease the hit points, and tried to make the additional feat cover the difference. So, 7d8+20 for 51hp-- under the average for 5, but not by much. I might even drop it to 6d8 or less, depending on how a playtest shook things out. (DR 5/adamantine is rough on an APL5 group.)

Sean K Reynolds wrote:


...some more about DR, wealth and balance...

But everything you talk about there isn't in the Bestiary appendices. Should it be internalized, to some extent, in a Superstar? Sure, I can concede that to a point, but your Superstar has to build a foundation somewhere, and the only place to do that is the source material. If that insight isn't discussed in the text somewhere, how can you expect it to become part of the design habit?

I'm not suggesting there be a chart or a list showing "DR 5/nerf = +1 CR," or "2 bonus feats = +1 CR." I'm saying that a conversational guide to monster creation and modification might not be a terrible thing-- because right now (in my humble opinion) there is a lot more art than science in this process.

Thank you for the continued conversation-- it's quite appreciated.

-Ben.

Contributor

I'm packing for GenghisCon tomorrow, but I've bookmarked this and I'll answer your questions when I get back on Tuesday! :)

Star Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9

[threadjack!]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
I'm packing for GenghisCon tomorrow, but I've bookmarked this and I'll answer your questions when I get back on Tuesday! :)

Fantastic! I *love* GenghisCon! If you've got the chance, it's totally worth it to get downtown for the Rio Grande's frozen margaritas (they cut you off at 3.) or just a door or two down to Wahoo's Fish Tacos. There's was a decent sushi place up Hampden, in the Mission Viejo shopping center, near Attactix --which is a great store!

Boulder's too far, really, or I'd suggest the brewery there. Long ago and far away, there was the "Emerald Isle," south down Parker Road-- google maps still shows it there, and reviews seem to show it's gotten better service in recent years. The view of Cherry Creek Reservoir can't be beat.

The hotel bar there was passable, but nothing noteworthy...

Carol O'Bryan often runs a LARP-- play it, if you at all enjoy them! (hrm, I don't think I see her on the schedule, unfortunate.) She runs a lot of the MIT games and her Bloodshadows game has been going on for 16 years. I've had a blast at every one of her games.

Have fun and enjoy the convention. I'm jealous, there's even quite a bit of Cthulhutech on the schedule!

-Ben.

[/threadjack]

Star Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Marathon Voter Season 8, Marathon Voter Season 9

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
...stuff...

wow thanks

Star Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9

*ping* ?

-Ben.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8 aka AWizardInDallas

*pong*!

-Rich

Marathon Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Star Voter Season 8

terraleon wrote:


jason bulmahn wrote:


Void body grants entropic shield... This should have been summarized in the monsters block.

The gibbering mouther doesn't have the confusion effect in the block...why would it be done here? Referencing the effect saves wordcount and avoids the pitfall of accidentally (unintentionally) changing the mechanic.

it should also be noted that confused is now a universal condition in PF (listed on page 566 of the core rule book) rather then simply a spell effect (although the confusion spell does cause the confused condition), entropic shield is not. If all ranged attacks have a 20% chance of missing a monster then that probably needs to be said someplace in the defense section.

Star Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9

cwslyclgh wrote:
it should also be noted that confused is now a universal condition in PF (listed on page 566 of the core rule book) rather then simply a spell effect (although the confusion spell does cause the confused condition), entropic shield is not. If all ranged attacks have a 20% chance of missing a monster then that probably needs to be said someplace in the defense section.

Touche.

And while the dark stalker explains the effects of its fireball death throes, the nymph does not explain the status effect of her token. Svirfneblin have a constant nondetection effect, and it's not even mentioned in the descriptive block. The cloaker has three spell effects as part of its Shadow Shift ability (blur--which grants a 20% miss chance, mirror image, silent image), and none of them are detailed. If all attacks have a 20% chance of missing a monster for 1d4 rounds in dim illumination then that probably needs to be said someplace in the defense section.

(parry, riposte, remise.)

-Ben.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8 , Star Voter Season 9 aka Zynete

terraleon wrote:
cwslyclgh wrote:
it should also be noted that confused is now a universal condition in PF (listed on page 566 of the core rule book) rather then simply a spell effect (although the confusion spell does cause the confused condition), entropic shield is not. If all ranged attacks have a 20% chance of missing a monster then that probably needs to be said someplace in the defense section.

Touche.

And while the dark stalker explains the effects of its fireball death throes, the nymph does not explain the status effect of her token. Svirfneblin have a constant nondetection effect, and it's not even mentioned in the descriptive block. The cloaker has three spell effects as part of its Shadow Shift ability (blur--which grants a 20% miss chance, mirror image, silent image), and none of them are detailed. If all attacks have a 20% chance of missing a monster for 1d4 rounds in dim illumination then that probably needs to be said someplace in the defense section.

(parry, riposte, remise.)

-Ben.

Svirfneblin being under the effects of nondetection isn't something that really relates to combat. I believe that including it on defensive section would just include unnecessary information that I really don't need to see most of the time. Nondetection isn't a combat defense and I don't think belongs in a section that is supposed to summarize the creatures defenses.

First, I'm not really sure where you would suggest one would mention the possibility that the nymph might have a status effect on someone. It isn't a defensive ability that I need to know nor is it an ability that increase my offensive power. Then, it isn't guaranteed to be on, so it shouldn't be listed as always being on in the stat block.

The cloaker doesn't have any of those abilities constantly on. It requires a specific condition to happen for it to use one of those three abilities. The fact that it might be able to use blur with a short duration during the combat really doesn't belong in the defensive section any more that it currently is.

To me, the issue here is similar to if void body had also said "This ability grants the Astrumal DR 10/-" and the DR was not included separately in the defensive section because it was a part of Void Body.
The fact that void body is listed as a defensive ability, doesn't change the fact that it really should have listed the DR in the defensive section separately.

Star Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9

Joshua Blazej wrote:


Svirfneblin being under the effects of nondetection isn't something that really relates to combat. ...

First, I'm not really sure where you would suggest one would mention the possibility that the nymph might have a status effect on someone. ...

The cloaker doesn't have any of those abilities constantly on.

All of your responses go back to my original point-- Is there an unwritten design/formatting rule that states that only (constant?) abilities (based on spells) with a combat potential need to be explained in the stat block?

In which case, why the deference to combat versus roleplaying or constant versus per-use?

-Ben.

Contributor

Terraleon wrote:
This reads as though there's a lot more art than mechanics in the peanut butter cup-- valuing the die range over a high strength

For 1d8+2, the randomness of the die roll plays a much bigger part than the flat +2 bonus. But once you're at 1d8+8 or 1d8+12, most of the effect of comes from the flat bonus rather than the die roll; if all you do is pile on Str to a monster, eventually you get to the point where a high-CR monster's attacks would be doing 1d6+20 (instead of something like 3d6+6), and that's boring--it's more interesting from the GM's and players' perspectives to have the damage be more swingy. If the damage is always 20+, the PC with 5 hp left is almost certainly going to die with one hit, but if the damage is 3d6+6 there's a chance the PC only takes 9 points and is still alive. The lack of a guaranteed kill means there's more tension and more excitement in the combat. Otherwise we might as well give everyone average hit points and take average values for all damage.

Terraleon wrote:
or just handing out the feats when it 'seems' right.

Building monsters 100% by the established rules means a lot of similar monsters. Monsters sometimes should break rules so they're interesting. Sundering a hydra's necks, even though you can't do that for other monster limbs. An ettin's double attacks. Monsters that can grab above the normal size limit. Eventually we get enough monsters with a certain ability (such as swallow whole) that it becomes standardized (rather than repeating slight variants of the swallow hole rule, making it harder to remember), which is fine... but the point is that "no monster (or none at this power level) is able to do this, but this one should be able to" is often the key to making an interesting encounter.

Terraleon wrote:
Side note: Gibbering's a free action. To me, that means it's always on, but the Mouther may shut it off.

Gibbering also only affects the PCs, it doesn't have an effect on any of the monster's defenses. If the GM forgets the automatic gibbering for one round, the mouther isn't any less defended. If the GM forgets the astrumal's entropic shield because it's not listed in the AC line, that means the astrumal may take some hits it shouldn't have taken because that ability would have negated it. A similar example is the marilith's constant unholy aura, which provides her bonuses to AC and all three saves; if you didn't include those constant save bonuses, the GM would have to remember for EVERY incoming attack and save that the numbers should actually be 4 points higher. But the mouther's gibbering doesn't affect anything else on its stat block.

Terraleon wrote:
Your comments about INA are helpful, but then if the internal consensus is that INA should only be used for advancement, why not note that in the feat description?

Because the book is there to present monsters to fight, not to explain the design philosophy behind all of the options in the book. That, and there isn't room to do so in the Bestiary, we had to beg for an extra 8 pages as it was to include all the UMR and tables.

SKR wrote:
Yes, because the section on Hit Points says that outsiders and constructs tend to have lower hit points (mainly because of their many immunities). So what do you count this hybrid monster as?
Terraleon wrote:
Personally? I would have...

My point is there's no clear and obvious choice for dealing with a "hybrid" monster like this.

SKR wrote:
...some more about DR, wealth and balance...
Terraleon wrote:
But everything you talk about there isn't in the Bestiary appendices. Should it be internalized, to some extent, in a Superstar? Sure, I can concede that to a point, but your Superstar has to build a foundation somewhere, and the only place to do that is the source material. If that insight isn't discussed in the text somewhere, how can you expect it to become part of the design habit?

There's a LOT of stuff in the game that isn't in the Bestiary appendices, either, because it's obvious. For example, you don't need to say a 10 HD monster is immune to sleep because that spell doesn't affect anyone over 4 HD. A smart designer recognizes things in the game, or analyzes design choices to discover such things. Monster design isn't a matter of throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing what sticks and declaring what's there to be a new monster. You have to recognize that if you give a monster DR that's too high *and* spell resistance, you've crippled the PCs' ability to hurt it. You have to recognize that giving a CR 5 monster vulnerability to fire (when 5th level is when PCs get routine access to fireball) is going to be an achilles' heel. You have to recognize that giving a group-tactics monster an "explode when I die" ability and not giving it immunity to the explosions of its own kind is going to mean killing one of them sets off a chain reaction that kills all the monsters and possibly the PCs in a series of overlapping explosions. At least, you recognize this if you have the chops to be RPG superstar.

Terraleon wrote:
I'm not suggesting there be a chart or a list showing "DR 5/nerf = +1 CR," or "2 bonus feats = +1 CR." I'm saying that a conversational guide to monster creation and modification might not be a terrible thing-- because right now (in my humble opinion) there is a lot more art than science in this process.

I'm sure a guide to designing monsters would be helpful, and we may do something like that someday--there's just no room for it in the Bestiary.

Also, note that while comprehensive rules for designing magic items exist, people are still making broken, underpriced magic items--it's because there's always going to be an aspect that requires you to think about it in terms that aren't just formulas. And the same goes for monster design. Or feat design, or spell design, or class design, and so on.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8 , Star Voter Season 9 aka Zynete

terraleon wrote:

All of your responses go back to my original point-- Is there an unwritten design/formatting rule that states that only (constant?) abilities (based on spells) with a combat potential need to be explained in the stat block?

In which case, why the deference to combat versus roleplaying or constant versus per-use?

-Ben.

I would say that it is an unwritten rule, just like "try to make your monster easy to run," is an unwritten rule.

If you have a monster that has a defensive ability listed in his "Defense" section and the text for that ability points you to a spell that is always on, then it would very much be likely that just putting that spell in the "Defense" section instead would make the monster a bit easier for a GM to run.

Combat versus roleplaying

I suggest deference to combat, because that is where one is really looking toward the stat block for quick answers on whether or not they are effected by something.

I will quickly need to know if the creature has resistances without looking through his special abilities in combat. I will be much, much less likely to need to know that all of held equipment registers as nonmagical as if magic aura were cast on it. Both are important to know, but only the first is something that I really do need to know at a glance.

Constant versus per-use

As far as I know, if a creature can divine power once per day then it shouldn't be automatically included in the monsters attack and damage because I don't know if the monster will be able to use it before the battle.

However, if the creature has divine power constantly on, then it should be included to make it easier for the person running the monster. If it always has a +3 luck bonus to attacks, then it should be already added into their attack pattern, rather than make me calculate it myself.

Contributor, RPG Superstar 2009, RPG Superstar Judgernaut

Joshua Blazej wrote:
As far as I know, if a creature can divine power once per day then it shouldn't be automatically included in the monsters attack and damage because I don't know if the monster will be able to use it before the battle.

You also need to take in to account, however, if there's a valid reason why a creature would be able to use something like divine power before a combat gets underway...and if so, include its effect in the stat-block. You then use the "Before Combat" section of a creature's Tactics to indicate that in a published adventure...and a "Base Statistics" entry to show the unmodified stats.

For a Bestiary book, though, you wouldn't have a Tactics section. So spells like divine power couldn't be assumed to always be in effect just because the creature can do it once/day or something.

Grand Lodge Dedicated Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8

Neil Spicer wrote:
Joshua Blazej wrote:
As far as I know, if a creature can divine power once per day then it shouldn't be automatically included in the monsters attack and damage because I don't know if the monster will be able to use it before the battle.

You also need to take in to account, however, if there's a valid reason why a creature would be able to use something like divine power before a combat gets underway...and if so, include its effect in the stat-block. You then use the "Before Combat" section of a creature's Tactics to indicate that in a published adventure...and a "Base Statistics" entry to show the unmodified stats.

For a Bestiary book, though, you wouldn't have a Tactics section. So spells like divine power couldn't be assumed to always be in effect just because the creature can do it once/day or something.

It's a good point that a Bestiary entry (describing a race of monsters, to anticipate a wide variety of possible uses by different DMs) needs somewhat different information and emphasis than an adventure stat block (preparing to run one particular monster in one or a few specific encounters).

Community / Forums / Archive / Paizo / RPG Superstar™ / Previous Contests / RPG Superstar™ 2010 / General Discussion / Unwritten Design rules? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion