"Non-Associated Classes" and Monsters - still valid?

[raidou]

S
P
A
C
E

I'm in the process of converting some monsters to the Pathfinder rules in anticipation of running a high-level playtest.

Specifically, the "sample" NPC monsters in the 3.5 MM, including:

• Vampire Monk/Shadowdancer
• Mummy Lord
• Lich Wizard
• Mind Flayer Sorcerer

The Pathfinder Rules give specific instructions for determining the CR of NPC enemies...

Pathfinder BETA wrote:

Adding NPCs: Creatures without racial Hit Dice are factored into combats a little differently than normal monsters or monsters with class levels. A creature that possesses class levels, but does not have any racial Hit Dice, is factored in as a creature with a CR equal to its class levels –2. A creature that only possesses non-player class levels (such as a warrior or adept) is factored in as a

creature with a CR equal to its class levels –3.

By a strict reading, this means that the two templated foes (vampire and lich) actually LOSE 2 points of CR because they are classed foes with no racial HD (they merely apply templates to class HD)

For the other two, the Mummy Lord stays the same (CR15 = base CR5 plus 10 cleric levels) and the Mind Flayer shoots back up to CR17 from an errata'd CR13 (CR17 = base CR8 plus 9 sorcerer levels)

I'm willing to playtest with these numbers to see how the battles shake out, but it just seems somewhat jarring that the notion of "Non Associated Classes" has not been carried through to the PFRPG. My gut feeling is that the non-templated foes will have a glass jaw especially when compared to the lowered CR of the templated foes.

Does anyone have any playtest experience with these or similar monsters that they'd be willing to share?

Thanks,

-eric

[Radu the Wanderer]

It would depend on how many levels you're giving each character. A Vampire shadowdancer certainly can be formidable, as can each of the other three npc's you suggested.

Is a mind flayer sorcerer 10 really more dangerous than a mind flayer without those levels? Of course. Are they a 10 CR difference in challenge? not a chance. Balancing encounters is a delicate process at best, and CR suggestions are more of a starting point than a definitive rule.

I'd say offhand that mind flayers make better sorcerers than barbarians or rogues, so they're more dangerous with sorcerer levels than they would be with the equivalent number of other classes, but not to an extreme degree. A mind flayer rogue/assassin/shadowdancer could give players nightmares, but it won't necessarily be as good at it as, say, a hobgoblin with the same rough CR would be. Why?

Racial abilities typically aren't as robust as class abilities. A hobgoblin and a mind flayer with the same CR are on two completely different playing fields as far as class levels go. I'm not saying it would be an even fight (or even an interesting one) to have them go at it directly. I just think that in many instances the advantage a monster derives from class levels is not as significant as one might think, particularly if it is a caster class. Spellcasters absolutely CAN be a scary, scary thing to face, but I'd much rather face a monster with a base cr of 12 and four sorcerer levels than something with a base cr of 2 with 12 sorcerer levels. Chances are the first monster will gain significantly less power from the boost. Much less scary to face a monster with only level 2 spells instead of one with level 6 spells.

[Squirrelloid]

I've always found that adding caster levels to high-HD monsters requires ad hoc CR determination. So a Mindflayer Sorceror 10 is probably in the ballpark of CR 12-13. But that last level of sorceror probably accounts for 1 full CR increase, while the first 5 levels of sorceror probably account for 1 full CR increase.

Basically, getting much lower level abilities isn't generally worth as much as gaining level appropriate abilities, and should be treated as such. But there's no good way for providing a general rule for this.

[TerraNova]

In my experience, the Associated / non-associated level rules don't work very well, and (usually) produce monsters that, besides having some more HP, just fail to live up to their CR. Rarely, the issue turns the other way, usually when you take "borderline associated" levels.

Associated levels being full CR increases... well. I usually feel humanoids to be the weakest challenges per CR, but i have no "mathematical proof".

[Mattastrophic]

TerraNova wrote:

In my experience, the Associated / non-associated level rules don't work very well, and (usually) produce monsters that, besides having some more HP, just fail to live up to their CR.

Have you ever experienced Giant Clerics? Ettin Bards?

I once wrote a pretty nasty Marilith Sublime Chord/Virtuoso.

-Matt

[Radu the Wanderer]

The real issue with classes is that for a non-caster class, you can gain some pretty significant advantages. A few fighter or rogue levels on a monster can really beef it up. Imagine taking on a medusa Ranger 2/Fighter 2/Rogue 3 - she'll OWN you with her bow attacks. (granted, she's got 7 class levels. But the same argument would apply to a medusa Rogue 7.)

Spellcasting NPC's don't really get that much out of it unless they can cast spells that are sufficiently threatening to the party. Their save DC's have to be high enough to make them a threat for one thing, and for another the PC's will almost always have access to more powerful magics than their opponents (if they are adding classes on top of racial HD). I'm not saying it can't work. I am saying you shouldn't really gauge things based off of how many levels you give a monster as if it were just a formula you can plug numbers into. You really need to evaluate the threat that these levels add to the creature in question. Tossing on 3 wizard levels is really only worth about a 1 cr increase on most monsters, but there are exceptions, of course.

A doppelganger wizard 3 gains much less, relatively speaking, than a kobold wizard 3. The kobold's power derives entirely from class levels. The doppelganger is already threatening in its own right, and thus gains less.