Do you wish monsters had statistics more like PCs, as they used to? Yes!, Please


Monsters and Hazards

1 to 50 of 116 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

14 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Just answering the question at the beginning of the playtest bestiary. My answer is an unequivocal, YES!.

The lack of this in Starfinder is one of my biggest problems with it's system and I don't want them to be simplified as those have been. I like having all the information available to me for customization, and the fact that having all the proper information makes doing so much easier on myself.

They can put name and reference page to a certain book and/page as they already do in adventures, but I want ALL the info I can get in the Bestiary stat blocks or any new stat block for any unique NPC or new monsters.


Heh, see my post:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2v9zt?The-math-doesnt-work#4

Not in particular, but I do want the stats to be *able* to be generated reasonably. Still, the fundamental/biggest issue the system has is PC vs PC math doesn't work out. I think that's simply fixed, as I say in the thread, by starting AC at 8 rather than 10.


17 people marked this as a favorite.

No, thanks. I dislike that part of the old game.


21 people marked this as a favorite.

God no.

I do a ton of customization, and I hated rubbish like needing to use the BAB and save advancement for its creature type, so frequently threw out the 1E rules on that. I like that they don't need attributes, BAB, anything. I just directly write the things they should roll, and can approximate this with level+bonus+(-2 to 5 depending on prof and items).

I love making monsters in the new system. I've made around 30 and am not slowing down!

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

What Lyee said.

Dark Archive

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Yeah, put me also in camp "Please no monsters created like PCs"

(that said, I want leadership type feat that allows you to take cohort return :p I liked my monstrous cohorts and other cohort friendly npcs in aps)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Tales Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

No more.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Disheartening to be honest, but I understand where you are coming from. I really liked all the fiddly bits myself.

Though after I discovered Hero Lab doing so became exponentially easier and quicker, doing so by hand or even Excel or something would still be tedious.

So probably stating what I want/like about the old stat blocks incorrectly. Not great at putting my thoughts in words.

Stats like this, give me a number even if ability damage doesn't seem to be a thing anymore, you can still put the bonus beside it.

Str 14(+2), Dex 22(+6)

List of the NPC/Monster's Feats at least.

Going off what @tivadar27 said, just more transparency behind how the numbers work out on creatures that in the past would have just been the base creature with class levels.

Edit: also something in plain site for what class a NPC is, more of a gripe, usually can figure it out from the name. Take the Demonololgist in the playtest Bestiary. It say Divine Spontaneous Spell in the Stat block then Sorcerer powers, but would like an identifier before then.

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Heck no.

Let's players build their PCs.

I'll just throw a number that works on my monsters without having to ensure it adheres to some forumla. So long as the numbers I assign are within tolerance of the power level of the PCs, it'll all work out.

If there's a chart of what numbers work with what levels best and the math is all in the background, all the better. Makes my life easier and I can focus more on the story and less on the math.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

No, thanks! Loved the new monsters!


5 people marked this as a favorite.

First Paizo forum post. Just needed to say: YES, I want the monsters to go back to the way they were. I don't want to make stuff up on the fly. My brain needs codified systems that all share a common baseline, not stuff made up from whole cloth.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
bookrat wrote:

Disheartening to be honest, but I understand where you are coming from. I really liked all the fiddly bits myself.

Though after I discovered Hero Lab doing so became exponentially easier and quicker, doing so by hand or even Excel or something would still be tedious.

So probably stating what I want/like about the old stat blocks incorrectly. Not great at putting my thoughts in words.

Stats like this, give me a number even if ability damage doesn't seem to be a thing anymore, you can still put the bonus beside it.

Str 14(+2), Dex 22(+6)

List of the NPC/Monster's Feats at least.

Going off what @tivadar27 said, just more transparency behind how the numbers work out on creatures that in the past would have just been the base creature with class levels.

Edit: also something in plain site for what class a NPC is, more of a gripe, usually can figure it out from the name. Take the Demonololgist in the playtest Bestiary. It say Divine Spontaneous Spell in the Stat block then Sorcerer powers, but would like an identifier before then.

I definitely agree with you on this front. It's not like it even takes a particularly long time to use 1E's system when you are creating generic monsters; I can create one in about 5-10 minutes (by hand) that I know will be appropriate for that CR.


Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Tales Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Carakav wrote:
First Paizo forum post. Just needed to say: YES, I want the monsters to go back to the way they were. I don't want to make stuff up on the fly. My brain needs codified systems that all share a common baseline, not stuff made up from whole cloth.

Just like in Starfinder, I'm pretty sure, when the final Bestiary comes out, here will be a codified system for monster creation, just not the same as pro creating PCs.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Zaister wrote:
Carakav wrote:
First Paizo forum post. Just needed to say: YES, I want the monsters to go back to the way they were. I don't want to make stuff up on the fly. My brain needs codified systems that all share a common baseline, not stuff made up from whole cloth.
Just like in Starfinder, I'm pretty sure, when the final Bestiary comes out, here will be a codified system for monster creation, just not the same as pro creating PCs.

I suppose I'm just a little biased, as the best game I ever ran was based on the old 3.5 "Savage Species" book. I've since always loved the idea that monsters and PCs exist within the same mathematical continuity, and although Pathfinder partly shied away from some of it, they maintained a lot of the underlying theory.

Knowing that the mechanics were unified, helped me feel like the game world itself was unified. For me, the mechanics of a game are effectively the 'physics' of that world, and I like there to be as much internal consistency as possible.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Carakav wrote:
Zaister wrote:
Carakav wrote:
First Paizo forum post. Just needed to say: YES, I want the monsters to go back to the way they were. I don't want to make stuff up on the fly. My brain needs codified systems that all share a common baseline, not stuff made up from whole cloth.
Just like in Starfinder, I'm pretty sure, when the final Bestiary comes out, here will be a codified system for monster creation, just not the same as pro creating PCs.

I suppose I'm just a little biased, as the best game I ever ran was based on the old 3.5 "Savage Species" book. I've since always loved the idea that monsters and PCs exist within the same mathematical continuity, and although Pathfinder partly shied away from some of it, they maintained a lot of the underlying theory.

Knowing that the mechanics were unified, helped me feel like the game world itself was unified. For me, the mechanics of a game are effectively the 'physics' of that world, and I like there to be as much internal consistency as possible.

"Knowing that the mechanics were unified, helped me feel like the game world itself was unified. For me, the mechanics of a game are effectively the 'physics' of that world, and I like there to be as much internal consistency as possible"

What you said there might be what it is about it that bugs me, it just doesn't "feel" right somehow. I never played much old D&D editions, but have read 1st and 2nd edition adventures a lot to get ideas and understand the old rules decently. The monster though less complex in many ways to the 1E Pathfinder still feel consistent within the system ( 3.5 and Pathfinder do as well to me) whereas the Playtest monsters do not. It's what bugs me about Starfinder and I still can't put my finger on what exactly it is.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
bookrat wrote:

Heck no.

Let's players build their PCs.

I'll just throw a number that works on my monsters without having to ensure it adheres to some forumla. So long as the numbers I assign are within tolerance of the power level of the PCs, it'll all work out.

If there's a chart of what numbers work with what levels best and the math is all in the background, all the better. Makes my life easier and I can focus more on the story and less on the math.

Exactly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Pathfinder first edition was honestly completely terrible at monsters and players following the same rules.

And now with second edition, they're honestly closer to following the rules like players are. Their level sets their baseline, their role likely defines their hit points and hit rate as well as skills, and their significant abilities will in ways mirror that of PCs.
But you're aren't meaninglessly hosing down the entire statblock with dozens of minor abilities and skill feats unless they're something that'll be relevant in play.

Hit dice were ugly and frustrating. A CR5 monster doesn't have 5 hit dice, it has 6 or 8 or even 9, whatever they need so the monster doesn't suck, and then they had to play fun with numbers to make the stats work and the powers were too strong or too weak. The " hound of xul" has 24 charisma because it needed it's unearthly belch to be about DC 26, but they couldn't touch con and strength without giving it too much hp or damage because it's a magical beast, and then they gave it a + 2 racial bonus on the DC because even they thought going for 28 charisma would be overdoing it.

Edit: fighting weird autocorrect decisions by mobile.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

They don't, really. In PF1 monsters are built much differently from PCs.

1. They use racial hit dice, which PCs don't have access to.
2. There are no conventions for their stats. You can pick whatever stats best fit the CR you're trying to establish.
3. Abilities are completely different than what the PCs have access to, and many abilities are unique to individual monsters.

Why bother fine tuning the exact amount of racial hit dice, stats, and miscellaneous bonuses to the point where you have the value you're looking for when you can just pick that value? I see very little value in the monster creation rules as established in the PF1 monster manual. When I needed to create my own monsters, I just selected the values for statistics like attack, saves, HP, AC, etc, without conforming to those rules, and my players could never tell the difference.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber

I don't need full stats for generic Goblin A

I do need them for Gruu the Goblin War chief

Fortunately I think the new system accomodates both.

Certain monsters, like Dragons, shouldn't be simple though. In fact anything that is a "Boss" type Solo encounter monster should not be simple stats.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game Subscriber

I prefer the monsters having an underlying system that resembles that of a PC. I don't like Starfinder's table of monster generation, it feels like reskinning a generic statblock. I don't need a generic statblock, if I need to reskin a monster, I have a few hundred in the beastiary already.

I enjoy the system in PF1. Granted, my primary experience in generating unique monsters is to apply class levels to existing monsters, so I need the PC and NPC systems to be able to mix interchangeably. Perhaps for making new monsters other systems are better, but I don't need that.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Carakav wrote:
Zaister wrote:
Carakav wrote:
First Paizo forum post. Just needed to say: YES, I want the monsters to go back to the way they were. I don't want to make stuff up on the fly. My brain needs codified systems that all share a common baseline, not stuff made up from whole cloth.
Just like in Starfinder, I'm pretty sure, when the final Bestiary comes out, here will be a codified system for monster creation, just not the same as pro creating PCs.

I suppose I'm just a little biased, as the best game I ever ran was based on the old 3.5 "Savage Species" book. I've since always loved the idea that monsters and PCs exist within the same mathematical continuity, and although Pathfinder partly shied away from some of it, they maintained a lot of the underlying theory.

Knowing that the mechanics were unified, helped me feel like the game world itself was unified. For me, the mechanics of a game are effectively the 'physics' of that world, and I like there to be as much internal consistency as possible.

For me, the unified mechanics of PC and monster creation is the worst thing that ever happened to D&D (and by extension PF).

The rules need to be the same for how they interact with each other, but the rules for how they should be created should be entirely different, because they serve different purposes.

A PC has to survive multiple encounters without resting, have a variety of tools for different situations, and carry adequate role-playing potential for the player to make them interesting.

A monster's job is to be an obstacle to a PC.

Creating a set of tools that fulfills both of those different requirements at the same time is cumbersome, will always have pitfalls and always result in weird outcomes.

Much better to separate the two and create specific tools that address each problem.

When you build a table, you don't grab a wrench to cut wood. You probably can use a wrench to get the plank of wood to the right size, but it's going to take a LOT of extra effort. Just grab a saw instead.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I am going to go with Yes, I do.

Fully custom creations aside (since I don't have much experience with them), modifications are much easier when you know where everything came from.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:


...
A PC has to survive multiple encounters without resting, have a variety of tools for different situations, and carry adequate role-playing potential for the player to make them interesting.

A monster's job is to be an obstacle to a PC.

Creating a set of tools that fulfills both of those different requirements at the same time is cumbersome, will always have pitfalls and always result in weird outcomes.

Much better to separate the two and create specific tools that address each problem.

...

The problem with this is that I completely agree for J random monster. But for a villanous NPC, or a halfling archer, I want the players to have a relatable experience. "Player: Ohh, is Bilbo the Nefarious going to Nimble Dodge now!? GM: No, he's not a rogue, he's just a halfling rogue blob, you wouldn't understand!"

Ways to quick-gen the stats are fine, but if, for NPCs I want to create, when I use regular rules to create them the mathematics don't work out (they don't, I showed it in my other post), then there's a problem.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I prefer the vast majority of monsters to have lean and efficient writeups. PC-esque stats should be only for very important monsters.

In PF1 I would usually streamline the bestiary monster for my own use just because the stat blocks were so cumbersome. My notes were not very dissimilar from the PF2 Bestiary, honestly.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

A bit. Right now I'm really annoyed with it for those creatures that can also take PC levels or be played like Orcs. The playtest gives me ancestry options for Orcs and I'd really like to fiddle around with building a few.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Short Answer:

YES OF COURSE

----

Long Answer:

At least the barebone rules work somewhat same for both parties, like proficiency bonuses' + Level part. But seeing arbitrary +'s tacked on (even minor ones), especially for the "playable", "NPC-able" ones (like commoners, goblins, orcs(-in-the-future), etc.) absolutely crushes my heart...
If a PC-race NPC can get to do something, so should a PC with similar ancestry/background/class composition. Hey, they now have Rarity for feats/spells/etc.; just perfect for handling this NPC-pseudo-exclusive techs.

By the way, as PCs and monsters at least share Levels now, I've become more lenient on this doing with totally-non-playable monsters. Who cares if True Dragons have some unexplained +10 on their attack rolls? Although, it would be greatly appreciated if some rules element written on the bottom of their stat block explains properly why they get this extra bonus...


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Zaister wrote:
Just like in Starfinder

Starfinder broke one of my groups, primarily because of the "monsters aren't the same as PCs" issue.

We can see when we need to roll a 17 or higher to hit a monster. We can see when a monster only needs to roll a 4 to hit us.

That breaks our immersion. Sure, sure, the math is designed so monsters hit more often than PCs, because they do less damage per hit, and PCs have more health, and there are four PCs and, and, and. But it ruined our experience << which is not necessarily anyone else's.

So hey. I'm hoping "just like in Starfinder" isn't a thing I see much of. Especially on this topic.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Ummmmm... But monsters in 1e also tend to hit players with low rolls especially at high levels. Since you know their bab can go up to 30 and such

Dark Archive

I heard (somewhere) that if you build an enemy with PC class levels the same way you build a PC, it'll come out close to doing it the monster way. So that's nice.
I like building my bad guys with PC class rolls the same way as PCs.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Take a high level encounter
The Devastator CR22/MR8 PF1 and Level 22 PF2

1E
Melee 4 blasphemous weapons +45 (2d8+18/19–20), 2 wings +40
(2d6+11/19–20 plus bleed)

2E
[S] Melee +5 vile armaments +38 (agile, magical, reach 40 feet),
Damage 4d10+20 bludgeoning plus evil (see vile armaments)
[S] Melee wing +38 (agile, reach 20 feet), Damage 4d8+10
slashing plus 3d8 persistent bleed

Max Fighter AC, just with all +5 items and equivalents for 1E
i.e belt of physical perfection +6 etc. Not really optimized just all +5 armor/shield, amu. of na. armor +5 and +5 ring of protection
Same for 2E all legendary prof. and +5 to anything that matters.

1E
AC ~47

2E ~40 ( since "Shields Unlike magic armor, magic shields can’t be etched with runes granting potency or properties. All magic shields are specific items with a wide variety of protective effects, as described in their entries.")

Other than seeing that it will attack less due to the new action economy, it seems to be hitting with the same 5% (nat 1) miss chance but will do more damage to make up for it effectively, but I can't figure out the nuts and bolts of why and that just bugs me.

MAIN POINT

Maybe it's a small thing, but i do care about it. I would very much like some middle ground or expansion on this part of the the game.

Edit: forgot the full-plates +6 so 2E AC46 Miss Chance 35%, more balanced with it not always being an auto-hit except on a nat 1, but I would still like to have a better feel for why, not just because of balance says so. Also with a cursory look a AC and attacks for eq. levels it look like 2E (no buffs on either side) will miss a lot more.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
CorvusMask wrote:
Ummmmm... But monsters in 1e also tend to hit players with low rolls especially at high levels. Since you know their bab can go up to 30 and such

This was an encounter at 8th.

Also, we played a bunch of high-level PF games, so I'm pretty familiar with how the math works out up there. Fighter types are still hitting level-appropriate-plus-four CR creatures almost without fail on primary attacks, frequently on secondary attacks, roughly 50/50 on tertiary attacks, and occasionally on quaternary attacks. Monsters with primary attacks only typically hit most of the time, making it close to fair. It's nothing like the 80/20 rule we were seeing in Starfinder.

But I don't mean to derail the thread. Or PF2. Just registering a preference supporting the OP's standpoint, and explaining why.


I don't really see any reason to keep monsters and npcs built the same as player characters other than "that's the way it's always been." I'm relieved that npcs and monsters are simplified.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I’m converting Rise of the Runelords to 2nd edition and am using PC rules to build the bosses, except they only get 2 free +2 ability boosts after ancestry, Background and Class. But in keeping the stats block simple it’s more like Str mod goes up by +1 instead of giving them a an actual score.

Seems to be keeping the power level pretty well.

What I want to know is how to add classes to monsters. Such as for Eleryium the Quasit. Since there isn’t a witch class yet I was planning on giving her Sorcerer levels with a divine spell list but don’t know how to make the adjustments.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would also side with the No camp. I stopped using the suggested formula in PF1 and hated when a player at my table would try to argue that the thing they were fighting was not the correct CR, even though they won almost everytime. Partly cause they did not take in account that I overpowered the PC's due to not following the suggested Wealth by level. Once I started throwing things that they had never seen before and refused to answer the question, what CR is this? (cause I never gave it one) did it become a fun game, instead of an annoying bargaining show.

K-Ray


3 people marked this as a favorite.
tivadar27 wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


...
A PC has to survive multiple encounters without resting, have a variety of tools for different situations, and carry adequate role-playing potential for the player to make them interesting.

A monster's job is to be an obstacle to a PC.

Creating a set of tools that fulfills both of those different requirements at the same time is cumbersome, will always have pitfalls and always result in weird outcomes.

Much better to separate the two and create specific tools that address each problem.

...

The problem with this is that I completely agree for J random monster. But for a villanous NPC, or a halfling archer, I want the players to have a relatable experience. "Player: Ohh, is Bilbo the Nefarious going to Nimble Dodge now!? GM: No, he's not a rogue, he's just a halfling rogue blob, you wouldn't understand!"

Ways to quick-gen the stats are fine, but if, for NPCs I want to create, when I use regular rules to create them the mathematics don't work out (they don't, I showed it in my other post), then there's a problem.

Here's the thing.... nothing I said precludes this from happening.

Having a better toolbox... doesn't mean you can't use the tools not currently in your hand. You just have to select the right tool for the job.

Let's say there's a method for creating players, and a different method for creating monsters.

Where in that did I say that you CAN'T use the method for creating a player, to make a monster? I don't think I did. I'm rereading it again. Nope, I don't see that anywhere. It wasn't just an accident either. I didn't say you can't use the player method, because sometimes as a GM, you'll want a different tool... and boom! There's one right there!

It's almost like I want to expand the options, and make them better suited to what you need to do as the GM, instead of limiting them... which is what you seem to think I'm implying.


Irontruth wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


...
A PC has to survive multiple encounters without resting, have a variety of tools for different situations, and carry adequate role-playing potential for the player to make them interesting.

A monster's job is to be an obstacle to a PC.

Creating a set of tools that fulfills both of those different requirements at the same time is cumbersome, will always have pitfalls and always result in weird outcomes.

Much better to separate the two and create specific tools that address each problem.

...

The problem with this is that I completely agree for J random monster. But for a villanous NPC, or a halfling archer, I want the players to have a relatable experience. "Player: Ohh, is Bilbo the Nefarious going to Nimble Dodge now!? GM: No, he's not a rogue, he's just a halfling rogue blob, you wouldn't understand!"

Ways to quick-gen the stats are fine, but if, for NPCs I want to create, when I use regular rules to create them the mathematics don't work out (they don't, I showed it in my other post), then there's a problem.

Here's the thing.... nothing I said precludes this from happening.

Having a better toolbox... doesn't mean you can't use the tools not currently in your hand. You just have to select the right tool for the job.

Let's say there's a method for creating players, and a different method for creating monsters.

Where in that did I say that you CAN'T use the method for creating a player, to make a monster? I don't think I did. I'm rereading it again. Nope, I don't see that anywhere. It wasn't just an accident either. I didn't say you can't use the player method, because sometimes as a GM, you'll want a different tool... and boom! There's one right there!

It's almost like I want to expand the options, and make them better suited to what you need to do as the GM, instead of limiting them... which is what you seem to think I'm implying.

I'm not suggesting you want that (or wasn't intending to), I'm stating that the system as it's built doesn't work when trying make a monster by using the method you use for players. I want that fixed.

I don't have any *huge* issue with the fact that monster bonuses don't exactly agree with their stats. I do take issue that they *can't* agree with their stats or they become unusable. *That's* my underlying issue, ACs don't add up, and enemies/NPCs built this way are night unhittable and will also be unable to hit the players.

EDIT: From my other thread, the basic proof. At level 1, a character will have a +5 to hit (+6 for a fighter). This is relative to an AC of 19 in medium armor and a shield (10 + 1 profi, +2 shield, +4 armor, +2 dex). This means the first attack has a 35% chance to hit and criticals only on a 20, and things beyond that are much worse. I think this is relatively easily fixed by having base AC start at 8 rather than 10 (and reducing to-hit bonuses in the bestiary by 2 across the board), but am open to hearing an argument against this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Short Answer: No.

Long Answer: To put things in context, myself and many of those I game with are engineers, and this has been a topic of discussion since it was introduced in 3rd edition.

On one hand, having a universal set of mechanics that apply to all things is compelling.

On the other hand, the design goal of the PCs' adversary is not the same as the PCs themselves, and trying to brute force both into one set of numbers causes problems. 3rd edition (and anything based off it) PC mechanics pushes an almost exponential increase in physical damage output, but a linear progression in hit points (and loosely AC) - in other words anything using PC mechanics has damage output that outpaces its defences, and the game turns into rocket tag in the higher levels.

This works by the numbers, and it works out that way in play.

It is conceivable that such a universal system could be made, but it would require a massive change from the 3rd edition chassis as PC damage would need to be throttled and made more linear, and their durability scaled up. In essence, the PCs would need to be designed more like monsters, rather than monsters like PCs, and that isn't an easy transition, even if players were willing to do it.

Speaking as a GM: I stopped treating the HD vs BAB vs Whatever mechanics years ago. The Pathfinder Bestiary includes a chart of target numbers vs CR - having to do mathematically acrobatics that the PCs never see or care about to arrive at those target numbers (or close) might be fun at times, but is largely wasted effort, and often results in whacky outliers.

There are two options:

  • Change the PC mechanics to suit the monsters, and ask all the players to change.
  • Don't use PC mechanics for monsters, and ask the GMs to do less work.

    I'd take the latter, personally.

    NPCs: The topic of NPCs is a related one, and one that is interesting because the legacy of 3.X is that their CR was based not on what they could do, but based on their class level-1 (or -2), which resulting in some very strange numbers.

    Personally, I don't think the level-1/level-2 approach to NPC challenge rating was remotely appropriate, as the extreme variability in them couldn't be captured by such methods. Many argue the CR should have been level/2, and there's some definite points that favour such an approach.

    I'm not sure how PF2 intents to correlate classed-adversaries to CR (I might have simply missed it), but it unlikely to be any less clunky and weird than how they handled it in PF1.


  • My vote is no.


    Ideally, yes. Practically, no.
    Most of the reasons have been given here. Using the same basic rules for both sides has an intellectual appeal to my sense of equality and balance, but in general I noticed I tend to toss monsterbuilding rules out the window when altering existing ones or converting other editions'. Mostly the HD determining BAB and STs bit. in my games, making an interesting encounter will usually trump adherence to rules where they fall short. However, not using the same system will soon make a disconnect between opponents using PC rules and those that don't, and this will have to be addressed at some point. Also it will make it a lot harder to use monsters as PCs (which admittedly isn't likely to be a big deal at most tables).

    Silver Crusade

    5 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

    I still haven’t looked over exactly how the creation rules work, but they seem to be a little different than Starfinder, hopefully that’s true when I give it an in-depth look.

    My main concern is NPCs, I don’t want an opponent to be a 12th level Elf, but an Elf with 12 levels in [Class]. Because Elves don’t have racial HD, it breaks my verisimilitude to state NPCs do while PCs don’t.

    Mark Seifter did say it would be possible to build a NPC/add class levels like a PC without breaking the math so hopefully that remains true.


    5 people marked this as a favorite.

    honest answer: YES especially NPCs should be build like PCs and well monsters should be build by the same mathematical standards. When I know how to create a character (which tbh, I'm still struggling atm with PF2) I should also immediatly know how to create a monster or at least how it works, given that the same principles apply.


    If the NPCs have adventure class levels then yes but I don't see that all NPCs have to have adventure classes.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    that's why NPC classes exist


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Not even remotely. Even ignoring the fact that monsters only followed PC rules in name only I as a GM have better things to do than flipping between a legion of charts, following all the fiddly rules, and then twisting the arm of those fiddly rules to make it actually work just because I wanted a martial fey that doesn't have 2x the hit die of something on level or whatever.

    Benchmarks, simplified blocks, and general role archtypes are infinitely more appealing to me than a handful of players demanding muh versimlitude.

    Silver Crusade

    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
    Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:
    If the NPCs have adventure class levels then yes but I don't see that all NPCs have to have adventure classes.

    This wouldn’t bother me that much I suppose (especially for minions), as long as they avoid Starfinder’s “this Not-Operative/Not-Solarion has a really cool Class ability that PCs will never be able to get” paradigm.

    If it’s a story based ability that’s fine, just don’t give them a Class ability that the actual Class itself can’t take.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    Not sure how the conversation has been going, but my two cents.

    Yes, I kind of wish the stats were done closer to PCs. I haven't started my playtest table yet, but I have played a lot of Starfinder with my regular game where the same method is used. In Starfinder there are multiple abilities that target "creatures with Intelligence of 1-2" or "above 3" and so forth. This has led to the GM essentially needing to be like "alright, they've got a -4, so that means their Int is *brief moment to canculate the math* 2 or 3..." Which basically means it's a toss up on whether the ability works. We've essentially house ruled that if the creature is -4 and doesn't speak any languages, it's probably 2 (since in 3.5 if your int was 3 you spoke broken language at best).

    Like I said, I haven't started running my Playtest game yet to now if this discrepancy exists in PPT, but I am weary of it.


    No


    Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

    After 18 years of playing the D20 system, I'm gonna go ahead and say NOOOOOPE.

    I used to love customizing my monsters. It was one of my favorite things about 3x. But it was a very cumbersome system that often without the aid of something like HeroLab took forever.


    As a GM currently writing content for level 19 PCs, thats a big NO. It's so incredibly time consuming to customise high CR monsters in the current rules, at least if you want to do it well.

    Streamlining monster creation whilst at the same time enabling simple creation of unique and flavourful mechanics for specific monsters (via eg custom reactions) is exactly what the GM doctor ordered.

    1 to 50 of 116 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Playtest / Game Master Rules / Monsters and Hazards / Do you wish monsters had statistics more like PCs, as they used to? Yes!, Please All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.