Homebrew Monster CR

[Tequila Sunrise]

This week a got to skim through a friend's PF rule book and noticed that Jason included guidelines for DMs to create their own monsters. While I applaud Jason for going beyond the laughable guidelines in the 3e MM, I can't help but point out that his guidelines would be so much more helpful if he disassociated monster type with HD type, BAB, base saves, skill points and such. It's not impossible to 'go against type', but a DM does have to go through hoops to create say, a melee-focused fey or a spell-focused dragon. The fact is that those hoops are unnecessary, and Jason has a golden opportunity to get rid of them and provide some really useful monster creation guidelines. Thoughts?

TS

[Brodiggan Gale]

Tequila Sunrise wrote:

This week a got to skim through a friend's PF rule book and noticed that Jason included guidelines for DMs to create their own monsters. While I applaud Jason for going beyond the laughable guidelines in the 3e MM, I can't help but point out that his guidelines would be so much more helpful if he disassociated monster type with HD type, BAB, base saves, skill points and such. It's not impossible to 'go against type', but a DM does have to go through hoops to create say, a melee-focused fey or a spell-focused dragon. The fact is that those hoops are unnecessary, and Jason has a golden opportunity to get rid of them and provide some really useful monster creation guidelines. Thoughts?

TS

Absolutely agree, I had a pretty long post about this in the alpha, just before the beta was released. I've always thought having monster BAB/HD/Skills/etc. tied to creature type was a huge mistake.

It really has two effects that hurt the monster designs. First, it makes it extremely hard to design certain iconic monsters, like Redcaps, without breaking the rules. Second, to overcome the so so BAB for most creature types, a lot of creatures designed as brawlers either have massively inflated HD (which breaks the balance of saves vs. caster DC's) or they have a massively inflated Strength (which can make them just a bit toooo good at combat maneuvers, admittedly, not as much of a problem because of how weak combat maneuvers are in general).

I'd really like to see all the things currently lumped under type split into types and subtypes. With the Type (Fae, Monstrous Humanoid, etc.) adding special qualities, special abilities, bonuses/penalties to certain stats, alignment restrictions, etc.

And a subtype, something like "Brawler" or "Caster" controlling the creatures BAB, HD type, Saves, and Skill points.

Basically all the information in the SRD under the "Traits" section of a creature type would be a function of it's type, and all the information under "Features" would depend on the subtype.

Added bonus from a designers perspective, it allows a more fine grain control of creature progression, for instance, if in playtesting, melee oriented creatures are noticeably weak for their CR, it would be possible to add additional feats to those specific subtypes, without trying to rewrite/rebalance every individual creature.

[Tequila Sunrise]

Brodiggan Gale wrote:

Added bonus from a designers perspective, it allows a more fine grain control of creature progression, for instance, if in playtesting, melee oriented creatures are noticeably weak for their CR, it would be possible to add additional feats to those specific subtypes, without trying to rewrite/rebalance every individual creature.

So true.

TS

[Mattastrophic]

Brodiggan Gale wrote:

I'd really like to see all the things currently lumped under type split into types and subtypes. With the Type (Fae, Monstrous Humanoid, etc.) adding special qualities, special abilities, bonuses/penalties to certain stats, alignment restrictions, etc.

Monsters are really screwy; on the one hand, you've got the 3.5 system which, well, just doesn't work, for more reasons than one. On the other hand, you've got the 4E system which makes all the monsters the same except for their role and unique abilities.

What you'd probably want to aim for, Brodiggan, is to turn every creature into a race, and just use class levels to determine BAB, saves, etc.

As I've posted in other threads, the monsters really need a change, arguably more than anything else in 3.5, and arguably more importantly than anything else in 3.5. Question is, how likely will that happen in Pathfinder, and how far would Pathfinder be willing to go to fix the problem?

-Matt

[Tequila Sunrise]

Mattastrophic wrote:

What you'd probably want to aim for, Brodiggan, is to turn every creature into a race, and just use class levels to determine BAB, saves, etc.

That's not a bad idea, though I think that a few 'monster classes' would need to be written up. Monsters just don't have the magical items to boost the AB, AC and saves of PC classes to where they need to be.

TS

[DeadlyUematsu]

Personally, the player character classes are the most played part of the game so why not just use what's already going to be in use most of the time? I have no problem with an Ogre just being a 4th level Fighter who has Large Size instead of two bonus feats or a Mind Flayer whose really just a 9th level sorcerer with an otherwise extremely limited spell list.

It ought to make things easier to balance out and you could avoid nonsense like ECL and LA. So if you wanted to play a Succubus, it's just more of a matter of slapping on some PC level-appropriate gear instead of having to literally eyeball it like it is right now.

Edit: Thinking about it further, it would be best to simply buff up the player character races (or improve thier features when they reach certain points) so you can give monsters thier trademark abilities without having them sacrifice class features. Therefore, our example Ogre doesn't sacrifice two feats while the human fighter gets something "humanly" comparable.

[Tequila Sunrise]

DeadlyUematsu wrote:

Personally, the player character classes are the most played part of the game so why not just use what's already going to be in use most of the time?

Because monsters created using PC classes would be pushovers. Take any 20th level monster, for example. Using a PC class to stat this monster, its AC will be identical or near-identical to its AC at 1st level and its base saves will allow PC casters to consistently KO it with one spell. I won't go into how weak its AB or save DCs will be, because I think you get the point already.

To make classes work for monsters, Jason would have to add regular AC bonuses, increase base save bonuses and BABs, and/or add regular ability boosts.

TS

[WalkerInShadows]

Brodiggan Gale wrote:

Absolutely agree, I had a pretty long post about this in the alpha, just before the beta was released. I've always thought having monster BAB/HD/Skills/etc. tied to creature type was a huge mistake.

...

I'd really like to see all the things currently lumped under type split into types and subtypes. With the Type (Fae, Monstrous Humanoid, etc.) adding special qualities, special abilities, bonuses/penalties to certain stats, alignment restrictions, etc.

And a subtype, something like "Brawler" or "Caster" controlling the creatures BAB, HD type, Saves, and Skill points.

Basically all the information in the SRD under the "Traits" section of a creature type would be a function of it's type, and all the information under "Features" would...

This is an excellent idea. I wouldn't want to go as far as 4E and define everything by role, though (even "Ogre: Large giant brawler" is too close, IMO); I'd just make the roles transparent. That is, they don't actually appear in the text anywhere. All monster types will have a default subtype (listed with the type information), and then in the back you can define how to create a monster with a different subtype - an ogre mage, for example, would just be an ogre with the caster subtype.

You can have 3-4 different subtypes: brawler, caster, sneak, and maybe healer. Each subtype would have a different stat array, BAB, and save progression; skill points remain a function of creature type, but the DM can swap out skills as needed to serve the new role.

This is I'd set the default role for each type:

Aberration: Depends on creature (most likely brawler)

Animal: Brawler or sneak (again, depends on creature);

Construct: Brawler

Dragon: Hmm. This is a tough one, because they're brawlers AND casters.

Elemental: Brawler

Fey: Caster

Giant: Brawler (can be healer/caster, but those are most likely going to be covered with class levels instead).

Humanoid: Depends on creature

Magical Beast: Brawler

Monstrous Humanoid: Depends on creature, usually brawler

Ooze: Brawler

Outsider: Depends on creature

Plant: Brawler

Undead: Depends on the creature. Liches et al would be casters; mindless undead, mummies, and "tough" undead would be brawlers; ghouls, wights, incorporeal, and other "sneaky" undead would be sneaks.

Vermin: Brawler, for the most part; I could easily see spiders as sneaks, though.

[DeadlyUematsu]

Tequila Sunrise wrote:

DeadlyUematsu wrote:

Personally, the player character classes are the most played part of the game so why not just use what's already going to be in use most of the time?

Because monsters created using PC classes would be pushovers. Take any 20th level monster, for example. Using a PC class to stat this monster, its AC will be identical or near-identical to its AC at 1st level and its base saves will allow PC casters to consistently KO it with one spell. I won't go into how weak its AB or save DCs will be, because I think you get the point already.

To make classes work for monsters, Jason would have to add regular AC bonuses, increase base save bonuses and BABs, and/or add regular ability boosts.

TS

Is this really a problem? Obviously, there are a number of quirks common to 3E that would no longer work. Yes, you could no longer throw one CR 20 opponent at 4 20th level PCs. Yes, the PCs would have a visible numerical advantage over their opponents. Is this really bad? For me, the answer is no.

This change would be absolutely fine because a) solo opponents, as it stands now in 3E, do not work because individual actions are always more important then raw power and b) player characters are expected to go through several fights per day while enemies can essentially go nova in any battle they're in.

Now, I am not saying that monsters should be made into hopeless cannon fodder. It just means monsters will either need to be given NPC level appropriate gear like NPCs are now or they will have to draw on the magic items in their treasure hoard and if you want to make a really challenging fight, you will either need to use a higher level monster or give an opponent of equal level PC level-appropriate gear.

Does that sound reasonable?

Edit: Also the only monster classes that should be made should be for non-intelligent or animal level intelligence creatures like oozes, bears, mindless undeads, constructs, etc. Then again, I do not see why you couldn't just use the warrior NPC class and call it a wrap.

[Tequila Sunrise]

DeadlyUematsu wrote:

Tequila Sunrise wrote:

DeadlyUematsu wrote:

Personally, the player character classes are the most played part of the game so why not just use what's already going to be in use most of the time?

Because monsters created using PC classes would be pushovers.

Is this really a problem?

I play 4e so I don't mind monsters being weaker than PCs, but I would mind if monsters were pushovers. And monsters with slow or no AC advancement are pushovers; high level monsters stated as you are suggesting would effectively require high level PCs to use one simple combo: high initiative + power attack/multishot/similar option. Maybe you like rocket tag, but I don't.

TS

[DeadlyUematsu]

Tequila Sunrise wrote:

DeadlyUematsu wrote:

Tequila Sunrise wrote:

DeadlyUematsu wrote:

Personally, the player character classes are the most played part of the game so why not just use what's already going to be in use most of the time?

Because monsters created using PC classes would be pushovers.

Is this really a problem?

I play 4e so I don't mind monsters being weaker than PCs, but I would mind if monsters were pushovers. And monsters with slow or no AC advancement are pushovers; high level monsters stated as you are suggesting would effectively require high level PCs to use one simple combo: high initiative + power attack/multishot/similar option. Maybe you like rocket tag, but I don't.

TS

Like I said, the progression would be there but it would either be derived from a) the magic items in the treasure hoard they were carrying/guarding, b) gear they were equipped with as either an NPC or PC of the appropriate character level, c) abilities or modifiers they acquired through sacrificing some of thier class features, or d) if everyone got progressive racial abilities, abilities they acquired because of thier race.

[Tequila Sunrise]

C and D would work, at which point you'd effectively be using a set of 'monster classes' rather than PC classes.

TS

[DeadlyUematsu]

Tequila Sunrise wrote:

C and D would work, at which point you'd effectively be using a set of 'monster classes' rather than PC classes.

TS

Not really. Yes, you would have additional constructs but you wouldn't have nonsense like an Ooze or Artillery class.