|
The title says it all. I'm curious if we are going to have a chance to discuss the design (or redesign) of the OGL monsters of D&D in the same (or similar) fashion as we are with the classes and feats?
There are some glaring issues that can be identified, and there could be a lot of great brainstorming ideas that can be applied to some of the great iconic monsters.
Since I started the post, I'll go first.......
Dragons: Their breath weapon needs to scale (largely) with their HD.
I can't count the number of times I've been frustrated that the PCs know to stay just so far away from each other so as to not be in the area of effect.......
Robert
The majority of the monster work is going to be done in-house and with freelancers; we don't have much time to do an open playtest of them.
Will the concepts behind the Challenge Rating system remain as it was in 3.5?
What about the monster advancement rules?
Is there anything any of us can do to help with fixing the monsters, the Challenge Rating system, the monster advancement rules, assigning favored classes to monsters, redistributing skill points, etc?
-Matt
|
|
The majority of the monster work is going to be done in-house and with freelancers; we don't have much time to do an open playtest of them.
No so much playtest.....but is there a place to share ideas/concerns/etc for the creatures to make them Patherfinderized?
Not so much in suggestions of WHAT monsters....but like the suggestion that I made for dragons; I'm sure there are a bunch of ideas that DMs on here have drummed up for critters as they've used them in their games; I know I have!
Regardless, thanks for the response, James.
Robert
Creative Director
|
The majority of the monster work is going to be done in-house and with freelancers; we don't have much time to do an open playtest of them.Will the concepts behind the Challenge Rating system remain as it was in 3.5?
What about the monster advancement rules?
-Matt
Jason's working on both of these this very week. The basic idea of the CR system will remain, I suspect, so that a CR for a monster from a 3.5 book should probably be pretty close in PF RPG. A few monsters might be retooled for different CRs here and there, or existing CRs will be recast to a more appropriate number as needed, though. But the concept of a 1 number reference for a monster's relative power is too handy to dump.
Monster advancement will likely still work as it does in current 3.5, but the preferred method of monster advancement for the Pathfinder RPG is likely to be vastly simplified. Or maybe not. Again... Jason's working on this stuff right now, and we'll probably not be ready to talk much more about it for months.
|
Creative Director
|
Is there anything any of us can do to help with fixing the monsters, the Challenge Rating system, the monster advancement rules, assigning favored classes to monsters, redistributing skill points, etc?
At this point... not really. I do appreciate the enthusiasm and the will to help, of course, but the turnaround time for building the monster book is going to be MUCH shorter than what we've had on the PF RPG (which has already been in the works for many months). The more people involved in a project, the longer it takes to sort through all the input and as a result the longer it takes to do the project.
The basic idea is that once we get the mechanics of the RPG down, building monsters is easy since that's not making new rules but using rules that are now good to go, so in theory, we won't need much help building monsters anyway.
Of course, we might change our mind once things get going. For now, though, this is probably the best place to chat monster design stuff.
Jason's working on both of these this very week. The basic idea of the CR system will remain, I suspect, so that a CR for a monster from a 3.5 book should probably be pretty close in PF RPG.
Before accepting Challenge Rating as is, I'd like to suggest taking a look at post #2 of this thread. In essence, Challenge Rating itself doesn't work.
It would take some overhauling, but you'd have a much stronger game if the concepts behind Challenge Rating were to change.
A few ways to fix Challenge Rating:
-Make Challenge Rating represent a baseline encounter of (number of monsters) = (number of PCs), not the current "one monster vs. party" method. A very easy way to do this, though it utilizes a faulty system, is to piggyback off the current "Four of a monster = CR+4" method, thus making the CR of a monster be four more than it was. Then tweak from there.
-Make Challenge Rating and Encounter Levels represent an encounter that stands alone, instead of the current method of EL representing one encounter out of a typical day of four. Assuming out-of-combat healing with small expenditures of resources will go a long way.
-Standardize monster equipment in their base stat blocks. I placed a few examples in that thread.
-Matt
Jason's work definitely is an improvement on the lame guidelines in the MM. It's just that he's limiting himself to one degree of improvement where he could easily attain several degrees even if he were to merely disassociate creature type from HD and HD from BAB, base saves, skills and such.
He wouldn't even have to define a bunch of different monster roles like 4e does, although that would help. The roles in the 3e MM could work well enough for PF (battler, caster, special attack user, combo).
TS
Jason's work definitely is an improvement on the lame guidelines in the MM.
The problem is that the foundation his work is based off of is faulty, as I express in the second post of this thread.
It's like building a house of cards. No matter how detailed and easy-to-understand the directions are, like with Pathfinder Beta's, it's still a house of cards, and it'll still fall over with a gust of wind.
Pathfinder Beta might make it easy to utilize Challenge Rating, but Challenge Rating itself is the problem.
-Matt
|
Creative Director
|
Jason's work definitely is an improvement on the lame guidelines in the MM.The problem is that the foundation his work is based off of is faulty, as I express in the second post of this thread.
It's like building a house of cards. No matter how detailed and easy-to-understand the directions are, like with Pathfinder Beta's, it's still a house of cards, and it'll still fall over with a gust of wind.
Pathfinder Beta might make it easy to utilize Challenge Rating, but Challenge Rating itself is the problem.
-Matt
You may have misunderstood my comment.
I think that Challenge Ratings are a great idea, and that they should remain in the game and that they should still basically MEAN the same thing (A CR 1 monster should be a gnoll, a CR 20 should be a balor). The math on how it works and what a CR 1 stat looks like versus a CR 20 one is where the work lies.
Part of the problem with CR is, of course, folk try to turn it into a math problem, when assigning CR is not really something you can solve with math. Too many variables.
|
I think that Challenge Ratings are a great idea, and that they should remain in the game and that they should still basically MEAN the same thing (A CR 1 monster should be a gnoll, a CR 20 should be a balor). The math on how it works and what a CR 1 stat looks like versus a CR 20 one is where the work lies.
Can we take this to mean, that you will be reviewing the accuracy of CR for existing 3.5 creatures?
And if a creature's power level is out of synch with it's alleged CR rating, that the creature will be reprinted, with its stats shaved down or bulked up, to fit the CR?I think that would be preferable to giving brand-new CR ratings, since existing adventures already contain encounters which assume that a party of level X will be facing EL X (+4/-4 each way).
Part of the problem with CR is, of course, folk try to turn it into a math problem, when assigning CR is not really something you can solve with math. Too many variables.
A lot of creatures appear fearsome on first glance, but have an Achilles heel, which the PCs either have, or don't have. This skews the encounter significantly, from trivial, to hard, to overpowering.
Take Brown Mold (OK, so this is a hazard, not a creature, but it's a classic example). Got a Ray of Frost cantrip, and it collapses like a cake with the oven door on. Using only 3.5 core rules, what's the next cold spell? Cone of Cold? A level 5 spell, which can't be carried in a wand? Otherwise, you have to cast Resist Energy on the whole party to get past, or else spend some serious cures to offset the huge damage.
How do you set a believable CR for a subjective hazard like that?
You may have misunderstood my comment.
Allow me to clarify...
As I posted in my links... Challenge Rating represents a baseline encounter of one monster versus a group of four iconic (and subpar) PCs, which will drain 25% of party resources.
This definition of Challenge Rating is the origins of its problem. Does Pathfinder really wish to stick with this definition?
-Matt
Well, since this is the place to talk monster stuff...
Incorporeal undead under Pathfinder now have too many hit points. Undead bonus hit points are based on Charisma. Incorporeal undead have high charisma scores (for the deflection mod to AC).
A dread wraith goes from 104 to 216 hp.
Such a creature is still immune to sneak attack, critical hits, all physical non-magical damage, and all of the other defenses incorporeality offers.
I think only corporeal undead should get the hp boost.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Well, since this is the place to talk monster stuff...
Incorporeal undead under Pathfinder now have too many hit points. Undead bonus hit points are based on Charisma. Incorporeal undead have high charisma scores (for the deflection mod to AC).
A dread wraith goes from 104 to 216 hp.
Such a creature is still immune to sneak attack, critical hits, all physical non-magical damage, and all of the other defenses incorporeality offers.
I think only corporeal undead should get the hp boost.
Your example assumes the same Charisma in the Pathfinder Beastiary for dread wraiths. I wouldn't be surprized to see incorporeal undead keep the bonus hp, but have lower charismas (except for ghosts).
|
Is there anything any of us can do to help with fixing the monsters, the Challenge Rating system, the monster advancement rules, assigning favored classes to monsters, redistributing skill points, etc?At this point... not really. I do appreciate the enthusiasm and the will to help, of course, but the turnaround time for building the monster book is going to be MUCH shorter than what we've had on the PF RPG (which has already been in the works for many months). The more people involved in a project, the longer it takes to sort through all the input and as a result the longer it takes to do the project.
The basic idea is that once we get the mechanics of the RPG down, building monsters is easy since that's not making new rules but using rules that are now good to go, so in theory, we won't need much help building monsters anyway.
Of course, we might change our mind once things get going. For now, though, this is probably the best place to chat monster design stuff.
James,
will the encounter "budget" system posted here and EnWorld (I can't remember by who, though) end up in PF RPG? I thought it was very innovative and the encounters were easy to build with it. :)
If Cha is lowered, the undead's AC will also suffer (incorporeal undead usualy get their cha mod as a deflection bonus). And AC is one of the benchmarks for a critters CR (So are Hit Dice, BTW). So lowering Cha might then require lowering the CR.
|
|
If Cha is lowered, the undead's AC will also suffer (incorporeal undead usualy get their cha mod as a deflection bonus). And AC is one of the benchmarks for a critters CR (So are Hit Dice, BTW). So lowering Cha might then require lowering the CR.
Increase the DEX. Wraiths flitting about menacingly, and with unnerving agility just seems to make sense.
You can lower the CHA by 6, thus lowering the HP by 3/HD, and lowers the AC by 3, then increase the DEX by 6, and you've essentially provided the balance.
Robert
EDIT - and with additional feats being added to creatures based on HD (9 vs 7 at 18th HD) you have other options to increase AC via Dodge etc, and Acrobatics ranks - so theres additional ways to replace the lost AC.
2nd EDIT: I think their slam attack special quality is also tied to Charisma - so with that charisma loss, you'd have to use extra feats to have ability focus and increase the DC back to where it should be.
Or just assign a deflection bonus based directly on CR. Problem solved!
TS
Or just assign a deflection bonus based directly on CR. Problem solved!
Whoa, now...
That's way outside the bounds of the system. No value within any statblock is derived from Challenge Rating.
-Matt
|
Creative Director
|
You may have misunderstood my comment.Allow me to clarify...
As I posted in my links... Challenge Rating represents a baseline encounter of one monster versus a group of four iconic (and subpar) PCs, which will drain 25% of party resources.
This definition of Challenge Rating is the origins of its problem. Does Pathfinder really wish to stick with this definition?
-Matt
Not necessarily. We don't know yet.
Not necessarily. We don't know yet.
Sweet! Keep us posted!
-Matt
Or just assign a deflection bonus based directly on CR. Problem solved!Whoa, now...
That's way outside the bounds of the system. No value within any statblock is derived from Challenge Rating.
-Matt
That's an awfully narrow remark coming from someone who wants to change the meaning of 'CR'.
TS
That's an awfully narrow remark coming from someone who wants to change the meaning of 'CR'.
It's the truth, though. No value within any statblock is derived from Challenge Rating.
What you're suggesting is taking a giant leap, changing the entire system (open up Challenge Rating as a value to be derived from), to solve a small issue within the system (deflection bonus for incorporeal undead), which isn't really an issue in the first place, as its based off a stat, just like a Dex bonus originating from Dex.
Also, making incorporeal undead Deflection bonus based on Challenge Rating would start a cascading effect. For example, the Nymph's Deflection bonus to AC would have to be changed as well, for the very same reason as incorporeal undead.
Opening up Challenge Rating as a value to be derived from is worth exploring, but in a much larger sense. Save DCs, natural armor bonus, heck, even attribute modifiers, could conceivably be tied to Challenge Rating with enough tweaking.
-Matt
Opening up Challenge Rating as a value to be derived from is worth exploring, but in a much larger sense. Save DCs, natural armor bonus, heck, even attribute modifiers, could conceivably be tied to Challenge Rating with enough tweaking.
Naturally, which is why I wrote the Manual of Monster Creation. Using CR as a root value for monster stats sounds weird, but in reality we already do it. It's just that we currently use CR to determine stats in a very roundabout and vague fashion. It's so much simpler and effective to cut right to the chase and say 'monster AC should be roughly 13 + CR' and 'battle monster AB should be roughly 2 + (1.5 X CR)'.
TS
Or just assign a deflection bonus based directly on CR. Problem solved!Whoa, now...
That's way outside the bounds of the system. No value within any statblock is derived from Challenge Rating.
-Matt
Spell Resistance is. Or was in 3.0.
** spoiler omitted **
Hehehe...
They just embrace it fully, reducing monsters down to simple formulas. On one hand, they're tightly adhered to the math. On the other hand, it's boring as hell when by the formulas, every monster within a role is the same.
3.5 is a little different. The back of the Monster Manual contains guidelines on how to create monsters using CR as a starting point, but the published monsters are very varied in how well they follow those formulas, if they do at all.
-Matt, looking for a better way.
Spell Resistance is. Or was in 3.0.
Must've been was, then.
Case in point: Succubus: CR 7, SR 18 (CR+11), vs. Balor: CR 20, SR 28 (CR+8)
-Matt, getting off the tangent now.
All sorts of things are based directly on CR; it's just that the designers never announced that "DR, ability scores, HD, SR, etc... are based on CR." No, there's no official formula like there is in 4e, but that doesn't mean that any designer worth his salt doesn't review monsters and think "okay this is supposed to be CR X, which means I need to tweak its stats this way and that..."
All that 4e did was give amateur monster designers a set of clear and concise guidelines for basic stats. And guess what? The designers themselves often don't even adhere to those guidelines. Just like 3e monsters, except this time around the designers were kind enough to give the amateurs a jumping-off point into the design process.
TS
CRs work OKish. Assigning power-level is an artform rather than a science and so it is with CR. Trying to make it into an exact science would entail remaking monsters using a boring formulaic approach and I would frankly hate to see that happen. Luckily, Paizo has been good about retaining and even inserting flavor, so I don't really fear they will chose that option.
All sorts of things are based directly on CR; it's just that the designers never announced that "DR, ability scores, HD, SR, etc... are based on CR."
Well, of course there's a certain pseudo-limitation on elements of a statblock based on CR. A creature with five attacks at +33 for 4d8+24 each will not be CR 3.
Monster advancement does throw any semblance of CR pretending to work out the window, though. Did you know that an Advanced 16HD Troll Rogue16 is CR 16? 32HD, BAB +24, like 500hp...
-Matt
|
Creative Director
|
All sorts of things are based directly on CR; it's just that the designers never announced that "DR, ability scores, HD, SR, etc... are based on CR."Well, of course there's a certain pseudo-limitation on elements of a statblock based on CR. A creature with five attacks at +33 for 4d8+24 each will not be CR 3.
Monster advancement does throw any semblance of CR pretending to work out the window, though. Did you know that an Advanced 16HD Troll Rogue16 is CR 16? 32HD, BAB +24, like 500hp...
-Matt
According to the chart, perhaps. But that chart is not a law. It's a tool. The best way to set a creature's CR is to start there and then compare it to other CRs and then set the creature's CR accordingly. Of course, whenever we do that in print, we seem to get a flood of emails and posts from readers excited that they found an "error" and eager to point it out...
According to the chart, perhaps. But that chart is not a law. It's a tool. The best way to set a creature's CR is to start there and then compare it to other CRs and then set the creature's CR accordingly. Of course, whenever we do that in print, we seem to get a flood of emails and posts from readers excited that they found an "error" and eager to point it out...
What we're establishing is that CR is an inconsistent measure of... well, Challenge.
I've shown that an Advanced 16-HD Troll Rogue16 and a Human Rogue16 (18 in Pathfinder) are both CR 16. Yet they're far from being of the same level of challenge.
The practice of being fuzzy with the math, by, say, re-setting a creature's CR, only invalidates the tools. Thus... why have the tools in the first place? Why even have a Monster Manual, when suddenly it's invalid?
The measure of CR is inconsistent among 3.5 publications. Heck, it's even inconsistent within publications. How can I set a creature's CR when there's no valid measuring stick?
In the end, though, the challenges the PCs face are in need of a LOT of rewriting.
-Matt
What we're establishing is that CR is an inconsistent measure of... well, Challenge.
And so, clearly, a clear and concise set of guidelines for stats-by-CR can only help the situation. And if we stop worrying about BS like advancement by HD and stats being dictated by type, the guidelines will become truly useful. The best way to assign CR is to start with the target CR itself and then assign stats based on guidelines. If a wraith's deflection bonus to AC isn't equal to its Cha bonus, but instead is simply a bonus that gives the wraith a total AC appropriate to its CR, who cares? It works. Simply and easily, and that's what's important.
TS
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Setting aside the idea that everything should be based off CR (which I think pushes things too far down the path of 4e for most people's tastes), I would submit that CR should be substituted for HD in most circumstances (e.g., templates). 3e seemed to only go halfway when it implemented the CR system, and still made heavy reliance on the old 2e style of having HD be the benchmark for abilities. If there were a good correspondence between HD and CR, that would make sense, but there isn't. As such, abilities that currently are derived from HD should use CR instead (and, similarly, spells and animal companions that operate based on HD should operate based on CR instead, e.g., sleep). It seems like a lot of the old polymorph loopholes were based around finding a creature with a low HD for its CR.
I realize CR isn't the perfect tool for judging power level and balancing things, but it's a lot closer to that mark than HD.
|
|
It seems like a lot of the old polymorph loopholes were based around finding a creature with a low HD for its CR.
I realize CR isn't the perfect tool for judging power level and balancing things, but it's a lot closer to that mark than HD.
True - especially the polymorph mentality of "how much bang can I get for my buck? hand the MM and let me see....."
Robert
|
|
According to the chart, perhaps. But that chart is not a law. It's a tool. The best way to set a creature's CR is to start there and then compare it to other CRs and then set the creature's CR accordingly. Of course, whenever we do that in print, we seem to get a flood of emails and posts from readers excited that they found an "error" and eager to point it out...What we're establishing is that CR is an inconsistent measure of... well, Challenge.
I've shown that an Advanced 16-HD Troll Rogue16 and a Human Rogue16 (18 in Pathfinder) are both CR 16. Yet they're far from being of the same level of challenge.
The practice of being fuzzy with the math, by, say, re-setting a creature's CR, only invalidates the tools. Thus... why have the tools in the first place? Why even have a Monster Manual, when suddenly it's invalid?
The measure of CR is inconsistent among 3.5 publications. Heck, it's even inconsistent within publications. How can I set a creature's CR when there's no valid measuring stick?
In the end, though, the challenges the PCs face are in need of a LOT of rewriting.
-Matt
Maybe i'm missing something....
First - trolls advance by character level - not by HD. So there's not suppose to be an "advanced" troll - such as an advanced winter wolf or Otyugh that you just add HD to.
Second - add 1 level of character class per CR - unless the class doesn't actually benefit the type of creature - such as a sorcerer hill giant.
But I dare say that a troll wouldn't benefit from rogue levels. With it's healthy dexterity, and reach, and good perceptions skills, they're not far away from being able to ambush and do a lot of hurt (with reach) and combat reflexes to a group of heroes with their Uncanny dodge, evasion to help with the inevitable fireballs that'll be slung, and sneak attack with their 3 attacks plus rend.
So such a creature would add 16 to the CR of 5 meaning the creature is a CR 21 - at least as far as I have ever read.
That being said - I agree that the CR is not perfect - but when people are following it pragmatically and not trying to 'break' the system, it serves quite a decent purpose and works most of the time.
I would like to see a CR system that has 4 creatures of a given CR (instead of 1) is equal to ECL for a party of 4, but it won't break my heart if it isn't.
If our DM tried to pass an advanced 16 HD troll / Rogue 16 off as a CR 16 creature and fought us with it - we'd slash his tires for breaking all of those rules and parameters. :-)
Robert
According to the chart, perhaps. But that chart is not a law. It's a tool. The best way to set a creature's CR is to start there and then compare it to other CRs and then set the creature's CR accordingly. Of course, whenever we do that in print, we seem to get a flood of emails and posts from readers excited that they found an "error" and eager to point it out...What we're establishing is that CR is an inconsistent measure of... well, Challenge.
I've shown that an Advanced 16-HD Troll Rogue16 and a Human Rogue16 (18 in Pathfinder) are both CR 16. Yet they're far from being of the same level of challenge.
The practice of being fuzzy with the math, by, say, re-setting a creature's CR, only invalidates the tools. Thus... why have the tools in the first place? Why even have a Monster Manual, when suddenly it's invalid?
The measure of CR is inconsistent among 3.5 publications. Heck, it's even inconsistent within publications. How can I set a creature's CR when there's no valid measuring stick?
In the end, though, the challenges the PCs face are in need of a LOT of rewriting.
-Matt
Its a guideline, not a solid measure. Its like a pinch or hand full, rather than a tea spoon or 10mm.
It also doesn't help that any different group is going to find different challanges difficult. Personally, i hope that they do continue to use iconic, realisitic concept driven characters as the base line, rather than optimised power houses.
Maybe i'm missing something...
Under "Advancing Monsters":
"These methods are not mutually exclusive—it’s possible for a monster with a template to be improved by both increasing its Hit Dice and adding character class levels."
In order for a monster to be improved by both increasing Hit Dice and adding class levels, then it must be true that the listing under "Advancement:" is not the be-all and end-all of monster advancement. It's not one-or-the-other, as you are professing.
Then, for nonassociated class levels:
"If you add a class level that doesn’t directly play to a creature’s strength the class level is considered nonassociated..."
of course, this statement is up to interpretation. To make our example Troll more clear-cut, we'll use a Troll Sorcerer.
So we take our Troll: 6HD, CR5
-Advance it by 12HD (+3 CR)
-Add 16 nonassociated class levels (+8 CR)
-Result is an Advanced 16HD Troll Sorcerer16
Then you've got:
"Adding a nonassociated class level to a monster increases its CR by ½ per level until one of its nonassociated class levels equals its original Hit Dice."
This bit is very fuzzy. Does the troll start as being 16 HD before adding Sorcerer levels? Or does all the advancement occur in one step, thus making any Sorcerer levels beyond 6th add +1/CR each. Nuts!
In conclusion, Pathfinder is in position to fix the issues with monsters.
-Matt, getting off the tangent now. Don't slash my tires.
|
You may have misunderstood my comment.Allow me to clarify...
As I posted in my links... Challenge Rating represents a baseline encounter of one monster versus a group of four iconic (and subpar) PCs, which will drain 25% of party resources.
This definition of Challenge Rating is the origins of its problem. Does Pathfinder really wish to stick with this definition?
-Matt
I skipped reading the following replies to put my two coppers in on this idea... so if it has been addressed, sorry
This idea of CR is AWFUL. This basic definition has created some of the most boring encounters I can remember. I can not tell you how many times as a player, I never had a doubt about the outcome of an encounter. Therefore, there was no suspense, no apprehension, and really no interest. Encounters become little bumps on the way to the only fight in the module worth having.
In essence this philosophy creates adventures with one encounter worth having and a slew of boring ones. This certainly is not what I want. I want to feel danger every time a sword is drawn and a spell invoked.
You may have misunderstood my comment.Allow me to clarify...
As I posted in my links... Challenge Rating represents a baseline encounter of one monster versus a group of four iconic (and subpar) PCs, which will drain 25% of party resources.
This definition of Challenge Rating is the origins of its problem. Does Pathfinder really wish to stick with this definition?
-Matt
I skipped reading the following replies to put my two coppers in on this idea... so if it has been addressed, sorry
This idea of CR is AWFUL. This basic definition has created some of the most boring encounters I can remember. I can not tell you how many times as a player, I never had a doubt about the outcome of an encounter. Therefore, there was no suspense, no apprehension, and really no interest. Encounters become little bumps on the way to the only fight in the module worth having.
In essence this philosophy creates adventures with one encounter worth having and a slew of boring ones. This certainly is not what I want. I want to feel danger every time a sword is drawn and a spell invoked.
I have to agree. I tend to prefer the majority of encounters to be threatening. Every fight should possibly be your last.
As such, abilities that currently are derived from HD should use CR instead (and, similarly, spells and animal companions that operate based on HD should operate based on CR instead, e.g., sleep).
YES. THIS!
TS
|
|
Maybe i'm missing something...Under "Advancing Monsters":
"These methods are not mutually exclusive—it’s possible for a monster with a template to be improved by both increasing its Hit Dice and adding character class levels."
...
Fair enough - but the rogue/troll example I responded to didn't have a template, so I never considered that.
Then, for nonassociated class levels:"If you add a class level that doesn’t directly play to a creature’s strength the class level is considered nonassociated..."
of course, this statement is up to interpretation. To make our example Troll more clear-cut, we'll use a Troll Sorcerer.
So we take our Troll: 6HD, CR5
-Advance it by 12HD (+3 CR)
-Add 16 nonassociated class levels (+8 CR)
-Result is an Advanced 16HD Troll Sorcerer16
And that I really have no problem with. I'm still not sure you can add class levels AND advance HD barring some loophole template that was offhandedly mentioned in the text (you quoted).
That being said - hey, a Troll with 16 levels of sorcerer - I have no problem with that being only 8 CR - a troll starts with 6 CHA; adding 16 HD of sorc, thats a max of +4 on an ability score - even with a +6 item being worn, thats only a 16 CHA - (+3 modifier) with the most powerful magical enhancment item that can be worn and casting no higher than 6th level spells vs 16th level characters who probably have about a 28 CHA/INT for their spellcasters for that point. - and lets say for arguement sake, he adds 12 HD of troll (which I'm still not comfortable agreeing that this is suppose to be the way it was intended); thats +3 more on the CHA making the highest potential a 19. (+4 mod).
Then you've got:
"Adding a nonassociated class level to a monster increases its CR by ½ per level until one of its nonassociated class levels equals its original Hit Dice."
This bit is very fuzzy. Does the troll start as being 16 HD before adding Sorcerer levels? Or does all the advancement occur in one step, thus making any Sorcerer levels beyond 6th add +1/CR each. Nuts!
I don't think it's a bit fuzzy - original HD is 6. Once you advance the troll to 16 HD, its not longer the original; its the modified.
So in all actuality, once you make the sorcerer 7th level, it's no longer 1/2 the CR. So a 16th level sorcerer troll would be CR 5 + 3 (for the first six levels) +10 (for the remainder) = 18, and if you want to then advance the Troll to 16 HD, (12 more), you add 3 to the overall CR - meaning your monstrosity troll sorcerer is CR 21!
So I will once again stand by my original comments, that the CR system, (and advancement system) though not perfect, does at least do an admirable job of helping a DM plan encounters and upgrade them - and its surprisingly balanced when a DM is not trying to find ways to abuse, or manipulate the mechanics. We had a DM that habitually did that - and it was quite aggravating. He consistently had some sort of filtering problem in his mind - because he always perceived and comprehended from text what he WANTED to, and found the most obscure ways to loophole the mechanics while not paying attention to the spirit of the rules.
In conclusion, Pathfinder is in position to fix the issues with monsters.
-Matt, getting off the tangent now. Don't slash my tires.
I'll agree with you on this notion, though my perception is that it is no where near as broken as your perception is.
That being said - i do agree with some of the other sentiment on this thread that the CR system does create a cookie-cutter encounter regime that can get quite boring, repetitive, predictable, and unintimidating.
Robert
|
|
Maybe i'm missing something...Under "Advancing Monsters":
"These methods are not mutually exclusive—it’s possible for a monster with a template to be improved by both increasing its Hit Dice and adding character class levels."
In order for a monster to be improved by both increasing Hit Dice and adding class levels, then it must be true that the listing under "Advancement:" is not the be-all and end-all of monster advancement. It's not one-or-the-other, as you are professing.
For the sake of being thorough - this is what the SRD states about advancing creatures.
Class Levels
Intelligent creatures that are reasonably humanoid in shape most commonly advance by adding class levels. Creatures that fall into this category have an entry of “By character class” in their Advancement line. When a monster adds a class level, that level usually represents an increase in experience and learned skills and capabilities.
Increased Hit Dice
Intelligent creatures that are not humanoid in shape, and nonintelligent monsters, can advance by increasing their Hit Dice. Creatures with increased Hit Dice are usually superior specimens of their race, bigger and more powerful than their run-of-the-mill fellows.
So in summation, it appears that the troll would (should) be advanced via class levels (only) under most circumstances. Since adding a template such as Half-Dragon changes the type to dragon, and those creatures advance via improved HD, I suppose it could be rationalized that you could then increase the HD of the creature since in theory the creature was ALWAYS a half-dragon since birth - BUT it still falls back to the fact that even a half-dragon TROLL is probably somewhat humanoid in shape and thus qualifies for the "by character class" only category.
I didn't create the rules of advancing creatures for 3rd edition - but it is something that as a DM I have used extensively and excelled at them, so I'm fairly confident that I usually know what I'm talking about on this subject.
Pscionics on the other hand....I know close to nothing on it - so I wouldn't presume to comment had that been the topic at hand. :-)
Robert
stuff
Getting off the tangent now...
I have to agree. I tend to prefer the majority of encounters to be threatening. Every fight should possibly be your last.
Well, remember, CR as it stands assigns a value to a monster, representing a single-monster encounter against four iconic PCs, consuming 25% of resources. CR by definition is built for easy encounters.
If access to out-of-combat healing magics were increased, which Pathfinder is starting to do (but could do better, with larger pools for things like Wholeness of Body and Lay on Hands), then it'd be much easier to rewrite CR so that every encounter is challenging, without having to totally throw off the XP/GP curve by making every fight have EL = PartyLevel +3 or more.
-Matt
|
|
If access to out-of-combat healing magics were increased, which Pathfinder is starting to do (but could do better, with larger pools for things like Wholeness of Body and Lay on Hands), then it'd be much easier to rewrite CR so that every encounter is challenging, without having to totally throw off the XP/GP curve by making every fight have EL = PartyLevel +3 or more.-Matt
I have to agree and do see a trend of trying to extend the "15 minute adventuring day" and with not only better/more access to healing, and unlimited use powers/abilities, it's easy to deduce that the CR system based as it is will no longer be as applicable. This is something that I commented on the Paladin design focus boards - with many of the other classes gaining access to unlimited and more uses per day of their abilities (such as Rage is now), it was something that needed to be taken into consideration for the paladin - especially as it related to the Smite Evils that still had a very underwhelming number of uses per day.
That being said - with such a trend being status quo, it may be just as easy to establish that CR system is to be made up of 6 (or even 8) encounters per day - as opposed to 4.
Nothing else really needs to change except the number of encounters.
Again, for ease of use - it would be quite ideal to have a CR of a creature equal to that of 1 PC - but that only gets confusing if you want to use higher CR creatures, and mix/matching various CRs of creatures. And how much higher does a CR need to be as a single creature vs the party?
Robert