It's starting to come up more and more as those of us who like being monsters seek a way to play in Pathfinder, and try to play by a balanced and fair rules set. Say what you will about the old system it did at least provide some guidelines. However it seems high time we get to building a new one that works in Pathfinder.
I saw the kind of brain power that went into group creations during the Alpha and Beta so I thought I'd open this up now for us Monster-types to take our clubs make from the discards of civilized societies and hammer out some suggestions.
First, we have some suggestions from Paizo PF-Crew starting on page 406 of the PFRPG Core book.
Second, the Council of Thieves Player's Guide has some additional suggestions for dealing with Tieflings, which can be applied to other monsters in the same class. And they are actually some rather inspired suggestions in my view.
To try and summarize the current state from Paizo we have:
• Use Racial HD as a guide.
• XP Debt, make them pay a bit more to level
• Use NPC classes to balance
• Require a Trait
• Boost non-monster PCs to the monster's level.
My trouble, and I'm sure many of yours as well, is how to bring really powerful races down to a level they can be played with lower level standard races. The gap isn't so bad when we talk about Tieflings and other near Standard-PC-Races, but monsters with HD and other big powers it gets harder for the DM to work out.
(splitting post into two, Paizo suggestions and my suggestions)
(split for my suggestions, to keep Paizo suggestions clean)
I currently have a few working-ideas myself for dealing excessive HD in a Monster. Use the Pathfinder Negative Levels (see page 562, PFRPG Core). These impose a variety of penalties that will generally bring the benefits derived from a monsters racial HD down to levels on par with the rest of the 'standard' party. It could even be taken a step further to include the reduction in initiate spell casting abilities and other powers, creating a "Monster Nerf Level" if you will.
For the old high LA but low HD races, the use of NPC classes is a good suggestion for giving them a base HD without any real increase in power. With the lack of an EXP penalty for multiclassing it makes even more sense. However it does leave a PC with a dangling class and can have an unintended impact on saving throws. My counter to the use of NPC classes is to take at trick from the d20 Modern SRD on dealing with Ordinary (or NPC) characters in that game. The idea is that you strip the PC class of all of its class features which creates the ordinary class. Take the Fighter and the Warrior. Instead of having a Teifling start as a Warrior and then multiclass into Fighter, you strip the Fighter of its class features for the first level and keep its class abilities at an effective -1 until something like an XP Debt/Buy-Off is reached. This really still is a working-concept and needs some good rules language to back it, and make it easier to utilize.
The area where I'm stumped currently is how to deal with over-powered stats. It is easy enough to just add 'nerf' levels an impose can be bought off over time, but redistributing high base stat modifiers is the tricky part. What should the 'base?' How quickly to the stats return to the 'monster' values? What to do about Intelligence? This also comes a problem of trying to balance out low to no HD monsters that used to have high LAs.
I know there are guidelines (not RAW rules) out there to be can created that will work decently well and allow DMs and Players to negotiate the use of monster characters in a more formalized and standardized way.
I'm a fan of the NPC levels for races that had LA but no actual racial HD. Even for a drow, +2 LA in 3.5, two levels in an NPC class would help balance it out.
I'm liking the negative levels for the racial HD. As for ability scores I suppose it would depend on the monster. Rakshasa would be a good example to try to build off of bonuses to every stat it has. using the negative level you can easily reduce it with 6 negative levels reducing its sorcerer caster level to 1.
Now it has +2 Str, +4 Dex, +6 Con, +2 Int, +2 Wis, +6 Cha. Now to start off it should be reduced to two +2s, and a -2. To put it on par at first level. The two plus twos obviously should be Cha and Con. There is no real stat that would qualify for a -2 so that will be the starting statistics. Now there is +2 Str, +4 Dex, +4 Con, +2 Int, +2 Wis, +4 Cha.
Now would be a simple matter of spacing out the stats over level progression. Now seeing as the Rakshasas has a +7 level adjustment. We should spread the bonuses through 13 levels. Easiest would be to gain three boosts every 4 levels:
5th: +2 Str, +2 Dex, +2 Int
9th: +2 Con, +2 Wis, +2 Cha
13th: +2 Dex, +2 Con, +2 Cha
As for intelligence, simply make it retroactive much like the headband do.
Now the question is do you force the Rakshasa to take NPC levels for an additional 7 levels after its negative levels are gone?
How do you handle powerful and continous abilities like Detect Thoughts (18th caster level), change shape
I honestly think that once you get beyond the races that are near PC in power level (such as the ones on that list in the PF core book), just about all of them will need to be taken on a race by race basis, especially in the case of multiple hit die monsters. More often than not, a monsters hit dice just aren't as good as a PC's. It was my one problem with the LA/ECL system, in that is it made the assumption that 2 or 3 or 10 monster hit dice were always as good as a PC's. In some cases...sure...in others...not by a long shot.
While I'm interested in helping on soemthing lie this, I think instead of trying to modify an old system that had a lot of loopholes, and failures, we aught to work on a whole new way to do it. I think for races with racial hit dice, that would prbably entail going through them and seeing how much they get for each of their hit dice compared to a PC. I think we might find that some aren't even worth penalizing, as long as their hit dice = party level, or maybe even party level -1. Others, might need a penalty even coming in at party hit dice. Who knows.
I do think one way to handle leveling slower (kinda suggested in another thread, thanks to whoever posted the idea =) ), is to shift the monster up a track on advancement. I.e., in a medium advancement campaign, maybe make a sufficiently powerful race advance on the slow advancement chart.
Just some idle first thoughts...
Krigare, talking about a case base case bases is exactly what I'm hoping to eventually arrive at. Giving GMs the tools they need to assess a monster as player race and balance it... without having to make someone go through the Bestiary monster by monster making "As a PC..." entries. Although we may end up doing that by accident as this gets worked on.
I've seen the track change suggestions before in the forums. While logical and expedient I can't say I'm a fan. It was demonstrated over the course 3.5 that ECL characters tended to be weaker/over-specialized then standard PC race/class at higher levels when compared. Changing EXP tracks only quickens that onset and creates other complications. For one, what if the game is playing on Slow, what track to does a GM use? I guess it would be simple enough to create an Extra Slow track. Second you need to get them off the track at particular level and rest the EXP total to the faster track's at that level, once they've caught up/down to power. I almost favor an XP debt system as that can be adjusted on the fly by the GM at any given level, or even inside a level.
Anry, thanks for brining up Stats. While 5 of the 6 stats are easy to increase later Intelligence becomes a problem. Mainly because there are going to be problems with the lack of Retroactive Intelligence for Skill Ranks (and this is why I was almost begging for retro active INT back in the skill debate after Alpha 1). The simplest solution is a hand wave in a 'Monster Bonus' in skill ranks that comes along with every +2 Intelligence Boost. Considering we have class features in things like the Bard that 'pop' skill ranks it isn't a bad 'monster class feature.'
What is a Stat increase? Realistic it is just set of +1 bonuses for ever 2 stat points. While overall complex this is almost no different then assigning class based bonuses to attack rolls, skill checks, damage rolls, and so on. They just come in a different wrapper.
Krigare, talking about a case base case bases is exactly what I'm hoping to eventually arrive at. Giving GMs the tools they need to assess a monster as player race and balance it... without having to make someone go through the Bestiary monster by monster making "As a PC..." entries. Although we may end up doing that by accident as this gets worked on.
I hope its possible to work out soemthing like that...but I have a feeling we're looking at adding an "As a PC..." entry to them. I hope not...but...well...we'll see.
I've seen the track change suggestions before in the forums. While logical and expedient I can't say I'm a fan. It was demonstrated over the course 3.5 that ECL characters tended to be weaker/over-specialized then standard PC race/class at higher levels when compared. Changing EXP tracks only quickens that onset and creates other complications. For one, what if the game is playing on Slow, what track to does a GM use? I guess it would be simple enough to create an Extra Slow track. Second you need to get them off the track at particular level and rest the EXP total to the faster track's at that level, once they've caught up/down to power. I almost favor an XP debt system as that can be adjusted on the fly by the GM at any given level, or even inside a level.
Well, I don't like the idea as an across the board solution, but I think for certain races/templates/whatever its probably needed. One of my favorite critters from a few editions of the game are spellweavers. Allowing them as PC's presents a rather large difficulty, and the LA system kinda sucked at it. On the other hand, with the tracks, kicking them up one track (say from medium to hard), does at least keep them in the game. At most, they end up a couple levels behind the rest of the party...but for all the abilities they get, its probably neccessary, and less painful than permanent negative levels.
Anry, thanks for brining up Stats. While 5 of the 6 stats are easy to increase later Intelligence becomes a problem. Mainly because there are going to be problems with the lack of Retroactive Intelligence for Skill Ranks (and this is why I was almost begging for retro active INT back in the skill debate after Alpha 1). The simplest solution is a hand wave in a 'Monster Bonus' in skill ranks that comes along with every +2 Intelligence Boost. Considering we have class features in things like the Bard that 'pop' skill ranks it isn't a bad 'monster class feature.'What is a Stat increase? Realistic it is just set of +1 bonuses for ever 2 stat points. While overall complex this is almost no different then assigning class based bonuses to attack rolls, skill checks, damage rolls, and so on. They just come in a different wrapper.
I thought Int was now retroactive for skill ranks...I don't remember reading anywhere in PF Core that it wasn't, indeed, The Headband of Vast Intelligence would imply that it is indeed retroactive.
Anyway...on the subject of stats and all...for some of the more powerful no racial hit die races...could be possible to do a stepped progression sort of thing, kind of like with raptorians and the like in 3.5. It allows for certain features that are powerful, possibly to mpowerful at level one, to still be there, in a reduced form, and as the PC gains levels, so does the power.
Unless Jason wants to confirm otherwise I don't believe there has been any change on that front. I checked back in my copies of the Alphas and Beta, and don't see it. It was discussed during test and the big long debate on the skill system, but there seemed to be enough resistance to the idea that it wasn't implemented.
Headband of Vast Intelligence use special rules applied by items themselves not an actual system wide Retroactive INT rule like there is for Constitution and HP. It is actually that kind of special rule that I'm thinking of applying to monsters as well.
Yep, on staggered stat increase, I think we're all on the same page there. The question now becomes how, and at what rate.
Monster abilities are going to be a bit different though I think. While the Savage Progressions of Savage Species were a good idea they were balanced to the LA/ECL. They were also a bit of headache for DMs to create from scratch as it required them to break down monster abilities and place them at various 'levels.' If an ability was to good it also had to be split up between two versions.
The staggering is to start with reducing it as close to a standard race as possible at the start. And then spreading the increase over the even progression as the monster gains full access on the abilities.
I have thoughts on the abilities but need to run out first.
Well,
You can start off with subtracting +1 from the ECL adjustment of any 3E race. That right off the bat brings tieflings, assimar, etc into the realm of base races as is.
I've always treated racial hit die as up to the player. They can have the racial hit die (and all the racial advantages that come from hit die, such as feats, weapon and armor proficiencies, bab, saves, etc). Or, they can ignore the racial hit dice completely. I always took that as 'If I take Racial HD, I'm growing up in the monster clans, and am basically a general clan mook', whereas if they took character classes instead, they started at 1 HD, and had saves, etc based off their classes.
If you take that approach, you're only left with the 'racial abilities'. Those can be smoothed out either through giving them out at varrying levels, or, by putting the character in the XP hole, or by starting everyone out at a higher level.
What I did in my monster campaign was start everyone at level 5. This was under 3E rules, so they had up to 5 class levels, or had a minimum of 1 class level (so no more than +4 ECL adjustment). If they kept the racial HD, then it was Racial HD+ ECL Adjust + 1 level must equal 5 ECL.
It's probably easier to do it as starting the players off at a higher level (say 5) and then it's less of an issue. A Drow would probably be down a class level compared to everyone else at first (due to owing XP), but would eventually catch up (thanks to Paizo's XP methodology).
That's what I was saying earlier about the Int, Adam.
As for abilities I was thinking about the magic items like the headband, and in the item creation in regards to abilities that were continuous and items with abilities a number of times per day. Essentially in calculations if an item can be used 5/day it might as well be continuous. In pricing anyways.
So going back to my example of rakshasha it has continous detect thoughts and essentially alter self. So what we break it down in the progression to #/day until we reach 5/day where it should simply become the continous effect and spread it out through progression of the 1st 14 levels.
Now what are the power levels of the abilities should be the next question, Change Self is equivilant to Alter self a second level spell. So gaining access to this ability should start being available until at least 3rd level the level in which most classes gain access to 2nd level spells. Dectect thoughts is also a 2nd level spell therefore gaining access to it at 3rd lvl as well. At the very least.
So:
5th: 3/day - Change Self, Dectect thoughts (6th)
9th: 4/day - Change Self, Dectect thoughts (12th)
13th: At will - Change Self, Dectect thoughts (18th)
So as you can see, I broke it down into three increments much like the ability scores bonuses. Also to allow for an even advancement of the caster level for the detect thoughts which was 18th level.
Now as for the Racial HD being replaced by class levels I beleive that would make would through off any chance of balancing for a powerful monsterous race.
Also I think in the end we're going to have to drop any reference to LA, ECL and such as those are terms that do not exist in the current form of the rules. And any guidelines we create through our discussion must be accessable to anyone playing the game and not just those transferring from 3.5.
I mean my hope is that Pathfinder continues to bring new blood to the game.
Okay, found what I need by way of indirect confirmation, still would like it to show up in an eventual FAQ. Apparently Jason did most of the direct confirmation in the GMs Only invite threads for GenCon which we can't view normally. That is where he confirmed the retroactive intelligence bonus for skill points. Would have been helpful if Int had been given a single line indicating it was retroactive, considering that is a rather decent change from 3.5. Just omitting the line that says it doesn't get it isn't strong enough.
Int = retroactive, finally got it. That makes this one step simpler then I was thinking.
So, big thanks to Adamm, Anry, and Krigare for putting my heard right there.
Interesting idea mdt, to drop the racial HD. In some cases that may work out well but in others those racial HD will really act as a backstop for monster ablilites, trying to make them as valuable as PC levels. Which the 3.5 ECL system didn't really do.
Nice find Anry. That is not only predicable but sense-able and fits within current rules structures.
Adam, ya the reason why I though about using negative levels was so a DM could rather quickly strip a Monster of most HD benefits and run the most right from the stat-block. It seems people are hunting for a more robust method... still may be handy for a 'quick-play' option for lower level PC monsters.
(Minor snark humor to "my hope is that Pathfinder continues to bring new blood to the game."
Well if we know anything about the 'new' blood we know they will want the options to play several things: Vampires, Werewolves, Orcs, Minotaurs, Trolls, Zombies(but intelligent), and Dragons. Oh and the occasional pixie or talking animal.)
Exactly so the guidelines we build need be clear and riddled with references to a system they don't really know. I mean last thing we need is to confuse the new blood if we find them in our games and have to try to explain to them how things are going to happen for their exotic choice of character.
But how would you explain how to judge what feats should do. Remember we're trying to hammer down solid guidelines that still leave it in the hands of individual GMs and not solid RAW rules like Savage Species did.
For me the idea of replacing racial HD with actual class levels throws the balance off as even if you stagger the hefty abilities bonuses and abilities monstrous races gain naturally you now have them with also all the class features of a base classes on top that. Whereas the racial HD leave a lead and marker for the powerful abilities.
Then again I'm very preferrable to non-racial HD powerful races having to take NPC classes. Their powerful abilities taking the space for class features of core classes. And with no major lag in HD or saves (which was a common problem with purely LA monstrous races and templates)
I love looking back through books. Always a fun deal.
While I'm not gonna tag a specific monster at the moment to try this with (maybe after my wife goes to bed, I will, so later tonight), I was looking through some of my 3.5 books, and happened to flip through Unearthed Arcana...specifically the bloodlines part.
It got me to thinking, why not do something similar for no racial HD races and templates? The concept of staggered ability scores is soemthing we all seem to be able to agree is a good start, but if we stagger out their powers as well, wouldn't that be an effective form of balance?
And here I go with an off the top of my head example (take it with a grain of salt, doing this with no books to backstop my memory). Take the Half Dragon Template. With the stat mods, immunities, and so on, pretty nifty...maybe not as nifty as WotC though it was...but nifty.
So level out the stat mods at 1st level, probably a bit unevenly (say, +2 Str, +2 Con or Cha), give them an energy resistance of the right type, start it at say, 5, and their once per day breath weapon at a whole wopping one die of damage. Now for the part thats going to seem a bit hoser...spread out their abilities over, oh, say 6ish levels (I know, longer spread than 3.5, BUT...they aren't losing levels, I'll get to the downside in a moment.) Every odd level, give them stat boosts till they hit their full mods, boost the resistance every level until at 6th it becomes immunity, and boost the breath weapon by a die of damage every level.
For the downside, start them off with an xp debt (say, one half the xp required to become 2nd level) and take up a trait or even two (Or shift them up a track on the XP chart...I dunno its a thought). Maybe (since half dragons this way are pretty butch) hand the other players some gold.
I don't know...it was an idea...obviously doesn't work for races with racial hit dice as well...but I think to make judgements on racial hit die races, we need to see how good Paizo makes a monster hit die.
For the downside, start them off with an xp debt (say, one half the xp required to become 2nd level) and take up a trait or even two (Or shift them up a track on the XP chart...I dunno its a thought). Maybe (since half dragons this way are pretty butch) hand the other players some gold.XP debt is just level adjustment that you reduce as you go up. Except level adjustment is easier to understand and thus easier to evaluate the balance of.
(negative levels are similar too, but they only reduce your rolls, not your character options.)
Eh, kind of. I look at it this way...
LA never seemed to work. It hurt alot at low levels, at high levels, it didn't matter as much, and in the mid levels it was a wash. On the other hand, xp debt can work.(kinda drawing on 3.5 here, but I'm pretty sure a similar evaluation could be made for PF) If you look at a race/template whatever that has no racial hit dice, most of them you could recreate as magic items. Evaluate how much xp it would cost to make, dock a similar amount, minus a bit for spreading it out. A little more complex, maybe, but easier doesn't always equate to better, since whats powerful at one level doesn't always mean squat at another. And alot of races have powers/abilities that are good at low levels, but at high levels, are very reduced in usefulness, or rendered irrelevant by magic/saves/whatever.
Like I said, its an idea, I was just tossing out there...I really didn't liek the LA system, since in my experience, LA, while simple, never worked as intended, possibly due to trying to oversimplfy a complicated issue.
Eh, kind of. I look at it this way...
LA never seemed to work. It hurt alot at low levels, at high levels, it didn't matter as much, and in the mid levels it was a wash. On the other hand, xp debt can work.(kinda drawing on 3.5 here, but I'm pretty sure a similar evaluation could be made for PF) If you look at a race/template whatever that has no racial hit dice, most of them you could recreate as magic items. Evaluate how much xp it would cost to make, dock a similar amount, minus a bit for spreading it out. A little more complex, maybe, but easier doesn't always equate to better, since whats powerful at one level doesn't always mean squat at another. And alot of races have powers/abilities that are good at low levels, but at high levels, are very reduced in usefulness, or rendered irrelevant by magic/saves/whatever.
Like I said, its an idea, I was just tossing out there...I really didn't liek the LA system, since in my experience, LA, while simple, never worked as intended, possibly due to trying to oversimplfy a complicated issue.
Huh. It's an interesting idea. I'd still use negative levels, but comparing to items would be a way of estimate how much LA/negative levels you should have. Needs a little fudging for ability bonuses though, as they stack with normal enhancement bonuses — maybe a 2x or 3x multiplier.
Since pathfinder totally changed XP what you'd have to do is go off 3.5's progression. Take the GP market price, divide by 25. Your current level requires level*1000 xp to go up, so dropping to the previous level requires (level-1)*1000 xp of loss.
For instance, if your character is 10th level, and you have a +6 to all mental stats, that's a headband of mental superiority +6 for 144k. Fudge that x3 to 432k. Divide by 25, gives 17.28k. That's almost perfect for a 2 level drop.
That about what you were thinking of?
More or less the idea, yeah =) The math I was toying around with (its late, and its been a hectic day, so my habit of doing math with pencil and paper is getting in the way) gets a little more complex with that, since I'm trying to work out a way to give a discount for spreading things like stat bonuses across multiple levels if neccessary. But thats details =)
On the concept of level drop though...its why I like the idea of xp debt..its a way to fine tune a races cost more than flat LA and negative levels. A race who has to pay an extra 800 xp every level for the first 4 levels effectively has a -2 LA, but its spread out a little more, and lets a player keep up a little better by not being as far behind...he still pays it all out, but over the long haul, when his racial abilities have been caught up to by class abilities and magic items, he's a little behing the curve, but no so much that its a bad character option.
I duuno...not saying its the right way or the best way, but while I think a system like that might be more work to get set up, and balanced out, I think once its been done, it could be applied easier to new stuff.
I prefer XP debt, honestly, to lost levels. I've run a monster game for over a year, and played quite a few +1 and +2 races. The penalties are not worth it once you hit about 5th or 8th level. They aren't, honest. If you had XP debt, you penalize the person when they have the most advantage, at levels 1 thru 8. Beyond that, they are just as powerful as most other players. So what if they level a game later than everyone else? That's likely to happen anyway (people missing a game, not getting as much Xp as everyone else, losing some for dieing, etc). I never liked taking off levels, and I don't like the idea of negative levels. Just owe me 100K exp and play the woodling drow. :) Yeah, you're more powerful at 3rd level. So what? They'll catch up quick and you won't get any better until they pass you up. By level 20, you'll all be kick ass and the woodling will have an edge so slight it's as nothing.
OK, so, said I'd put it up, and here it is, a half dragon =)
Took the stats from here.
At level 1, they get the following:
Change to Type Dragon
Wings if size large and a flight speed of 2x base land speed
Natural weapons: Claws and Bite
Lowlight Vision and Darkvision
Immunity to Sleep and paralysis effects
Resistance 5 to its energy type
Breathe Weapon usable once per day for 1d8 damage (+1d8 per level, max of 6d8).
+2 Str, +2 Cha
As they level, they get the following:
2nd Level:
+2 Con
+1 Natural Armor
3rd Level:
+2 Str
Resistance improves to 10 points
4th level
+2 Int
+1 Natural Armor
5th level
+2 Str
Resistance improves to 20 points
6th level
+2 Str
+2 Natural Armor
For balance, I'd say a diminishing xp debt. Say, 1000xp at first second and third level, 1200xp at fourth and fifth, and 1500 and 6th level, then calling it good.
Like I said, its a rough idea of what I was talking about. Probably needs alot of work, but sorta provides a reference for what I was thinking might be a workable system.
For balance, I'd say a diminishing xp debt. Say, 1000xp at first second and third level, 1200xp at fourth and fifth, and 1500 and 6th level, then calling it good.What that really works out to, in terms of how far into the next level before you get to level up (ie a fractional level adjustment):
The complicated number system make it sound like there's a lot more going on than there is. Explaining it in the form of fractional LA is easier for the player to understand and easier for the DM to balance.
- 2nd: 0.333
- 3rd: 0.5
- 4th: 0.5333
- 5th: 0.55
- 6th: 0.491666
- 7th: 0.36875
- 8th: 0.2458333
- 9th: 0.19666
- 10th: 0.118
I do like spreading abilities over multiple levels though. Reduces the bump at first level where you really overshadow other players.
Yeah, pretty much. Not trying to make it a complicated number system, but I've found my definition of complicated math isn't the norm.
I did pretty much crib the idea from what someone said in another post and the fact that, in my opnion, alot of LA's should slowly fade away to being little more than roadbumps after a certain point.And yeah, I like spreading the abilities out, although I wonder if they should be spread out a little more than what I did. I dunno lol...which is what this thread is for I sppose, so on the right track =)
Here's a system I worked out for low HD monsters, for those interested ...
If there's demand for it I could expand it for use with higher HD creatures.