Stronger Monsters & stronger PC classes than 3.5E. Why?

[Set]

I kinda like that the 'swingyness' of 1st level combat in particular has been reduced. The extra hit points for mage-types, in particular, as a nice little bit of extra survivability.

And the 'swingyness' of save-or-dies at the higher end has also been reduced. From my limited play experience, it seems that combat will feel a lot less arbitrary (and, occasionally, frustrating).

[Dennis da Ogre]

Weylin wrote:

James,

You said that you guys spent a long time wiht charts comparing the capabilities of a given CR monster against a given level of character.

My question is was this done on the assumption that basically a CR 10 creature having the same capability as a Level 10 character(fight ends in mutual deplestion of resources....magic, abilities, hit points.)?

If not, what assumptive base was used?

I think the assumption is a creature with level appropriate CR would deplete 25% of the characters resources. So 25% of spells, 25% of HP, etc.

The same level appropriate creature would exhaust 100% of HP :)

This is the way it was under 3.5. The section on Gamemastery doesn't go into this sort of detail but I think the assumption is similar. There might be more detail in the Bestiary about it.

[KaeYoss]

James Jacobs wrote:

ruemere wrote:

Girallons, Dire Wolves, Dragons... hopefully the Bestiary will mend those problems (or at least provide cautionary note for GMs to be wary of special aspects of the monsters).

Those are three places that there was a fair amount of adjustment. Rakshasas and ogre mages in the other direction.

Would you mind posting the CR of the, say, 12 highest age categories for red dragons?

[Anguish]

Set wrote:

I kinda like that the 'swingyness' of 1st level combat in particular has been reduced. The extra hit points for mage-types, in particular, as a nice little bit of extra survivability.

And the 'swingyness' of save-or-dies at the higher end has also been reduced. From my limited play experience, it seems that combat will feel a lot less arbitrary (and, occasionally, frustrating).

Not to thread-jack, but another interesting side-effect of all of this is that party diversity is increased. Having a bard with maxed-out UMD and some wands can JUST squeak by as your primary arcane caster, for instance. A couple scrolls of fall down and go boom and you're all set. Before PFRPG if you didn't have the proper spell laying around to counter what your enemies had prepared, you were in real trouble. Now you have a chance to survive or make-do long enough to get what you need.

I've been playing a cleric-less campaign for a while now. (Paladin, Monk, Wizard, Druid). The Paladin and Druid handle all the healing needed, and most of the condition-removal. The Wizard does Wizardy things like baleful transposition and repeated empowered fireball spells. The monk helps beat the snot out of anyone the Paladin doesn't get.

[Weylin]

Dennis da Ogre wrote:

Weylin wrote:

James,

You said that you guys spent a long time wiht charts comparing the capabilities of a given CR monster against a given level of character.

My question is was this done on the assumption that basically a CR 10 creature having the same capability as a Level 10 character(fight ends in mutual deplestion of resources....magic, abilities, hit points.)?

If not, what assumptive base was used?

I think the assumption is a creature with level appropriate CR would deplete 25% of the characters resources. So 25% of spells, 25% of HP, etc.

The same level appropriate creature would exhaust 100% of HP :)

This is the way it was under 3.5. The section on Gamemastery doesn't go into this sort of detail but I think the assumption is similar. There might be more detail in the Bestiary about it.

So given the average party of 4. A 'resource' depletion of 25% from that. Then one-on-one Challenge Rating is equal to Character Level.

[Cpt_kirstov]

Joana wrote:

I read this somewhere recently: that dragons are the only monsters whose CR assumes that the party is going in fully prepped for what they're going to face. The concept being, I suppose, that a party that just rounds a corner and comes face-to-face with a dragon is toast, no matter what level they are.

Sadly, I can't remember where I read it....

This was in the the module E2: Blood of Dragonscar

[A Man In Black]

Gorbacz wrote:

The "power creep" was present in the legacy WotC material as well. Compare monsters of same CR from MM and MM V, for example.

Not to mention comparing a Swashbuckler to a Bo9S class... :)

Compare a rogue to a swashbuckler.

Power disparity is not necessarily power creep.

[Weylin]

There is alsoa difference between actual "power creep" and changes due to a better understanding of the system.

As James pointed out, the CR system was developed a decade ago. And when it was used initially not everyone (or even most) had a grasp of the nuances of it. So as people began to understand it better the CR for some things are going to change. The same is going to be true of character classes. Especially some of the non-core base classes that first came out.

Now there are people who have a decade of experience playing with the system. Makes sense to finally make those changes.

Was much like the original Storyteller System compared to the Revised Storyteller System. Initially, a single one could botch the whole roll no matter how skilled you were. Then it changed to "no successes and a one". net effect was less botches for higehr skill levels.

This is also how my group handles our house rule for botches in combat. Sort of a reverse critical confirmation. If you roll a "1" (or a "2" since we use 2d10), then that is a possible botch. Roll again. If that check is a failure then and only then is it a botch.

[Ughbash]

Dennis da Ogre wrote:

Weylin wrote:

James,

You said that you guys spent a long time wiht charts comparing the capabilities of a given CR monster against a given level of character.

My question is was this done on the assumption that basically a CR 10 creature having the same capability as a Level 10 character(fight ends in mutual deplestion of resources....magic, abilities, hit points.)?

If not, what assumptive base was used?

I think the assumption is a creature with level appropriate CR would deplete 25% of the characters resources. So 25% of spells, 25% of HP, etc.

The same level appropriate creature would exhaust 100% of HP :)

This is the way it was under 3.5. The section on Gamemastery doesn't go into this sort of detail but I think the assumption is similar. There might be more detail in the Bestiary about it.

Slight Quibble, a CR X mob should reduce by 25% the spells hp etc of a party of 4. I would expect a level appropriate creature to reduce teh same party of 4 by 25%.

Now does a CR 5 creature equal a level 5 character? Not exactly, it varies based on the class and the creature.

[Weylin]

Ughbash wrote:

Dennis da Ogre wrote:

Weylin wrote:

James,

You said that you guys spent a long time wiht charts comparing the capabilities of a given CR monster against a given level of character.

My question is was this done on the assumption that basically a CR 10 creature having the same capability as a Level 10 character(fight ends in mutual deplestion of resources....magic, abilities, hit points.)?

If not, what assumptive base was used?

I think the assumption is a creature with level appropriate CR would deplete 25% of the characters resources. So 25% of spells, 25% of HP, etc.

The same level appropriate creature would exhaust 100% of HP :)

This is the way it was under 3.5. The section on Gamemastery doesn't go into this sort of detail but I think the assumption is similar. There might be more detail in the Bestiary about it.

Slight Quibble, a CR X mob should reduce by 25% the spells hp etc of a party of 4. I would expect a level appropriate creature to reduce teh same party of 4 by 25%.

Now does a CR 5 creature equal a level 5 character? Not exactly, it varies based on the class and the creature.

Sounds close enough for a ruling on "monster pc" to me.

[Joana]

Cpt_kirstov wrote:

Joana wrote:

I read this somewhere recently: that dragons are the only monsters whose CR assumes that the party is going in fully prepped for what they're going to face. The concept being, I suppose, that a party that just rounds a corner and comes face-to-face with a dragon is toast, no matter what level they are.

Sadly, I can't remember where I read it....

This was in the the module E2: Blood of Dragonscar

Thanks, Cpt_kirstov, I knew it was some kind of Paizo-related source. :)

[Cpt_kirstov]

Joana wrote:

Cpt_kirstov wrote:

This was in the the module E2: Blood of Dragonscar

Thanks, Cpt_kirstov, I knew it was some kind of Paizo-related source. :)

No problem, I ran the adventure Saturday, so I was staring at this page for a while as the PCs were preping for her lair

[Dennis da Ogre]

Weylin wrote:

Sounds close enough for a ruling on "monster pc" to me.

Well it's nowhere near exact and the assumptions are based on a party but there is a rough parity.

The problem with using monster CR as a basis for monster characters is when you start leveling. Class abilities scale based on a non-linear scale. So a CR5 creature with 1 level of fighter might be roughly equal to a 6th level fighter but a CR5 creature with 5 levels of fighter won't equal a 10th level fighter. It gets worse, much worse with other classes that have non-combat abilities.

[James Jacobs]

KaeYoss wrote:

Would you mind posting the CR of the, say, 12 highest age categories for red dragons?

I would. We're close to the book being out. A little more patience is required.

[Shisumo]

James Jacobs wrote:

A little more patience is required.

Patience takes too long!

[Cpt_kirstov]

Shisumo wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

A little more patience is required.

Patience takes too long!

be nice - people started getting their emails

[Seabyrn]

Shisumo wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

A little more patience is required.

Patience takes too long!

Heh. Reminds me of my favorite joke from Futurama:

Glermo: You'll have all the Slurm you can drink when you're partying with Slurms McKenzie!
Fry: When will that be?
Glermo: Soon enough.
Fry: That's not soon enough!

[Dissinger]

Yeah yeah, Patience, when do I get to learn that?

[Weylin]

Dissinger wrote:

Yeah yeah, Patience, when do I get to learn that?

Boot to the head.

[kyrt-ryder]

Dissinger wrote:

Yeah yeah, Patience, when do I get to learn that?

Patience can't be taught, only earned. The hard way ;) lmao

[Matthew Morris]

Shisumo wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

A little more patience is required.

Patience takes too long!

It's been a long time since Patience shot me and that was due to a perfectly legitimate conflict of interest. I got no grudge.

[Shisumo]

Matthew Morris wrote:

Shisumo wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

A little more patience is required.

Patience takes too long!

It's been a long time since Patience shot me and that was due to a perfectly legitimate conflict of interest. I got no grudge.

I will freely confess to being among those who are makin' a fuss.

[Razz]

That is such an odd list of monsters to hold back. The beholder and mind flayer are understandable. Along with githzerai and githyanki. But the slaad? That one seems really out of place, I didn't think WotC was so interested in them despite the fact they hardly do anything with them and I know others that can do a much better job.

And yeah, it is surprising how many they DIDN'T hold back---Balor, Pit Fiend, Inevitables, Formians, Angels, Archons, Guardinals, Eladrin, Otyugh, Roper, Drow Elves, all the Dragons, Rakshasa and so on. No complaints here though LOL

[Abraham spalding]

Razz wrote:

That is such an odd list of monsters to hold back. The beholder and mind flayer are understandable. Along with githzerai and githyanki. But the slaad? That one seems really out of place, I didn't think WotC was so interested in them despite the fact they hardly do anything with them and I know others that can do a much better job.

And yeah, it is surprising how many they DIDN'T hold back---Balor, Pit Fiend, Inevitables, Formians, Angels, Archons, Guardinals, Eladrin, Otyugh, Roper, Drow Elves, all the Dragons, Rakshasa and so on. No complaints here though LOL

To be fair a lot of those would simply be renamed, or are public domain names that WotC simply can't claim... like Angels, Archons, Dragons, Rakshasa, and probably Balors, Inevitables, and Drow.

[MerrikCale]

Razz wrote:

That is such an odd list of monsters to hold back. The beholder and mind flayer are understandable. Along with githzerai and githyanki. But the slaad? That one seems really out of place, I didn't think WotC was so interested in them despite the fact they hardly do anything with them and I know others that can do a much better job.

Well, they were the main baddies in a popular Paul Kemp trilogy

[Matthew Morris]

Razz wrote:

That is such an odd list of monsters to hold back. The beholder and mind flayer are understandable. Along with githzerai and githyanki. But the slaad? That one seems really out of place, I didn't think WotC was so interested in them despite the fact they hardly do anything with them and I know others that can do a much better job.

If you want your head to explode, dwell on this.. The slaad lord of entropy and slaad lord of insanity are in the Tome of Horrors revised and are open content...

[Razz]

Matthew Morris wrote:

Razz wrote:

That is such an odd list of monsters to hold back. The beholder and mind flayer are understandable. Along with githzerai and githyanki. But the slaad? That one seems really out of place, I didn't think WotC was so interested in them despite the fact they hardly do anything with them and I know others that can do a much better job.

If you want your head to explode, dwell on this.. The slaad lord of entropy and slaad lord of insanity are in the Tome of Horrors revised and are open content...

Yeah I noticed that! I don't understand why that can't be worked around. LOL

[hogarth]

Razz wrote:

That is such an odd list of monsters to hold back. The beholder and mind flayer are understandable. Along with githzerai and githyanki. But the slaad? That one seems really out of place, I didn't think WotC was so interested in them despite the fact they hardly do anything with them and I know others that can do a much better job.

And yeah, it is surprising how many they DIDN'T hold back---Balor, Pit Fiend, Inevitables, Formians, Angels, Archons, Guardinals, Eladrin, Otyugh, Roper, Drow Elves, all the Dragons, Rakshasa and so on. No complaints here though LOL

I think the point was to keep monsters that were completely, 100% created for D&D and not based on mythology (dragons, angels, rakshasas, and balor/balrogs don't qualify) and that were "iconic" in some way dating back to AD&D (inevitables, formians and various guardinals/eladrin don't qualify).

Note, however, that the terms "guardinal" and "eladrin" are not Open Content.

[Pax Veritas]

Weylin wrote:

James,

You said that you guys spent a long time wiht charts comparing the capabilities of a given CR monster against a given level of character.

My question is was this done on the assumption that basically a CR 10 creature having the same capability as a Level 10 character(fight ends in mutual deplestion of resources....magic, abilities, hit points.)?

If not, what assumptive base was used?

-Weylin

Good question. James said, "assume he can give/take a certain number of hits. I doubt the implication was 1:1. The v.3.5 ruleset assumes a party of 4 characters comprise the party EL.

Now, back to the first reason I wanted to post here....

JAMES - you are perhaps the most brilliant editor-in-chief, and definately the most customer-friendly we have ever known in the game industry. Thank you for all of your awesome work. I've looked through the Bestiary .pdf and am absolutely amazed. For the record, I also use a complete set of v.3.5 books + Tome of Horrors 1,2,&3 and some Avadnu and others.... and all of this comes with complete ease when running Pathfinder. Thank you for cleaning up and recalibrating the CR system, and for aspect of monster design considerations you've explained or addressed in this thread. I am absolutely stunned! And so very thankful. Thank you.

[MerrikCale]

Matthew Morris wrote:

Razz wrote:

That is such an odd list of monsters to hold back. The beholder and mind flayer are understandable. Along with githzerai and githyanki. But the slaad? That one seems really out of place, I didn't think WotC was so interested in them despite the fact they hardly do anything with them and I know others that can do a much better job.

If you want your head to explode, dwell on this.. The slaad lord of entropy and slaad lord of insanity are in the Tome of Horrors revised and are open content...

ka-blam!!!

[kyrt-ryder]

MerrikCale wrote:

Matthew Morris wrote:

Razz wrote:

That is such an odd list of monsters to hold back. The beholder and mind flayer are understandable. Along with githzerai and githyanki. But the slaad? That one seems really out of place, I didn't think WotC was so interested in them despite the fact they hardly do anything with them and I know others that can do a much better job.

If you want your head to explode, dwell on this.. The slaad lord of entropy and slaad lord of insanity are in the Tome of Horrors revised and are open content...

ka-blam!!!

You know... technically since those two are open content aren't Slaad's as a race free game? You just have to develop them independently of the core slaads, not color code them, give them different cultures and types and such?

[Pax Veritas]

The Tome of Horrors I, II, and III have done much for the open game movement and for our community! Thank goodness for them. (You will see Clark Peterson and Ryan Dancy thanked, and Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson mentioned in the front of the Bestiary on the credits page).

This is a great time to be a Paizonian!

[LazarX]

jscott991 wrote:

I didn't even notice that mind flayers were off-limits. I guess the Darklands book not mentioning them at all should have clued me in.

Hmm. Not a good thing.

Paradigm Press got a onetime license to include Mind Flayers in one sourcebook. Unveiled Masters: the Essential Guide to Mind Flayers Since then, Wizards has kept the property exclusive to itself.

[Fergie]

Cool thread. The monster books have always my favorite part of the game. Can't wait for the latest.
What about Svirfneblin? Are they only to be know as Deep Gnomes?
And it was my understanding that Svirfneblin and Drow were created by Gygax. Is that correct?

Also, just want to say that the art released on the blog has been great, and I'm looking forward to seeing the rest.

[Razz]

James Jacobs wrote:

What fans do with monsters for their home games, including updating illithids and beholders to work for Pathifnder, is their business.

But once you post conversions like this in a public place, such as online in messageboards, you open yourself up to legal action from WotC since you're encroaching on their IP. Same thing would happen if you drew a Mickey Mouse comic strip and put it online... Disney would come by your place and ask you to stop.

As a result, we certainly don't want or need Pathfinderized beholders or mind flayers showing up on these boards.

At least until they become public domain? ;)

How does public domain work? I've heard of it, not sure on its specifics. Isn't Mickey Mouse public domain now? Something about after 50 years or so...I guess I should just look it up, eh? I do have the Internet *lol*

[Chris Mortika]

Razz wrote:

How does public domain work? I've heard of it, not sure on its specifics. Isn't Mickey Mouse public domain now? Something about after 50 years or so...I guess I should just look it up, eh? I do have the Internet *lol*

You'll find the answers you seek here. Some of the cuts are a little annoying, but the work is otherwise brilliant.

[James Risner]

Razz wrote:

At least until they become public domain? ;)

How does public domain work?

I think it is 90 years at the moment, so around year 2064 you can have your Beholders in Public Domain. IF (and only if) they didn't change them between revisions (say like 1st and 3rd edition) and update the copyright with a new copyright (adding another 90 from the new one.)

[Gorbacz]

And the Pazio releases AP 113 "Beholder Kings vs. Sorcerers of the Shore" ;)

[LazarX]

James Risner wrote:

Razz wrote:

At least until they become public domain? ;)

How does public domain work?

I think it is 90 years at the moment, so around year 2064 you can have your Beholders in Public Domain. IF (and only if) they didn't change them between revisions (say like 1st and 3rd edition) and update the copyright with a new copyright (adding another 90 from the new one.)

It varies in different areas, i.e. most of drug company research time is spent creating new varieties of existing drugs which main purpose is to create a new IP item when the current formula becomes available for global use. In trademark characters like Mickey Mouse, those are essentially in perpetual copyright as Disney will do what it needs to do to renew and even if WD goes under whoever buys it's assets will do the same thing. After TSR bought DragonQuest they would release product for the RPG every few years ago just to maintain it's copyright status, they never supported it otherwise.

[LazarX]

Pax Veritas wrote:

The Tome of Horrors I, II, and III have done much for the open game movement and for our community! Thank goodness for them. (You will see Clark Peterson and Ryan Dancy thanked, and Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson mentioned in the front of the Bestiary on the credits page).

This is a great time to be a Paizonian!

Most Living City players though would prefer to thank Ryan Dancey with a kick to the parts that hurt after his actions destroyed the first of all network campaigns.

[LazarX]

Interestingly enough though Paradigm got a grandfathered license to use Mind Flayers, they never included them in thier flagship setting Arcanis.

Instead they came up with something far far more horrifying. The Voiceless Ones, the prime servants of the Silence. Check them out in this link to the release of the Psionics Unbound supplement they created to replace the Expanded Psionics Handbook. It's got a great picture of these fellows in action.

By the way Psionics Unbound is a good treatment of the SRD dealing with most of the issues that were still "broken" with Psionics in 3.5, mainly cross discipline dipping, and further clarification of the use of magic/psionics transparency or lack of it.

Here's some more flavor text about the Voiceless Ones to close my post. By the way in explanation. in Arcanis the Dwarves are descended from the Celestial Giants, cursed by the Father of the Gods for breaking a pact to be the warders of Man during thier darkest hours. In thier ages of power they literally wandered the stars.

For a race so seemingly entwined behind the scenes of just about every major event in modern and ancient history, the Voiceless Ones are unknown to the majority of the sentient peoples upon Onara. Only those in positions of power, conspiracy theorists, the unlucky or the brave have any inkling that this threat even exists.

In the oldest and most obscure texts possessed by the Dwarves there is a small passage mentioning a race of “vermin and parasites that long dogged the steps of their ancient foes throughout their journey through the stars. Silent in word and deed, the maddening gibbering of their thoughts told only of conquest and servitude to Oblivion.”

What is known is that these creatures are extremely dangerous and possess a highly advanced and complicated civilization that rivals any above or below the surface of Arcanis. Some claim that they wield arcane powers rivaling that of arch-mages, while others say that they are unstoppable juggernauts of the battlefield. What all agree upon is that they have a repulsive taste for sentient brains and that, while they make not a sound, to the Awakened, their mind shattering screams are unending.

Voiceless Ones exist in a biological caste society, with each stratum successively more powerful than the one below it. Listed here is the most common and hence suspected to be the least powerful, of the Voiceless Ones encountered in the Lavender Way.

[Iczer]

rando1000 wrote:

yoda8myhead wrote:

honestly, in all my time playing D&D, I don't think I ever encountered any of the IP monsters in a game. Sure, I read about them and heard about them from the grognards who came before me, but I don't miss them because they have never been part of my game experience.

I once used Beholders and Illithid as warring alien races in a D20 Future campaign, with the Illithid being the "good guys" (neither were PC races). I think they work very well as science-fiction style creatures. Will definitely pull them from the Monster Manual as necessary for my home games.

Oh wow. I've done this too. The Illithids were bad guys, and most were kept in vaults across the universe, but...wow.

Batts

[Gyftomancer]

James Jacobs wrote:

The advice to "add 1 to the CR of monsters from the 3.5 MM" isn't very accurate, and if indeed we DID say that, it was I hope a long time ago when we weren't quite sure of what we were doing or something.

For the Bestiary, we tried very hard to keep every monster's CR the same as they were in the 3.5 MM. But the truth of the matter is that a lot of the monsters in the MM are inappropriately CR'd; the designers were still learning the system when they wrote that book, after all, and they made a lot of mistakes. When the 3.5 edition of the Monster Manual came out, they were able to look back at the last 5 years of growing more accustomed to the rules and made a LOT of revisions; this is why, for example, you'll see that the demons and devils all got more powerful in the 3.5 MM.

With the Pathfinder Bestiary, we have close to TEN years of familiarity with the strengths and weaknesses of the CR system. We actually did a lot of work looking at what a monster of any particular CR from 1 to 20 should be, compared to the actual abilities of a PC from levels 1 to 20. A 10th level fighter, for example, should be able to take a certain amount of hits from a CR 10 monster, and should be able to hit with a certain reliability. We were able to thus build a huge set of charts that delineated averages for hp, AC, attack rolls, average damage, Ability DCs, and saving throws for all monsters based by CR, and in so doing we were able to match monsters more accurately than ever before to their various CR scores. (And all of these charts and advice are IN the Bestiary, so anyone can go about creating new monsters for Pathfinder using the same assumptions and tools we had in creating the book.)

As a result, all of the monsters in the PRPG Bestiary are different. Some in minor ways, some in major ways. Their more accurately representing their CR scores, I hope, and in some cases (like the ogre mage or the rakshasa) this means they got quite a bit more powerful than their 3.5 version. In others, like the dire ape, they got...

I think i understand what you say here. Some monsters needed to be weeker and some stronger. Thats ok.

But still i dont understand why did you buff the core classes instead of just remake/redesign the monsters that you believed needed to be weaker or stronger? Some classes (for example bard) needed to be buffed only compared to the rest. But you buffed every core class of the game. And you said thats because the core classes used to be weaker from the non core.

So if thats the reason i trully understand all the changes (core classes and monsters). And i dont have to wory if the psion of the group is underpowered compared to the others (even if i find psionic classes overpowered :P)

But if not, then what about the rest of the classes/races in the game? What do you advise? Buff them a little it or not?

[Gyftomancer]

For example, the Healer class from Miniatures Handbook cant match anymore the healing of PF clerics (because of the channeling ability).

Thats why i ask the reason of buffing the core classes. Are now those two classes (cleric - healer) equals? The non core classes dont need any true buff? Or do i have to buff some non core classes i use from the 3.5E in my campaign aswell to equal the new versions of core classes?

I ll notice again that ALL the core classes were buffed.

[Are]

Gyftomancer wrote:

For example, the Healer class from Miniatures Handbook cant match anymore the healing of PF clerics (because of the channeling ability).

Thats why i ask the reason of buffing the core classes. Are now those two classes (cleric - healer) equals? The non core classes dont need any true buff? Or do i have to buff some non core classes i use from the 3.5E in my campaign aswell to equal the new versions of core classes?

I ll notice again that ALL the core classes were buffed.

The Healer class couldn't even compete with a normal 3.5 Cleric :)

[Gorbacz]

Healer sucked so badly in vanilla 3.5 that when PHB2 came out and had class options/feat trees for all the base classes, the Healer was left out. Pretty much because nobody played it :)