How come half of the monsters in the bestiary do not match up with the charts and the stats that they are given. Fore example the Fire Giant by using the create a monster rules I try to re-create the Fire Giant. What I have come up with is that the saves are of according to the chart Both the Fort and Ref saves. The damage is off as well according to the chart a large creature slam damage should be 1d6 but the Giants is listed as 1d8. So any help figuring out all of these discrepancies would be appreciated. Like I said before almost half of the monsters in the bestiary have their saves, BAB, and attack D# damage wrong according to the chart in the book.
|
Those charts are moreso general guidelines than steadfast rules. They provide a baseline for a monster of that CR / size; if a monster is supposed to be particularly good at something or it fits the monster's theme for it to not match up to the charts exactly, the monster doesn't line up with the chart exactly. This allowance lets monsters be more customizable and less predictable.
|
The Monster Statistics by CR chart is a guideline to designing your own monsters, not a cookie cutter from which all monsters are made.
Also, the fire giant does (more-or-less) conform to the guidelines of the chart. Hit points are a tad high, AC is a tad low. Its good save is a tad high, but its bad save is severely low. Its high attack is a tad high, but its low attack is a tad low. Damage - yeah there's a lot of damage there, but aside from its attack routine, it doesn't have any special abilities, so its damage *should* be higher than baseline.
As to slam damage, again the Natural Attacks by Size chart lists the recommended baseline value. Consciously using a different value is OK, as long as you account for it in the rest of the monster design. In the case of giants - see above, they don't have much else going for them.
The Monster Statistics by CR chart is a guideline to designing your own monsters, not a cookie cutter from which all monsters are made.
Also, the fire giant does (more-or-less) conform to the guidelines of the chart. Hit points are a tad high, AC is a tad low. Its good save is a tad high, but its bad save is severely low. Its high attack is a tad high, but its low attack is a tad low. Damage - yeah there's a lot of damage there, but aside from its attack routine, it doesn't have any special abilities, so its damage *should* be higher than baseline.
As to slam damage, again the Natural Attacks by Size chart lists the recommended baseline value. Consciously using a different value is OK, as long as you account for it in the rest of the monster design. In the case of giants - see above, they don't have much else going for them.
Thank you for your responce. The reasons for my questions is that I am making a excel program that generates a lot of the monsters stats automatically. So when I add new monsters it would be a lot less work. If the monsters went by a set way of making them then it would work out fine so I guess I am hosed on that one.
Unfortunately, game design is more a finessed art than a simple algorithm.
If it was any different, I don't think I would be as interested in giving James & co. my money.
Creative Director
|
Yup; as folks have noted, there's as much art as there is science to monster design. Table 1–1 is GREAT at creating a benchmark for each CR that a monster should aim at, but it's not a law. As pointed out with the hill giant above, it just needs to be close and it can be really good at one thing if it's got other things that it's not so good at. (In the hill giant's case, that'd be Will saves.)
Monsters having a higher damage output: I remember seeing "Improved Natural Attack" in some entries of the SRD, were they removed?
Monsters having a stronger/weaker save: this could be settled through their Con/Dex/Wis scores.
Some creative GMs like to create monsters as much as they like to create adventures. Some of them might like coherent rules to do so.
Personally, I would have liked a Bestiary containing the following for each monster:
Initial stat block (HD1, or "LA +0")
- this would be the stats of a younger/weaker monster, and possibly the ones that a monster-as-character would have before choosing class levels
- most of the monster's innate abilities aren't awakened yet
Advancement table (HD2 to max for this monster) much like the tables for the class levels
- this would be the stats of an intermediate/normal/stronger monster, and a character could select some of them instead of class levels
- the monster's abilities/feats/stat increases are acquired level after level
Example for the Drow:
- HD1 could be like the regular Elf
- HD2 could include some SLA
- HD3 could include additional stat adjustment
I'm curious about something else as well. Many of the Monsters have odd attack bonuses. for example:
Drow, BAB 1, DEX 15+2 (w.finesse)= rapier attack +2 attack.
explanation?
Edit: Found out many of these cases are from size modifiers I was not accounting for.
Drow, BAB 1, DEX 15+2 (w.finesse)= rapier attack +2 attack.
explanation?
Some times, a statblock is simply wrong (often because something was added to or removed from the monster late in development, other times because of typos). The Drow's rapier attack should be at +3.