i was originally gona post this under rules and really it could go anywhere so i finally decided here just to get more of an opinion base.
I searched the archives and i was surprised this didn't ping any responses. i then scoured the rules everywhere i could think of and didn't find anything. This should be an easy ruling to answer but i'm curious of other peoples opinions. I'm not demanding any "OFFICIAL" answer from the staff but any are welcome to share there experiences on how they handle this in there own games. feedback from GM's and players would be nice to have both sides represented. i dont see this thread getting to uncivil or confrontational so it might be a lighter fun thread for everyone.
so here goes.
substituting a monsters feats with other feats, excluding bonus and racial.
1) is it allowed per RAW?
2) is it RAI?
3) is it just mean and screwing the players over?
4) it doesn't really matter RAW or RAI but should be used on a rare case by case basis for memorable encounters?
I personally feel it COULD be all 4. i haven't done it personally yet, i've mainly used templates, class levels, or advanced a monster. But i could see how a simple feat could change a monster without having to rebuild or advance it and would be quicker.
while i feel that non intelligent monsters would be most likely to be cookie cutter versions. A race of intelligent ones make more sense to be just as variable in there feats as PC's. Intelligent creatures would in general have the same feats overall as others of there race from that area, clan, or tribe but it could very well be different from east cost troll tribe to west coast troll tribe.
while i'm inclined to think this should usually only be done for a story reason, a rare encounter, or just to throw something unique at the players from what they think to expect, i can imagine some other reasons GM's may wish to change feats...
|
I do that all the time...as a GM i change things that don't appeal to me. So what if devs thought that that feat would be good for that monster...i find a better feat, i use it. And if players acutally have the gall of daring to b!+@# to me about that...well, suffice to say that is very very frowned upon...i don't care if bestiary says so.
I'm currently considering changing a feat around for a next encounter in a kingmaker campaign to give the creature more fight ability against my players party.
So far i've advanced the monster +1 CR by adding a level of fighter to it using the feats to give it improved natural attack, and weapon focus (natural attack)this should keep the encounter challenging as they have leveled before reaching it and i wanted to keep the challenge the same.
What i'm considering is swapping out is the monsters power attack feat, since it already has a fairly low chance of hitting anyways taking a -2 to hit will more than likely never see it's +4 damage. This is also why i gave it weapon focus and improved natural attack. I'm considering swapping it out for toughness or improved natural armor to give it more sustainability. i'm also thinking about dropping its cleave feat oin favor of SOMETHING. The creature in question is an evil plant that i'm not sure can make use of any gear it may be entitled to.
I'd like to explain i'm not doing this to be mean or to kill the party as they will still probably kill it off without too much effort. but more to give it a chance to provide a challenge without major overhaul. I'm thinking of changing it slightly because the players have stated most encounters have been fairly easy so far. The reason is there really well built defensively and have put most wealth into defense. There party is also melee heavy and all of the party can handle there own in melee. The nature of the AP at this point in time doesn't have much magic pressure. While they have neglected offensive gear, since they all still have decent BAB's they still hit often anyways and they have access to a few buff spells and abilities. Most encounter's the enemies need a 19-20 role to hit any of them and the party mostly goes unscathed and laughs the hits off.
I'm hoping this encounter with be more than "they move in, miss a few times, but the creature is unable to touch them, and they hack it to peaces eventually." Especially since this particular creature is a quest. While im pretty sure the minor boost and feat tweak is just going to buy it more time and land a few blows it's not going to be a DEAL BREAKER, which is exactly how i want it to play out.
Do any GM's see this as acceptable? Do players feel like this is cheating and tailoring a monster just to screw you over? Is this a perfect medium?
|
I customise monsters as needed - sometimes the enviroment they live in make other skills or feats than given in the basic description more feasible, sometimes individual monsters, especiallyy among the intelligent humanoids, giants or outsiders have a history that is reflected in different abilities.
The monster entry imo only gives the stats for the average monster. (look at animals, humans included. No two are exactly the same, why should that be any different in the game world?)
1) I astonishingly can't find anything about customisation of monsters regarding their feats in the PFRPG rulebooks I own.
2) I strongly believe so.
3) No, I don't even customise the monsters to be better "against" the PCs, sometimes they are even less effective. I don't build encounters against the PCs nut to fit within the story. I try to keep them in the general power level of the PCs (at least the encounters they most likely resove through battle) but I don't generally optimize against the characters).
4)I don't think just swapping a feat will make the encounter more memorable, individual monsters with namesand histories that the players become aware of will and alternate abilities are often part of that.
i was originally gona post this under rules and really it could go anywhere so i finally decided here just to get more of an opinion base.
I searched the archives and i was surprised this didn't ping any responses. i then scoured the rules everywhere i could think of and didn't find anything. This should be an easy ruling to answer but i'm curious of other peoples opinions. I'm not demanding any "OFFICIAL" answer from the staff but any are welcome to share there experiences on how they handle this in there own games. feedback from GM's and players would be nice to have both sides represented. i dont see this thread getting to uncivil or confrontational so it might be a lighter fun thread for everyone.
so here goes.
substituting a monsters feats with other feats, excluding bonus and racial.
1) is it allowed per RAW?
2) is it RAI?
3) is it just mean and screwing the players over?
4) it doesn't really matter RAW or RAI but should be used on a rare case by case basis for memorable encounters?
I personally feel it COULD be all 4. i haven't done it personally yet, i've mainly used templates, class levels, or advanced a monster. But i could see how a simple feat could change a monster without having to rebuild or advance it and would be quicker.
while i feel that non intelligent monsters would be most likely to be cookie cutter versions. A race of intelligent ones make more sense to be just as variable in there feats as PC's. Intelligent creatures would in general have the same feats overall as others of there race from that area, clan, or tribe but it could very well be different from east cost troll tribe to west coast troll tribe.
while i'm inclined to think this should usually only be done for a story reason, a rare encounter, or just to throw something unique at the players from what they think to expect, i can imagine some other reasons GM's may wish to change feats...
The monsters in the book are stock monsters, which are the generic version. The developers had to give them something so what is in the book is it. That does not mean that every lion, demon, dragon, and so on are exactly the same. The GM can and should modify monsters as needed. Players should not be modifying anything without GM approval.
I also change monsters as needed, along with many other GM's on the board.1 and 2:There is not rule for or against it.
3.It is not screwing a player/party over unless you make the monster too tough. If monsters were never intended to change there would not be any monster advancement rules.
4. I normally use the stock monster just to save time, but if a DM wants to run a world where every monster is a little bit different there is nothing wrong with that.
In short you are not doing anything wrong.
substituting a monsters feats with other feats, excluding bonus and racial.
1) is it allowed per RAW?
By RAW there is no specific rule forbidding swapping feats for monsters so the general rule applies. And the general rule is that feats are mean to customize character (and before someone protest - monsters are non-player characters and thus subject to that rule).
2) is it RAI?
Appears to be so.
3) is it just mean and screwing the players over?
How creating interesting and challenging (presumably combat, but not always) encounter is screwing players over?
It might be means and screwing players over only if intentionally done as means of doing that - like sending (without plot reasons) hordes of magic immune opponenents on sorcerer who hasn't spells that could avoid magic immunity. Or outrightly sending such character to whole campaign in dead magic zone (unless planned for and played right).4) it doesn't really matter RAW or RAI but should be used on a rare case by case basis for memorable encounters?
Definitely yes. Actually more often than rare, monsters have feats in their stat blocks mostly to quicken their use when needed and save the time GM would have to build every monster every time.
It's nice to see this is actually fairly common place.
I'm not making the the encounter too tough it's still a challenging encounter compared to there APL as it was before. And while i agree changing a feat is not going to make the monster more memorable it is going to give it more time on the field. This will be the first time the players have ever encountered this particular creature in any of my campaigns. I just dont want it to be " ooh wow thats something new. AHHH to bad it got hacked to peaces all the same though..." And while it's tanked up more in the melee area it is a melee monster. It also makes sense being a lone evil intelligent plant- eventually people are going to want to come and try to chop it down and it has learned to defend itself from would be heroes. It wouldn't have survived this long on it's own if it couldn't fight off an axe or 2. I also didn't make it optimized to kill them. while i boosted it's hit and AC i could have kept it's power attack combined with improved natural attack to do massive damage. i made it easier to land a hit, defend hits, and boosted it's avg damage. overall i just boosted it equally it's not optimized to kill anyone in particular.
it already gets 3 attacks and i didn't want to kill off the party. just a lone good ol fashion hardy monster vs a melee tanked out party. hopefully at the least there oracle has to use a few cure spells afterwards but everyone is still alive as well :D
|
As a general rule I would not swap feats for animal intelligence creatures.
When we are speaking of intelligent creatures with only monster levels I will do it sparingly (unless I feel that the typical choice of feat is really bad).
With creatures with PC or NPC class levels I think it is almost mandatory to tailor the creatures feat to what they do.
It is not to thwart players abilities but to adapt them to the job they are doing. If the main job of a goblin is to do guard duty the standard Improved initiative feat is not so important and swapping it for Alertness is a good change.
If his main function is to provide missile fire giving him Point blank shot will make it a better sniper at expense of a lower initiative and so on.
|
|
Paizo's done this themselves, in the Legacy of Fire Adventure Path* (and on a creature with no class levels, too), so I think it's safe to say it's RAW, RAI, and only mean to the players if you make it so (by giving the monster things to intentionally screw, as opposed to challenge, the PCs).
*I don't think that's a spoiler though details on the critter itself would be.
|
I would like to add that most people would not blink if you made a monster from scratch. i.e. a completely new monster of your own devising. You can also make NPCs however you desire and magic weapons. The only real concern is balancing them against the party.
In that context adjusting a monster a bit is really nothing.
I'm doing a 3.5 module right now that has a bunch of a monster that's elite ( ie uses fighter levels than warrior levels) because of the changes to cr I'n Pf I get to add one class level to these guys to keep the same cr.
I'n the module the same stat block gets used for two different roles with no specialization for either. ( ie the mounted combat guys didn't have mounted combat) so when I slapped on the extra fighter level I gave the mounted combat ones mounted combat and gave shield focus to the ones described myrmidons.
it made them better for their individual roles without trying to optimize them just to make them harder for my players.
1) Absolutely. The game designers do it all the time.
2) Absolutely. The game designers have encouraged it in the past.
3) Like any other rule, it has the possibility of being used for such things, but by default: No, it is not mean.
4) The frequency should vary based on the GM's free time. If he wants to make every single monster unique, great. However, if he doesn't care to, he shouldn't feel obligated either. There's nothing wrong with a bunch of unnamed red shirts that aren't meant to survive the current encounter. I recommend having some level of uniqueness to named, reoccurring villains, however.
substituting a monsters feats with other feats, excluding bonus and racial.
1) is it allowed per RAW?If you consider Rule Zero to be RAW sure it is with RAW.
2) is it RAI?See above.
3) is it just mean and screwing the players over?I don't think so. Unless you are playing with people who have memorized the Bestiary and complain about things that don't follow it word by word.
4) it doesn't really matter RAW or RAI but should be used on a rare case by case basis for memorable encounters?It should be used if it make saense for the encounter. If you want to make a goblin a little bit tougher than say all the other goblins...swapping out improve init for toughness would be a good way achieving this instead of giving out class levels which might make the goblin more of a threat than you want.
I also do it occsasionaly because in my groups there are alot of people who have DMed before so they do know the Bestiary...it is a easy and minor way of keeping these people on their toes.
Changing feats can indeed create a memorable fight. Never *ever* mention "phalanx fighting" and "kobolds" in the presence of my players - unless you LIKE to see people running about screaming as if a tarantula suddenly materialized on their chest! (it sure did force them to start thinking tactics!) That was a tough fight.
I've changed feats when the adventure calls for (16 goblin WAR2, 4 of which are riding wargs) and gives them all improved initiave. Yeah, the riders lost the I-I feat and got mounted combat instantly. Encounter reads "trained archers" but the stat-block doesn't give them point-blank shot? Insta-change. And so on.
Hobgoblin Archers should not all look exactly like Hobgoblin Pikemen. Design should be a reflection of the the creature's intelligence.
IMO.
And my players like it that way.
I remember giving my goblins in Rise of the Runelords the Weapon and Torch fighting style from Dungeonscape. Good times.
i am also guilty of phalanx kobolds
and other nasty pc classed mooks
that have challenged my players, no matter how many extra boons and variant resources i give them.
i never use a premade stat block as is.
i may not have a lot of DM experience, but thats because my players fear me.
my lone bosses are a joke they are so easy,
but my mooks make the players extremely nervous.
my players know how nasty my cannon fodder can be.
in fact, in my game worlds i usually include an organization called 'Thugs 4 Less' who serve the purpose of training, trafficking, and selling these enslaved thugs. bred in a lab by some Egomaniac wizard named Dimitri Molotov, for the purpose of being combat slaves. Dimitri does this as a side project to get the funding neccessary to bring back his Dear Freya, despite the amount of decades that passed, and the fact she rebuked him for the man who murdered her. the guy is obscessed with his former academy sweetheart. and canonically engages in all sorts of depraved scientific business.
some of Dimitri's Sins
he breeds combat slaves in a lab
he develops various pharmaceuticals, for good or ill
he engineers machines and mechanical parts or tools
he 'plays god' through science
he dissects bodies and mutilites priests in the name of science
he creates monsters
he discovers new spells and formulae
he collects samples to store in jars
he researches the philosophers stone and other mythological items
and he performs similar crazy stuff.
changing a monsters feats is fine, and Dimitri was a former PC from years ago, who gets a lot of NPC mileage as a generic mad scientist. whenever someone cannot find an excuse to justify some odd scientific occurence, i say, 'Dr. Dimitri Molotov Did it'.