A weasel has no reach and provokes an attack of opportunity when it tries to enter your square to attack. That free attack means it is likely dead before it can attach. Even if it does bite and attach, you are looking at 1 nonlethal damage per round until unconscious, than 1 lethal hit point per round until you are dead (assuming it never lets go). If you are a 10 hp fighter with 10 Constitution, it will take the weasel 10 rounds to knock your out, and another 20 to kill you.
The orc on the other hand, is just as likely to kill the first level fighter as the fighter is it.
Pathfinder left most of the fluff up to the person running the game. In some GM's world, he may have all bats be herbivores. There is fluff for major types like angels, devils, etc. but most ordinary creatures are left up to the GM's discretion.
The reason for the change in x.p. is treasure no longer give experience. You don't get 1 x.p. per g.p. in 3.x/PF.
That. XP for treasure was (supposed to be) a major contributor to leveling in older editions. And since it seems not many people ever used that rule, their experience was that leveling was much slower then. But if you actually used the rules, leveling was about at the same rate it is now. (Or at least that was true for 3.0/3.5. I don't know what the leveling rate is like in Pathfinder, as I don't play it.)
And as said, monster fluff is different from game world to game world. Why waste space describing something that only applies in a few worlds?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Re "flavor", Paizo has made a deliberate effort to separate their product lines. Core is meant to be setting neutral. Pathfinder Campaign Setting is where you find their take on world-specific (Golarion) creatures, treasures, classes, etc. For example, see the excellent Classic Monsters Revisited. You'll also find that when they detail creatures in the Adventure Path bestiaries, they also go into a lot more detail (and take up more space).
Can't help ya with the weasel :)
If i remeber well, that was an optional rule that was stated in the dungeon master manual, and only apply to the thief.
In 2e, it was suggested as an option for group XP rewards on a 1 for 1 basis, of if you used the (optional) individual XP awards, something that a rogue could get on a 2xp for 1gp basis.
In 1st edition, it wasn't an optional rule. (You could still play without it of course, but it wasn't suggested as an optional rule. It was part of the default rules.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Weasels are related to honey badgers.
Weasels are related to honey badgers.
They are all so badass!
1. Creatures seem to give incredible amounts of experience. Like 10x more than in 2nd Edition. Example, a 2nd Edition Gnoll gave 35 XP points. In Pathfinder, a Gnoll gives 400 XP points. What's was the reasoning behind this huge leap? Did they want Characters to level up after every couple of encounters?
Not sure about how 2nd Edition worked, but also remember to divide the experience by the number of people in the party. So if 4 people kill that gnoll that gives 400 xp, they each get 100 xp.
2. What happened to the monster lore or "fluff"? Without actually knowing anything about the monsters prior to reading the Pathfinder Bestiary, you would only know about their combat. I paged through the bestiary and it seems to be mostly Stats, with text describing combat attacks, and a picture taking up half the page. If there is any room left they might add something like: ogres are mean, or bats like to eat insects. The 2nd edition Monster Manual had 1/4 page stats, 1/4 page picture and the rest dedicated to explaining all about the monsters motives, lifestyle, habitat/society & Ecology so they felt more than just combat vehicles. Is there some other reference or book describing these basic monsters in detail? Or did they make a call that lore/fluff wasn't worth the space?
As someone else pointed out, the Bestiary is world-neutral, so they don't give a lot of ecology information, but even then I recommend re-reading the ogre entry specifically, since you mentioned it as an example. I just read it the other day and it does give far more information than you're given it credit for, multiple paragraphs that have very little to do with combat. It takes about how ogres are incestuous cannibalistic rapist necrophiliacs that still care about family, describes the desolation of regions they inhabit, and gives some idea (without being too graphic) of what they do for fun.
The book Classic Monsters Revisited goes into more detail, but it only covers 10 monsters, each one getting five pages. They actually get six pages but one is just the old 3.5e stats since Classic Monsters Revisited was published for 3.5e. (The new books in the Revisited line usually have a custom example of the monster with class levels on the sixth page instead, sometimes even an entirely new monster that's related, like the Wight Lord and Nightskitter in Undead Revisited.)
3. Why are weasels in the bestiary so F'n strong? Stronger than Orcs, Humans, Drows, Skeletons and Hawks? ... and don't get me started on the insane killing power of regular wolverines. (this question is a joke).
I watched special on wolverines. Those are some mean animals. They can bring down caribou.
Can't really say why the weasel gets a CR 1/2 though. Likely because of the attach special ability that means it doesn't have to make an attack roll once it hits, but with a CMD of 6 it should be pretty easy to remove. I also don't think that CR is taking into consideration that it deals 1d3-4 damage, which converts to nonlethal damage until reaching 0 hp, at which point it starts doing actual damage. Mainly I'd just say it's CR 1/2 because there's no need of an attach roll after it attaches.
|
Wow...we never used the XP for treasure rule...never knew that rule existed. Interesting. Thank you!The reason for the change in x.p. is treasure no longer give experience. You don't get 1 x.p. per g.p. in 3.x/PF.That. XP for treasure was (supposed to be) a major contributor to leveling in older editions. And since it seems not many people ever used that rule, their experience was that leveling was much slower then.
It was optional in 2nd edition, while it was a base rule in 1st edition. In 2nd edition you gained XP for casting spells to overcome obstacles (practically every spell you did cast), bonus for HD of creature defeated (warriors), use of granted powers (clerics), treasure obtained (rogue) ecc., ecc. At the end of the day really tracking all that was extremely inefficient.
So most master I know: used ad hoc awards, used the old 1st ed. system or decided for a "rate of growth" for the character based on the number of adventures.
If i remeber well, that was an optional rule that was stated in the dungeon master manual, and only apply to the thief.In 2e, it was suggested as an option for group XP rewards on a 1 for 1 basis, of if you used the (optional) individual XP awards, something that a rogue could get on a 2xp for 1gp basis.
In 1st edition, it wasn't an optional rule. (You could still play without it of course, but it wasn't suggested as an optional rule. It was part of the default rules.)
It was optional and gave 1 Xp for 1 gp of not magic treasure for all classes. For the rogue there was a non optional rule that he would get 2 Xp for each Gp of "treasure obtained", without any explanation of what was that (stolen from the group? from NPC?, all of it?).
Jeera, you are mixing the "Individual experience awards" (blue background, optional) with the Individual class awards (white background, stanndard rule).
And that kind of mixed and confusing rules are why most masters, AFAIK, disregarded the 2nd ed.. experience system after a few tries.
Jeera, you are mixing the "Individual experience awards" (blue background, optional) with the Individual class awards (white background, stanndard rule).And that kind of mixed and...
With respect, no I'm not. First of all, that table is clearly labeled optional at the top. And second, read the Individual Experience Awards in blue to the left (specifically, 3rd paragraph). It specifically mentions using Table 3 (the table in question.) The Group Experience Awards (default rules on the 2 pages before) make no mention whatsoever of that table.
|
I like how no-one's actually answered the thread title...
A weasel is Str 3.
You sure you haven't been looking at a dire weasel?
I like how no-one's actually answered the thread title...
A weasel is Str 3.
You sure you haven't been looking at a dire weasel?
I think he may have been referring to the weasel's CR, which is 1/2. Whereas the CR for a common orc is 1/3. The implication being that a weasel is to be considered a greater challenge to a party than an orc.
|
|
A weasel has no reach and provokes an attack of opportunity when it tries to enter your square to attack. That free attack means it is likely dead before it can attach.
Some mustelids are faster than others.
Weasels are related to honey badgers.
They wish. If they're related to honey badgers, then it's as their wimpy little baby sisters.
I mean, Chuck Norris is like the wimpy little brother to honey badgers. Weasels can't hope to compare.
1. Creatures seem to give incredible amounts of experience. Like 10x more than in 2nd Edition. Example, a 2nd Edition Gnoll gave 35 XP points. In Pathfinder, a Gnoll gives 400 XP points. What's was the reasoning behind this huge leap? Did they want Characters to level up after every couple of encounters?
It's not a good idea to just compare bare XP numbers. These numbers are completely useless by themselves. It's like saying "Blue whales only way 180, but a house cat weighs 4000. This can't be right". It is, because the whale weighs in at 180t, while the cat is usually about 4000g.
You have to compare them to how many XP you need to get to each level.
For the record: Pathfinder assumes that if you're adventuring with a party of 4 characters of the same level, you will need about 13/20/30 encounters (for fast/medium/slow XP track) of the party's level to get the next level.
The gnoll is CR1, gives you 400 XP (or 100 per character), and killing 13 of them will put you on level 2 on the fast track (and so on).
The gnoll is CR1, gives you 400 XP (or 100 per character), and killing 13 of them will put you on level 2 on the fast track (and so on).13 Gnolls to reach second level seems muchs faster than what I remember 2E AD&D
But maybe is becouse we used to play whitout the rules like the 1xp for every 1gp.
Well he did say on the fast track. Pathfinder has three sets of advancement tracks, so you can decide which advancement track to use with your players. The Adventure Paths are usually written with a particular advancement track in mind, but if you're not running an AP, which track to employ is up to the GM (and his players, if it's a democracy). Just make sure your players know which advancement track you're using so they know when they get their next level.
There's a significant difference between the three tracks. Fast track hist level 2 at 1300 xp, medium at 2000 xp, and slow track hits level 2 at 3000 xp. Monsters reward the same XP on all three tracks, but that XP is more or less beneficial depending on which track the campaign uses.
You can see the three advancement tracks here (first chart on the page): http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/classes.html
Chimpanzees are much weaker in terms of D&D stats than they are in real life. I am sure the same applies to Gorillas as well, but yeah.
Those things WILL RIP YOUR FACE OFF!!
13 Gnolls to reach second level seems muchs faster than what I remember 2E AD&D
But maybe is becouse we used to play whitout the rules like the 1xp for every 1gp.
A +1 to what others have said.
However, I would say it is also true that 3.x and PF do tend to advance faster (even on the PF slow track) than every group I played with back in 2.x dnd.
I'm not sure, but I think part of that may be due to the plethora of options in the newer games. We don't want to spend 2 years playing the same undead hunting paladin because there is also this cool gunslinger concept I want to try out. Then there is the master summoner that looks so cool. And speaking of cool I was looking over the dragon disciple. Oh and remember the... ETC...
|
Reaper Miniatures
|
In the 2e Game we just wrapped up here, Rogues got 1XP for each GP looted, Fighters got extra XP for kills in combat related to the HD of the monster (IIRC, HDx10), Wizards got bonus XP for each spell they cast. All of these rules were in the books, although I could not tell you if they were blue box rules or white BG rules. But it made XP a pain at the end of each session.
There was a discussion years ago that suggested that the 3.0 designers designed XP and Encounters such that 10 encounters was approximately a level, given that 50% of the encounters were equal CR, and 25% were Party>Monster CR, with the final 25% Party<Monster CR.
If you're looking for a direct relationship to why a gnoll went from 35 XP to 400, you won't find it. 2e XP was kind of ad Hoc, form a designer standpoint. Why was a gnoll 35? Because somebody said that it was. In 3.x/PF, there's math governing the CR, how they arrive at what a creatures CR is , and therefore how much XP to give, because they were trying to fit into a formula - one where a monster gave out XP equivalent to it's CR. Specifically: CRΩ = X, where X=(("XP needed to reach level Ω+1"/10)*4) When the XP was then given out, it was divided by 4 (being the average party size). If your party had more or fewer PCs, the number of creatures was modified, so in theory the group advanced at more or less the same rate.
Now, not everything is 100% math. There's synergies that designers can use to increase CR higher than the paper looks like it should be, likewise there's times when a CR is fudged downward by the designers, because the monsters abilities are weaker than the on-paper stats suggest. But the CR system gives them a place to start, somewhere to look when designing so they can tell if a monster is too powerful or too weak for the niche they are trying to fill.
However, I would say it is also true that 3.x and PF do tend to advance faster (even on the PF slow track) than every group I played with back in 2.x dnd.
That's 2.x [A]D&D :P
Anyway, your wording gives me a great opening: The groups you played with. It's not just a rules thing. It's a group thing, too.
How often do you play? How long do you play? How focussed are you? How combat-focussed?
That said, a lot of people like the faster progression, I think, because they get to play a lot less often than they used to. With the glacial advancement track that seemed to be standard for 2e, they would be lucky to get a level-up before they retire.
I'm not sure, but I think part of that may be due to the plethora of options in the newer games. We don't want to spend 2 years playing the same undead hunting paladin because there is also...
This illustrates my point: People don't want to play the same character for "2 years". The problem, of course, is that 2 years could be really long or really short depending on all the stuff I mentioned above (and also what level range the campaign will go through.).
Is 2 years long? Is it short? For the group that plays a campaign from level 1 to beyond 20, having sessions about once per month, lasting 6 hours and about half of that being socialising out of game, the rest being a lot "roleplaying" (i.e. not many combats.), it would be lightning fast.
The campaign where they meet twice a week for 6 hours each, all of it combat, to go from 5 to 15, it would be tortuously slow.
What I'm trying to say is: Even though I don't doubt that Pathfinder advancement is faster than AD&D 2e's, it's not the whole picture.
This classic monster's revisited thing looks great! I'm def. going to check that out, and poke around for some simliar stuff. Thank you! :D
I can also def. recommend the 2nd Edition Monstrous compendium for some great background info/lore on about 80% of the monsters in pathfinder.
I love the classic Monsters series. All of them. Even Misfit monsters. Pretty much all of my Pathfinder lore defaults to AD&D either 1st or 2nd edition. I love the reinvention of Pathfinder monsters crunch wise but I pretty much keep the second edition fluff.
However I have read the relevant monsters in BEstiary 1 and compared them to the AD&D 1st Monster Manual, and Pathfinder does actually maintain alot of that fluff.
|
Mr Weasel has better AC, better initiative, better senses and perception, and better skills than the orc, and only 2 Hit Points less (meaning that both of them will tend to die with one hit...). He also has that attach special ability which is monstrous, quite frankly, when you consider that (assuming he's a familiar) the little chap could easily be enlarged and empowered by his master... I think he's my new favourite familiar choice, now I've actually taken the time to check him out!
Sure, if both (unenhanced) Mr Weasel and the orc just stand there and trade blows with the party Barbarian, then I'm guessing that the orc comes out (a little) ahead... but Mr Weasel can sneak up on you, bite, attach, and inflict some nasty damage where orc-boy is just there for target practice. Mr Weasel can sneak into your backpack and steal all your shinies too... I'd like to see orc-boy try that!
CR isn't just about standing there and slapping each other...
