To be honest, my group wrecks CR encounters unless I play the monsters like they have super genius Int. It really isn't so much about the power of the monsters, as it is about the ability of your players.
|
Remember, those CRs are built for the following:
* 4 players
* 15 point buy
* slightly sub-optimal build
* == CR should still be somewhat easy, with up to level+4 CR being possible
Use 20 points buy? It's a bit easier. Have 5-6 players? It's a bit easier. Group good at optimizing? That's a bit easier.
However, the fact that they're different than the guidelines in the bestiary isn't a surprise: Those are just rough guidelines. I would be more worried if they were at the high end on *every* category for their CR, but then there's an Int score to balance that out for some creatures (like a Dire Crocodile whose only failing against that chart is a slightly low AC and an int of 1, but is otherwise above the "high" guidelines). Of course, I haven't been comparing those monsters to the guidelines so I'm not sure where they stand.
Challenge Rating isn't an exact science. Most of the monsters follow the guidelines. Remember that the guidelines also say that if the monster does more damage, then lower its attacks or armor class. Make adjustments so that it is still balanced.
Keep in mind that the challenge ratings are based on a general 4-person party of cleric, fighter, rogue, wizard. If your party isn't that combination, you will find some challenge ratings to appear to be off.
I don't generally change the challenge ratings at all. If my party find one encounter too easy, they are likely to find another very challenging. It all works out in the end for my group. I use the challenge ratings to give me an idea of what's appropriate. I just keep in mind that some challenges are easier or harder for some people.
If I put my players up to matching CR and how they normally fight it is too easy for them.. I have to make it harder for them if it is not to be boring..
I began pathfinder society 3 months ago.. Our group has not even been close to wipe yet.
A CR equivalent battle is supposed to be easy. This is an explicit design decision, as stated by SKR somewhere around here.
Creative Director
|
Correct—an encounter with a monster of a CR equal to the average party level SHOULD be easy. A group should be able to handle multiple encounters of this type before having to spend time recovering. And encounters against single foes are even easier (simply because the PCs outnumber the foe).
Our design philosophy for monsters is to follow the average numbers as listed on Table 1–1 of the Bestiary as appropriate for the creature's CR, but to skew a little high on those averages since PCs tend to be pretty good at what they do. We also tend to make monsters particularly good at one of those categories—it's not uncommon to see a monster whose AC or hp or saves or ability DCs or damage or whatever is higher than you might expect for that CR—this not only helps give monsters an additional edge and something that enforces specific tactics to deal with, but helps make new monsters feel different than similar monsters of the same CR.
But in the end... it's all guesswork, honestly. We assume 4 players, each with average skill at the game, each playing a different but well-rounded average character, with a GM of average skill running the encounter, and that the encounter doesn't overly favor or hinder the monster. That's a LOT of variables, and changing any one of them can make a monster seem too hard or too easy.
That's a LOT of variables, and changing any one of them can make a monster seem too hard or too easy.
See Tuckers Kobolds.
EDIT: Not directed at James, just citing an example.
|
Creative Director
|
That's a LOT of variables, and changing any one of them can make a monster seem too hard or too easy.See Tuckers Kobolds.
EDIT: Not directed at James, just citing an example.
And it's a good example... even though it's from a game where CR didn't exist...
My favorite example of this, though, is to look at an encounter with a shadow–a CR 3 creature. Against a typical party of four, which we assume includes a cleric and a wizard (both of whom have plenty of options available against incorporeal foes), that one encounter is a relatively easy one.
The same CR 3 shadow against a party of 4 3rd-level clerics? Almost irrelevant, since their ability to channel positive energy makes it really easy for them to take the shadow down.
The same CR 3 shadow against a party of 4 3rd-level rogues? Probably gonna be a TPK, since unless those rogues have a magic weapon they can't hurt the shadow at all, and even if they DO have a magic weapon, they can't use sneak attacks against it.
I like to calculate the CR of the encounters that my GM sends at us and one thing I always try to do is consider if there are other things around to help or hinder the PCs which in turn alters the CR. Anything from high ground/low ground to moving platforms (one of my GMs loves these), to hampered movement (rough terrain, slick surface). I usually calculate the CRs to be beyond what the rule book says we should be fighting (worst case was a character doing something stupid and blowing the CR out of the water). Anything can ambush in a good location (animals do it and they have Int 2) so anything can act smart. Something as simple as having them on ridge attacking from range for a round can do wonders.
-X
Challenge Rating isn't an exact science. Most of the monsters follow the guidelines. Remember that the guidelines also say that if the monster does more damage, then lower its attacks or armor class. Make adjustments so that it is still balanced.
I don't think the bolded statement is true, even considering the sentence that follows it. There are exactly five (5) monsters in the Bestiary that follow the table (giant crab, dire hyena, sea hag, nabasu, and hell hound).
Our design philosophy for monsters is to follow the average numbers as listed on Table 1–1 of the Bestiary as appropriate for the creature's CR, but to skew a little high on those averages since PCs tend to be pretty good at what they do.
This matches my findings. (Although sometimes "a little" is more like "a lot", especially where damage and save DCs come into play.)
Challenge Rating isn't an exact science. Most of the monsters follow the guidelines. Remember that the guidelines also say that if the monster does more damage, then lower its attacks or armor class. Make adjustments so that it is still balanced.I don't think the bolded statement is true, even considering the sentence that follows it. There are exactly five (5) monsters in the Bestiary that follow the table (giant crab, dire hyena, sea hag, nabasu, and hell hound).
Our design philosophy for monsters is to follow the average numbers as listed on Table 1–1 of the Bestiary as appropriate for the creature's CR, but to skew a little high on those averages since PCs tend to be pretty good at what they do.This matches my findings. (Although sometimes "a little" is more like "a lot", especially where damage and save DCs come into play.)
Which ones don't follow the guidelines? Keep in mind that I'm only using the table as a base. Those numbers are not meant to be carved in stone. There can, and should, be some variance. When I was talking about the guidelines, I was talking about the entire section, not just the table.
|
Creative Director
|
Our design philosophy for monsters is to follow the average numbers as listed on Table 1–1 of the Bestiary as appropriate for the creature's CR, but to skew a little high on those averages since PCs tend to be pretty good at what they do.This matches my findings. (Although sometimes "a little" is more like "a lot", especially where damage and save DCs come into play.)
Excellent... since that's the way we designed the monsters! :-)
We COULD have adopted a much stricter philosophy with every monster for every CR having more or less the exact same stats, as determined by table 1–1... but that more or less means we'd have only 20 monster stat blocks, to a certain extent. And that's not enough for me. Varying things like we do makes monsters more interesting.
EDIT: Double checked, and yup; that's pretty much what the very first paragraph in the Monster Creation appendix says. Glad we DID at least mention that philosophy in print!
Which ones don't follow the guidelines? Keep in mind that I'm only using the table as a base. Those numbers are not meant to be carved in stone. There can, and should, be some variance. When I was talking about the guidelines, I was talking about the entire section, not just the table.
I'm not sure that's a falsifiable criterion. I don't know that I can give you an example that will satisfy you, especially when the guidelines use words like "typically", which can be used to argue away any specific example.
Let's try this one: the bearded devil. An outsider, 57 hp, 19 AC, +11 attack bonus, 23 average damage if all attacks hit, 17 DC on its ability, 9/7/3 saves.
Hit points: "Outsiders ... typically have lower hit point totals." The bearded devil is slightly above average in hit points, despite being an outsider.
High attack: "Creatures with a higher than normal average damage typically have a lower attack value to compensate." The bearded devil's attack value is higher than the high attack value, and its average damage is also higher than the high damage value.
Its save DC is two points higher than the high save DC value in the table.
The only number that's lower than what the chart suggests is its Will save (and its Fortitude save is higher than the suggested high save).
Give it 10 more hit points, and maybe a +2 Will save, and the bearded devil fits nicely with the CR 6 row of the table (rather than its listed CR of 5).
And the bearded devil isn't unique; the cyclops, the dire lion, and some of the large elementals have similar differences with the table. And that's just looking at CR 5 monsters.
Please don't take this as a criticism of Paizo, or even as a criticism of whether the bearded devil should be CR 5; that's not my intention. Assuming that the monsters in the bestiaries fit the table, however, is a mistake.
Which ones don't follow the guidelines? Keep in mind that I'm only using the table as a base. Those numbers are not meant to be carved in stone. There can, and should, be some variance. When I was talking about the guidelines, I was talking about the entire section, not just the table.I'm not sure that's a falsifiable criterion. I don't know that I can give you an example that will satisfy you, especially when the guidelines use words like "typically", which can be used to argue away any specific example.
That was actually my point.
First, let's look at the opening paragraph:
Creating a monster is part science and part art. While most monsters follow a general pattern of their overall power and abilities as related to their Challenge Rating (CR), there are many exceptions. Some monsters, for example, have significantly more hit points or a higher AC than the average for their CR, but make up for this advantage by being weak in other areas. Other monsters have significantly higher average damage, but have a lower attack bonus.
So I'm not surprised that the upcoming example you give doesn't fall along the chart as closely as one might assume.
Let's try this one: the bearded devil. An outsider, 57 hp, 19 AC, +11 attack bonus, 23 average damage if all attacks hit, 17 DC on its ability, 9/7/3 saves.
Excellent example. The table suggests:
HP: 55 = devil is 2 points higher
AC: 18 = devil is 1 point higher
Attack Bonus: 7-10 = devil is 1 point higher and 1 point lower if using weapon and at the high end, but equal if using claws
Average Damage: 15-20 = devil is 3 points higher if using weapon and at the lowest end of 15 if using claws
Primary DC: 15 = devil is 2 points higher
Secondary DC: 11 = devil is 6 points higher
Good Save: 8 = devil is 1 point higher
Poor Save: 4 = devil is 1 point lower
So it's actually pretty close overall. Note that it's lowest save is Will (as you mention but I deleted for space) which is the most common save. In other words, the bearded devil is very susceptible to casters. They are elite warriors and are meant to be tough for non-casters.
Give it 10 more hit points, and maybe a +2 Will save, and the bearded devil fits nicely with the CR 6 row of the table (rather than its listed CR of 5).
So it's still a CR of 5 then.
And the bearded devil isn't unique; the cyclops, the dire lion, and some of the large elementals have similar differences with the table. And that's just looking at CR 5 monsters.
Make sure you look at the role of the creature too. That will let you know where its weaknesses lie.
Look at the Troll:
HP: 55 = 63 Troll is much higher
AC: 18 = 16 troll is a little lower
Attack Bonus: 7-10 = 8 troll is on the low end
Average Damage: 15-20 = 37 (accounting for Rend) troll is way over
Primary DC: 15 = N/A troll has no special attacks with DCs
Secondary DC: 11 = N/A troll has no special attacks with DCs
Good Save: 8 = 11 troll has high Fort
Poor Save: 4 = 3 troll has a +4 Reflex and +3 Will which makes it very susceptible to magic, including most fire and acid spells and mind affecting magic.
Please don't take this as a criticism of Paizo, or even as a criticism of whether the bearded devil should be CR 5; that's not my intention. Assuming that the monsters in the bestiaries fit the table, however, is a mistake.
One should never assume that the monsters fit the table. The table is just meant to give the GM some science to his art. It's not going to be a perfect match. As long as it's close or at least adjusted in other areas, it should work out fine.
Barring that, does anyone have the Bestiary stats in a database format?
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-filter
As for the ghoul and goblin dog examples, does your party use magic? I ask because the goblin dog has a Will save of +1 and the ghoul has a Reflex save of +2. Both are not very high and even a 1st level wizard probably has a DC of 14-16 for his 1st level spells.