|
Thanks everyone, really appreciate it! Just been looking around and found everything!
KaeYoss - just found the http://www.d20srd.org/ around same time as you posted. Also found this on WoTC's site - http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35
I'll definitely be getting those novels then :)
|
Undead in the PFG are probably going to have d8 HD and adjust that total with their Charisma scores instead of their constitution scores. The end result should be undead with more reasonable hit points, and less undead that try to cheat for more hit points by having insanely high HD that makes them impossible to turn or affect with certain saving throw attacks.
I'm afraid that this idea is rather problematic. There are lots of mindless undead with a charisma score of 1. Giving them a d8 as a hit die and adjusting it by their charisma bonus will end in undead having one hit point per hit die. That may be fine with weak undead like human skeletons, but there are mindless undead who are supposed to be rather tough.
May advise would be refraining from the hit die change and simply letting templated undead like lichs or vampires keep their class hit dice and modify them by their charisma modifier. With the PFG changes to Channel Energy at least the turning problem shouldn't be that great anyway.
Creative Director
|
I'm afraid that this idea is rather problematic. There are lots of mindless undead with a charisma score of 1. Giving them a d8 as a hit die and adjusting it by their charisma bonus will end in undead having one hit point per hit die. That may be fine with weak undead like human skeletons, but there are mindless undead who are supposed to be rather tough.
May advise would be refraining from the hit die change and simply letting templated undead like lichs or vampires keep their class hit dice and modify them by their charisma modifier. With the PFG changes to Channel Energy at least the turning problem shouldn't be that great anyway.
Are there really lots of mindless undead with a Charisma score of 1? Or does that only include zombies and skeletons? In that case, what we'd probably do is change it so that zombies and skeletons have Charisma scores of 10 so that they just don't have a bonus at all. The same solution works for other mindless undead (although none come to mind in the SRD).
An alternate solution would be to give mindless undead some sort of special quality that prevents them from getting bonus hit points (or penalties) at all from their Charisma.
And another solution would be to give them an ability similar to how Constructs get a flat number of bonus hit points to offset their penalties.
I suspect we'll be going with the first option above: to give them Charisma scores of 10. Being mindless, they'll still not have the intelligence to do things like bluff or be diplomatic or pretty much use any of the charisma skills anyway, so a change from 1 to 10 won't really make much of a difference.
The HD Creep problem isn't apparent in the MM, but check the MM2. There's undead in there with DOZENS of hit dice, and their CRs and saving throws and several other things are distorted way out of what they should be as a result.
|
|
Are there really lots of mindless undead with a Charisma score of 1? Or does that only include zombies and skeletons? In that case, what we'd probably do is change it so that zombies and skeletons have Charisma scores of 10 so that they just don't have a bonus at all. The same solution works for other mindless undead (although none come to mind in the SRD).An alternate solution would be to give mindless undead some sort of special quality that prevents them from getting bonus hit points (or penalties) at all from their Charisma.
And another solution would be to give them an ability similar to how Constructs get a flat number of bonus hit points to offset their penalties.
I suspect we'll be going with the first option above: to give them Charisma scores of 10. Being mindless, they'll still not have the intelligence to do things like bluff or be diplomatic or pretty much use any of the charisma skills anyway, so a change from 1 to 10 won't really make much of a difference.
The HD Creep problem isn't apparent in the MM, but check the MM2. There's undead in there with DOZENS of hit dice, and their CRs and saving throws and several other things are distorted way out of what they should be as a result.
But just changing the undead hit die to a d8 and giving undead bonus hp based on charisma would do little concerning monsters from MM2 and FF. Some of them, the Effigy from MM2, would get even more hit points this way (202 instead of 175). Since those creatures are not open content, there nearly no option of creating official PFG updates for them.
So, Sized based bonus hp only to mindless undead? I kind of like the idea, considering that most undead are little more than automatons themselves.
Won't it be sufficient however to just give those OGL undead that are in dire need of hp bonus hp based on charisma and leaving the rest as it is? Maybe some conversions guidelines saying that many undead have to many hit dice and DMs should think about reducing their number in favor of giving bonus hp based on charisma.
|
Are there really lots of mindless undead with a Charisma score of 1? Or does that only include zombies and skeletons? In that case, what we'd probably do is change it so that zombies and skeletons have Charisma scores of 10 so that they just don't have a bonus at all. The same solution works for other mindless undead (although none come to mind in the SRD).
An alternate solution would be to give mindless undead some sort of special quality that prevents them from getting bonus hit points (or penalties) at all from their Charisma.
And another solution would be to give them an ability similar to how Constructs get a flat number of bonus hit points to offset their penalties.
I suspect we'll be going with the first option above: to give them Charisma scores of 10. Being mindless, they'll still not have the intelligence to do things like bluff or be diplomatic or pretty much use any of the charisma skills anyway, so a change from 1 to 10 won't really make much of a difference.
The HD Creep problem isn't apparent in the MM, but check the MM2. There's undead in there with DOZENS of hit dice, and their CRs and saving throws and several other things are distorted way out of what they should be as a result.
I have a serious issue with my surly dwarf being less charismatic than a zombie. I prefer the construct method better (tbh I think they're fine as is though)
I'd rather say that they had a Cha of -- than 10.
I'd rather say that they had a Cha of -- than 10.
This causes problems with the current rules that say anything without a Wis or Chr score is an object, and that you have to have one to go with the other, but that text can just be stricken.
Creatures are creatures because we say so, and I'd much rather see Constructs and Zombies have - chr scores than 1.
I'd rather say that they had a Cha of -- than 10.
Seconded.
I favor the Cha 10 method. The Charisma score can be explained by the fear/unnaturalness factor of a dead body walking around. Mindless undead cannot use skills such as Diplomacy or intimidation, so even with a penalty, a PC will be better than a skeleton or zombie.
|
|
There are also the poor Skeletal Warbeasts from Heroes of Battle. They aren't mindless but still have a Charisma of 1, so they would end with 8 hit points instead of 52.
I have compared the undead from Libris Mortis (which was mentioned earlier) and Monster Manual III (which included quite a few rather unbalanced undead). The new numbers should probably a bit higher than before since I didn't count in the changes to feats like toughness.
Unsurprisingly the changes worked a lot better in MM3 (were most undead already got their charisma bonus on hp) than in LM (in about 10 cases the hp value was less balanced toward table 12-6 than they were before the change).
All in all, the change worked better than I had suspected, although there are still some problems. Also, in many instances the rather high hp of undead were kind of balanced by a low AC. The change would also make sorceror lichs a lot tougher than wizard lichs which seems kind of strange.
Libris Mortis
Angel of Decay (CR 15): 250 hp instead of 198
Atropal Scion (CR 11): 94 hp instead of 67
Blaspheme (CR 9): 111 hp instead of 147
Bleakborn (CR 7): 52 hp (unchanged)
Blood Amniote (CR 9): 10 hp instead of 65, 51 with size based bonus hp
Bloodmote Cloud (CR 6): 10 hp instead of 65 (mindless swarm)
Bone Rat Swarm (CR 3): 4 hp instead of 26 (mindless swarm)
Boneyard (CR 14): 161 hp instead of 127
Brain in a Jar (CR 4): 22 hp instead of 19
Cinderspawn (CR 6): 75 hp instead of 65
Corpse Rat Swarm (CR 4): 8 hp instead of 52 (mindless swarm)
Crypt Chanter (CR 7): 66 hp instead of 45
Deathlock (CR 3): 19 (unchanged)
Dessicator (CR 2): 22 hp instead of 26
Dream Vestige (CR 16): 195 hp instead of 144
Entomber (CR 5): 52 hp (unchanged)
Entropic Reaper (CR 12): 142 hp (unchanged)
Forsaken Shell (CR 6): 77 hp instead of 105
Hulking Corpse (CR 9): 90 hp instead of 150 (interestingly, this one is mindless but has a charisma of 8)
Murk (CR 3): 16 hp instead of 19
Plague Blight (CR 6): 45 hp (unchanged)
Quell (CR 3): 32 hp (unchanged)
Raiment (CR 1): 10 hp instead of 19
Skin Kite (CR 3): 10 hp instead of 26
Skirr (CR 7): 58 hp (unchaned)
Skulking Cyst (CR 4): 30 hp instead of 26
Slaughter Wight (CR 8): 153 hp instead of 135
Slaymate (CR 2): 26 hp (unchanged)
Spectral Lyrist (CR 4): 45 hp instead of 36
Tomb Mote (CR 2): 19 hp (unchanged)
Visage (CR 9): 102 hp instead of 90
Voidwraith (CR 6): 39 hp (unchanged)
Wheep (CR 11): 85 hp instead of 58
In the majority of cases the hp values are either not changed at all or moved toward the recommended value on page 294 of the beta. There are a few strange cases, though, especially with undead with either very high or very low charisma values, for example the skin kite.
Monster Manual III
Boneclaw (CR 5): 85 hp instead of 105
Bonedrinker (CR 6): 71 hp instead of 92
Lesser Bonedrinker (CR 4): 45 hp instead of 59
Charnel Hound (CR 13): 178 hp instead of 220
Deathshrieker (CR 15): 191 hp instead of 135
Advanced Deathshrieker (CR 19): 262 hp instead of 187
Drowned (CR 8): 110 hp instead of 150
Dust Wight (CR 7): 88 hp instead of 120
Ephemeral Swarm (CR 5): 114 hp instead of 90
Grimweird (CR 11): 114 hp instead of 78
Necronaut (CR 14): 240 hp instead of 304
Plague Spewer (CR 10): 120 hp instead of 104
Salt Mummy (CR 8): 102 hp instead of 126
Vasuthant (CR 2): 13 hp instead of 17
Horrific Vasuthant (CR 17): 262 hp instead of 312
In MM3 the changes work better than in LM, mostly because many of the (rather overpowered) monsters already got their charisma bonus on hit dice and thus lost 2 hp per hit die this way. The Ephemeral Swarm is even further unbalanced, though.
|
Creative Director
|
But just changing the undead hit die to a d8 and giving undead bonus hp based on charisma would do little concerning monsters from MM2 and FF. Some of them, the Effigy from MM2, would get even more hit points this way (202 instead of 175). Since those creatures are not open content, there nearly no option of creating official PFG updates for them.
So, Sized based bonus hp only to mindless undead? I kind of like the idea, considering that most undead are little more than automatons themselves.Won't it be sufficient however to just give those OGL undead that are in dire need of hp bonus hp based on charisma and leaving the rest as it is? Maybe some conversions guidelines saying that many undead have to many hit dice and DMs should think about reducing their number in favor of giving bonus hp based on charisma.
MM2 is, unfortunately, a book in dire need of a redesign (as one of the additional designers for that book, I like to think I have an inside track on how it went together!). A LOT of the monsters in there were built before anyone had a strong understanding of how high-level and epic-level monsters should be designed, and as a result there's quite a few problems with monsters in there, particularly on the high end of things. If MM2 were open and we were allowed to rebuild these monsters in PF RPG, there'd be a lot more adjustments to stats going on than just the size of undead Hit Dice.
We haven't actually converted skeletons or zombies yet, so we don't know what the best way to handle it is, but the goal will be to make them as similar to their 3.5 versions so whatever we do, it should all work out.
I'd rather say that they had a Cha of -- than 10.Seconded.
3rd. mindless undead shouldn't have any kind of "force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness."
The problem is they can't fix FF or MM2 undead. They can only take steps to make undead more reasonable from this point forward.
Personally, I'm of the Undead Need to Be Like the Negative-Energy-Energizer Bunny school of thought. I want my heroes to be like, "Why Won't It Die?! Oh, sweet Desna, Why?!" as, riddled full of bullet(arrow) holes, chopped in half, nearly decapitated, it keeps on coming. It's hard to do that in 3/3.5 D&D.
There's a side of me that thinks denying undead and constructs a Constitution score is problematic. Sure, they aren't alive in the traditional sense, which makes it sound right, but, then, are elementals? Can't, say, an undead juggernaut or a flesh golem have undead/construct immunities and a solid good Constitution bonus to boost their HP and Fort saves, representing it's not alive, but it is made of Really Tough Meats.
Heck, if I'm allowed to bleed into constructs a bit, the fact that a Stone Golem is very large and made of rock should give it better than a +4 fort save in my book. Grant you, it also has Golem spell immunities, but not all constructs, such as Inevitables, have access to that kind of thing. Marut have all around lousy saves for CR 15 monsters.
Constructs and Undead are also immune to anything that allows a Fort save, unless that effect specifically says it affects objects, like Disintegrate does.
Constructs and Undead are also immune to anything that allows a Fort save, unless that effect specifically says it affects objects, like Disintegrate does.
Maybe I'm inflating the importance of a Fortitude save because I have players who enjoy making my constructs & undead make them.
A Kolyarut seemed like a good CR 12 antagonist to set up against a psion who likes taking the law in his own hands, except when the psion forces him to make fort saves (With a mere +6 bonus) against Energy (Cold) attacks.
Grant you, the saves on constructs in general make them hard to use as high level foes unless they've got the golem anti-spell thing.
But a construct doesn't have to make a Fort save against cold damage. In the case of that psions attacks I would have thought it gets an instant success.
Different schtick if its Ref.
Am I confused or wrong here?
Am I confused or wrong here?
Depends on the effect. I don't know what Power this psion is using.
But a construct doesn't have to make a Fort save against cold damage. In the case of that psions attacks I would have thought it gets an instant success.
Different schtick if its Ref.
Am I confused or wrong here?
Objects can be affected by cold damage. Therefore, constructs need to make saves against cold-based damage that require a Fort save.
A Psion's various Energy effect Powers (Stun, Cone, Burst, etc) deal energy damage to creatures or objects. If they choose to use cold as the type of energy, it requires a Fortitude save instead of Reflex (with the exception of Energy Ray, which, like Scorching Ray, doesn't give saves for half.) Therefore, a construct needs to make Fort saves for half against them when cold is used, even if it can't, say, be stunned by the stun effect of the Energy Stun power.
Objects can be affected by cold damage. Therefore, constructs need to make saves against cold-based damage that require a Fort save.
This is incorrect. While cold damage can affect inanimate objects, effects that require saving throws must denote if they can affect objects with (object) after the saving throw entry. For instance Disintegrate says 'Fortitude partial (object)'. On the other hand, Finger of Death is just 'Fortitude partial'. Disintegrate can affect a Shield Guardian. Finger of Death cannot.
Unless your Psion's power specifies (object), then he should stick to Fire, since Constructs don't exactly have great Reflex saves anyway. (They do not tend to be dextrous.)
As an aside, cold does affect objects, but it is the least effective energy type for doing so.
(As an
Objects can be affected by cold damage. Therefore, constructs need to make saves against cold-based damage that require a Fort save.This is incorrect. While cold damage can affect inanimate objects, effects that require saving throws must denote if they can affect objects with (object) after the saving throw entry. For instance Disintegrate says 'Fortitude partial (object)'. On the other hand, Finger of Death is just 'Fortitude partial'. Disintegrate can affect a Shield Guardian. Finger of Death cannot.
Unless your Psion's power specifies (object), then he should stick to Fire, since Constructs don't exactly have great Reflex saves anyway. (They do not tend to be dextrous.)
As an aside, cold does affect objects, but it is the least effective energy type for doing so.
From the SRD:
(object): The spell can be cast on objects, which receive saving throws only if they are magical or if they are attended (held, worn, grasped, or the like) by a creature resisting the spell, in which case the object uses the creature’s saving throw bonus unless its own bonus is greater. (This notation does not mean that a spell can be cast only on objects. Some spells of this sort can be cast on creatures or objects.) A magic item’s saving throw bonuses are each equal to 2 + one-half the item’s caster level.By RAW, Ross is correct. Undead and Constructs are immune to a lot of spells and psionic powers. Add their immunity to mind-affecting effects (including fear effects and intimidation), paralysis, and stunning, and you have some tough opponents. My players learned that in my Age of Worms campaign.
From the SRD:
(object): The spell can be cast on objects, which receive saving throws only if they are magical or if they are attended (held, worn, grasped, or the like) by a creature resisting the spell, in which case the object uses the creature’s saving throw bonus unless its own bonus is greater. (This notation does not mean that a spell can be cast only on objects. Some spells of this sort can be cast on creatures or objects.) A magic item’s saving throw bonuses are each equal to 2 + one-half the item’s caster level.By RAW, Ross is correct. Undead and Constructs are immune to a lot of spells and psionic powers. Add their immunity to mind-affecting effects (including fear effects and intimidation), paralysis, and stunning, and you have some tough opponents. My players learned that in my Age of Worms campaign.
By the RAW, I beg to disagree.
Immunity to any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects, or is harmless).
The damaging effect affects objects. It isn't about whether or not the object gets a saving throw... just that it must be able to be affected. And objects can be affected by cold damage, even if they take less damage than creatures do.
The power (any one of the energy ones in the 3.5 Psionics book) like finger of death doesnt have the object descriptor in target.
So by logic it does indeed take damage, but is immune to the Fortitude saveable half of it, i.e. it instantly does half damage to constructs. Which makes perfect sense, except perhaps against flesh golems. But then their much like undead, many of whom are immune to cold effects. So it works out.
The Fire is then the better option because the construct does have to make the save, and usually not so good at reflex.
-
But bakc on the topic of the manual, new dinosaurs and genies are to be added, It would be a bit cheeky to ask what other new beaties are likely to be added, so, what srd MM creatures WILL NOT be appearing in the Bestiary, I've gathered that the tojinada is gone, and frankly I won't miss it.
What else isn't likely to make the cut?
Then again, it does say Fortitude partial (Objects) next to Disintegrate... which must mean something. Maybe I am wrong.
It might be a moot point for me, though. I think my players would cry "Shinanigans!" (Translation, "You're trying to get away with something sneaky and/or stupid and I'm calling you on it.") and I'd have to argue the point at length, after which, if I didn't budge, the psion would just switch to Fire and the Inevitable would just have a +1 better save anyway.
|
Creative Director
|
But bakc on the topic of the manual, new dinosaurs and genies are to be added, It would be a bit cheeky to ask what other new beaties are likely to be added, so, what srd MM creatures WILL NOT be appearing in the Bestiary, I've gathered that the tojinada is gone, and frankly I won't miss it.
What else isn't likely to make the cut?
While we've dropped hints here and there, we're actually not going to be releasing the list of what's in the Pathfinder Bestiary, what has to wait until the 2nd or 3rd or whatever Bestiary, and what will probably NEVER be in a Pathfinder Bestiary anytime soon. This type of list is a great way to drive up excitement and anticipation, and that means it's best released closer to the book's publication; if we release the list early, we'll run the risk of having that initial rush of excitement peak months before we need it to. And additionally, I'm not really interested in opening the list we've chosen up to the public yet anyway, since I'm not interested in an explosion of impassioned posts about why we should include monster A or should cut monster B. Playtests are good to get out in the open to get feedback, but monster book contents are not.
Until then, the 3.5 MM is a pretty good preview of what'll be in the book. The Pathfinder Bestiary will have not QUITE as many monsters as the 3.5 MM, since most of our monsters will be one-page affairs, but stuff like animals and vermin will probably be 2 per page. So the total monster count should be close, and should approach 300 monsters as it is. Also, there will be some monsters picked up from Pathfinder products, other OGL products like the Tome of Horrors, and a few new monsters as well. The Pathfinder Bestiary will probably be the same size as the 3.5 MM too.
But the exact list of who's in and who's not in the first Bestairy? Look for that to show up closer to Summer.
The power (any one of the energy ones in the 3.5 Psionics book) like finger of death doesnt have the object descriptor in target.
So by logic it does indeed take damage, but is immune to the Fortitude saveable half of it, i.e. it instantly does half damage to constructs.
To be honest, I just chalked it up to constructs just being immune to death effects, which is a feature of their type.
But I may be wrong anyway, and am drifting off topic to be certain. Sorry.
@Drakli: Nah its cool, its just I got confused, I rarely have situations were constructs make fort saves, and it seemed a common occurence to you. What makes a better game is certainly more important than the rule speceifics. Change for the future, in other games, maybe.
Also, second mention of shenanigans in under ten seconds. Wonderfully Irish, makes me appreciate my homeland.
@James Jacobs: I figured, :D but you can't blame a guy for trying, dying for those sneak previews almost as much as I used to for the iconics. Nice hyping already, in subtle, small-step build-up ways!
By the RAW, I beg to disagree.
Immunity to any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects, or is harmless).
The damaging effect affects objects. It isn't about whether or not the object gets a saving throw... just that it must be able to be affected. And objects can be affected by cold damage, even if they take less damage than creatures do.
Point. I was not thinging about the energy damage and was commenting on the object save note (and undead/construct immunities in general).
going back to the undead hitpoints problem:
- you could give undead bonus hitpoints equal to charisma modifier
IF POSITIVE, unless you are planning on bringing in undead that are supposed to have less hitpoints per HD
- personally I dont see a problem with giving undead a constitution score that represents the strength of their unlife
I was very disappointed how the 3.x dracolich suffered from the no constitution rule, an ancient dracolich with less hitpoints than a young adult dragon is kinda silly. I just used the old constitution score for them.
also I don't really agree with the weak fortitude save for undead, following the logic for charisma bonus for hitpoints it seems appropriate to also add it to fortitude saves.
One more thing, if you decide to go with the charisma bonus hitpoints, I see a significant rise of lich and vampire sorcerers, wizardly liches would be seriously outclassed in that department.
|
Creative Director
|
One more thing, if you decide to go with the charisma bonus hitpoints, I see a significant rise of lich and vampire sorcerers, wizardly liches would be seriously outclassed in that department.
And bard and cleric liches and vampires too!
Of course, both of those templates grant bonuses to hit points as they stand, and both of those templates already have some pretty powerful anti-damage defenses in place. Hit points for liches and vampries haven't really ever been that much of a problem, I don't think; it's when you get to non-templated undead that it really shows.
That said, there's already a significant number more sorcerer vampires & liches than wizards in published adventures, simply because sorcerers are VASTLY simpler to create. Blame lazy designers if you will, but the fact that with a wizard you have to deal with spellbooks and complicated skills with non-retroactive bonuses to skill points from raised Intelligence scores means that wizards of ANY type are a pain.
Now, granted, with PF RPG the skill point problem goes away. Which is good.
But in the end, I think that the relatively minor issue of wizard liches having fewer hit points than sorcerer liches is going to be a necessary sacrifice to the greater good of making undead work better.
Could liches be given some kind of favoured class-esque bonus to taking levels in te wizard class?
Vampires however should remain geared towards sorcerer more so, charismatic bastards etc. And easier to stat up too.
I'm beginning to wonder if the Undead have no Con score thing should be a sacred cow or not. If I'm trying to design a new undead monster, that's basically a melee brute, and a big sack of hit points (like an Abomination from Warcraft III), I either have to give it a high charisma or give it lots of hit dice (the old problem). But it's not exactly a willfull, determined monster like a Wight, Wraith, or Mummy. It's just a big wad of meat. A high charisma would be out of place. But a high Con might actually be believable.
I'm beginning to wonder if the Undead have no Con score thing should be a sacred cow or not. If I'm trying to design a new undead monster, that's basically a melee brute, and a big sack of hit points (like an Abomination from Warcraft III), I either have to give it a high charisma or give it lots of hit dice (the old problem). But it's not exactly a willfull, determined monster like a Wight, Wraith, or Mummy. It's just a big wad of meat. A high charisma would be out of place. But a high Con might actually be believable.
Give it some non-bypassable DR. Even something as low as DR 5/- effectively adds 5 hp per hit to a creature. Of course energy damage will bypass, but I think that works well enough without adding HD or Charisma. I am not sure if undead would get a bonus to Fortitude save for high Charisma, but they would for Constitution.
Can always fudge things on a monster-per-monster basis too. If you want a giant undead sack of hit points you can just give the monster a special quality saying 'gets ten extra HP per level' (or something). Or give it maximum hit points, like 1st/2nd Ed did whenever the adventure designers wanted to show the toughness of an individual monster.
I suppose changing the unholy toughness ability to maximum hitpoints per HD, a toughness feat, a desecrate effect and some DR could work and a significant ammount of HD would work fine in making a combat brute.
otherwise have your giant zombie possesed by a succubus or other random charismatic demon. :p
I realize there are other ways to get the same effect. What I'm wondering is if undead having Con scores makes more or less sense than directly associating their HP with their force of personality?
I am, of course, presuming they still get a rule in the Undead type of the sort:
Unliving (Ex) - It is immune to any effect that requires a Fortitude save unless the effect works on objects or is harmless. The creature is also immune to ability damage, ability drain, and energy drain, and automatically fails Constitution checks. It cannot tire and thus can run indefinitely without tiring (unless the creature’s description says it cannot run).
(These are the current rules associated with having a -- Con score.)
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Perhaps this could be solved by a slight re-definition of the Charisma score itself, to include not only force of will or personality, but also the strength of the animating force for undead creatures. So, a standard animate dead created zombie or skeleton has a Cha 10 since it's only a weak/average animating force, but other undead types have stronger creation/animation magic, and have higher Cha scores.
In the case of your undead brute, it could require powerful necromancy to create, and therefore have a high Cha score. If it's essentially mindless, and won't be using Cha ever for a casting ability score, or using Cha skills, the high Cha won't affect anythinng other than hp and the save DCs of it's special abilities (which is probably a good thing also for your new monster.)
I like that, it makes sense, and saves a lot of finicking with new rules, that said the simple old, it just does have a lot of hitpoints can be simple, albeit is bad idea for a system where people make and advance monsters on their own.
Give it some non-bypassable DR. Even something as low as DR 5/- effectively adds 5 hp per hit to a creature. Of course energy damage will bypass, but I think that works well enough without adding HD or Charisma. I am not sure if undead would get a bonus to Fortitude save for high Charisma, but they would for Constitution.
DR of 5/- is a good call. I would also suggest there's no reason not to give it Resistance of 5 or 10 to all Energy types to properly represent that Terminator-like "I'm walking through a wall of fire and I don't care."-ness (grant you, I know it's an undead, not a golem, but same motif, yes?) Maybe a bit of fast healing too.
Or... maybe with brute boy undead, you could give them a hit-point bonus based on their strength score, to represent the toughness of their meats. Or you could combo them all together, if you want to make it particularly brutal, which I sometimes do.
|
|
This is a bit off-topic from the undead discussion going on now, but I hope there are at least a couple of high level monsters in there or plans to include such creatures in future Bestiaries. In a world of 20 level characters, it seems like there should be more than just extraplanar creatures to battle above level 14 or so.
|
Creative Director
|
This is a bit off-topic from the undead discussion going on now, but I hope there are at least a couple of high level monsters in there or plans to include such creatures in future Bestiaries. In a world of 20 level characters, it seems like there should be more than just extraplanar creatures to battle above level 14 or so.
This is correct. We are going to include more high level creatures, and hopefully not all of those high level creatures will be dragons or outsiders.
I suspect that the Pathfinder Bestiary II will skew toward having more high level monsters in it also; that was sort of the theory behind the MM2 in 3rd edition; "We gave the players lots of low and mid level monsters in the first MM, let's skew things to the high level in MM2." It's a good theory.
It is an excellent theory, and I'm about 100,000% certain y'all will execute it much better than they did ;)
I agree with that, but at least the theory is excellent.
just hoping the 2nd bestiary won't be full of 'weird' creatures you do not want to use... ever, it might have been the dreadful artwork, a nice graphic presentation can make or break the sexiness of said creature.
|
|
This is correct. We are going to include more high level creatures, and hopefully not all of those high level creatures will be dragons or outsiders.
I suspect that the Pathfinder Bestiary II will skew toward having more high level monsters in it also; that was sort of the theory behind the MM2 in 3rd edition; "We gave the players lots of low and mid level monsters in the first MM, let's skew things to the high level in MM2." It's a good theory.
I'm glad to know there's a strategy beyond the wishlist of monsters, awesome as many of them are. Coupled with the other posts you all have made about MM2 (and on), I'm really, really looking forward to seeing all these wonderful monsters! Speaking of, I guess this means we're not going to see ManBearPig until Bestiary II? That's cool, I can wait.
|
Creative Director
|
It is an excellent theory, and I'm about 100,000% certain y'all will execute it much better than they did ;)
The MMII's main problem was that it was designed at a time when we designers didn't really understand how things changed in high level play. There was a LOT of playtesting for 3rd edition, but the VAST MAJORITY of that playtesting was for low and mid level. High level stuff got kind of guessed at in a lot of cases, and that's something that got fixed pretty good (but not perfect) in the 3.5 rules.
But the MMII came out in the 3.0 era, and at that point the designers were still figuring out how to best model high level monsters. This was even before the epic level rules, remember. It was uncharted territory.
For our second monster book, we have the advantage in that the game hasn't really changed much for a decade or so, relatively speaking. We know better how to design monsters, and we'll be doing some dedicated high-level play of the rules in the playtest. It should work out much better. (crosses fingers)
|
Creative Director
|
just hoping the 2nd bestiary won't be full of 'weird' creatures you do not want to use... ever, it might have been the dreadful artwork, a nice graphic presentation can make or break the sexiness of said creature.
Art is probably the MOST important element of a monster, in fact. If a monster gets no art, it tends to get forgotten (such is the fate of the poor derro in the 3.5 Monster Manual!). If it has bad art, it tends to be mocked or laughed at, and the rules are more likely to be skipped over or ignored, even if the monster itself is actually pretty interesting.
You can invent the BEST MONSTER EVER but if it gets saddled with bad art, no one will ever know.
We'll be trying to make sure that bad art stays out of the book as a result.
sofar I am quite impressed with the artwork used in pathfinder, I hope the bestiary will be even better ^_^