| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I'm currently implementing a new CR calculation system for PCGen that follows the rules for the Pathfinder RPG, and I've come across monster roles and key clsses. The Bestiary books specify the monster roles for their monsters, and Bestiary 1 has the key association for the core classes, but two questions remain:
1) Is there offcial word about the key class associatione for the newer base classes like alchemist, cavalier, inquisitor, oracle, summoner, witch, anti-paladin, magus, ninja, and samurai?
2) Is there a way to determine the monster roles for creatures form other publication, such as, for example, the Inner Sea Bestiary?
Would Paizo staff be willing to provide this information?
Regards
Stefan
a.k.a. Zaister
*bump*
It would be nice to be able to get an official answer.
I highly doubt Paizo has the bandwidth to give all their un-assigned 1e monsters roles at this point. Best practice is just to compare the monsters to previous ones with roles - is it mainly focused on attack roles? Does it rely on Stealth or another skill in its encounters? Does it rely on spellcasting over other techniques? Is it special and does it not fit the other roles?
I've always seen this as more of a general litmus test for the monster's design and not a hard categorization mechanic.
|
I guess what I want to add to this is, how do you deal with the other classes? When you’re referenced to the Monster Advancement rules, it’s always the core book. No other book is referenced. So what do you do with classes like the magus, warpriest, skald, and alchemist? Do they even have a role? Are they like paladin and monk and not have a key role?
A simple way to look at it is if it has at least 6th level casting, it's a caster class synergy; if it has skill boosting class features and/or 6+int ranks per level it's a skill based class; and if it has a d8 hit die or better and doesn't have 9th level casting, it's a combat class. For hybrids just use whatever both of the constituent classes are (i.e. Warpriest is a caster/combat, Swashbuckler is just combat, slayer is combat/skill).
|
|
I'm a little confused. Won't you the GM be roleplaying your own monsters? Paizo has no jurisdiction at your table.
It has to do with making monsters challenging. If someone takes a frost giant and adds 10 levels of wizard to it, and thinks it’s a CR 18 or 19, their Level 17 party is going to mop the floor with that creature and the GM is going to get frustrated wondering what they did wrong. Thankfully Bestiary 1 can explain that actually the frost giant wizard 10 is a CR 14. However, considering all the Inner Sea bestiaries and AP bestiary sections, not to mention all of the new base classes outside of Core, there’s a large gap in what roles monsters play with what classes.
Personally, I'd add class levels as desired, and then check the actual combat values: AC, HP, average AB, damage if everything hits etc. - and then compare it to the reference values in Bestiary 1-1 to determine CR. This is more reliable than patchwork rules how to count class levels.
|
|
Personally, I'd add class levels as desired, and then check the actual combat values: AC, HP, average AB, damage if everything hits etc. - and then compare it to the reference values in Bestiary 1-1 to determine CR. This is more reliable than patchwork rules how to count class levels.
That more of less works for 5e, but that's not how you're supposed to do it in PF 1e. I know I've done that myself, and gotten told to stop and redo it, then called colourful terms because of what you did, even though I was right.
Design contests are pretty particular, even if you do something on a technicality that's 100% correct. Like, an invisible stalker rogue. It's nasty, but well within the rules because invisible stalkers are combat creatures, not skill ones.
Hrm, Paizo appearantly changed their stance over the course of years. While Bestiary 1 had explicit rules how to add class levels (with the disclaimer to check the results), Unchained works with reference values.
So the design contest seems to be unnecessarily strict - I am sorry about your work being rejected due to formal requirements.
|
|
Hrm, Paizo appearantly changed their stance over the course of years. While Bestiary 1 had explicit rules how to add class levels (with the disclaimer to check the results), Unchained works with reference values.
Bestiary 2 through 6 just tells you to reference Bestiary 1 for the explicit rules, ignoring the new classes altogether, and then proceeds to list all the new monsters into roles. The Unchained book is never brought up. Much like how none of the unchained classes, except summoner, ever get used.
|
Considering they haven't done it for years, I doubt they will come along and assign classes to key roles now.
I played a PFS scenario years ago where the author had taken a high-dex, high-con, monster with a CR of 3 and the "combat" role. Added 8 levels of kineticist and said that made it CR 9. Because the kineticist "isn't defined as a combat role." There were other problems (in my opinion) with the CR, but that reading in particular made the encounter much harder than it should have been.
|
|
Considering they haven't done it for years, I doubt they will come along and assign classes to key roles now.
I played a PFS scenario years ago where the author had taken a high-dex, high-con, monster with a CR of 3 and the "combat" role. Added 8 levels of kineticist and said that made it CR 9. Because the kineticist "isn't defined as a combat role." There were other problems (in my opinion) with the CR, but that reading in particular made the encounter much harder than it should have been.
The people in charge might not, but designers who’ve done these in the past seem to have inside knowledge, so I’d guess they know what’s what.
As for PFS, I’ve seen some really ridiculous builds based on the RAW rules that were straight up unbeatable. One had a human ranger with the three most popular races as their Favored Enemy, and it was an optimized archer build and tactics, and even if you played the scenario beyond perfect to nerf his power, he was still OP and could take out 1-2 PCs a round, before they even got to him. Yet he was still considered to be the standard CR because he didn’t have PC wealth and the rules by RAW said so. In all the years I’ve GM‘d, that scenario was my first TPK.