Considering that both animals and giants tend primarily to feature in combat roles in PF when the adventurers encounter them, isn't it weird that they, by dint of their respective creature types, don't have d10 HD and full BAB? It seems strange to me that, like, a medusa has a higher BAB than a giant of equivalent HD. Maybe I'm missing something or just not looking at it the right way, but it strikes me as ever so slightly wonky.
Cheers,
- Gears
Maybe, but you could make arguments about other creature types too. But not all animals are great at combat. Cattle or a giraffe might be able to fight off a predator, but couldn't necessarily go and kill one. I imagine the d8 is meant to fall somewhere in the middle. Giants probably get a lot of their HP from a Con bonus anyways. A full bab and the strength of a giant might be too much!
Hmm. I suppose that's true. It kinda makes me wish the magical beast creature type was just called "beast" or something, so you could have a distinction between fighty animals and non-fighty ones without requiring the latter to be somehow "magical". Or possibly you could have all three.
I never had thought about the giant angle though. I suppose it's actually kinda neat to think of giants as relying more on just their iconic strength, as opposed to martial prowess. It's rather flavorful in a way.
"Beast" was its own type in 3.0, for the record. ^_^
It was used for stuff like owlbears, which weren't animals but had no overt magical abilities, and dinosaurs, because... reasons. I assume.
I suspect the "...reasons" were to stop druid cheese like taking a Deinonichus (sp?) or triceratops as an AC or turning into a Roc.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It has to do with the CR system. For a bruiser type monster, having a lower BAB allows it to have a higher STR score for the same expected to-hit value, meaning it also has higher damage. Having a smaller hit die allows it to have a higher Con for the same hp value, which also increases Fort saves. If you had full BAB and larger hit die, you'd need lower STR and CON scores, which would drive down your damage per hit and Fort saves. Take a look at Table: Monster Statistics by CR and it will make more sense.
I guess I'm just stuck thinking about what BAB represents. I've always figured, however abstractly, that it is supposed to represent how combat-trained you are. With that in mind, I can totally buy animals and giants having lower BAB and relying more on brute strength to get the job done. Where it breaks down is that, by that logic, plenty of magical beasts and monstrous humanoids should also, going by their flavor in the bestiary, have 3/4 BAB and beefed-up Str scores.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It has to do with the CR system. For a bruiser type monster, having a lower BAB allows it to have a higher STR score for the same expected to-hit value, meaning it also has higher damage. Having a smaller hit die allows it to have a higher Con for the same hp value, which also increases Fort saves. If you had full BAB and larger hit die, you'd need lower STR and CON scores, which would drive down your damage per hit and Fort saves. Take a look at Table: Monster Statistics by CR and it will make more sense.
Insightful words of a designer. This kind of input is extraordinarily rare and useful. And it differs significantly from both the GM and player's PoV.
Thanks, CB, for sharing it.
If I had to make up an excuse, it would be that animals and most giants aren't 'trained' enough for d10 and full BAB.
They rely upon their natural physique more than training. EVen though giants are humanoids, they are often strong enough to deal with most threats with their powerful build and reach (although they can certainly train into class levels).
@lemeres: Yes, and I totally agree that that is an acceptable explanation for animals and giants. I just meant that it kind of falls apart when you consider that by that logic a lot of magical beasts and monstrous humanoids ought to be d8 + 3/4 BAB as well.
All of this is of course aside from the purely design philosophical considerations that Charlie Bell outlined. I totally get that angle. I'm just trying to find a way for it to make sense from an "in-world" perspective. I appreciate that both HD and BAB are abstractions, but there are varying degrees of abstractions, and at the end of the day two creatures with identical to-hit but different BAB progression/Str scores ought to represent something story-wise, at least in my book.
Nah- magical beasts and monstrous humanoids are the scary fantasy critters. I would expect magical beasts to be much better at fighting than regular animals. They're generally smarter, and if they weren't better, then they'd be no more threatening than animals. Monstrous humanoids should have that skillful fighting element rather than just throwing a giant rock at it (a certain Batman villain notwithstanding).
I suppose I can kinda buy that. I mean, I want to be convinced this make sense, so maybe I shouldn't look a fluff horse in the mouth...
|
|
I think stats are always standard array (or elite array for special stuff like dragons and outsiders) with size bonuses. Otherwise there'd be no odd values on monsters. What lower BAB types have is more hit dice. There's another table for how many HD per CR each monster type should have.
Let's examine three Large creatures of the same Type, an Ogre, a Hill Giant, and a Stone Giant:
Ogre: Str 21, Dex 8, Con 15, Int 6, Wis 10, Cha 7
Hill Giant: Str 25, Dex 8, Con 19, Int 6, Wis 10, Cha 7
Stone Giant: Str 27, Dex 15, Con 19, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 10
And here's a similarly sized Monstrous Humanoid with similar HD to a couple of those:
Girtablilu: Str 20, Dex 15, Con 21, Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 11
Those last three are even all within a CR of each other.
Nope. Definitely not based on Size alone. Doesn't work or make sense.
The reason they have odd scores is that all of them are given three odd scores as a matter of policy (probably because the rolled average is 10.5, and thus three 10s and 3 elevens is the closest you can get). Heck, the "Monsters as PCs" rules specifically call out treating them as 10, 10, 10, 11, 11, 11 plus racial mods when playing as a monster.
Where is that in the "Monsters as PCs" rules, just out of curiosity? I'm not doubting the veracity of the statement, it's just that I've always wondered if there were any rules to determine the racial ability score mods of monsters, but I've never been able to locate them.
I remember that being part of the old Savage Species rules from 3.5, and no doubt Pathfinder's monsters work under the same philosophy, but I don't think it was explicitly stated in the Bestiaries.
|
|
Where is that in the "Monsters as PCs" rules, just out of curiosity? I'm not doubting the veracity of the statement, it's just that I've always wondered if there were any rules to determine the racial ability score mods of monsters, but I've never been able to locate them.
They are found here.
They're pretty simple, and require definite GM adjudication, but there they are.
Oh. So does that mean it's not technically a PF rule?
EDIT: @Deadman: Right. I've seen that rules page before. I was more specifically asking about the text describing how to figure out a monster's racial bonuses and penalties to its ability scores.
|
|
Oh. So does that mean it's not technically a PF rule?
EDIT: @Deadman: Right. I've seen that rules page before. I was more specifically asking about the text describing how to figure out a monster's racial bonuses and penalties to its ability scores.
Ah. That's less explicit (though I've seen the people at Paizo note it as how they do things), and I could swear I've seen it somewhere I'm not finding it...but if you'll look here under 'Add Class Levels' you'll see that monsters get +4, +4, +2, +2, +0, -2 to mimic the Heroic Array.
That almost precisely mimics the Heroic Array assuming 11, 11, 11, 10, 10, 10...and doesn't work at all assuming the Standard Array (though both this and the Standard Array are 3 point-buy).
So...I'd say that's pretty good evidence that that's the intent.
Oh. Well, that is very helpful all the same, even if it's not wholly official. I only play with a home group, so I don't have to worry about things being technically RAW, but I like knowing whether or not I'm working within the bounds of designer intent and such. Thanks!
All of this is of course aside from the purely design philosophical considerations that Charlie Bell outlined. I totally get that angle. I'm just trying to find a way for it to make sense from an "in-world" perspective. I appreciate that both HD and BAB are abstractions, but there are varying degrees of abstractions, and at the end of the day two creatures with identical to-hit but different BAB progression/Str scores ought to represent something story-wise, at least in my book.
This is a case of apophenia, which I went through as well. For PCs, BAB represents martial skill and general bad-assery; monster types each have chassis; all of this combined with our natural apophenia creates the strong sense that there's some in-game rhyme and reason to it all.
Of course we can come up with all sorts of post-hoc explanations. Like "Giant versions of normal animals have higher BABs (via more HD) because they tend to live longer and get better at biting stuff." But IMO, anything more than Charlie Bell's explanation rings hollow.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well thank you Debbie Downer. :P
Well thank you Debbie Downer. :P
Didn't know they added melancholia to the sinspawn.
Sorry, not even following the conversation anymore, just thought the comment was slightly clever.
Yours or mine? :P