I just read through the creature creation rules and I must admit, they're pretty useless. It gives a very basic description of each template trait, but doesn't actually tell you what anything is.
Take Demons as an example. It says they have Sin Vulnerabilities and Sin Abilities, but it doesn't actually tell you what they are. The exact quote is: "Sin Ability Demons also have a special ability based on the sin they represent, which either makes them better embody the sin or instills that sin in others."
Are you just supposed to make something up? If so, what is the point of the book in the first place? Why not just bullsh!t everything about a creature and save yourself the money?
I don't get it.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, nobody actually charged you for the creature creation rules, those were released for free weeks ago if they're all you wanted. If the entire rest of the book is also useless to you then that's unfortunate, I suppose.
I don't think it's at any point been a secret that 'choose a number of abilities from a list' is no longer how creatures are designed in PF2 - you assemble the monsters basic numbers as the book indicates and then you make them do something interesting. There's not a fixed list of interesting things because almost every creature is supposed to do something unique, which a fixed list can't accomplish.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see the problem. The hard work is coming up with the numbers needed to make the monsters just the right difficulty to fight. That's what I need the book for.
Coming up with a sin weakness I can (and want) to do myself, I can look at the existing demons for inspiration about what sort of thing I'd be aiming for.
Building to a benchmark is almost certainly how the monsters in the Bestiary and other books were created. Having that same information available to GMs is incredibly helpful. It lets them design whatever they want, and all they have to do is reconcile the numbers.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you're making a demon, you might ask yourself, 'What kind of sinners comprise this demon? Oh, I know, the people who don't silence their phones in theaters.' And you give it a weakness, like 'all damage done by a silenced character' or something.
I now need to make a demon based on this...
| 17 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cacophony (Noise Demon)
'What kind of sinners comprise this demon? Oh, I know, the people who don't silence their phones in theaters.'
- Kasoh
This creature is a conglomeration of souls of those who enjoy making noise in quiet places, like museums, libraries, and theaters. They are usually found in monasteries, peaceful glades, and other places where things are generally peaceful and quiet, doing all they can to disrupt the often times hard-won peace of the inhabitants. Incredibly intelligent and malicious, they wait for the perfect chance to cause the disruption.
Cacophony - Creature 5
----
CE - Medium - Demon - Fiend
Perception +12; darkvision, perfect hearing (precise) 30 feet
Languages Abyssal, Common
Skills Acrobatics +12, Athletics +12, Intimidation +13, Stealth +9
Str +2, Dex +3, Con +3, Int +6, Wis +2, Cha -1
Perfect Hearing a cacophony knows the location of everything within 30 feet of it that makes any kind of sound no matter how quiet, such as breathing, or a beating heart.
----
AC 21; Fort +9, Ref +9, Will +15
HP 77; Weaknesses cold iron 4, good 4; Resistances sonic 8
Silence Vulnerability Cacophony's are creatures of sound and noise, thus if they are ever caught in an area without sound - such as in the area of a silence spell - they are flat-footed, none of their special attacks work, and are frightened 2.
----
Speed 25
Melee [one-action] claw +13 (agile, evil, finesse, magical), Damage 2d6+4 slashing plus 1d6 evil
Ranged [one-action] targeted bark +15 (sonic, range 60 feet), Damage 2d8+7 sonic
Divine Innate Spells DC 26; +18 Spell Attack 3rd Hypnotic Pattern*; 2nd Telekinetic Maneuver** (at will), Shatter (at will), Sound Burst (at will); 1st Gust of Wind* (at-will), Bane**
Divine Rituals DC 26; Abyssal Pact
Cacophonous Roar [three-actions] (divine, evocation, sonic) The cacophony bursts out with a well-timed shout, roar, or just some unexpected noise that disrupts concentration. All creatures within 15 feet of the cacophony take 4d8 sonic damage and must attempt a DC 22 Fortitude save.
Critical Success - The creature is unaffected.
Success - The creature takes half damage and is flat-footed for 1 round.
Failure - The creature takes full damage, and stunned 2.
Critical Failure - The creature takes double damage, and is stunned 2 for 2d4 rounds.
Jarring Ring [two-actions] (attack, sonic) The cacophony attempts to weaken a creature. Make a strike, on a success the creature must make a DC 22 Will save with the following effects:
Critical Success - The creature is unaffected
Success - The creature is stunned 1
Failure - The creature is stunned 2 and flat-footed for 1 round
Critical Failure - The creature is stunned 3, they also gain weakness 3 to sonic damage for 2d4 rounds
* Has the Auditory trait instead of the visual trait
** Adds the sonic trait
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Uh, you mean you don't normally look at other creatures of the same type to identify key traits and adapt as necessary, such as if you were to make a Marai Rakshasa or some sort of river serpent like the Goldpebble?
(yes, I have about 20 or 30 monster statblocks in my work folder at any point in time, just ask - there's more of them in the GitHub database but they're not all mine)
edit: the Marai uses the Sniper guidelines, while Goldpebble is set as a Soldier but with a few oddities here and there.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cacophony (Noise Demon)That is very neat. I'd probably make it a level 7+ monster, because silence doesn't effect other creatures unless heightened to 4th level.
You don't have to stick to that too strictly. You can have a lv5 monster cast 4th level spells if it fits the concept well. Like []Lovelorns[] (lv4 creature) being able to cast Crushing Despair (level 5 spell).
Premier Event Coordinator
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The creative freedom in this system is a huge improvement over 1E where the rigidity of the system was a limitation to creativity. If you wanted to make a skeleton have sneak attack, you couldn’t just do it without people crying about the source of said ability. Now, a monster can do whatever you want them too without needing some system justification or having to apply an entire template or class levels that include a lot of baggage you may not want.
Course this is really only important for campaigns like PFS. There really has never been any rule that restricted home campaigns where the only rule that is definitive is the GM decides what is/not how the game works.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There needs to be a demon formed from the souls of those sinners who stop in doorways or walk slowly in the middle of the path.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I sort of get where the OP is coming from but I still think Paizo has the right of it.
Obviously just leaving things up in the air can make it hard to figure out what's going to work or not, but certain monster features like this are, by design, meant to flexible and unique and having GMs pull from a list of pregenerated abilities would defeat the point.
It's not like there's no reference point either, we can look at the abilities similar demons have to use as starting points.
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
A book explaining the "art" part of monster design would be easily 200+ pages and would end up with you complaining that there are no CONCRETE, PRECISE, SPELLED-OUT IN CAPITAL LETTERS rules for what a level 12 monster should have.
Your problem is creative rigidity, not Paizo's lack of providing guidance on how to handle things.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think on a book sole dedicated to monster creation everything zap said would be awesome... Problem is that i don't think demand would be enough for such a product. But yeah a monster handbook with abilities, weakness and everything needed along with more templates and how to keep them balanced is awesome... It just won't fit well in a 10-20 page part of another book.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you want a PC to exploit the weakness of the creature, they'd need to be able to cast silence at 4th level, is what I mean, so the monster should be powerful enough to appear in that level range, unless being able to use that weakness is a reward for leveling up and fighting a horde of them.You don't have to stick to that too strictly. You can have a lv5 monster cast 4th level spells if it fits the concept well. Like []Lovelorns[] (lv4 creature) being able to cast Crushing Despair (level 5 spell).Cacophony (Noise Demon)That is very neat. I'd probably make it a level 7+ monster, because silence doesn't effect other creatures unless heightened to 4th level.
Thank you for your comments Kasoh & Ediwir. I was really building it as a proof-of-concept to show how easy it is to go from idea to monster. It took me like 2 hours while at work to put it all together...
As far as Zapp is concerned, from what I've read/heard these tables ARE what Paizo uses to build monsters, but in a generally nice format that is useful for the public to see and read, not an internal document that only really makes sense to those who work there. I could be wrong about that, but that is basically the impression I got from Lyz and Mark on a few of the streams before the GMG dropped. This was a few months ago, iirc, but i could just be recalling incorrectly.
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everything that makes a monster more than just a collection of numbers simply isn't there.
You're right, everything that makes a monster what it really lies in the designer's imagination. The advice and stats provided in the GMG are there as suggestions and guidelines to help people keep their math within a reasonable frame of reference in regards to the Level of the creature, they're not there to outright define them.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo doesn’t have secret “magic juice” that lets them design interesting monster abilities, they have writers and creators. I wouldn’t be surprised in the least if these guidelines are extremely similar to what they use to create monsters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would be great though, to include some of the creators thoughts and processes they use when designing monsters. Something to stoke the creative juices of the new GM who doesn't have the experience or confidence.
A couple paragraphs from someone like Adam Daigle on how he approaches coming up with cool ideas would be nice.
I would also suggest searching out some of the panels Paizo runs at Gencon or Paizocon that focus on monster creation. I think "know-direction" probably has archived a bunch of these panels.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would be great though, to include some of the creators thoughts and processes they use when designing monsters. Something to stoke the creative juices of the new GM who doesn't have the experience or confidence.
A couple paragraphs from someone like Adam Daigle on how he approaches coming up with cool ideas would be nice.
I would also suggest searching out some of the panels Paizo runs at Gencon or Paizocon that focus on monster creation. I think "know-direction" probably has archived a bunch of these panels.
Feedback from judges on monsters created for RPGSS and similar challenges provides good hints too.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who absolutely hated making up new monsters in 1e, I really like the new monster creation rules as I can actually start with an idea and build around that rather than having an idea and hoping the numbers align just right by the time I get to the end. Personally, the tables were just the bit I needed as I really can't go flipping through every monster of the same level in the bestiary just to compare each of their stats to see where they should be (and it certainly isn't something I can commit to memory).
As for special abilities, I can generally look for similar abilities for inspiration (so looking at other demons to know what to expect from sin vulnerability) or try to translate the visual of an ability in my mind into mechanics (not unlike what a GM has to do when their players want to do some crazy off the wall stunt and you have to decide on what kind of check they need to make for it). And judging from what we've seen of Paizo staff creating monsters, this is not terribly different from how they do. As many have said, it's mainly a matter of creativity--there is no real "secret" behind it. They made a monster live on Twitch based just off of an image ( Monster Making ) by examining what the monster looked like and basically tossing ideas back and forth with the help of chat and seeing what worked.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
.
But I didn't need all those tables! I could just look at Bestiary monsters' numbers for my intended level to get the ballpark on that.
.
The Bestiary is also example options. I don’t have the book in front of me, but I’m pretty sure they suggest starting with a monster that seems close and going from there.
If you want a long list of options, you could simply strip off all of the options pn monsters at particular levels. Though ultimately I think is going to make more sense to select options that are more thematic for the theme.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just read through the creature creation rules and I must admit, they're pretty useless.
LOL Well I have to agree but I'm not the target audience. I'm not planning on Dming anything and if I would happen to, it'd be a premade adventure. So it's not a section I'd use.
Now after seeing this thread I did go and take a quick look through the section and I have to say if I was Dming it wouldn't excite me a lot. The reskinning sidebar and the tables work but I'd have preferred an actual set of abilities to tweak/reskin than the start from scratch section. Like the reskin sidebar says, "it can be more efficient to simply “reskin” the old creature rather than design a new one—that is, to change the description but keep the abilities mostly the same" and I think that applies to ability creation as well.
So I can see why the section didn't meet the expectations of some: They could have expressed in better terms though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My suggestion to those that can't live without a list of abilities to make their own creations is simply make a spread sheet for them. Take a couple hours of your time and use the awesome copy and paste feature of your keyboard and organize them by level. I know in this age of expecting everything handed to you seems extreme but I believe in you.
I don't think you understand what's being said: I can already reskin abilities that exist, so I'm not talking about those: a list of them would be nice but isn't what I'm talking about. What I was talking about is a list of NEW abilities to build off of and use as a base to reskin to make your own. Existing abilities was already included in the reskin sidebar I talked about.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We got something like that in P1 with the Race Builder rules from the ARG.
To each their own: for me, that would have been what I'd have been looking for.
Because abilities like that are only really good as a jumping-off point
I don't see that as a bad thing: the book itself tells you that "it can be more efficient to simply “reskin”" so I don't know why that's a bad thing here. For me creativity isn't an issue but having a balanced base for the mechanics to work from makes things easier.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The book has ranges for the abilities numberwise so you have that.
As for movement and other stuff just compare to when characters start getting similar spells of that level.
Yes, I can build everything from scratch: that's NOT a “reskin”. A collection of abilities that can be easily revamped into what is needed is very different from a pile of unconnected parts that need self assembly. A pile of parts is fine it that's your thing but if you like things a bit more premade, it's not exciting. ALL I've been trying to say is not everyone is looking for a 'do it yourself' kit but want more of a set of premade items that can repaint to make it their own. I'm not trying to change anyone's minds on which method is best but to explain why some might not like how it works.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's not really possibly though.
We got something like that in P1 with the Race Builder rules from the ARG.
Seems possible to me, and to you too apparently...
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
We will never have a book about creative process.
I'll make an example: I want to build a monster whose main ability is an aura that makes blood boil inside the veins (it emits magical microwaves, or something like that), dealing increasing damage if you stay around it.
I don't know if someone already had this idea, but I definitely wouldn't expect to find it on a Paizo book.
What I expect is a guideline about the damage such an ability would deal. And I have it; I could also look at the bestiary to find something vaguely similar and start from that.
Now, if you tell me that this kind of guidelines are not very detailed, you are right. But really, having a table about "increasing microwave damage by level" is something that won't happen.
Further decisions like the fact that it counts as fire damage, but fire resistance is halved in this case, are completely on me - and of course it is, because that's where the creative process lies, and the possibilities are infinite.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We will never have a book about creative process.
I'll make an example: I want to build a monster whose main ability is an aura that makes blood boil inside the veins (it emits magical microwaves, or something like that), dealing increasing damage if you stay around it.
I don't know if someone already had this idea, but I definitely wouldn't expect to find it on a Paizo book.
What I expect is a guideline about the damage such an ability would deal. And I have it; I could also look at the bestiary to find something vaguely similar and start from that.
Now, if you tell me that this kind of guidelines are not very detailed, you are right. But really, having a table about "increasing microwave damage by level" is something that won't happen.Further decisions like the fact that it counts as fire damage, but fire resistance is halved in this case, are completely on me - and of course it is, because that's where the creative process lies, and the possibilities are infinite.
Yeah its hard to codify in pf2 like they did in pf1 because the game scales is too spread open. The only numbers that really matter are on the sheet, you got a lot of wiggleroom on several abilities, the race builder in pf2 for example could quantify bonus AC, stat bonuses, etc... But now creatures aren't build with those in mind...
Building monsters now is a bunch of easy to swallow numbers and cool abilities instead of... Well this guy has 48 con because if not my party will one hit kill him...| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Uh, you mean you don't normally look at other creatures of the same type to identify key traits and adapt as necessary, such as if you were to make a Marai Rakshasa or some sort of river serpent like the Goldpebble?
(yes, I have about 20 or 30 monster statblocks in my work folder at any point in time, just ask - there's more of them in the GitHub database but they're not all mine)
edit: the Marai uses the Sniper guidelines, while Goldpebble is set as a Soldier but with a few oddities here and there.
What's a good standarized format to write monster stat blocks? Is there some sort of tool? I need to write many for PF2 conversions.