RSS Facebook Twitter Email
Community / Forums / Online Campaigns / Recruitment

Boss Monster / Dungeon Keeper style game interest check

Recruitment

Search Thread

Search this Thread:

Core concept is relatively simple:

PCs are monsters(probably around CR 5 or so), who need to construct a dungeon of some sort to lure adventurers and other monsters, so that the PCs can hopefully kill them, loot their bodies, and grow their dungeon and themselves.

I have ideas both simple and complex, the latter drawing inspiration from games like Spellcaster University and Masters of Magic. However, if people would prefer to KISS, I'll not bother writing all that up.

My goal is to make resolution rather simple as well, as I want the focus to be on dungeon building aspects. Even if we end up including some of my more complex ideas for resource management and dungeon building, I still hope to keep the battles themselves super simple to resolve.

Ideally, it would be something where another player can temp take over as GM, should I need to step away for a bit(like in Oct, when I'm gone for a week+ for NYCC).

I would also love to try and make it so I can possibly play a PC as well, though if the players are opposed to that, it's not a deal breaker.

I am potentially interested.

Would a CR 4 harpy be allowed? Building a roost at the top of the above-ground levels of the dungeon, where she can use her captivating song from, which could aid in luring adventurers to approach the the dungeon.

I would have no issue with GMs having a GMPC.

Would you allow gestalted monsters? If yes, then I would be interested in playing a gargoyle/harpy.

Dot

Would this be a party of monsters, or a group of solo games? Are we fighting a party, or a lone adventurer? I’m not clear how it would work.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

I would be very interested. My ratio of hack-n-slash to talkative gaming preferences is about 80/20.

That said, I'd probably bring something odd or funny, but definitely sub-optimal -- it's more fun that way.

This looks interesting! Would you be looking to run this in PF1 or a different game system like Wicked Ones? I am definitely up for hearing more about your thoughts on the dungeon-building system - I was the one in our gaming group who got fully into the kingdom-building side of Kingmaker (there was a spreadsheet and everything) so resource-management and building sounds right up my street.

Also yes to keeping battles reasonably simple to resolve - pbp takes long enough (even if everyone posts 1/day) that I find multi-round combat less appealing.

You know me playing monsters. :D

Oh nice, some decent interest so far! Let's get ya'll some answers:

1) Hmm. Unsure about gestalt monsters, despite my general love of gestalting.

What exactly would you want from both harpy and gargoyle?

2) This would be a group of monsters, vs whatever wanders your way. I have a few different ideas that can affect what your dungeon attracts, but again, that depends on if people want a more complex system or a simple one. I'm cool either way.

3) While I normally never try and tell a prospective player what to play, I will say this: Be careful with a sub optimal choice, as you want to still be able to win your battles. That's how both you and your dungeon will grow. That said, I'm sure a balance can be struck between something not overly strong and being able to positively contribute/affect the outcome of the encounters.

4) This is will be a PF1 game. It's what I'm most familiar with, and it's something I can easily tinker with.

One final note for now:

PCs do not have to be *evil* monsters, you just need to be willing to defend your lair against those who are comin to raid your riches.

Obviously, evil monsters have no compunction fighting both good guys and fellow baddies. However, if all the players decide they wanna play good monsters/have a good alignment, then your foes will be mostly evil monsters.
Monkeygod wrote:

1) Hmm. Unsure about gestalt monsters, despite my general love of gestalting.

What exactly would you want from both harpy and gargoyle?

answer to your question:

Harpy's captivating song (300 foot range) to aid significantly in luring others to the dungeon. At dawn or dusk, using her captivating song in intervals while no adventurers/other monsters are within 300 feet will allow her fellow dungeonmates to make saves against her captivating song, and once all of them have saved, they become her immune to her captivating song for 24 hours, so when she uses it later in the day/night when adventurers/other monsters are within 300 feet of the dungeon, her dungeonmates will be unaffected by her captivating song. Also, will bring animals to the dungeon while she uses her song, which helps provide sustenence for her and her dungeonmates.

When using her captivating song while adventurers/other monsters are within 300 feet of the the dungeon, when the adventurers start walking up the inner staircase of the dungeon (to try to get to the source of the captivating song, using the most direct means available), she stops singing (with the song being in effect for another round after she stops singing), in which she enters the top of the dungeon from the roost, into a room filled with statutes (and her fellow dungeonmates), in which she uses her gargoyle Freeze ability to appear as one of the mundane statues. That 1 round of the lured victims/other monsters is enough time for them to get to the top innermost room of the dungeon, allowing her dungeonmates to take advantage of their captivated state, in which they can take no actions, though they can defend themselves, so are not flat-footed. If one of the lured monsters detects she is not a real statue she joins the melee in response her surprise advantage being removed, otherwise she takes advantage to surprise a foe by 'coming to life' to 5-foot step into a flanking position with one her dungeonmates and makes a full attack against the flanked foe.

In short: harpy to significantly aid in the luring others part, Freeze and natural attacks array (with significant defense from her natural armor and DR/magic) to be an effective melee combatant.

Different methods to handling gestalting two monsters, using gargoyle/harpy as example.

true gestalt method:

Using gargoyle as the base creature, what gestalting with harpy gives her would be:

Fly 80 feet (average) instead of Fly 60 feet (average)
Captivating Song
2 extra natural attacks: 2 talons (1d6 damage die)
no change to natural armor bonus
+2 Wisdom, instead of +0 Wisdom
+2 Charisma, instead of -4 Cha (the worst penalty, -4, combined with best bonus, +6)
7d10 racial hit dice instead of 5d10 racial hit dice

Both gargoyles and harpies are CR 4 monsters.

Without gestalting, two monsters of the same CR are the XP equivalent of a monster 2 CR higher. CR 4 to CR 6.

Since it is only one creature (which only has one set of actions, one pool of hit points, etc.), a monster gestalted with another monster of the same CR would have a +1 CR adjustment.

So a gestalted (CR-wise) gargoyle/harpy would be a CR 5 monster.

Using the above as a guideline, you also have a quick way to calculate what the CR of a gestalted monster is: 1 higher than the highest CR of the two monsters combined.

To have the CR adjustment be (potentially) higher than +1 CR of the monster with the higher CR, you could use the highest CR +1 or use the racial hit dice of the race with the most racial hit dice to determine the CR of of the gestalted monster (either with or without a +1 CR).

Gargoyle (CR 4 with 5 racial hit dice)
Harpy (CR 4 with 7 racial hit dice)

CR of gestalted gargoyle/harpy would be the higher of the first approach (CR 4 + 1 = CR 5) or using the highest HD of the two creatures (7 HD) it would be a CR 7 (or CR 8) monster.

averaging instead of gestalting method:

Another option is to take the average of numerical statistics of the two creatures, rounded down.

Using the average numerical statistics approach, a gargoyle/harpy would have the following statistics:

CR 4
medium monstrous humanoid
darkvision 60 feet
+3 natural armor
6 racial hit dice
Speed: 30 feet, Fly 70 feet (average)
+3 Str (so +2 Str)
+4 Dex
+3 Con (so +2 Con)
-4 Int
+1 Wis (so +0 Wis)
+2 Cha

+1 racial bonus on Stealth checks (+3 in stony environs)
DR 5/magic
Freeze (can take 10 on Stealth checks to hide in plain sight as a stone statue)
Captivating Song (150 feet range)

Languages: Common
Might add Terran to bonus language list, instead of automatically starting with it.

reduce natural attack damage dice by 1 step for natural attacks that both monsters do not have; otherwise take the average damage die, rounded down.

2 claws (1d4), bite (1d3), gore (1d3), 2 talons (1d4)

uses better weapon and armor proficiencies of both monsters

proficient in all simple weapons, light armor, shields

GMonkeyGod and GM_Drake
The gestalt is based on Hit Dice, not CR when one looks at it on a mechanical level.

When released in Unearthed Arcana it only used Classes, and didn't interact with racial Hit Dice. The assumption used was an equal constant pairing the same two classes, which also meant the Hit Dice would be equal between the two at all times.

From this perspective, any Monster gestalt that happens should have the Average of the two racial Hit dice. Using the gargoyle(5HD) and harpie(7HD) example from GM_Drake, it would be 6 racial Hit Dice.

For Monster pairings where the average difference is half a Hit dice, then yeah you have to round up or down. This is where the GM should call it if it rounds up or rounds down.

But there is also Monster Classes, which could be used to handle this problem, I believe Harpie and Gargoyle both have racial classes of a sort already released.
DM Azure_Zero wrote:

GMonkeyGod and GM_Drake

The gestalt is based on Hit Dice, not CR when one looks at it on a mechanical level.

When released in Unearthed Arcana it only used Classes, and didn't interact with racial Hit Dice. The assumption used was an equal constant pairing the same two classes, which also meant the Hit Dice would be equal between the two at all times.

From this perspective, any Monster gestalt that happens should have the Average of the two racial Hit dice. Using the gargoyle(5HD) and harpie(7HD) example from GM_Drake, it would be 6 racial Hit Dice.

For Monster pairings where the average difference is half a Hit dice, then yeah you have to round up or down. This is where the GM should call it if it rounds up or rounds down.

But there is also Monster Classes, which could be used to handle this problem, I believe Harpie and Gargoyle both have racial classes of a sort already released.

If using 3.5 rules, you would be partially correct, as the monster classes do not gain racial hit dice at all monster class levels (as they incorporated the level adjustment of the monsters into the monster class levels).

In the GM's last post, it was stated PF1E is being used.

The monster classes you are thinking of are probably the ones from the 3.25 E book, Savage Species. 3.25 as it had elements of both 3.0 and 3.5 in it (particulary the inclusion of the 3.0 Beast type, which was not included in 3.5 monster types). The monster classes incorporated both the racial hit dice and the level adjustments of the monsters. The 3.5 Harpy (7 HD with +3 LA) is one of the monster classes included (a 3.5 ECL 10 monster), though the 3.5 gargoyle (4HD with +5 LA) is not one of the included monster classes. I have come up with a fair and balanced monster class breakdown, using the Savage Species format, for the 3.5 ECL 9 gargoyle.

Pathfinder ignored the ECL of 3.5 for monster PCs, as well as ignoring the racial hit dice of monsters, and only using the CRs of monsters for using them as monster PCs.

In the PF1E Bestiary, Appendix 4 (page 313), Monsters as PCs, in the third, fourth and fifth paragraphs, it specifically states:

"For monsters with racial Hit Dice, the best way to allow monster PCs is to pick a CR and allow all of the players to make characters using monsters of that CR. Treat the monster's CR as its total class levels and allow the characters to multiclass into the core classes. Do not advance such monsters by adding Hit Dice. Monster PCs should only advance through classes."

"If you are including a single monster in a group of standard characters, make sure the group is of a level that is at least as high as the monster's CR. Treat the monster's CR as class levels when determining the monster PC's overall levels. For example, in a group of 6th level characters, a minotaur (CR 4) would possess 2 levels of a core class, such as barbarian."

"Note, that in a mixed group, the value of racial Hit Dice and abilities diminish as a character gains levels. It is recommended that for every three levels gained by the group, the monster character should gain an extra level, received halfway between the 2nd and 3rd levels. Repeat this process a number of times equal to half the monster's CR, rounded down. Using the minotaur example, when the group is at a point between 6th and 7th level, the minotaur gains a level, and then again at 7th level, making him a minotaur barbarian 4. This process repeats at 10th level, making him a minotaur barbarian 8 when the group reaches 10th level. From that point onward, he gains levels normally."

Not only did Pathfinder remove the ECL of 3.5, as well as ignore a monster's racial hit dice when making monster PCs, they also gain additional class levels equal to half their their monster CR (sans class levels), rounded down.

A PF gargoyle is CR 4. In a group of Level 10 characters, core races would have 10 class levels, whereas the gargoyle PC would have 5 racial hit dice plus 8 class levels (for a total of 13 hit dice). A harpy PC in the same party would have 7 racial hit dice (for a total of 15 hit dice).

This post was not about whether I think the PF1E Bestiary approach to monster PCs is a fair approach or not. The paragraph above this one and the next one address why I think the PF1E Bestiary method for creating monster PCs is not a fair and balanced method.

At party of 10th level characters, monster PCs have more hit dice than core race PCs (and thus could have higher BAB, base saves, more base skill ranks, higher base maximum skill modifiers, etc.) than core race PCs, it is easy to see how the PF1E Bestiary method could be viewed as unbalanced.

Using the Savage Species monster class levels, and gestalted them would be the best way to gestalt monster races, using 3.5 rules. For GMs who think the PF1E Monster PC method is unbalanced, the Savage Species gestalt method might be the best solution to handle it.

There are PF 1e Monster Classes available, all done by 3rd Party Publishers.....

Dreamscarred Press and Rite Publishing are two 3PP sources that have Monster classes, and I know there are a few others that have done so.
I even have the last free proto-type version of Monster Classes that the author made before working with Dreamscarred Press to official make the book.

Dreamscarred Press has the Harpy, and Rite Publishing has a version of gargoyle.

Monster Classes even allow for scaling higher powered monsters to a target CR where they won't be over powering with the rest of the group.
DM Azure_Zero wrote:

There are PF 1e Monster Classes available, all done by 3rd Party Publishers.....

Thanks for the info.

I was using only official published Pathfinder 1E book (Bestiary) in my previous post, as well as the official 3.5 book that covers monster classes (Savage Species).

Using third-party materials can lead to things that some PF designers might not agree with, which is why I stick to only Paizo Pathfinder rules/books and the officialy 3.5 books, which Paizo built their PF1E system up, when addressing official rules elements.

No 3rd party book has the authority to override rules included in published Paizo Pathfinder books. For their own 3rd party campaign settings, they do, but not when it comes to the official Pathfinder rules set.

As Pathfinder 1e was the 'true evolution' of 3.5 rules, which 3.5 rules comprises the bulk of the basis of the PF1E system, Savage Species is a more 'official' way to handle monster classes than 3rd party publishlers.
GM_Drake wrote:

...

As Pathfinder 1e was the 'true evolution' of 3.5 rules, which 3.5 rules comprises the bulk of the basis of the PF1E system, Savage Species is a more 'official' way to handle monster classes than 3rd party publishlers.

True and False at the same time.

Savage Species was an Official one made for the 3.5 system, which has monsters that are not in the bestiary and do not match the PF Bestiary versions and it only has a limited number of them.
The Author of Monster classes by Dreamscarred Press followed Savage Species, but for the official Pathfinder version of all the bestiary monsters. The Proto-type book did have 3.5's Mindflayer, but the rest were all pretty much based on their PF Bestiary versions.
DM Azure_Zero wrote:
The Author of Monster classes by Dreamscarred Press followed Savage Species, but for the official Pathfinder version of all the bestiary monsters. The Proto-type book did have 3.5's Mindflayer, but the rest were all pretty much based on their PF Bestiary versions.

Thanks for that info.

I've been giving the idea of gestalt or some other type of unique monster rules some thought, and have spoken to Almonihah(who I am friends with off of Paizo), and I have potential solution. Albeit one that sorta gets away from the dungeon building aspect a bit, but could allow for a lot of fun(which, is the main reason I run/play TTRPGs):

How would people feel about using the Talented Monster Creation rules to create their own custom monster?

Now, before you ask, yes, it is a 3rd party book. And while you may not recognize Stephen Rowe and Steve Helt, Dan Dillon was a big name at WotC for quite a while. Also, the project was overseen by Owen KC Stephens, he who was one of the leads on Starfinder(and also the Player's Companion lead, I think?). So, they kinda know their stuff.

As this is just an interest check, I'm not overly married to using the Talented rules. I do rather like them(I backed the kickstarter at a high enough level to create a custom monster!), and this feels like a good game to make use of them.

However, some form of gestalting is also a very possible as well.

Also, while speaking to Almonihah, he suggested some way to give each of our monsters a unique ability that sets them a part from all the others. As he said it would be an answer to ""why do all these monsters that only respect strength listen to you as the head monster?"

I have a few ideas for a so-called "Alpha Ability" as he called:

1) A first level class feature from Owen's line of Horrifically Overpowered Classes that I kinda sorta definitely convinced him to write up, lol

These would include the HOP skills, weapon/armor proficiencies, as well the special features gained at first level(not including spellcasting, saves and BAB). You would only gain one of them, however(all the skill and prof ones are pretty neat and unique!).

There's two issues here, however: First, the classes are limited to just the ones Paizo has published(and doesn't currently include Anti-Paladin or Vigilante). So, no 3pp classes.

Second, while a lot of the classes are available for free on Owen's Pateron, some of them require paid access(dude is recovering from cancer, and a host of other medical issues that have stemmed from that).

**However**, I have said paid access(and so does Almonihah), so if ya tell us the class ya want to play, I can provide you the info needed.

2) A single Horrifically Overpowered feat. Most/all of these can be found online(I'll provide a link during actual recruitment, if this option is chosen). I'll likely ban a few, but otherwise, it's a good way to gain a unique ability.

3) A single Mythic feat or path ability, along with a single point of mythic power to fuel it(if necessary). I don't currently intend to otherwise make use of the mythic rules, but I suppose it's a potential possibility.

I'm also open to other suggestions, up to and including "No Alpha Ability" if people are opposed to it.
1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it's safe to say I like these ideas. :D

Yeah, Talented Monster Creation, costs about $20...

The monster classes from Dream Scarred Press's Monster Classes and Rite Publishing;s "In the Company of ____" books
Are more in a more affordable price range for playing a monster and Allow it to scale if it is a stronger monster.
Heck there are even a sh*t load of templates we can toss into the mix as well.

The Proto-type book that was released for free for Monster classes used by Dreamscarred press. I believe the last one was V23 and their should be a few copies about..

The other is a question of knowledge, how can a player know and make a informed class choice if the OP classes exist, locked behind a paywall.
DM Azure_Zero wrote:

Yeah, Talented Monster Creation, costs about $20...

The monster classes from Dream Scarred Press's Monster Classes and Rite Publishing;s "In the Company of ____" books
Are more in a more affordable price range for playing a monster and Allow it to scale if it is a stronger monster.
Heck there are even a sh*t load of templates we can toss into the mix as well.

The Proto-type book that was released for free for Monster classes used by Dreamscarred press. I believe the last one was V23 and their should be a few copies about..

The other is a question of knowledge, how can a player know and make a informed class choice if the OP classes exist, locked behind a paywall.

Is my above link not working? The **entire** Talented Bestiary is on the Spheres Wiki. My last post included a link to it.

I would **Never** propose using rules that require a possible player to go out and buy a book.

No it works,
Sorry, seems I just clicked a bit much as page was loading, and got taken to the RPG drivrhru page when I first went there.
Monkeygod wrote:

How would people feel about using the Talented Monster Creation rules to create their own custom monster?

I would not be opposed to using them.

Two questions, if that is the route you decide to go (or the route includes them).

1) What CR/level monsters would we be making?

2) Would they be non-gestalted or gestalted?

The 1 level of mythic sounds fun as well. Gestalted mythic a possibility?

1)I'm not entirely sure. I'll need to look over the Talented Rules more in-depthly(I read the book when it first came out, *years* ago). Still likely around the initial CR 5 or **so**. 5 will be the lowest.

2) With the Talented Monster Creation rules, there's literally no point to gestalt monsters. You just buy the abilities you want.

To create your Harp-oyle(Garpy? lol), you would buy Freeze(a universal monster ability aka any creature can possess it) and Captivating Song(which is a Monstrous Humanoid ability. Which is what both Gargoyles and Harpies are. No issue there).

Beyond that, it's just a bunch of natural attacks and DR, which are also universal abilities.

That's it. There's your build.

3) To start, we won't be using the full mythic rules. It would just be a singular ability(path, feat, or monstrous) with one point of mythic power to fuel it(if necessary).

It would just be to set our monsters a part from the general rabble. Aka "We got this cool power, so you're gonna listen to us!" lol

Maybe she was part of a pirate crew and is an arrrgoyle. (or gharrrgoyle) :P

She would have been the lookout in the crow's nest of the ship.

Pretty sure Green Ronin’s Advanced Bestiary also had an “amalgam” or “hybrid” creature entry for fused/mixed monsters.

Found it: amalgam creature
Community / Forums / Online Campaigns / Recruitment / Boss Monster / Dungeon Keeper style game interest check All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Recruitment