Pathfinder 1E Did something change? Didn't most monsters not have feats?

[GameOgre]

It has been a while since I played Pathfinder(been playing 5E) but of late I have been missing it. Do Monsters now regularly have feats?

I thought in general monsters were featless.

I'm seeing adds for Orc feats and a post about Goblin feats...im wondering what I am missing!

 

[Dog Moon]

It has been a while since I played Pathfinder(been playing 5E) but of late I have been missing it. Do Monsters now regularly have feats?

I thought in general monsters were featless.

I'm seeing adds for Orc feats and a post about Goblin feats...im wondering what I am missing!

Basically since 3rd edition came out, Monsters have had feats. In 3e, they had feats at first level and then at 3rd and every 3 levels after, iirc. This didn't change in 3.5. In Pathfinder, Monsters [and PCs] get feats at 1st, 3rd and every 2 levels after. Have since the beginning.

Fortunately, Pathfinder monsters tend to have slightly better feats than they did in 3e. I still remember when the T-rex with the like 20 Hit Dice had Toughness like 5 times. Hah, such a waste of feats.

In 4e, iirc, feats were taken away from monsters and I honestly have no idea what monsters do or do not have in 5e.

 

[N'raac]

To add to the above, Pathfinder T Rex (18 HD) has Bleeding Critical, Critical Focus, Diehard, Endurance, Improved Critical (bite), Improved Initiative, Iron Will, Run, Skill Focus (Perception)

Not sure about Run, Endurance/Diehard and Skill Focus (does it really need the +37 PER roll?) being better choices than Toughness (much better in Pathfinder than 3e) or save enhancers, but at least it got something.

Realistically, it would not play any different if we gave T Rex a racial bonus to Will Saves, Initiative and Perception, and wrote the rest up as monster abilities, but a lot of the 3e - PF model was about using same/similar rules where practical. Adding feats also means we get a sense of what we should add if we make this an especially tough, 24 HD T Rex - he also gets some more feats out of the deal, be they save enhancers, Toughness for more hp or more Critical feats, depending on the direction we want to advance him in. A much more defined "monster progression" model.

Mainly allows us to criticize published creatures who don't perfectly follow those rules, but que sera.

Anyway, yeah, monsters get feats. Orcs and goblins always (start of 3e, anyway) got feats as they advanced, I think, as they were normally advanced by gaining class levels. They are also playable races, add-ons in 3, 3.5 and PF IIRC.

 

[Voadam]

Yeah it was in 4e that monsters got no feats, just spelled out powers.

In 3e, 3.5 and Pathfinder they get feats unless they are mindless such as zombies and golems and vermin, and even then the designer might give them bonus feats if they think them appropriate.

 

[freyar]

Monster feats are also a relatively easy way for the DM to customize a monster if you think about the listed feats as those for a "typical" critter. So, in the T Rex example, a DM in 3.5 could replace some of those Toughness feats to create a potentially more interesting (deadly?) dino.

 

[gamerprinter]

Yeah, being one the many of didn't touch 4e with a 10 foot pole (and not touching 5e with the same pole), since the creation of 3x, monsters have always had feats. I went from 3x to Pathfinder, and still with Pathfinder. Note: the primary reason I don't touch 4e/5e is because I am a 3PP of OGL material (ie: Pathfinder), and 4e/5e games are not OGL (so worth staying away from).

 

[James Jacobs]

Being the guy who developed the Pathfinder T-Rex (SHOCK!), there's specific reasons I gave it the feats it has. The Skill Focus (Perception) bit is a nod to the fact that fossil records indicate that they had incredible senses, from binocular vision to olfactory capabilities matched by few living animals today. And I gave it Run because of evidence/theories that it was a sprinter that could move quickly at times.

In addition, I tend to try to give animal intelligence creatures feats that don't require much in the way of decision making or tactics. Which is why I didn't give the T-Rex Power Attack—I'm not all that convinced that an Int score of 2 is enough to allow you to make decisions on whether or not to Power Attack or not... maybe so, maybe not, but I erred on the side of picking feats that are "always on."

And as it works out, the number of "always on" feats are pretty slim, so when you have a high HD critter like the T-rex, you start running out of feat options. Hence... things like Run, which might not be the sexiest feat, but it's an easy one to use and is, as a bonus, kinda supported by some fossil evidence as well.

FURTHERMORE: I tend to think that feats that improve stats are kinda silly to give baseline monsters. Things like Toughness and Improved Natural Attack are classic examples here. If you want a monster to have better natural attacks, you can just GIVE them better attacks; no need to waste a feat there. Likewise, if the monster's hp are low, just increase its Constitution score a little bit or give it a few more HD. Don't make it waste a feat on Toughness. The saving throw feats technically fall into this category as well, but in some cases increasing a stat is kinda silly, so rather than give the T-Rex a wisdom of 18... it gets Iron Will.

Anyway.

Someone mentioned a dinosaur, so I got kinda chatty.

 

[N'raac]

I don't disagree with any of the T Rex build, but I find it funny to see reference to "wasting a feat" on Toughness or Improved Natural Attack when many would refer to the feats the T Rex already has as "wasted".

Tacking on Toughness and Improved Natural Attack seems like a decent take in making a bigger, meaner T Rex, but I'd rather have the option of adding that to the base creature than have those feats already "used up". If the creature should have the ability granted by the feat, good design (in my view) gives it the feat. If that's not optimized, maybe the flaw is in the feat!

That said, if "sprint" = "run feat", maybe we need to take another look at the Cheetah!

 

[James Jacobs]

"Optimized" is, in monster design, even more of an impossible goal than for a PC. I prefer to err on the side of fun, and in the case of real-world creatures, the side of what those creatures can or could do.

The reason I feel Toughness and Improved Natural Attack are inappropriate for baseline monsters is because those feats manipulate things you can just as easily manipulate by adjusting their other stats during monster creation. On top of that, the goal of a monster's design is to try to hit its expected CR values for damage and hp and all that... and using feats to boost a monster beyond those numbers is cheesy.

For unique creatures or specific critters, say, something like the "KING T-REX OF DINO ISLAND" or something like that, giving it more specialized feats is cool, and help set it apart from the baseline. But King T-Rexes aren't what we present in Bestiaries. It's the generic T-rex citizen we strive to show off.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The reason I feel Toughness and Improved Natural Attack are inappropriate for baseline monsters is because those feats manipulate things you can just as easily manipulate by adjusting their other stats during monster creation. On top of that, the goal of a monster's design is to try to hit its expected CR values for damage and hp and all that... and using feats to boost a monster beyond those numbers is cheesy.

I was under the impression that there were strong guidelines for how much damage a natural attack should do, based on the type of attack and the size of the creature. For example, a Huge creature's Bite attack should deal 2d6, and a Tiny creature's Gore attack is 1d2. Are you saying that you can just throw those numbers out the window, without any feat or special power to adjust them?