Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2E Monster Building Rules

Paizo has posted the Building Creatures and Building Hazards sections from chapter 2 of the upcoming Gamemastery Guide for free download.

"As we’ve noted on some of our livestreams, the system for creating your own monsters and NPCs uses a top down system with benchmarks, allowing you to build a creature to match your top-level vision of that creature instead of requiring you to build them from the bottom up like a player character. This guide has all the relevant numbers for creating these creatures, as well as lessons on what you can do to make your monsters the best they can be. The numbers are a starting place, and your creativity really brings the monster to life. The hazard rules give you everything you need to create traps, environmental hazards, and haunts to menace your party."

 

[dave2008]

A 20th lvl fighter will have more than 300 hp, a 20th lvl barbarian more than 350.

Yes, they are more than 100 HP less then the highest monster total (and wizards are more than 100 HP less than the lowest monster total). That is a 25%-50% swing from PCs to Monsters. That feels significant to me.

I'm not really complaining - I love me some tough monsters , it is just not what I expected.

 

[dave2008]

Also I kinda feel like lots of people skimmed these because there was actually enough guidance in pdf from what I saw. So feels weird people are complaining about lack of guidance.Plus final book will probably have example of building monster from scratch like unchained did if you really need handholding with these rules.(would be kinda missed opportunity if they didn't)

I can't tell you what is or isn't enough guidance for you and I could make a monster from these rules (heck I could do it without these rules). However, I think with the strong math of this game they could have made it much simpler and use that extra space to discuss modifications in greater detail. I guess I was, based on the core rulebook, expecting something better, IMO.

Like, I could be wrong, but I think these is strong desire from lots of people on this forum for Paizo to fail?

Just the opposite for me. I hope it succeeds and some of the good ideas in PF2e are integrated into D&D (5.5e or 6e) in the future (or PF inegrates some of the good ideas from 5e in the future)

 

[Campbell]

Yes, they are more than 100 HP less then the highest monster total (and wizards are more than 100 HP less than the lowest monster total). That is a 25%-50% swing from PCs to Monsters. That feels significant to me.

I'm not really complaining - I love me some tough monsters , it is just not what I expected.

Monsters that have weaknesses have more hp to compensate. Some monsters have extremely low AC or saves for their level also have significantly higher hp to compensate. There's more variability built into monsters at both ends than Player Characters.

As an example a Balor has 480 hit points, but a PC who takes advantage of its weaknesses can do as much as 60 extra damage per strike. A 20th level Monk with fist wraps that have the holy and frost runes attached who lands 3 strikes could do 180 extra damage to the Balor above and beyond what they would normally do.

As another example a zombie shambler is level -1 has an AC of 12, 20 hit points, is permanently slowed 1 so it only 2 actions, and has weakness 5 to positive and slashing damage. That AC means a typical first level Barbarian hits it on a 5 and scores a critical hit on a 15. Those hits do 5 extra damage with a slashing weapon like a bastard sword and if the Barbarian is raging and has the spirit instinct it takes 10 extra damage. They also take negative healing so if the party is facing a bunch of them a Cleric could cast a 3 action heal that would do d8 damage to every zombie in 30 feet while healing all their allies. Since this is positive damage it would also do 5 extra damage to each zombie.

In short while a monster is supposed to be an even match for a player character of that level it does not meant they are built like player characters. Monsters tend to be more resilient than Player Characters when you go against them where they are strong, but less resilient when you hit them where they weak. This is that puzzle box design where players are rewarded for knowing what they are up against and exploiting weaknesses.

 

[dave2008]

Monsters that have weaknesses have more hp to compensate. Some monsters have extremely low AC or saves for their level also have significantly higher hp to compensate. There's more variability built into monsters at both ends than Player Characters...

..In short while a monster is supposed to be an even match for a player character of that level it does not meant they are built like player characters. Monsters tend to be more resilient than Player Characters when you go against them where they are strong, but less resilient when you hit them where they weak.

I get all of that, but this is a discussion of the design guide for monsters, not the monsters in the Bestiary. IMO, the guidelines don't really help me make monsters that match the Bestiary. They don't give me worthwhile guidance on how to balance the various dials and knobs they offer to make an interesting monster. That is my issue, not whether or not you can have high HP and low HP or vulnerabilities and resistances, but how you apply them to make a level monster.

I do want to clarify what I am discussing in terms of "guidance." There is some helpful discussion about pushing and pulling various aspects of the stats to achieve the right balance. However, since the system math is so tight, as you have often commented on, I expected the monster creation rules would follow. I was expecting mathematical guidance, not just verbal. I was expecting something more, that is all. The document is fine, it is just a disappointment for what i was expecting and think it could be.

 

[CapnZapp]

IMO, the guidelines don't really help me make monsters that match the Bestiary.

This.

This is what I meant but you expressed better.

There's nearly nothing about taking wild swings, coming up with cool abilities, making it all come together.

The document lets me create colorless generic monsters. It tells me if these are within bounds for a certain level peg.

 

[Campbell]

I have seen several designer interviews and streams on Twitch from the developers. They have indicated that the design guidelines we are seeing in the Gamemastery Guide are essentially their internal design documents dressed up and rewritten for clarity and ease of use. I have no reason to doubt that this is the foundation of their internal design process. I mean we can already see the tremendous amounts of variance in monsters of a given level in the Bestiary.

They do cover lowering accuracy and boosting damage on a strike or doing the reverse. They spend three pages on guidance on how to design abilities.

It feels like you guys are assuming there are some set of more rigorous internal design standards - that there's like some secret sauce they are keeping to themselves. I do not think there is. I think they use these benchmarks, work up a test design, and work it through the paces making adjustments as they go.

A Quick Word on Tight Math : Player character math is fairly tight in the sense of the numbers we see on character sheets, but depending on how players play their characters and utilize the tools they pick up when building their characters even at fairly low levels I have seen a huge amount of variance in the ways that math gets expressed at the table.

 

[dave2008]

They do cover lowering accuracy and boosting damage on a strike or doing the reverse. They spend three pages on guidance on how to design abilities.

Covered that in a previous post. I appreciate their effort, I just wanted something more.

It feels like you guys are assuming there are some set of more rigorous internal design standards - that there's like some secret sauce they are keeping to themselves. I do not think there is. I think they use these benchmarks, work up a test design, and work it through the paces making adjustments as they go.

That is nothing remotely like what I feel. I don't care what they use internally, I would just think the could provide us with something more. I was wrong and I am disappointed, but it is not the end of the world.

A Quick Word on Tight Math : Player character math is fairly tight in the sense of the numbers we see on character sheets, but depending on how players play their characters and utilize the tools they pick up when building their characters even at fairly low levels I have seen a huge amount of variance in the ways that math gets expressed at the table.

That is not at all what I'm talking about with regard to the monster building guidelines.

 

[BryonD]

A Quick Word on Tight Math : Player character math is fairly tight in the sense of the numbers we see on character sheets, but depending on how players play their characters and utilize the tools they pick up when building their characters even at fairly low levels I have seen a huge amount of variance in the ways that math gets expressed at the table.

The upside you have stated here is completely generic and also true of every "quality" TTRPG in existence.

Quite simply, there are things that the players bring to the table and there are things the words printed between the covers of the book bring to the table. Games should be judged based on how they compare to other games when looking at the value the printed words bring.

And the language you use is telling. Players should not be expressing the math. A great story telling system should be built so that the math expresses a reflection of what the players do. But you have nailed the reality here. The math is preordained. So the math is the master and the players are the servants finding ways to express the math.

 

[Campbell]

The upside you have stated here is completely generic and also true of every "quality" TTRPG in existence.

Quite simply, there are things that the players bring to the table and there are things the words printed between the covers of the book bring to the table. Games should be judged based on how they compare to other games when looking at the value the printed words bring.

And the language you use is telling. Players should not be expressing the math. A great story telling system should be built so that the math expresses a reflection of what the players do. But you have nailed the reality here. The math is preordained. So the math is the master and the players are the servants finding ways to express the math.

If you want to actually talk about what the game is like I would be happy to. What's your goal here? It's obviously not to actually engage with me.

 

[kenada]

I have seen several designer interviews and streams on Twitch from the developers. They have indicated that the design guidelines we are seeing in the Gamemastery Guide are essentially their internal design documents dressed up and rewritten for clarity and ease of use. I have no reason to doubt that this is the foundation of their internal design process. I mean we can already see the tremendous amounts of variance in monsters of a given level in the Bestiary.

While I appreciate that they’ve given us essentially the same tools they use (and fully intend to make use of them), the crux of the issue seems to be that’s too much. In a sense, it’s the opposite of creating a PC. You have the flexibility to do almost anything, but that comes at the cost of essentially having to wear a game designer hat. Most GMs would probably be fine with something a little more prescriptive.