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

[James Jacobs]

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?

There are indeed guidelines for natural attack damage by size and type... but that's all they are. Guidelines. They can and SHOULD be adjusted as needed. In the case of the T-rex, which is a relatively high CR animal, we needed to adjust the bite damage up quite a bit since it only has the one single attack. That's how it's able to hit its expected damage per round, after all. Likewise, when you have a monster that has lots of attacks or iterative attacks, we often have to lowball its Strength or natural damage to make it fit the CR. That's why the apes have such low Strength scores, really... if we hadn't already "hard coded" their CR scores in on the summon monster tables in the Core Rulebook, I would have liked to bump the apes up a few CR points at least...

So yeah... start with those numbers, but they're starting points. The REAL gauge is table 1–1 in the Bestiary; those are the numbers you really want to hit for your CR. And if that means throwing some other starting guidelines out the window, that's what it means.

 

[N'raac]

"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.

Definitely agree. If I want to "optimize" the monster, it just gets tougher, which means its CR rises, which means it's now not appropriate for the CR I wanted to use it for. The GM can always overpower the PC's.

Erring on the side of fun, rather than eking out every last bit of effectiveness in combat/skills/whatever, is also a good rule for character builds. Sometimes, we seem to forget that the point of the builds is to play the game and have fun.

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.

I definitely agree with this. The CR comes back to my comments above.

Toughness and Improved Natural Attack imply (at least to me) that this patrticular individual is above the norm. If the base creature has it, what's a tough or extra-damaging version of the creature? But then, while I doubt anyone would think of an especially strong-willed T Rex in advancing it, an especially fast-acting one might come to mind, but since it already has Improved Initiative, we need another feat (or approach) to enhance this special T Rex's initiative

All of this gets back to why monsters have feats, especially in numbers defined by HD? T Rex has a +8 racial bonus to Perception and Skill Focus - Perception. It could just as easily have a +11 (+14?) racial bonus. Similarly, it could have a +2 racial bonus to will saves, or a +4 racial bonus to initiative. The Run feat could be replaced by a special ability similar to the Cheetah.

Similarly, Improved Critical, Critical Focus and Bleeding Critical could be a monster special ability. Maybe it even gets to cause Bleed damage without the +4 to confirm criticals. Same with Endurance and Die Hard (the latter also requires a choice, so maybe should be a choice made automatically by the T Rex).

But then we get the reverse problem - if the ability matches, or almost matches, an existing feat, it makes more sense to have it match the feat for consistency and ease of reference, so the monster gets a special ability that is the equivalent of the feat anyway. So we will incorporate feats into at least some monster builds anyway. That suggests a progression of feats for monsters, and then we have to question why that progression should differ from character levels (which are used to advance a lot of monsters already).

There's no perfect answer. As a prolific designer in this model, if you find you have to ask "how do I add (or remove) a feat or two so he's legal?" frequently, coming back to "I'll just toss on Improved Initiative, reduce/add some racial bonuses and add/remove Skill Focus, etc.", that's not a lot different from "I'll just add enough Toughnesses to make up the difference - more hit points are always good", other than the latter being much less creative.

Ultimately, the monster stats, special abilities, feats, etc. are all there to serve the purpose of getting the monster to the stats it is envisioned by the designer to have, whether to meet a specific CR, or to emulate the creature we're trying to design, or some of each (it needs this kind of attack to fit the visoon, which puts it in this CR range, so it needs AC, attack bonus and hp commensurate with that CR, for example).

A methodology with some guidelines is more useful than "hey, just make it up and try to be fair". As GM's build up experience and judgment, they can better assess when to depart from the guidelines, and he has some guidance for monster building in the interim. If there was one perfect system, we wouldn't have a variety of games to choose from.