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 single monster is equivalent to a PC of the same level, but all that means is it’s a crapshoot who wins that fight (technically, an extreme encounter vs. one PC). A moderate-threat encounter is one that requires good tactics, or it ends the adventuring day. PF2’s encounter difficulty scale is different from other editions. There are currently no guidelines on how to pace the adventuring day.

Monster building is an art. If Paizo included any specific suggestions on making trade-offs (or any other aspect of design), people would take them as gospel.

I agree monster building is a bit of an art. Unfortunately though, you can take the lack of guidance as gospel now and create some seriously OP monsters.

 

[dave2008]

Do you have a reference for that? A quick look didn't turn up anything in the core book or bestiary.

I've heard it mentioned on these forums in several places @Campbell might be able to give you the specific location. However, with a quick check I found this: Page 489 of the core rulebook under tables 10-1: Encounter Budget and 10-2: Creature XP and Role:
It doesn't explicitly state it, but a party level monster is considered a trivial threat. An extreme threat is 4x this (ie one monster for each character), and by definition an extreme threat: "...is likely to be an even match for the characters,..."

 

[kenada]

Do you have a reference for that? A quick look didn't turn up anything in the core book or bestiary.

Unfortunately, not a direct reference. It’s implied by the role level plays in the system combined with extrapolating from the encounter-building guidelines (a same-level monster is worth 40 XP, which is an extreme-threat encounter for a single PC). I think statements have been made online, but I can’t find a specific citation for that.

 

[S'mon]

It doesn't explicitly state it, but a party level monster is considered a trivial threat.

Thanks - yes, now I read the table again, I see that PL+2 is "moderate threat", which was the definition of CR = PL in 3e/PF. So it works out as you say, with 1 PL monster = 1 PC, 2 PL monsters or 1 PL+2 monster = a moderate threat about equal to 2 PCs, and a PL+4 monster = 4 PCs.

 

[kenada]

I agree monster building is a bit of an art. Unfortunately though, you can take the lack of guidance as gospel now and create some seriously OP monsters.

Yes. The consequence for making monsters that don’t perform at-par with their peers is you’ve broken your ability to use the encounter-building guidelines. However, these monster building rules do advise making adjustments if you notice issues in play. Compared to PF1, PF2 puts a lot more trust in the GM not to be a bad GM.

 

[CapnZapp]

I am a little confused. I thought in PF2e monster level = character level. However, if I look at a 20th monster, the HP range is from 277-473! This is much more than PCs. I assumed there would then be some sort of formula or real suggestion on how to make such a high HP monster the correct level. However, it only mentions compensating in other areas, but provides no real guidance. It seems to me that it would be very easy to make an overpowered monster with these guidelines. I would think with the tight math of PF2e they could say something like:

If you are using the extreme hp for your monster, use the low AC and at least 1 vulnerability to compensate and maintain the level chosen for the HP.

PS I am not saying that is the correct method, just an idea of what could be done.

IIRC the only guidance is to a) limit the number of extremely good scores/abilities b) balance some good ones with some less good ones and c) think about what "min-maxing" can do (such as if both the to-hit number and the damage number are good, then each attack the monster delivers becomes, double good for want of a better term.

So, no real actual mini-game guidance (that is advice that disables minmaxing) no. They've given us a ballpark filled with... ballparks?

---

That said, who said a monster must have the same hit points of a character of its level?

A level 20 monster having much more hit points than a level 20 character is fine. (At least once you let go of the "monsters need to abide by the PC chargen rules" philosophy)

 

[CapnZapp]

I agree monster building is a bit of an art. Unfortunately though, you can take the lack of guidance as gospel now and create some seriously OP monsters.

Well, I'm sure you of all people know better than to min-max some half-assed guidance...

All you'd accomplish would be a TPK (not that that has stopped you in the past, Dave )

Zapp

"People think it's scary when their players minmax. They should see what happens when the games master starts to."

 

[MaskedGuy]

So I actually like these rules because they are simpler than both 1e and Starfinder monster creation

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)

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

 

[S'mon]

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

I remember ca 2010-2012 talking about how Paizo was kicking WotC's bottom and getting a lot of hostility. Then ca 2015+ talking about how WoTC was kicking Paizo's bottom and getting a lot of hostility from the 'other side'.

As far as personal preference goes, I'm likely to stick with 5e D&D for GMing and use Paizo material for adventures. But having played a session of PF2 it seems a fun game, at least while the GM is willing to build my sword & board human Fighter for me. The 3-action economy certainly seems like a nice bit of streamlined design, though I don't think I'll ever reconcile with iterative attack penalties.

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

I am a little confused. I thought in PF2e monster level = character level. However, if I look at a 20th monster, the HP range is from 277-473! This is much more than PCs.

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