Are monsters harder in 3.5 or PF?

[Gizmo777]

Do you find as a DM, or a player, that monsters are more difficult in 3.5 or Pathfinder? This is more difficult per encounter, not for the DM to play. But specific challenge rating, I was browsing the monsters and was curious about whether or not the ones converted to Pathfinder were more challenging or not.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Thus far in my experience, in general, PF monsters are harder. They often seemed to have gotten HD and stat boosts, and the new PF rules of multiple primary natural attacks and getting 1.5x str and the resulting higher Power Attack bonus when you only have one natural weapon means most monsters now hit harder. Also, while the change to how poison works (lower amounts, but hits every round till you make x many saves) I think makes it worse for PC use (you'd rather have one big initial hit), it seems to work quite well for the monsters. PF removing some common forms of poison immunity for the players (most notably Hero's Feast) and forcing the caster to win a level check w/ neutralize poison further makes it a bigger pain to the party.

Of course, on the other hand grapple is less useful now, so grab is less scary. Though it can shut down a caster more often now, too. Also, I've noticed some toning down of, or "less permanent suckiness" of some of the save or die monsters. Like, Basilisks in PF will still make you wonder why you bothered to show up that night while you spend the fight stoned. But as soon as the fight's over, now in PF your allies can smear their blood on your stony hide to cure it, rather than having to wait till they can get a stone to flesh. As just one example I've experienced.

And 3E, especially in the later monster splat books, had a fair bit of completely crazy, overpowered and/or under-CR'd monstrosities. MM 3 is pretty bad in that respect, iirc.

So, the first statement can only be made generally. There are lots of variables and exceptions.

[Frosty]

At least there's a lack of That Damned Crab in PF...

[Feralventas]

3.5 Pit fiend poison
Poison (Ex)

Injury, Fortitude DC 27, initial damage 1d6 Con, secondary damage death. The save DC is Constitution-based.

PF pit fiend poison

Poison (Ex) Bite—injury; save Fort DC 32; frequency 1/round for 10 rounds; effect 1d6 Con damage; cure 3 consecutive saves. The save DC is Constitution-based.

1st one deals 1d6 con damage via non-magical means, resulting in it not being a Death Effect, so no immunities, just gotta hope you make two good saves. Lower DC to make though.

2nd one guarentees 3d6 minimum con damage, potentially 10d6 con damage, but is entirely based on Con damage; by the time that you're that level, Poison Immunity is quite easily available by system rules. This essentially punishes you for Not seeking out immunities or getting a fast means of un-doing constitution damage. Higher DC if you're not immune, utterly impotent if you are.


This is only one example, and I'm sure there are others to the contrary, but this is one that came up in my game recently, and I decided to run with the PF version.

[Lans]

Huge elementals are weaker in pathfinder losing 2 to hit and damage, over a third of its hp, 10' of speed and gaining 1 point of ac

[Arutema]

Rakshasa went from 7d8 HD to 10d10 HD, resulting in more than double health on top of their massive DR. It also bumped them from Str 12, Dex 14, Con 16 to Str 16, Dex 20, Con 22. The extra HD also give them much better Reflex and Will saves. This also bumps their BAB, and the standard Rakshasa now carries a +1 weapon so it can take iterative attacks with it.

And just in case you're wise enough to stay out of melee with one, they now know lightning bolt in place of haste.

[sonofzeal]

I find a lot of monsters are generally weaker in PF. Most beatsticks lose some significant offence, and monsters with SoD in 3.5... generally got significantly downgraded in PF. The downgrade was reasonable in many cases (killing a Basilisk now lets you unpetrify a couple of your less lucky buddies), but it's still a downgrade.

Compare 3.5 Troll (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/troll.htm) with PF Troll (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/humanoids/giants/troll). Same hp/AC, but PF troll has lower attack bonus, damage, and its rend went from 16 average to 10.5 average. You get the same with 3.5 Owlbear (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/owlbear.htm) against PF Owlbear (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/magical-beasts/owlbear). And most other similar monsters, for that matter.

[Thurbane]

I can't speak in general, but we recently fought a Succubus in our PF game, and it was significantly tougher than the 3.5 version. I was amazed how much punishment it took.

84hp vs. 33hp, better saves, +11 to hit with claws vs. +7, more SLAs...

[Spuddles]

PF monsters tend to have a lot more HP, and hit a little harder, but I think they're almost a logical progression of 3.5 monsters. 3.0 had CRAZY stuff- adamantine horrors, mountain giants, chronotryn, that weird CR20 fey water monster that was just a giant bag of HP, elemental weirds. Basically CRs all over the place. Later in 3.5's run, CR12 monsters didn't come with at will disjunction.

In general, a lot of the nasty save-or-die stuff on low CR monsters was gotten rid of. Gorgons, cockatrice,s and the aforementioned basilisk are all a lot cuddlier.

The loss/nerf of many powerful Core control options from casters makes creatures considerably more threatening, imo, but the Gygaxian "roll and die" stuff was trimmed down.

Though there is a monster that shoots cards from a deck of holding at you. Ranged touch attack, get a Void or a Star card. Pretty much the coolest monster ever made.

[Reverent-One]

2nd one guarentees 3d6 minimum con damage, potentially 10d6 con damage, but is entirely based on Con damage; by the time that you're that level, Poison Immunity is quite easily available by system rules. This essentially punishes you for Not seeking out immunities or getting a fast means of un-doing constitution damage. Higher DC if you're not immune, utterly impotent if you are.

That's not how it works. First off, they get a save to see if they're poisoned at all, if they make that, they didn't get poisoned and we're done. If they fail that, they take the effect, and begin to roll a save based on the frequency (in this case, once per round) and as long as they save successfully, they don't take the effect that round. So minimum is 0 con damage, and it could be anything from 1d6 - 11d6 con damage depending on how many saves they fail and when.

[Novawurmson]

Usually, I find by-the-book monsters to be not worth my player's time, whether 3.5 or PF (tier 3-4, 3.P medium-high optimization environment). I need to apply at least an Advanced template to make most fights interesting.

[Eldariel]

Many monsters got stronger, alongside low-optimization PCs. Some stupid ones (especially big bruisers that Paizo seems to overrate over and over again) got really weak. Tarrasque is probably the worst; while it does have a ranged attack & some immunities, it's now such a windbag that a supposed CR 25 beast can be beat in a duel by a Fighter 20, let alone Fighter buffed by Cleric or a Cleric or a Wizard or whatever.

[Sylthia]

Individual monsters in PF are a bit stronger, but I've found it's a bit easier to calculate CR for an encounter.