"... and all the children are above-average."

[Nifft]

D&D is like Lake Woebegone: all we have are average monsters (the ones in the books), and above-average monsters (add class levels + the Elite Array, and/or add a Template, and/or add HD which may improve stats further).

So where are all the below-average monsters?

They gotta exist, or the average ... isn't.


Show me some templates or ideas for rules to create LOWER stat individuals, and how to express that reduction in CR.

[noob]

A relatively easy way to reduce stats is to give a creature templates that gives penalty to a stat it have and a bonus to stats it does not have.(like half golem on that screaming mushroom that could not move)
Also making a creature with a high con into a construct and then back into a living creature is often a good way to lower considerably its constitution.
There is a bunch of other tricks like that but most of them pump the cr up a lot.

[Nifft]

A relatively easy way to reduce stats is to give a creature templates that gives penalty to a stat it have and a bonus to stats it does not have.(like half golem on that screaming mushroom that could not move)

"We call her the alarm clock."

[Esprit15]

Just apply penalties to things. Give them X negative levels, subtract some points from stats.

[zlefin]

i'd say giving -2 to all stats would be worth around -0.7 cr as a guess (actual cr effect may also vary based on how sensitive the monster is to its stats)
i'm sure some people who've done more work than I in the LA reassignment thread could give a better estimate.

[Elricaltovilla]

I've seen sickened and shaken applied to creatures to lower their CR. Pathfinder has the young template (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/templates/simple-template-young-cr-1/) and maybe one or two others that lower CR.

[Crake]

Average is meant to be average because 99% of the monsters of that kind are like that. The 0.5% outliers that are better become the ones with the elite array and/or class levels, and the 0.5% that are worse didn't survive to adulthood.

[Zombulian]

There's a template in MoI called Lost I think? Primarily punitive.

[the_david]

I've seen sickened and shaken applied to creatures to lower their CR. Pathfinder has the young template (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/templates/simple-template-young-cr-1/) and maybe one or two others that lower CR.

There's another one called the Degenerate Creature Template. (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/bestiary/monsterAdvancement.html) There might be a few others in the Advanced Bestiary. Feral Dragon comes to mind.

[Nifft]

i'd say giving -2 to all stats would be worth around -0.7 cr as a guess (actual cr effect may also vary based on how sensitive the monster is to its stats)
i'm sure some people who've done more work than I in the LA reassignment thread could give a better estimate. Interesting estimate.


I've seen sickened and shaken applied to creatures to lower their CR. Pathfinder has the young template (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/templates/simple-template-young-cr-1/) and maybe one or two others that lower CR. Nice, that's very useful -- though obviously in-universe a young creature is probably not considered by the census when calculating average stats.


There's a template in MoI called Lost I think? Primarily punitive. Cool, let me check that out --
Abilities: Alter from the base creature as follows: Str +4, Con +4, Int –6 (minimum 1). Hmm.


There's another one called the Degenerate Creature Template. (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/bestiary/monsterAdvancement.html) There might be a few others in the Advanced Bestiary. Feral Dragon comes to mind. That's great, so for Pathfinder (and probably 3.5e also) imposing a -2 to all rolls, and -2 hp/HD, is -1 CR. Very simple, and intuitively it seems valid. Thanks!

Any more?


Hmm, thinking about it, perhaps the Primordial Giant template from Secrets of Xen'drik was intended to be a "weaker" (less strong, more magical) variant. It's certainly going to lower two stats which are central to the typical giant.

[Mike Miller]

I feel like there were some negative templates in Dragon but I can't remember the name.

[Zaq]

I was going to say that you can just suboptimally choose their stats, but then I remembered that the Common Array for monsters doesn't involve choices.

You end up in pretty weird territory awfully quickly if you think too hard about "average" stats in the D&D universe, so I'd honestly just leave it alone ("realism" isn't). If you want monsters that are weaker than the book, it's relatively simple to slap on a few negative levels here and there.

[Elricaltovilla]

Nice, that's very useful -- though obviously in-universe a young creature is probably not considered by the census when calculating average stats.



Isn't that a bit like finding the perfect car for you and then complaining about the paint color? You can call the template whatever you want. Its function is to reduce the CR and abilities of the creature to which it is applied.

[Nifft]

Isn't that a bit like finding the perfect car for you and then complaining about the paint color? You can call the template whatever you want. Its function is to reduce the CR and abilities of the creature to which it is applied.

... unless the abilities are Dex-based in which case this would increase those abilities. To be clear: the template you provided is not perfect. It's inferior to the Degenerate creature template, for example.

That said, I wasn't actually complaining, but rather pointing out an interesting nuance about the intended role of the template.

But it's still very useful, and thank you.

[Elricaltovilla]

... unless the abilities are Dex-based in which case this would increase those abilities.

But it's still very useful, and thank you.

I'm talking about complaining about the name of the template. I'm very pro-refluffing and people getting hung up on the name of something in the rules bothers me. It could just as easily be the "runt template" and ignore any mention of the creature being young for your census taking purposes.

[Zombulian]

Interesting estimate.

Nice, that's very useful -- though obviously in-universe a young creature is probably not considered by the census when calculating average stats.

Cool, let me check that out -- Hmm.

That's great, so for Pathfinder (and probably 3.5e also) imposing a -2 to all rolls, and -2 hp/HD, is -1 CR. Very simple, and intuitively it seems valid. Thanks!

Any more?


Hmm, thinking about it, perhaps the Primordial Giant template from Secrets of Xen'drik was intended to be a "weaker" (less strong, more magical) variant. It's certainly going to lower two stats which are central to the typical giant.

Yeah my memory was pretty foggy on that. It's much better than I remembered.

[Nifft]

I'm talking about complaining about the name of the template. I'm very pro-refluffing and people getting hung up on the name of something in the rules bothers me. It could just as easily be the "runt template" and ignore any mention of the creature being young for your census taking purposes.

Ah, you quoted before I finished editing.

I wasn't complaining about anything, but rather pointing out an interesting nuance about the intended role of the template.

Just to be clear: there is no census, and the MM values are not empirically derived by a crew of monster-surveyors. It's just that the central conceit of this thread is that the MM entry is an average.

That said, the template is not perfect. It's useful, and I'm thankful that you provided it, but please don't try to don't over-sell its value. I'm quite comfortable with re-fluffing, so it's the mechanics -- not the name -- which render the template imperfect.

(And honestly I wouldn't have even mentioned the imperfection -- which is fairly minor -- if you hadn't insisted that the Young template is "perfect". It's still useful, and thank you for pointing it out, but I can't let that stand. It's not perfect.)



Yeah my memory was pretty foggy on that. It's much better than I remembered.

In your defense, the fluff seemed in tune with your memory.



I feel like there were some negative templates in Dragon but I can't remember the name.

If you recall any details about them, please do post!



I was going to say that you can just suboptimally choose their stats, but then I remembered that the Common Array for monsters doesn't involve choices.

You end up in pretty weird territory awfully quickly if you think too hard about "average" stats in the D&D universe, so I'd honestly just leave it alone ("realism" isn't). If you want monsters that are weaker than the book, it's relatively simple to slap on a few negative levels here and there.

Heh, yeah, it's like you get to choose between a 10 or an 11.

Technically that might be a relevant decision, if the thing has a +2 and you want it to have a feat that requires 13 in that stat, but... yeah.


Pathfinder's templates seem to imply that 2 negative levels is roughly -1 CR.

[Afgncaap5]

One other way to introduce something that varies slightly from the modal average is to just roll hit points instead of using the x.5 average per die like the Monster Manual does. A lot of the creatures in official modules that I've read have a variety of hit points, allowing more or less identical enemies to sometimes go down in three or four more hits than their friends, while a few will be easily one-shotted all because their hit points are higher or lower.

[Eldariel]

Non-elite array for all monsters assigned randomly produces a bit of variance, much like what you see in nature. Type values are still the same but few if any creatures actually match those type values; they tend to be above in one category and below in another.

[gkathellar]

That's great, so for Pathfinder (and probably 3.5e also) imposing a -2 to all rolls, and -2 hp/HD, is -1 CR. Very simple, and intuitively it seems valid.

I'm pretty sure it doesn't hold up to actual averages of stats relative to CR, unfortunately. Even if it does, make sure to reduce AC and DCs, too.

[the_david]

I'm pretty sure it doesn't hold up to actual averages of stats relative to CR, unfortunately. Even if it does, make sure to reduce AC and DCs, too.

That's exactly what it does actually.

And I was wrong about the Feral Dragon template. Boy was I wrong. The CR adjustment is not even close.

[unseenmage]

Disease, poison, negative levels.

Insomnia, starvation, thirst.

Cursed magic items, Int Magic Item with an opposed goal.

Geas/Quest, Dominate, Monstrous Thrall.

Vampirism, Lycanthropy, mind flayer larvae, aboleth mucus.

Ghost haunting, Bestow Curse.

Stone age equipment, equipment with the broken condition, potion/scroll mishaps, mage's disjuncted.

Having the low ground, wind effects, falling prey to a trap or hazard.

Having already been in a previous fight, being overburdened, being bound.

Being on fire, freezing to death, drowning.

Buff spells ending sooner than expected, Fusion power ending.

Over heavily armored for capabilities, dismounted lancer, disarmed archer.

Carrying all their potions and scrills and alchemical items in full view in a burning building.

Squeezing through a tight space, being immobilized, planar bound, caged, adverse planar effects.

Insanity, madness, sanity damage, attacked by a Shadow, attacked by Gibbering Mouther.

Deaf, blind, missing limbs, lame, on caltrops, entangled.

All of the above can debilitate a character, and therefore a monster if used properly. Some lower CR more than others and some will increase CR eventually or if the monster knows about them or how to capitalize on them.

There are loads of ways to reduce the 'average' stats already baked into the game. I suspect that a lot of the trouble we have in considering weaker than usual monsters is that GMs are expected to run their NPCs as geniuses with perfect knowledge rather than as sickened, starving, insomniacs without the good sense to use better equipment.

EDIT
I once combined a Gelatinous Cube with an Ogre Mage via monstrous lycanthropy and the G. Cube wound up lowering the Ogre Mages capabilities.

[ShurikVch]

Maybe, apply some Flaws (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterFlaws.htm) and Traits (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterTraits.htm) for monsters?

Also, how about the rolling some dice?
For example:
That Wolf (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/wolf.htm) got 2d8+4 hp? OK roll your d8 twice - you may got 1 or 2
Oh, and abilities:
Abilities: Str 13, Dex 15, Con 15, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 6 Substract 10 (or 11 - for odds) ad roll 3d6 (except for Int - we don't need a sapient Wolf)

[Zaq]

Disease, poison, negative levels.

Insomnia, starvation, thirst.

Cursed magic items, Int Magic Item with an opposed goal.

Geas/Quest, Dominate, Monstrous Thrall.

Vampirism, Lycanthropy, mind flayer larvae, aboleth mucus.

Ghost haunting, Bestow Curse.

Stone age equipment, equipment with the broken condition, potion/scroll mishaps, mage's disjuncted.

Having the low ground, wind effects, falling prey to a trap or hazard.

Having already been in a previous fight, being overburdened, being bound.

Being on fire, freezing to death, drowning.

Buff spells ending sooner than expected, Fusion power ending.

Over heavily armored for capabilities, dismounted lancer, disarmed archer.

Carrying all their potions and scrills and alchemical items in full view in a burning building.

Squeezing through a tight space, being immobilized, planar bound, caged, adverse planar effects.

Insanity, madness, sanity damage, attacked by a Shadow, attacked by Gibbering Mouther.

Deaf, blind, missing limbs, lame, on caltrops, entangled.

All of the above can debilitate a character, and therefore a monster if used properly. Some lower CR more than others and some will increase CR eventually or if the monster knows about them or how to capitalize on them.

There are loads of ways to reduce the 'average' stats already baked into the game. I suspect that a lot of the trouble we have in considering weaker than usual monsters is that GMs are expected to run their NPCs as geniuses with perfect knowledge rather than as sickened, starving, insomniacs without the good sense to use better equipment.

EDIT
I once combined a Gelatinous Cube with an Ogre Mage via monstrous lycanthropy and the G. Cube wound up lowering the Ogre Mages capabilities.

I want someone to rearrange this post until it can be sung to the tune of “We Didn’t Start the Fire.”

[Nifft]

Some lower CR more than others and some will increase CR eventually or if the monster knows about them or how to capitalize on them.

Show me that list.

Listing the conditions is interesting, but condition => CR adjustment would be much more useful.

Thanks!

[unseenmage]

Show me that list.

Listing the conditions is interesting, but condition => CR adjustment would be much more useful.

Thanks!
Sorry but you, as the GM are expected to adjust CRs for circumstance of your own accord.

My above list is meant to illustrate such.

I don't recall where but there is a line in the DMG or MM explaining that improved equipment adjusts an Ogre's CR upwards. I want to say it is explained somewhere else that disease can lower CR but that is a foggier memory.

If however you're looking for more player accessible means of lowering CR for whatever reason the Degenerate, Young, and Incarnate Construct trmplates will have to suffice.

EDIT
For a rules crunchier use of my list of disadvantageous effects one could make use of Pathfinder's monster buikding rules to see just what each disadvantage actually DOES to a given creature's CR.
But CR being what it is, by which I mean a grotesquely inaccurate measurement, it's likely easier/better to ad hoc a -1 or -2 here and there.

[ShurikVch]

There it is:

Modifying Difficulty
Orcs with crossbows, behind cover, firing down at the PCs while the characters cross a narrow ledge over a pit full of spikes are much more dangerous than the same orcs being engaged in hand-to-hand combat in some tunnel. Likewise, if the PCs find themselves on a balcony, looking down at oblivious orcs who are carrying barrels of flammable oil, the encounter is likely to be much easier than if the orcs were aware of the PCs.
Consider the sorts of factors, related to location or situation, that make an encounter more difficult, such as the following.
• Enemy has cover (for example, behind a low wall).
• Enemy is at higher elevation or is hard to get at (on a ledge or atop a defensible wall).
• Enemy has guaranteed surprise (PCs are asleep).
• Conditions make it difficult to see or hear (mist, darkness, rumbling machinery all around).
• Conditions make movement difficult (underwater, heavy gravity, very narrow passage).
• Conditions require delicate maneuvering (climbing down a sheer cliff, hanging from the ceiling).
• Conditions deal damage (in the icy cold, in a burning building, over a pit of acid).
Conversely, the first three conditions given above make encounters easier from the PCs’ point of view if they are the ones benefiting from the cover, elevation, or surprise.

[Nifft]

Sorry but you, as the GM are expected to adjust CRs for circumstance of your own accord.
You have struck upon the exact reason why I'm seeking examples.

It's so that I, as the GM, can adjust CRs for circumstances in a fair and reliable way.

If you have practical experience with any sub-set of the conditions in your list, I'd find your insight on those experiences a LOT more valuable than just a list of conditions.


Incarnate Construct trmplates. I'd forgotten about that one. Thanks!


There it is: Yeah, that's also true.

Circumstances can increase or decrease difficulty.

[unseenmage]

You have struck upon the exact reason why I'm seeking examples.

It's so that I, as the GM, can adjust CRs for circumstances in a fair and reliable way.

If you have practical experience with any sub-set of the conditions in your list, I'd find your insight on those experiences a LOT more valuable than just a list of conditions.

I'd forgotten about that one. Thanks!

Yeah, that's also true.

Circumstances can increase or decrease difficulty.
Sadly, it's not just true it is also about the only text alloted to the idea.

Did you see my above edit? The PF monster building (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/bestiary/monsterCreation.html)rules would seem to be quite comprehensive with a change to some stats reverberating to change two, sometimes even three other stats, CR among them.

[Khedrac]

So where are all the below-average monsters?

They gotta exist, or the average ... isn't.Actually, whilst normally I am right with you about lazy use of language like this (another "favourite" is "up to half price"), there don't have to be any "below average" monsters!
If the average in question is the median or the mode instead of the mean then you can get away with the vast majroity being average and a few being above average and none being below.

That said, something I don't think anyone has suggested yet is to give some monsters fewer hit points (i.e. less than 4.5 per d8 etc.) to make them weaker.
Seting all mnsters to "average hit points" was something introduced with 3rd Ed, previosu versions would usually roll hp.

[Nifft]

Sadly, it's not just true it is also about the only text alloted to the idea. Yuuuuuuuuup. Eyeballing can be done, but the only tool they really give you is trial & error.


Did you see my above edit? The PF monster building (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/bestiary/monsterCreation.html)rules would seem to be quite comprehensive with a change to some stats reverberating to change two, sometimes even three other stats, CR among them. That looks like a good resource.

Thanks!

[ShurikVch]

How about the creatures which are too young or too old?

The "-6" adjustment of "Venerable" to all physical stats is very unpleasant to monsters who prefer physical combat, and +3 to mental abilities wouldn't make their casters into godlike opponents (presuming they even have casters)

Dungeon magazine have stats for Wolf Pup (#82) and Grimlock Child (#96); Larval Feyr is in Dragon Annual #5; stats for Human children could be derived from the Throng of Children in the Cityscape

[atemu1234]

we don't need a sapient Wolf

Well, we already have at least two of those.

[noob]

If an animal gets more than two int by a way that do not specify what their type becomes then their type becomes not defined by raw as raw says that animals have 2 int or less than 2 int.
But it can not simply stop having a type unless it stops being a creature too since it is written that all the creatures have a type.
But it is never written that everything is either a creature or an object so you could have that animal simply stop being a creature and not be an object.
So avoid rolling for int on a wolf.

[GreatWyrmGold]

I want someone to rearrange this post until it can be sung to the tune of “We Didn’t Start the Fire.”
...Dammit. This kind of thing is my weakness. But with the words already sorted out, the themes an absolute mess, and no rhymes to speak of...it needs to be reworked from the top.



Sorry but you, as the GM are expected to adjust CRs for circumstance of your own accord.
By that logic, who needs rules? The GM should be expected to make up rolls and modifiers and stuff of their own accord.
Saying "Here's stuff you can do, which you probably knew you could do, but you're on your own for the information you are actually interested in" isn't helpful.

[unseenmage]

...

By that logic, who needs rules? The GM should be expected to make up rolls and modifiers and stuff of their own accord.
Saying "Here's stuff you can do, which you probably knew you could do, but you're on your own for the information you are actually interested in" isn't helpful.

I agree in that it was an oversight in the original designs for 3.x that carried over to its successors.

The idea that monsters are characters too was explored in some places but ignored in others.
Where monster CR and character ECL intersect is always a muddy area in the 3.x rules.
Level adjustment and racial hit die are already a mess, trying to square challenge ratings with conditional modifiers (EDIT that affect PCs too), even frequently occurring ones, would have been just as messy one imagines. It's no wonder we don't have a DMG chapter exploring it.

[ericgrau]

Small animals and CR 1/4 stuff. CR 1/4 is effectively CR -3, and CR 1/2 is effectively CR -1. The problem with giving anything an LA below 0 though is that it's too easy to abuse. It's too easy to mostly-negate drawbacks in 3.5 and then once those are smashed all you're left with is an extra level. That's way too good.

What might work better is to give weak monsters an extra +2 to 1-3 ability scores that the player is free to choose. Call it, "You were one of the unusual special weak monsters". Harder to abuse that way. Can still be min maxed, but if you remember that for this reason a -2 is way less significant than a +2, then you can still keep it fair. In fact just one +2 is usually plenty.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Okay, two things. One, this thread isn't about player monsters. Two, how is "You get a +2 to a few ability scores" fitting for "You are an unusually weak monster"?

[ericgrau]

Ah I misread something. I thought he might where's the stuff with below average CR. That's the 1/4 and 1/2 stuff.

I think the below average stuff is missing because no one cares to get into that much detail... not even in the beast that is 3.5. Most time you are just going to use average monsters. If you're going to put in all that work as a DM, are you really going to do it to make a sucky monster?

I guess you could do it so PCs could fight something sooner... but that means they're fighting the sickly reject of the stone giant clan or something. That's not very heroic. Which means practically speaking you want to use weak monsters on random encounters. And you're going through a ton of extra effort just to do that.

If you really want to do it then I'd find the average monster stats by CR table. I think most d20 things scale by about 1.25 per CR. HP is a bit quadratic. So to drop the CR by 1, slap a -1 on everything. Maybe one thing by -2. Drop HP by about 2*CR (rough estimate of quadratic; using the HP by CR tables could improve this). So a CR 10 monster with 100 HP would lose 20 HP and be 80 HP. Drop some special abilities maybe if needed. Move on to something more productive.

[lord_khaine]

To answer the OP.
All the below-average monsters are dead. Victims to survival of the fittest.

[GreatWyrmGold]

That...that's not how that works. There is no species on the planet which precisely cuts off the lower half of the fitness bell curve. I could go into more detail about why the only reasonable interpretation is that the average is the average of surviving monsters, but then I realized that this argument was as pointless as it sounds.

[Nifft]

That...that's not how that works. There is no species on the planet which precisely cuts off the lower half of the fitness bell curve. I could go into more detail about why the only reasonable interpretation is that the average is the average of surviving monsters, but then I realized that this argument was as pointless as it sounds.

Just for the sake of sanity: my assumption is that what GWG said above is exactly the case, and the numbers in the MM are the average of the survivors.

Both the runts and the pack-lords shall be slain by the spears and spells of the PCs, and the boss-monsters will die with extra prejudice, so it's not like D&D has something against the weaker members of the race -- if anything, the strong are targeted for murder + looting, since the strong have names & class levels & unequivocally better loot.

[ericgrau]

Clearly the only solution is to roll 3d6 for each monster ability score in a row, for each individual monster for every fight. Then consult the 6 dimensional CR table.

[Jay R]

D&D is like Lake Woebegone: all we have are average monsters (the ones in the books), and above-average monsters (add class levels + the Elite Array, and/or add a Template, and/or add HD which may improve stats further).

So where are all the below-average monsters?

They gotta exist, or the average ... isn't.

You're right. What you're calling the average ... isn't.

Somehow, you've decide that the basic monsters are average. Drop that unsupported and useless assumption. The basic monster is no more average that the basic beast. The existence of the Dire Wolf doesn't require the rules to include a Lame Wolf. It just shows that the Wolf is not average. It's base level, which is not the same thing.

Similarly, any monster with class levels doesn't require the existence of a monster with negative levels, just as a ninth level commoner doesn't require us to assume that there are negative seven level commoners. We just have to drop the notion that level one commoners are average. They are the mode, not the mean.

Your assumption is equivalent to deciding that first level wizards are average wizards. It's just not true.

There are base monsters, and there are enhanced monsters. So the average would be above the base monster. But the concept of an "average" monster has no use in the game. Just drop the notion.