Monster's Stars Limit

[Dimirag]

These are taken from another thread, but it could be a thing to discuss on its own thread

There's an "unwritten rule" that no creature can have more than 2 stars no matter the amount of special abilities.

Now, solo said "I'm considering rethinking the max-two-stars rule. Haven't made up my mind yet."

Do we keep the ** limit or ditch it? If we ditch it, at some point every monster in every file would have to be updated.

Another possible thing to do (the one I'm thinking for my houserules) is to link the max stars with the HD value, it seems arbitrary but makes lesser HD creatures don't get an XP inflation due to several special abilities.

[chiisu81]

If it hasn't really been an issue, I don't think it should be changed. Maybe in rare exceptions for supremely challenging monsters they can have a 3rd "*", but I know I certainly have no interest in having to re-evaluate existing entries and rules.

[SmootRK]

My understanding is that the only function of the * is to help with configuring XP...
And, since we already have an XP field in every monster entry...

so, when one is creating an creature with extraordinary or numerous abilities, the creator of the creature can simply assign extra XP to the creature, with perhaps a notation in that field... instead of changing the basic system that is in place.

XP: #?#? (treated as 2HD higher)
XP: #?#? (unique creature)
XP: #?#? (extra abilities)
- or whatever. Just a couple ideas.

Further clarification can be noted in the monster description if necessary.

[Rhialto]

Do you have an exampe of 2 star monsters that seem to yield too few XP?
I don't think the change is necessary unless there is some "evidence" to back it up.

It is probably easier to just add a comment to the XP for monsters rule stating that they are guidelines and should be adjusted based on encounter difficulty.
Of course, the rules are already written in that spirit.

[Solomoriah]

If it hasn't really been an issue, I don't think it should be changed. Maybe in rare exceptions for supremely challenging monsters they can have a 3rd "*", but I know I certainly have no interest in having to re-evaluate existing entries and rules.

I have no plans to do so. More like "relaxing" the rule a bit. I still don't want to see a whole bunch of those things on any single monster.

Though I did notice a very old error... the giant shrew should have one star, as given, but at the end of the description where the poisonous variety is mentioned there should be two.

My understanding is that the only function of the * is to help with configuring XP...
And, since we already have an XP field in every monster entry...

I don't want to depend on the XP field. I want all monsters XP figures to be calculated via the existing table; the XP field is just there to save the GM time.

[SmootRK]

Then a small line that states something like:
"Normally there is a maximum of two asterisks on a single creature, however in rare circumstances for creatures with extraordinary or numerous special abilities, an additional asterisk or two may be appropriate."

Just my 2 cents

[Solomoriah]

At this point, I'm more inclined to make it somewhat informal. That is to say, you guys who are putting together monster books should feel free to add a third star to particularly special monsters without asking me. However, don't take the contributor's word for it... do what you think is right. Four star monsters (ooh, sounds kind of cool actually) should be discussed on the forum before applying that last star.

[Dimirag]

Four star monsters (ooh, sounds kind of cool actually)...

-Where have you been all this time?
-On a monster's inside
-Agh, that sounds horrible
-Not really, it was a 4 star monster...

Personally I would see monsters * rating as:
* common
** common but with strong special abilities
***rare and powerful
**** exceptional monsters, those that should never exist
***** unique entities