The DM indded may have forgotten the blindsense. On the AC, it is slightly below a CR 13. However, thats what is written in the monster manual. Possibly why the DM boosted hp to 270 when the original amount was 230.
3.5? Well in that case were splat books involved?
Wrought, so much wrought, all those numbers, they stain my landscape of dashing, dazzling roleplaying!
Wrought, so much wrought, all those numbers, they stain my landscape of dashing, dazzling roleplaying!
Are you making fun of that poster who kept using "wrought" incorrectly even after being informed he was using it wrong? That was a funny thread. :)
PS:You could also be using a it in a way I am not used to hearing.
3.5, would you like to tell me how this is happening? I am critical of such things because I have yet to a case where a rule or massive tactical error was not made. If I was GM'ing a party of monks they would most likely die.
What we have here is a clear refusal to acknowledge that monks can take down big monsters. I'm gmed for a monk majority party, they were not tpked by the big bads.
Poor little guys, they never had a chance!
Perhaps run a short game (it might be really short) of a party of monks having to defend their temple (which is in the middle of nowhere) from bandits, raiders, oni, giants, fighters etc etc. Make it in a precarious landscape, far north or far south, hills, mountains, ravines goblins or ratlings all over. Could be a fun little game!
Wrought, so much wrought, all those numbers, they stain my landscape of dashing, dazzling roleplaying!
Hello Gorb! Still falling back on mockery again instead of staying on the subject. Perhaps you can appreciate, the gaming language in Melbourne is not the same as the gaming language elsewhere? Australians are renowned for their use of slang.
Reading the old Quintessential monk book atm. Good times, it has a lot of fine ideas in it. So many styles, class variants and prestige classes. Lot of flavour. Good to know there are many sources to get more monk material and the fleshing out of schools and monasteries.
3.5, I am not trying to be insulting. That is just my online experience with monk stories.
As an example from my days at the 3.5 boards, there was story about how the party was in a crevice and a dragon was above the crevice. I don't remember the details, but the party was in bad condition. The monk jumps up like 40 feet. Actually I think it was higher, without a running starting, grapples the dragon and beats him up. Now in 3.5 grappling certain monsters was an exercise in suicide. To make a long story short that grapple check among other things was basically impossible by the rules. I do admit the story was nice, and I wish I could remember it better, but rules were not supporting it. After I pointed it out the poster was less than happy.
In the game idea I just provided, could also throw a dragon, drakes and linnorms at the monks, see how they do.
Linnorms suck for their CR. :)
If things go well I am about to have a table full of new people. I am sure one of them will pick a monk. Someone always does. The mini-campaign will end around level 7. I will report back with the results.
Even the guy* that used to play monks got his butt kicked most of the time, and he has been playing for years, but then again that might have been the 3.5 VoP skewing the results.
*Most likely won't be participating this time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dragon in studded leather? Do dragons get armour proficiencies? It certainly isn't very iconic. Do all great monsters wear armour now?
Dragons are intelligent, and they know that there are other races out there trying to kill them and take their stuff. Can you come up with one sane reason a dragon wouldn't use it's spells & resources to defend itself?
Oh, and Smaug the Golden, from The Hobbit (and you do not get much more iconic than that) impressed gold and gems into his hide to act as an extra layer of armour.
To Dabbler on the monk being redundant if a fighter of his focus/build is there, that isn't true. You simply have two characters that can do something really well (like disarm). The fighter can have that combat manoeuvre, or the focus of the monk, and have feats left over. The monk too now gets a lot of feats, will have some left over and will be faster than the fighter, with the better saves and those tasty immunities. I never understood why players get annoyed if another char can do what they can do. Stack your great abilities and thrash the foes. Trip your way to the nine hells.
You miss my point, which is that there is nothing the monk is bringing to the table save running fast that another class cannot do as well if not better (and in the case of running fast, how fast do you need to be?). Sure, the monk combines some of these things in one class that the others do not, but ultimately what is the monk doing? What are they contributing to the party?
They are a combat class that struggles to hit things. They can be maneuver-strong but are harder to make maneuver-masters. They can be very fast and good defensively, but what does that actually achieve other than allowing the monk to live long enough to run away and be sole survivor from a TPK-1?
Edit: On the subject of monsters using their treasure and brains, I'll add this to the fray on the metagame side of things:
Yes, the monster's stats are designed for their CR. Their CR is designed for facing the 15-point-buy character party of four. If you are using higher point buy or better than elite array stats, or have more characters, the monster can and should be beefed up accordingly, and using equipment is a good way of doing it.
On monks, no, they struggle to hit high acs, they don't struggle to hit all the time because not everything has a high ac. Being defensively sound doesn't by default lead to tpks. Being able to hit high acs and do great damage isn't all there is to bring to a party, but some seem to think it is. Which is sad in that it is so limited a view. A non-com skill rogue won't hit high acs either, but will be damn good at what they do. The monk also has real strengths, pathfinder gives them so much and so many feats. They get a lot, it just isn't concentrated in to hit and damage.
Smough sticking gems and gold into his hide isn't wearing studded leather, or any actual armour type. Do barbs wear gem armour? Is there a gold and gem armour type in pathfinder? What is it, it is medium, heavy?
Smough, that is just "gold". Still couldn't find a single example of a dragon wearing armour in any sort of official book source could you, tried to use The Hobbit. Sigh. Well Smough didn't wear studded leather either.
On monks, no, they struggle to hit high acs, they don't struggle to hit all the time because not everything has a high ac. Being defensively sound doesn't by default lead to tpks. Being able to hit high acs and do great damage isn't all there is to bring to a party, but some seem to think it is. Which is sad in that it is so limited a view. A non-com skill rogue won't hit high acs either, but will be damn good at what they do. The monk also has real strengths, pathfinder gives them so much and so many feats. They get a lot, it just isn't concentrated in to hit and damage.
Smough sticking gems and gold into his hide isn't wearing studded leather, or any actual armour type. Do barbs wear gem armour? Is there a gold and gem armour type in pathfinder? What is it, it is medium, heavy?
Smough, that is just "gold". Still couldn't find a single example of a dragon wearing armour in any sort of official book source could you, tried to use The Hobbit. Sigh. Well Smough didn't wear studded leather either.
Smaug sat around in a cave and nobody bothered him, until Bilbo came along and stole some of his treasure, ticked him off, and proved that he really needed to be wearing a little armor (Smaug got offed by a single arrow IIRC, because of a soft spot on his underbelly). Whereas most dragons in D&D aren't even the highest things on the food chain, and know better. But you could whine about the dragon knowing kung fu while you're at it.
The chart is not exact, and many monsters that are stronger than normal in one area are weak somewhere else. Ashiel no need to be insulting. The game does not assume you will equip every monster on your own. The bestiary monsters are basically plug and play, and their stats naked are what they are supposed to be. It is not a coincidence that a monster listed with a magical weapons and armor has similar stats to what the chart says.
Using the creature you chose, it's a Ghaele. Before going any further, it's hella powerful compared to the chart. For one, beyond base statistics, it's loaded with phenomenal cosmic power (spells and SLAs), flight, and so forth. Again, you're looking at the naked creature. Does his CR suddenly increase when he casts divine power? That gives +13 HP, and pushes his attack routine to +26/+26/+21/+16, and sets his average damage on all hits to 92. Similar to how the pit fiend self-buffs to greater than 40 AC.
And despite what you say, the Azata has has a +2 holy greatsword on the sample statblock plus additional equipment not accounted for. Now that additional equipment may just be a bag of gemstones worth almost triple treasure rating; but last I checked the 3.x/PF system assume enemies will use treasure they have, and if you're getting triple XP then one might expect it to be a little more challenging.
But yeah, the creature you showed as an example is the creature I will use as an example. You demonstrate that the monster CR stuff in the monster creation section is representative of a monster that is wholly naked, pre buffs, pre equipment. The Azata uses equipment and has some sample equipment selected out with the rest of his treasures unaccounted for.
PC wealth is considered a +1 CR. PC wealth. Like if you gave 140,000 gp worth of wealth instead of the 34,800 gp he or she is expected to have, then we'd have a +1 CR on our hands. Anything else is still in the realm of the base creature. We're still using the base creature's statistics. Last I checked, his statblock says Treasure triple.
And if you want to argue this plug & play nonsense, I challenge you to use your noggin' a moment with the following statements.
1) Most humanoids don't even have half their treasure accounted for (NPC gear which is it's own type of treasure value rating like incidental, standard, double, or triple). Proof that monsters aren't just "plug & play".
2) Virtually all monsters have no treasure accounted for, including those who use equipment. A weapon that they are typically proficient in that is reasonably strong for their level is usually provided, but the rest is case by case.
3) You are supposed to add or subtract equipment depending on the pace of your campaign. Monsters are assumed to have treasure based on the medium XP progression and standard methods. For slow, fast, low-fantasy, or high-fantasy, you must adjust their equipment accordingly. The Azata you show can't even afford his +2 holy greatsword in a slow XP game. Meanwhile, in a fast-XP game the Ghaele can afford a +5 greatsword (such as a +3 holy greatsword) or some other sort of gear.
4) Humans, elves, halflings, gnomes, dwarfs, half-elves, and half-orcs do not appear in the bestiary at all. By your arguments, they are not legal encounters because they don't have a statblock.
5) You break verisimilitude when you have things like Mariliths who are known to wear and wield equipment walk around naked and use completely mundane weaponry when they're carrying a +3 weapon and magic items.
6) The guys behind 3.x themselves said that monsters are supposed to use treasures and equipment if it would benefit them in the 3.x DMG. If you want a sure sign you're "doing it wrong" then drop usable items and equipment items into an adventure with intelligent creatures who never use them. At least, that's based on the guidebook for being a good GM and running the game as intended.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On monks, no, they struggle to hit high acs, they don't struggle to hit all the time because not everything has a high ac.
Just anything that expects to get into a fight. So the monk is a combat class that can only reliably hit things that aren't expecting to get hit.
Being defensively sound doesn't by default lead to tpks.
No, it just means you cannot contribute anything much to prevent them.
Being able to hit high acs and do great damage isn't all there is to bring to a party, but some seem to think it is.
You are right - there is healing, casting spells, using amazing skills. Unfortunately the monk doesn't do these very well either.
Being able to hit and do damage is the staple fall-back (if not the main point) of every combat class, with one exception: the monk. If the paladin cannot smite, he can still hit things. If the ranger isn't facing his favoured enemy, he can still hit things. If the barbarian has run out of rage, he can still hit things. if the monk can't um, do what he does (maneuvers, say, and they don't work on everything), he can't hit things very well at all.
Which is sad in that it is so limited a view.
Limited in that we expect every class to bring something useful to the party? Damn straight.
A non-com skill rogue won't hit high acs either, but will be damn good at what they do.
Scout, disarm traps, act as the party face, flank with other party members and deliver meaningful damage if he hits. What can the monk do?
He is not a skills monkey. He cannot hit high ACs. He cannot cast spells. He cannot heal.
He can do maneuvers, but the don't work on everything and depend on him taking the right feats. He can, if he spends every cent on an AoMF, just about manage to hit things, at the expense of meaningful damage and weapon effects.
The monk also has real strengths, pathfinder gives them so much and so many feats. They get a lot, it just isn't concentrated in to hit and damage.
Yes, and has real weaknesses in being a combat class that struggles to fight. The monk has some great features, but they don't work in conjuncture with his other abilities, especially the combat ones:
Run fast is incompatible with flurry-of-blows, as is abundant step. Wholeness of body is a non-ability: too little healing, too much cost, and takes too long.
Smough sticking gems and gold into his hide isn't wearing studded leather, or any actual armour type. Do barbs wear gem armour? Is there a gold and gem armour type in pathfinder? What is it, it is medium, heavy?
I would call it re-skinned masterwork studded leather, myself.
Still couldn't find a single example of a dragon wearing armour in any sort of official book source could you, tried to use The Hobbit. Sigh. Well Smough didn't wear studded leather either.
Actually I didn't look, I just pulled that one from memory. Usually I just have my dragons wear half their hoard - best way to keep it safe, right? Normally my dragons wear their rings of protection, amulets of natural armour or mighty fists, cloaks of resistance, rings of invisibility, etc.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This, dear friends, is pure Ashiel: insulting people in thread A and complaining that she's being offended, hounded and "Mommy they're nasty to me" in thread B. Go go double standards!And if you want to argue this plug & play nonsense
If you guys want to be children about this,
But then what can you expect with a board that allows thread-stalkers to go unchecked, or when you have to fight tooth and nail just to discuss something as civilly as possible and explain your position thrice or more.
Damn strait. Go-go gadget double standards. How awesomely nasty I am! I should shift my alignment from LG to CE sometime in the near future.
Just for fun, let's look at the whole paragraph.
If you guys want to be children about this, you can't use human NPCs either, because they don't have a statblock presented anywhere in the game. Only the means to create them. You also obviously have only orcs who wield falchions and have the exact same gear. Not even as much gear as they're supposed to have, since the statblock says they have NPC gear but doesn't spell out every piece by coin.
If I wasn't clear enough, then perhaps I should say I'm talking about the act of plugging your ears and shouting "statblock or it doesn't exist". I was demonstrating a childish argument of similar setup, arguing that demonstrates its absurdity. Sorry if that was lost in translation somewhere (I've had 5 hours of sleep 'cause my brother had company over last night and they wouldn't turn down their video games).
But yeah, let's go with the double standard thing. I like that more. I also hit little old ladies with barstools, and kick puppies in front of moving vehicles. (And no, I really do not.)
I'll just leave this compilation of Ashiel's statements from two threads here, because I think it's an interesting juxtaposition.And if you want to argue this plug & play nonsense
If you guys want to be children about this,
But then what can you expect with a board that allows thread-stalkers to go unchecked, or when you have to fight tooth and nail just to discuss something as civilly as possible and explain your position thrice or more.
I wasn't aware that picking apart someone's argument was the same as attacking them directly, stalking them on forums, or otherwise harassing. Pointing out clear flaws in their arguments (like demonstrating that the very enemies they use as examples prove my point about naked monsters) on grounds of logical evidence isn't exactly internet bullying or anything.
Wraithstrike is more than capable of showing why it isn't nonsense if it isn't. We'll see how it goes. I like Wraithstrike. Last I checked, Wraithstrike wasn't on some sort of campaign to try and be an ass to anyone, tarnish someone's name in the community, misquote my writings out of context like some sort of dirty political scheme, or do anything else underhanded and/or nefarious. I like Wraithstrike. We could probably have a great argument here all day long and I'd still like Wraithstrike. Bob_Loblaw too. Ravingdork as well. The list could go on.
But feel free to keep being my nega-cheerleader. I'll get you some pom-poms when I go to get my bowl of cereal and ibuprofen.
*about monks*
+1 to all of the above.
I would call it re-skinned masterwork studded leather, myself. Actually I didn't look, I just pulled that one from memory. Usually I just have my dragons wear half their hoard - best way to keep it safe, right? Normally my dragons wear their rings of protection, amulets of natural armour or mighty fists, cloaks of resistance, rings of invisibility, etc.
I'd like to play in Dabbler's game. Sounds fun, and like the verisimilitude is strong there. :3
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you Ashiel, I like the way your games sound too. Also:
Mud wrestling with pigs: you get dirty and the pigs enjoy it.
;)
Thank you Ashiel, I like the way your games sound too. Also:
Mud wrestling with pigs: you get dirty and the pigs enjoy it.
;)
Why thank you Dabbler. ^-^
I think that dragon is named Smaug, actually.
But it's OK, Gandalf didn't cast fireballs, Aragorn didn't cast any spells for that matter, the game draws inspiration from many sources, and I'm sure you can find armored dragons somewhere out there. It's fantasy, after all.
Mmm, but you don't find it in the more official standard stuff. In core or the bestiary or referred to in adventure paths. It is beyond uncommon, it isn't even very rare, it is not something a monk should be measured against.
Yep, Smaug, typing with a weird accent lol.
"I would call it re-skinned masterwork studded leather, myself. "
Of course you would. Except it isn't, and doesn't say that in The Hobbit. You are trying to use literature to back you up, but it doesn't say he wore coin sewn into a harness with a hauberk or a long coat of gold for his tail, it doesn't say he wore a coat of leather made of 50 cows, with the tanned leather studded with gems. And even if he did in The Hobbit, it would not matter because pathfinder and 3.5 aren't The Hobbit. None of the dragons in the sources wear armour made of gold/gems/studded leather, as the stat lines show.
"If I wasn't clear enough, then perhaps I should say I'm talking about the act of plugging your ears and shouting "statblock or it doesn't exist""
Statblock or it doesn't exist is not a childish argument--I've never heard a child use it, but good try attacking opponents to your point of view. The simple matter is, their wearing of armour doesn't exist in any of the pathfinder material on dragons--pics, stats or fluff.
On the flip side, there are a lot of examples in adventure paths of dragons using magic items other than armour that add to their protection and defences - Spires of Xin-Shalast, p44, Ghalorifax for one, and his listed tactics include self-buffing before combat.
You are right in that there are few examples of dragons wearing actual armour (although I don;t see how Smaug's golden armour could be regarded any other way), but that isn't to say that they cannot. Fear them if they do...
Edit: Longtooth in Fortress of the Stone Giants, also uses self-buff (mage armour) and an amulet of mighty fists.
Yep, other than armour.
A dragon that went heavy into abjuration would be a real challenge. That would require a fair few levels in wizard though to get the most use of it.
I think that dragon is named Smaug, actually.
But it's OK, Gandalf didn't cast fireballs, Aragorn didn't cast any spells for that matter, the game draws inspiration from many sources, and I'm sure you can find armored dragons somewhere out there. It's fantasy, after all.
Mmm, but you don't find it in the more official standard stuff. In core or the bestiary or referred to in adventure paths. It is beyond uncommon, it isn't even very rare, it is not something a monk should be measured against.
Yep, Smaug, typing with a weird accent lol.
Who's measuring a monk against a dragon in armor, exactly? It wasn't I. I actually mentioned, initially, that most dragons will just mage armor and be good for hours. Humorously, all this raging against dragons in armor was done concerning an item that actually produces less AC than mage armor.
In fact, you grabbed at the fact the dragon in my red hand game was wearing armor as a backup protection (that doesn't stack with mage armor) like it meant something. One might think people would whine about the fact the Dragon is actually going to use the +19 Use Magic Device check he gets as a class skill for dragons, or the fact the Dragon has Improved Unarmed Strike and Deflect arrows (yes, this dragon will beat you senseless "unarmed").
But if you do want to turn this against the monk, the dragon's still the same CR as he would normally be, and there's no concern that the rest of the party is going to have issues with the dragon. The rest of the party consisting of a psionic monk (monk-patch), a wilder, a psion, and an archivst (3.5 class divine wizard-type class, but using only PF spells). They're probably going to have a rough time with him due to tactical considerations (they'll be on a bridge, she will be flying over going *pooof* and spraying them with acid, and kicking most mundane ranged weapons aside), but nobody is going to be crying that the dragon is not fair or overpowered.
No, no. They will go, "Lookout, a dragon!!", and probably scramble to see if they have any acid resistance potions on hand. Then they will probably try to spread out. Then they will either flee the dragon and regroup, or they will try to seek or create some sort of cover (possibly hiding under their wagon long enough to think of a plan) or punish the dragon for coming around (such as readying actions to toss spells at it as it comes past). They might try to bomb it with tanglefoot bags looted off the humanoid enemies who will be using tanglefoot bags against them before they arrive at the bridge. If they ground the dragon or lure it in, then the psi-monk (the party's tank) will need to deal with the dragons absolutely frightening attack routine (3 unarmed strikes + 2 claws + 1 bite + 2 wings + 1 tail slap).
Of course, the dragon will also be using its at-will entangle to haze the party with the vines and moss growing on the bridge, since sticking them to the ground basically means she can spray them down with her acid-cone breath much more easily (no where to go and -4 to Dex makes for poor-ish reflex saves, and half movement speed makes it difficult to run away). She also has a wand of CL 9 magic missile with 10 charges, CL 5 shocking grasp with 13 charges, a brooch of shielding, a cloak of resistance +1, a handy haversack, and a couple of stat boosters. And yes, that does mean that when she sees the meddlesome adventurers she's going to use the wand and hold a charge so she can channel a 5d6 shocking grasp through her natural attacks.
She's kind of a mini-boss for the adventure, so the party will probably be happy to see some real magic items (all they've encountered thus far has been mostly consumables, masterwork gear, and a +1 armor). The dragon also has a pearl of power I which it can't actually use (not sure why I dropped it on the dragon unless it was because I was trying to round out its treasure with something that would be easy for the dragon to carry around).
The dragon has about 161 HP, and an AC of 22 (counting its mwk leather), which would be higher with mage armor. I suspect the dragon will flee the combat if her HP is dropped to about 25% of her total (about 40 HP or less) and fly off, either to report to her allies of the attack or to grudgingly haze them while they're traveling through the wilderness (or maybe both). It might turn into a race to see if the psion + wilder can destroy the bridge before she destroys them, while the divine caster and psi-monk try to keep the dragon busy.
The party will have a chance to acquire a potion of fly before the encounter, if they don't rush right off to the bridge (they were thinking of heading to the bridge to cut off the army before dealing with some of the closer enemies at a nearby keep), so depending on how things go, the monk might be able to take to the air and try to distract the dragon away from everyone else (being a psi-monk, she has the only AC in the party that can reliably survive the dragon's full attack, and she has evasion and a good reflex save, so she might be able to hold the dragon off while they collapse the bridge).
Yep, other than armour.
A dragon that went heavy into abjuration would be a real challenge. That would require a fair few levels in wizard though to get the most use of it.
Maybe not as many levels as you'd think.
Scroll of lesser globe of invulnerability 700 gpScroll of stoneskin 950 gp
Scroll of CL 11th resist energy 550 gp
Scroll of invisibility 150 gp
Scroll of CL 20 greater magic fang 1,500 gp
Scroll of CL 11th Permanency 1,375 gp
+ Component for permanency scroll, 7,500 gp
Scroll of guards and wards 1,650 gp
Scroll of spell turning 2,275 gp
Having a UMD check equal to HD + 3 plus Charisma modifier: Priceless.
Fun party is...that's a total of 16,650 gp. At CR 15 dragon still has 41,850 gp left to spend in treasures, which probably include a few more cool trinkets like rings, cloaks, wands, and more.
EDIT: And if you just want to be mean, Stealth is a class skill for dragons, so more than likely they have a Stealth of HD + 3 - size modifier. Toss Invisibility on, and the party is likely to not know what hit them until it's too late.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And if you want to argue this plug & play nonsense, I challenge you to use your noggin' a moment with the following statements.
1) Most humanoids don't even have half their treasure accounted for (NPC gear which is it's own type of treasure value rating like incidental, standard, double, or triple). Proof that monsters aren't just "plug & play".
Steps 7 and 9 disagree with you. I noticed you did not respond to them.
3) You are supposed to add or subtract equipment depending on the pace of your campaign. Monsters are assumed to have treasure based on the medium XP progression and standard methods. For slow, fast, low-fantasy, or high-fantasy, you must adjust their equipment accordingly. The Azata you show can't even afford his +2 holy greatsword in a slow XP game. Meanwhile, in a fast-XP game the Ghaele can afford a +5 greatsword (such as a +3 holy greatsword) or some other sort of gear.
Having triple standard it has 34800 by the medium XP track which the book says is the standard. +4 weapons are about 32000.
4) Humans, elves, halflings, gnomes, dwarfs, half-elves, and half-orcs do not appear in the bestiary at all. By your arguments, they are not legal encounters because they don't have a statblock.
Semantics, but if you are serious they fall under the NPC wealth table.
Those rules are in the book, in the game mastering sections of the CRB. I am sure you know this, and you know, or that I know this.
5) You break verisimilitude when you have things like Mariliths who are known to wear and wield equipment walk around naked and use completely mundane weaponry when they're carrying a +3 weapon and magic items.
I agree. I said that a while back, but as Dabbler said
Yes, the monster's stats are designed for their CR. Their CR is designed for facing the 15-point-buy character party of four. If you are using higher point buy or better than elite array stats, or have more characters, the monster can and should be beefed up accordingly, and using equipment is a good way of doing it.
I also said if you have a more optimised party it makes sense to allow them to use the treasure.
6) The guys behind 3.x themselves said that monsters are supposed to use treasures and equipment if it would benefit them in the 3.x DMG. If you want a sure sign you're "doing it wrong" then drop usable items and equipment items into an adventure with intelligent creatures who never use them. At least, that's based on the guidebook for being a good GM and running the game as intended.
Can you provide that quote, and I mean for creature like bone devils that have treasure but appear unequipped? Just to be clear I am not looking for a quote that says "Bone Devils....". I just want something that would apply to hit die based monsters. If the quote is not in the PRD then a page number works. I still have my DMG. I would look for it myself, but I am about to leave.
---------------------
3.5 Loyalist-A certain dragon in an AP uses treasure, and even if that statblock did not exist, that does not make it against the rules. I think the rules for other creatures to be able to wear certain magic items already exist. The only thing that needs to be proven is that there is a rule that allows it. The fact that some author has not used it yet in an official product does not really mean anything.
Steps 7 and 9 disagree with you. I noticed you did not respond to them.
Sorry, I was in a hurry. I was also preparing for a D&D game today, and so I was admittedly not giving it the full attention it deserved. So I will try to do so here.
The monster creation, section 7, discusses creating entirely new monsters based on certain aspects. If the monster you are having won't be wearing armor (many creatures have incidental or no treasure at all, in fact) then that makes lots of sense. Like it notes in Section 9, if your creatures have any gear that it's going to be using, account for it in the statblock.
Now IMHO, the most truthful thing said here is that the monsters are basically plug and play. They are incomplete but a good starting point. Each has treasure appropriate to the creature but the details are up to the GM. Just like orcs are basically plug and play, but the GM is free to fill out the rest of their gear. I mean, not all orcs are going to wielding falchions. Some might have longbows. Some might have greataxes. Some might be wielding a battleaxe and a heavy wooden shield.
As I noted before, PC wealth is +1 CR according to the core rulebook. Seriously, unless you're really, really, really piling on the gear then their CR isn't going up. If a creature has treasure that it is using, account for it in the statblock. If you decide that you're going to have a Ghaele Azata in your game, then you can take the Bestiary and see that they get triple treasure and most of that treasure is tied up in a +2 holy greatsword. However, giving it just a +2 greatsword, +2 longbow, +2 silk armor, +1 cloak of resistance, and some cleric scrolls, wands, or staffs. The CR of the ghaele doesn't change. It's still a ghaele. It's still got the correct amount of treasure. It's just more complete. This is not a whining issue (see below).
Having triple standard it has 34800 by the medium XP track which the book says is the standard. +4 weapons are about 32000.
3) You are supposed to add or subtract equipment depending on the pace of your campaign. Monsters are assumed to have treasure based on the medium XP progression and standard methods. For slow, fast, low-fantasy, or high-fantasy, you must adjust their equipment accordingly. The Azata you show can't even afford his +2 holy greatsword in a slow XP game. Meanwhile, in a fast-XP game the Ghaele can afford a +5 greatsword (such as a +3 holy greatsword) or some other sort of gear.
Exactly. His gear is his treasure. If you were using the slow XP progression you'd have to replace his gear because he can't afford a to have that +4 sword (+2 holy exactly). Instead you'd have to swap out his gear for something in his new treasure value. Meanwhile, if you were on the fast XP track, then he'd have enough wealth to get a +5 sword instead. If you were running a high fantasy fast XP game the ghaele would be trippin' magic items. :P
4) Humans, elves, halflings, gnomes, dwarfs, half-elves, and half-orcs do not appear in the bestiary at all. By your arguments, they are not legal encounters because they don't have a statblock.Semantics, but if you are serious they fall under the NPC wealth table.
Those rules are in the book, in the game mastering sections of the CRB. I am sure you know this, and you know, or that I know this.
You're right. I'm not serious. I was demonstrating the absurdity of this "statblock or it doesn't exist" mentality.
Can you provide that quote, and I mean for creature like bone devils that have treasure but appear unequipped? Just to be clear I am not looking for a quote that says "Bone Devils....". I just want something that would apply to hit die based monsters. If the quote is not in the PRD then a page number works. I still have my DMG. I would look for it myself, but I am about to leave.
I don't have my 3.x DMG with me at the moment. I'm at a friend's house getting ready to run a game as soon as we're done cooking lunch. I'll be able to look up the page number when I get home I think. I think it's in the "Running the Game" chapter, but I'm not 100% on that. I keep backups of my books on my PC, but I'm using a laptop right now, and I haven't moved my digital versions of my collection to this notebook yet. :\
=======================================================================
Now what I mean when I describe this as a whining issue, is that is basically what I'm seeing. It's someone whining that you're not using the statblocks exactly as they appear in the game then you're doing something that is...
A) Critically and morally wrong as a GM.
B) Means the creature is no longer the same CR.
C) Is somehow picking on X class (despite that we don't hear anyone complaining that wearing nonmagical armor somehow destroys all the other classes).
Now I'm not one to bring up issues of entitlement, but this just seems stupid. I'm sitting here, listening to people who seem entirely serious when they say it's wrong for genius level intelligence sentient beings with the capability of using magic items to use their magic items, or that using the same equipment values is somehow unfair.
Even in a low powered game, like with 10 or even 3 point buy, I don't expect the GM to actively try to dumb down the encounters like that. It hurts the continuity and verisimilitude of the game when your enemies act stupid. To me, this sounds pretty much like players saying that it's not fair that orcs are wielding greataxes instead of falchions, or crying because a marilith is wielding 3 glaives instead of 6 longswords, or that a kobold hit you with an alchemist fire instead of suicidally attacking your main tank with a short sword.
I'm going to apologize in advance. I seem to be upsetting people on accident, and I think it might be partially due to mental fatigue (I really need more sleep) and its effect on my vocabulary and patience. So I've tried to be very strait forward and polite with this post, but if you see anything, anywhere that seems to come off as offensive somehow then know it wasn't meant to be, and take it in the best possible way (even if you have to invent a new way to take it).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is there any downside to simply giving Monks good BAB all the time?
Can you provide that quote, and I mean for creature like bone devils that have treasure but appear unequipped? Just to be clear I am not looking for a quote that says "Bone Devils....". I just want something that would apply to hit die based monsters. If the quote is not in the PRD then a page number works. I still have my DMG.
If we're looking at 3.5, page 51 of the DMG talks about monsters with treasure and page 55 talks about NPCs with treasure. They beat around the bush a little bit, but the clear impression from those two paragraphs is that a monster will use treasure that will make it more effective in combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to apologize in advance. I seem to be upsetting people on accident, and I think it might be partially due to mental fatigue (I really need more sleep) and its effect on my vocabulary and patience. So I've tried to be very strait forward and polite with this post, but if you see anything, anywhere that seems to come off as offensive somehow then know it wasn't meant to be, and take it in the best possible way (even if you have to invent a new way to take it).
Oh no, don't apologize, I greatly enjoy the large amount of posters that can't argue with you, and get butthurt, so revert to nit-picking a single aspect of any argument you make. I mean, for the post part, every time I see you post on a thread, someone gets all angry and tries to argue. You crush them with a well-thought out, reasonable argument, and then they say, "Nuh-uh!" and insult you.
Humanity - Base Intelligence and Wisdom score of
Is there any downside to simply giving Monks good BAB all the time?
Not for the monks :D but it depends on what else you would change. To be honest, BAB is not the real issue so much - although it is irritating that they don't get it all the time (FoB is effectively full BAB anyway, but when you make a single attack your BAB is 3/4). Several versions of the monk proposed (mine among them) uses the weapon training mechanic for monk weapons/unarmed strike combined with 3/4 BAB and it seems to work just fine.
Where the monk suffers is in the lack of available enhancement for their 'primary' weapon and the fact that the secondary weapons have one moderately good option available and a lot of suckiness.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh no, don't apologize, I greatly enjoy the large amount of posters that can't argue with you, and get butthurt, so revert to nit-picking a single aspect of any argument you make. I mean, for the post part, every time I see you post on a thread, someone gets all angry and tries to argue. You crush them with a well-thought out, reasonable argument, and then they say, "Nuh-uh!" and insult you.
Humanity - Base Intelligence and Wisdom score of
+1.
I'm thinking about making popcorn for when I read threads where Ashiel is involved.His (her?) arguments tend to be very logical and well explained, usually in a very civil manner too.
And yet, somehow, someone always get over-passionate. There is always some fuzz around him (Her? You know what... I'll assume Ashiel is an Warforged).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll assume Ashiel is an Warforged.
Male or female personality warforged?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I remember watching Ghost in the Shell on Adult Swim when I was younger. There was more than a few times, questions about whether or not the Major was a man, or woman, at birth. I think Ashiel is our Major. :P
Not a great fan of the monk, which is why I am surprised I am in the defensive camp, but my current game will give more material for weighing that up on my end. We have a monk character coming in, and they are in a region with plenty of monasteries. Planning a Cadfael murder mystery.
v
Sorry, I was in a hurry. I was also preparing for a D&D game today, and so I was admittedly not giving it the full attention it deserved. So I will try to do so here.The monster creation, section 7, discusses creating entirely new monsters based on certain aspects. If the monster you are having won't be wearing armor (many creatures have incidental or no treasure at all, in fact) then that makes lots of sense. Like it notes in Section 9, if your creatures have any gear that it's going to be using, account for it in the statblock.
My point here is that the CR chart includes any treasure just like the Ghaele does, which goes against your statement that the chart assumes no gear other than what the book specifically says it has.
Now I'm not one to bring up issues of entitlement, but this just seems stupid. I'm sitting here, listening to people who seem entirely serious when they say it's wrong for genius level intelligence sentient beings with the capability of using magic items to use their magic items, or that using the same equipment values is somehow unfair.
Now I agree that immersion wise that leaving that +3 greatsword in a treasure chest instead of keeping it one you does not make sense to me either from an immersion point of view. It is however hinted at. I also agree that the pace of the game determines what the monster has. The game just assumes a medium pace. I also believe that how much of that treasure you use, that is not specially allocated for use should depend on the group. If we ever GM for each other I am sure treasure will be used, stat blocks be damned. :)
If I run for some noobs they get stock monsters as written, at least until they improve.Even in a low powered game, like with 10 or even 3 point buy, I don't expect the GM to actively try to dumb down the encounters like that. It hurts the continuity and verisimilitude of the game when your enemies act stupid.
I like this idea, but to give the players a fighting chance, even though it goes against what I just typed, I would probably weaken the monsters if they thought it weakened immersion for them. I guess I could also come up with a fluff reason as to why item X is not on the bad guy. Most players that don't GM never know how much treasure a monster should have anyway.
My point here is that the CR chart includes any treasure just like the Ghaele does, which goes against your statement that the chart assumes no gear other than what the book specifically says it has.
The problem is that it doesn't include "any treasure". It's just a starting point for figuring out where you want their AC to land, and if your critters don't wear armor to up their natural stuff. Remember that this is a section discussing the creation of entirely new monsters, and it's pretty liberal with words such as "approximate".
Now keep something in mind, the AC of a creature who doesn't wear armor is not going to deviate far from that point unless the creature selects different feats. A ghaele azata doesn't usually wear armor and lacks armor proficiencies, which means mwk studded leather or mithral chain shirts is the absolute best they can get. There is no conflict here. Their AC is 28 pre-buffs and they don't have armor proficiencies, which means that anything above this point will be combat gear/buffs.
The Ghaele Azata you showed is actually overpowered by the CR chart if you take its abilities into account along with the +4 sword. I showed that using its own abilities it pushes its attacks and average damage way over the indicated mark. If it was using just a masterwork greatsword, its attack and damage routine would be +25/+25/+20/+15 at 2d6+14/19-20, resulting in 84 damage which is about 24 damage greater than the damage a brute enemy will deal if it lands all its attacks based on the monster CR chart. It's simple to see that a +4 weapon isn't needed at all. With the weapon included as his treasure, the attack rolls are higher and the damage is too. In fact, it pushes his damage up to 92 (any) and 120 (assuming the enemy is evil).
Now this makes some sense. The monster is a little under the average stats pre-buffs, but over after buffs. Makes 'im pretty balanced. The +4 sword is entirely gravy, and makes him poop on the monster CR chart. The monster CR chart is showing a creature that is essentially blank statistics in a vacuum. For example, looking at the chart again, it doesn't actually take into account any of the creature's actual abilities; only the barest of things like DCs. But the Ghaele possesses full-cleric caster, tons of immunities and resistances, great saving throws across the board, continuous detect spells, darkvision, low-light vision, see invisibility continuous, incredible speed (by the monster creation guidelines it is +20 ft. unbuffed speed). It also has multiple forms, including a form that is incorporeal with a perfect fly speed of 150 ft. and no-save, no-SR, no-DR light rays, and a full arsenal of spells.
For example, the Monster Creation rules aren't exactly telling you how much the full-cleric spellcasting, spell-like abilities, and special abilities are worth. From a pure statistical point, his brute capabilities are not unlike your average CR 13 creature, and his HP isn't much lower. It's initially a bit lower, but using its own abilities (the same buff that it uses to bring its attack routine with a mundane sword above the CR chart and at-will aid which also increases attack rolls) to bring itself to 166 HP, and it has spells and abilities that can restore up to 209 HP. With greater teleport at will and the ability to turn incorporeal with a perfect fly speed, there is little stopping the ghaele from entering any battle fully buffed and effectively having around triple the HP of the monster CR chart.
That's without the +4 sword. With the +4 sword, his attack routine is way stronger than it would appear to be. The CR chart is a great basis for the otherwise naked Ghaele, but it's not taking all of his resources into consideration at all. His CR isn't going to change if we're using the slow XP progression and cut his treasure (and thus have to remove the +4 sword), nor is it going to change if we're using the fast XP track (and give him a +5 sword instead).
Now I agree that immersion wise that leaving that +3 greatsword in a treasure chest instead of keeping it one you does not make sense to me either from an immersion point of view. It is however hinted at. I also agree that the pace of the game determines what the monster has. The game just assumes a medium pace. I also believe that how much of that treasure you use, that is not specially allocated for use should depend on the group. If we ever GM for each other I am sure treasure will be used, stat blocks be damned. :)
If I run for some noobs they get stock monsters as written, at least until they improve.
Well that's the funny thing. This game (PF is nothing but a 3.x derivative) was designed with the understanding that monsters are going to use their gear. Thanis Kartaleon was kind enough to provide page sources before I got back. To be specific, here is the relevant text.
The standard way to acquire treasure is to defeat enemies that possess it, guard it, or happen to be near it. In the monster manual every monster has a treasure rating (indicating how much treasure it has, although for some creatures the rating is "none"). The tables found in this section enable you to determine specifics. After referencing the level and kind of treasure (coins, goods, items) found in the creature's description, roll on the appropriate row and columns of the proper table.
When generating an encounter dealing with monsters away from their lair (a patrol, a wandering creature, and so on), remember that a creature only takes what it can easily carry with it. In the case of a creature such as a displacer beast, that generally means nothing. The monster safeguards or hides its treasure as well as it can, but leaves it behind when out of its lair.
Example: Gnolls that live in a dungeon often leave their lair to wage war on nearby orc brigands to steal treasure and food. The PCs encounter and defeat the gnolls while the bestial humanoids are on their way to raid the orcs. Each gnoll has a smattering of coins or gems on its person. The leader has the masterwork greatsword from the group's horde and uses it in battle. The majority of the gnolls' treasure, however, remains in their lair, guarded by a few gnolls left behind and two well concealed traps.
It then goes on to mention monsters with class levels and how their treasure different such (NPC gear, blah blah).
So let's build an encounter and see what we can end up with. We'll keep it pretty simple to be brief, but let's say we have have a trio of Storm Giants. They are CR 13 with standard treasure (their default statistics have them with a smattering of mundane gear plus other treasures). Between the 3 of them, their total treasure value is 34,800 gp. So as Gamemasters we look in Gamemastering and build a treasure horde appropriate for them. We decide to find out what they've got in addition to their usual stuff. Minus their usual gear, they have 26,500 gp between them.
So we decide that they'll have about 500 gp each in silver pieces each (they're giants so this won't seem as heavy to them as it would to others). That leaves us with 25,000 gp between the three of them. Now we might want to throw some magic items into the mix for the party, but the giants wouldn't be carrying around anything they wouldn't need or use. So we decide they're carrying 2 medium magic items and 4 minor magic items (25,000 gp total). So each of them has a +1 cloak of resistance (3,000 gp), and one of them has a +1 ring of protection (2,000 gp). We decide one of their masterwork greatswords is also a +2 cold iron weapon (+10,000 gp), and one of the bows they're carrying is a +1 dwarf bane weapon (+10,000 gp).
Now we have their treasure horde. Pretty good haul for the adventurers who kill them. Naturally the giants will be wearing their cloaks, the ring, and carrying their special weapons. Now the giants might actually have a ton more treasure somewhere else (for example, their true treasure might be back in their lair, behind lots of traps and incidental-treasure monsters).
Using the Green Dragon that seemed to upset 3.5 Loyalist so badly, the dragon in my Red Hand Remix is carrying only the treasure that he has that is convenient for him to do so (and the piddly armor counts as part of that). However, if the party wanted to find the dragon's horde, they would need to find his lair. Now his lair's treasure is not made up entirely of his statblock treasure rating (even at triple treasure it would seem to be a very tiny "horde" for a dragon). No, there will be a ton of traps (each of varying CRs), as well as incidental monsters who have no treasure of their own (oozes, plants, undead servitors, etc) who are guarding the truly large horde (which is technically made up of the treasure those monsters would have had).
So the dragon's lair might include...
10 ochre jellies (worth 15,500 gp total)
10 CR 5 traps (worth 15,500 gp total)
50 gnoll servitors (worth 13,000 gp minus their used gear)
Leaving us with about 44,000 gp worth of treasure for our horde. So we divvy that out. We get about 12,000 gp worth of copper coins (about 24,000 lbs of metal for the dragon to lounge about on), a collection of weaponry and armors (a +1 merciful greataxe, +1 scythe, +2 breastplate, +1 mithral chain shirt) worth about 17,000 gp, a smattering of interesting but not overly useful (to the dragon) wondrous items worth about 5,000 gp (three more +1 resistance cloaks worn by the last adventurers foolish enough to try him, some potions of resist energy (acid) which the dragon giggles about but has no use for, bracers of armor +1 which the dragon left in favor of his stylish military uniform, etc). The other 10,000 gp consists of countless tiny quartz gemstones that are scattered about the coins and the errant silver, gold, or platinum piece mixed in with the piles of copper coins.
Even in a low powered game, like with 10 or even 3 point buy, I don't expect the GM to actively try to dumb down the encounters like that. It hurts the continuity and verisimilitude of the game when your enemies act stupid.I like this idea, but to give the players a fighting chance, even though it goes against what I just typed, I would probably weaken the monsters if they thought it weakened immersion for them. I guess I could also come up with a fluff reason as to why item X is not on the bad guy. Most players that don't GM never know how much treasure a monster should have anyway.
Well the biggest problem, as Tels pointed out, is when you later come to find their treasure and folks raise their eyebrows as the fridge-logic sets in. "Wait, why the hell was the succubus antipaladin wielding only a masterwork longsword when she had a +3 flaming longsword all along?" is not a question you want to be asked as a GM. It means you've failed. You broke immersion. You might be able to wiggle your way out of it, but it disrupts the flow.
There's nothing wrong with just loading monsters down in raw treasure (but they won't carry it around). I demonstrated earlier in this post that the Ghaele Azata is about the same difficulty using a mundane sword instead of his +4 sword. So perhaps you might have a Ghaele that instead of a +4 sword has over 30,000 gp worth of mundane treasures that he's guarding and only wielding a +1 greatsword or even just a masterwork cold iron greatsword (a piddly amount of money but still kind of useful to him for killing fiends). His CR isn't going to change or anything. It's just you'll naturally wish to stay away from including magic items that either A) he wouldn't have, or B) items he would have but seems to refuse.
But it's generally accepted that magic items are more fun to be found during an adventure rather than purchased, and if the bad guys (or good guys in the case of the Ghaele, unless it's a fallen Ghaele) have them, then they will be wielded. It won't affect their CR in a meaningful way (even if we took the Ghaele's entire treasure horde and spread it out in as many cheap but influential bonuses we could, such as some +2 nonhumanoid studded leather, +2 sword dropping holy, +2 cloak of resistance, +2 amulet of natural armor, and so forth, it still wouldn't be enough of a growth to warrant a CR increase and the effects are nearly negligible based on their inborn potential) even with the ghaele having triple treasure. It's not even a concern for creatures with less treasure.
As it pertains to the topic at hand; 3.5 Loyalist seemed to get upset because I mentioned the dragon in that one example wasn't being played correctly (senses ignored), and was kind of dumb (didn't even fly up and cast mage armor before meleeing with the PCs), and passingly mentioned the dragon in my Red Hand Remix that the PCs were going to encounter. I mentioned the dragon using flyby attack, improved unarmed strike + deflect arrows, and the odd wand he had. Loyalist got up in arms because I said he was wearing studded leather armor (which was explained via plot and had 0% effect on the difficulty of the fight since the dragon could have gotten more from mage armor with no resource expenditure) and claimed I was being unfair to the monk.
Well, at the end of the day, it won't matter much if your monsters use treasure values ranked as incidental, standard, double, or triple (these are monsters that do not require gear to be effective, and likewise gear has little effect on their overall capability). If giving your Ghaele some studded leather is going to ruin your monk, well that's the worst strike for a monk ever; because I don't see other classes complaining about such mild things. God forbid you actually fight anything that the GM wants to take time with to make stronger (hell, just picking some nice feats can seriously change tactics around).
Read a bit, too long, did not read it all.
I did have a question, why would something that isn't trained in the use of armour, wear armour?
It has no training in its use, why would it put armour on, even light armour? If it is a spellcasting creature, armour can hamper casting. If it has no proficiencies in armour, would it find it comfortable and would it wear it over extended periods of time?
"3.5 Loyalist seemed to get upset"
I am not at all upset, just had a fantastic dinner. Buffing and defensive magics are of course options for intelligent dragons and other such creatures that go this direction. You insisted they (dragons) should be wearing armour because they can afford it and it gives ac. But nowhere are dragons presented as doing this. They could also wear giant Osirion armoured skirts, but this is also entirely not official. I am not against monsters/dragons using their wealth, but dragons in armour is highly unusual.
"Loyalist got up in arms"
What arms did I raise? This is a forum board not an armoury, barracks or war hall.
P.S I really like smart dragons played with intelligence and a concern for solid and aggressive tactics. I have suggested a dm run his dragons as more difficult opponents because he went easy on some pcs. This is not the same as agreeing dragons should wear armour for the boost, when they aren't proficient in its use by default, without added levels and the related proficiencies.
Off to watch some Cadfael people, gives me dnd ideas.
Read a bit, too long, did not read it all.
I did have a question, why would something that isn't trained in the use of armour, wear armour?
It has no training in its use, why would it put armour on, even light armour? If it is a spellcasting creature, armour can hamper casting. If it has no proficiencies in armour, would it find it comfortable and would it wear it over extended periods of time?
I think you answered your own question for the most part. Masterwork studded leather armor and lighter is in fact light and comfortable enough to wear for extended periods of time, even by those without proficiency. If you lack armor proficiency, the check penalty of armors apply to your attack rolls. Masterwork leather is as simple and nonrestrictive as normal clothing (except for a tiny spell failure %). In fact, you can sleep in it comfortably (medium and heavy armors will fatigue you without the Endurance feat but even commoners can sleep in light armor). That implies comfort, I think.
As for the reason why someone not trained in armor would use it, that seems like a silly question. My brother has worn a military grade marine body armor (Kevlar flak jacket, I believe). It was kind of heavy but he noted it was comfortable. I punched the s@@& out of him too, and threw him to the ground, and it didn't hurt him at all. In essence, the armor did what armor is supposed to do. It softened the blow or otherwise negated it. So the obvious answer to your question is "for protection".
Now as far as spellcasting creatures are concerned, you're right. They have reasons to avoid armor. A rakshasa will probably not be found wearing anything heavier than an armored kilt or silk armor (both provide a +1 AC with no spell failure). Anything heavier and it risks diminishing their offense. However, my brother proved sometimes this is worthwhile. He had a sorcerer who wore light armor for quite a long time at low levels. His explanation was that it only added "an attack roll" to his spells but kept him alive more. Watching it in play, I realized he was correct. He only ever missed 1 spell due to spell failure due to his armor, but there were a few instances that he likely would have been dead if not for the armor.
The dragon I mentioned doesn't have a lot of spells that it uses. It's spell-like abilities (no ASF) are better than its actual spells at the moment, and its actual spells aren't for use in combat. Since the dragon is actively participating in a war as a mobile aerial artillery and shock trooper, his armor is both worthwhile and something of a status symbol. In the dragon's mind it makes him look cooler too (which is a plus for the juvenile dragon).
I'm surprised you're not familiar with depictions of dragons wearing armor since it's not really that obscure in fantasy art pieces.
I wasn't trying to imply that all dragons should wear armor. I mean, I'm sure some do, since light armor is pretty comfortable and they could literally wear it for ages without it rotting due to prestidigitation keeping it clean, but I only meant it was an option. As a player, I wouldn't be surprised if a dragon had some armor. Even if the party encountered a dragon with a level of warrior or something that provided armor proficiencies so he could wear heavier stuff, I would probably be scared out of my mind but not surprised. Just means that one of the dragons decided that killing those pesky armored ones was a bit harder than the squishy ones, and decided to adopt a similar concept.
The majority of my dragons don't wear armor. Most of them just cast mage armor and be done with it (and between mage armor and shield they don't really need a lot else, since additional armor is a bit redundant at that point). Doesn't me they can't. Doesn't mean they won't if the situation suits them. Same with other sorts of critters. Last I checked Centaur don't wear much armor, but that Centaur in Narnia donned some armor for warfare.
Read a bit, too long, did not read it all.
I did have a question, why would something that isn't trained in the use of armour, wear armour?
It has no training in its use, why would it put armour on, even light armour? If it is a spellcasting creature, armour can hamper casting. If it has no proficiencies in armour, would it find it comfortable and would it wear it over extended periods of time?
The same reason that wizards wear masterwork leather armour and carry darkwood bucklers. OK, they do not do this in everyone's games, but I know a few that do it all the time. The ACP and spell-failure chances drop to insignificant, and the cost is far less than the equivalent protection in magic items.
As soon as good bracers of armour become available, or a wand of mage armour, or first level spells become so last year that wasting one on mage armour is no longer a big deal, the armour goes out the window.
Some players will never do this, after all they have spells, they are behind the front-liners, but others do. Some DM's (and probably you among them) will never pull this one, but that does not make it an illegal or unfair move. Intelligent monsters are just that, intelligent, and they will use any advantage they can get when somebody is after their life. If humans can wear armour (and they can, even those non-proficient with it) then so can monsters.
Perhaps the question should be: If the armour has no negative connotations for the dragon, why wouldn't it wear armour?
Off to watch some Cadfael people, gives me dnd ideas.
Cadfeal is awesome.
Ashiel what is the point of steps 7 and 9 if the equipment gained from treasure is not meant to bring the monster up to standard, but instead of take the monster beyond the chart?
edit:I am probably going to have to read your post again. I did speed read, and may have overlooked it.
Ashiel what is the point of steps 7 and 9 if the equipment gained from treasure is not meant to bring the monster up to standard, but instead of take the monster beyond the chart?
edit:I am probably going to have to read your post again. I did speed read, and may have overlooked it.
The TL;DR version would probably be summarized as...
The Ghaele is already appropriate for its CR by the chart without the magic sword, because by its own abilities it is only a tiny bit below the chart value, but can buff to noticeably above the chart standard. You could give the Ghaele a mundane greatsword and barely affect it. The sword is merely gravy. EDIT: Generally speaking, creatures that have treasure that is categorized as anything except "NPC gear" generally don't really rely on treasure, nor will their treasures affect them enough to make a big difference. You could take the ghaele's sword and replace it with a masterwork greatsword, or replace his +4 weapon with a +5 weapon and still it wouldn't change the Ghaele in a meaningful way.
I think the dragons go above the numbers in the chart also with their buffs, if a GM buffs before combat. I think the chart is made that way so each GM can decide how much tougher he needs things to be. The chart is for the 15 point-buy very basic player.
If I am running for a bunch of less experienced players I don't buff the Ghaele. If the players are "Ashiels" they get the buff.
If one of the players is in my non-Ashiel group and my Ashiel group, and they ask about the difference I will explain that not all groups can handle the same things.
Ashiel=players that know what they are doing for the purpose of this post.
I also don't think that chart accounts for spells. If it did the Ghaele should be a higher CR since it is decent in combat, and has spells. It only 3 below 60 for damage, and can cast spells. That is worth at least 1 more CR.
*It is probably accounted for somewhere else in the book though. I hope so anyway, but that still does not change the Ghaele's CR. It seems to be more dangerous than an adult blue dragon.
Is it just me, or are we slowly elevating Ashiel to that of a deity?
Just you. :)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is it just me, or are we slowly elevating Ashiel to that of a deity?
I will never claim such a status, but I do have it in good faith that Paladins have smote enemies in my name. Make of that what you will. :3
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the dragons go above the numbers in the chart also with their buffs, if a GM buffs before combat. I think the chart is made that way so each GM can decide how much tougher he needs things to be. The chart is for the 15 point-buy very basic player.
If I am running for a bunch of less experienced players I don't buff the Ghaele. If the players are "Ashiels" they get the buff.
If one of the players is in my non-Ashiel group and my Ashiel group, and they ask about the difference I will explain that not all groups can handle the same things.
Ashiel=players that know what they are doing for the purpose of this post.
I also don't think that chart accounts for spells. If it did the Ghaele should be a higher CR since it is decent in combat, and has spells. It only 3 below 60 for damage, and can cast spells. That is worth at least 1 more CR.
*It is probably accounted for somewhere else in the book though. I hope so anyway, but that still does not change the Ghaele's CR. It seems to be more dangerous than an adult blue dragon.
I'm going to make this brief (I'll elaborate when I return, but a family emergency means I gotta go shovel dead chickens). Essentially, like I said, the chart is good for an enemy that is basically naked. Without treasure (or at least a mundane sword) the Ghaele is just barely under the average, but when he makes use of his potential (without treasure) he passes over the standard quite handily.
If you try to go just by the chart and not apply some judgment, then you'll find the vast majority of the bestiary creatures will not fall into line. I pointed out pit fiends before, then ghaels, and I could do this some more. Like you said, you would declare the Ghaele +1 CR because of his spells, going by the chart which doesn't take account of any of his buffs or anything. Thing is, it's the chart that's in error if anything, because the Ghaele is not unusual in terms of capability when compared to other creatures in the Bestiary of similar CR. Compare them to Storm Giants, Glabrezu, and Ice Devils.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I did, but going strictly by the chart and ignoring spells it falls in line.
I am assuming the giants weak will saves would be the reason for their CR despite them doing a lot of damage. If I were to investigate the other monsters I could find similar weaknesses.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to make this brief (I'll elaborate when I return, but a family emergency means I gotta go shovel dead chickens). Essentially, like I said, the chart is good for an enemy that is basically naked. Without treasure (or at least a mundane sword) the Ghaele is just barely under the average, but when he makes use of his potential (without treasure) he passes over the standard quite handily.
"...I'm going to make this brief (I'll elaborate when I return, but a family emergency means I gotta go shovel dead chickens)..."
"...I'll elaborate when I return, but a family emergency means I gotta go shovel dead chickens..."
"...a family emergency means I gotta go shovel dead chickens..."
"...I gotta go shovel dead chickens..."
...
Wait... what? The fu...
I don't think I'm brave enough to ask... Or sane enough to know the answer...
Also, I think I ended my quota of ellipsis for the next few weeks.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to make this brief (I'll elaborate when I return, but a family emergency means I gotta go shovel dead chickens). Essentially, like I said, the chart is good for an enemy that is basically naked. Without treasure (or at least a mundane sword) the Ghaele is just barely under the average, but when he makes use of his potential (without treasure) he passes over the standard quite handily.
"...I'm going to make this brief (I'll elaborate when I return, but a family emergency means I gotta go shovel dead chickens)..."
"...I'll elaborate when I return, but a family emergency means I gotta go shovel dead chickens..."
"...a family emergency means I gotta go shovel dead chickens..."
"...I gotta go shovel dead chickens..."
...
Wait... what? The fu...
I don't think I'm brave enough to ask... Or sane enough to know the answer...
Also, I think I ended my quota of ellipsis for the next few weeks.
You have no idea how hard I laughed at this post. So very, very hard. Hard enough that every time I tried to respond, I lost mobility in my arms and had to lay my head on the desk from reading it again. In essence, I was LMAO.
But yeah, I see how that would seem weird. Some of my family runs a farm, and they raise chickens. Their commercial size chicken houses are electrically cooled by great fans that displace a lot of air; but we're experiencing a heat wave at the moment, and today there was a surprisingly vicious thunderstorm that hit the area and knocked all the power out, threw trees over, hit lots of stuff with lightning, and so forth. It took the power out, and was raining hard. The inside of the chicken house got about 20 degrees hotter than they try to keep it (standard temperature for their houses is around 70, but the inside was more like 92 or so because the cooling fans lost power). The chickens should have been able to tough it out until the fans came back on, but the storm blew off the flaps and scared the chickens senseless. Now when that happened, the chickens inside the houses (about 19,000 chickens per house) piled to the middle of the house to stay away from the edges of the house.
Now, that's where the problem arose. You get 19,000 chickens who are given free range to move around in a better than football sized area and they all pile on top of each other in the center because of fear of the storm, and the poor birds at the center are going to broil. Essentially, the chickens on the bottom of this pile got hotter, and hotter, and likely were half-suffocated by their birdie brethren. To get an idea as to how this could be dangerous, japanese bees will kill wasps who invade their nest by swarming the wasps and encasing them in their buzzing bodies. The core becomes so hot from the body heat that it kills the wasps. Same deal here. Roughly 1,000 chickens from each house died from being crushed and overheated by the other chickens; and they called to get some help getting them out (because the ones who were killed need to be buried and it would be cruel and bad for the chickens to leave the dead ones lying around in the houses).
A sad day, and a series of unfortunate events, but one of the things one might need to deal with in rural life.