Not really humorous. I do think it's hilarious that people call 4e "WoW on paper" when 3x (and Pathfinder) apparently share the same mentality when it comes to making any kind of sense.
I get it, it's a game. Too bad 3.x/Pathfinder/4e never let me forget it's a game.
Damn, I miss AD&D.
The game is still available. Since you can't read posts of other people that bring rational points into play with the current game system I highly recommend with an attitude like that you return to AD&D, no one is stopping you.
Does the stock monster have an allowance for treasure? If so, why can't they use it? Or are they just things that drop treasure for players, a la WoW?So the stock monster, and the [stock monster + magic items] should have the same CR? That is what Cod is saying.It also doesn't make them too stupid to use what they have. Only bad DMs can do that.Why would a) an intelligent critter have a bunch of stuff he or she couldn't use lying around, and b) not use what they do have lying around?Ever seen the A&E show Hoarders? What's a Dragon's pile of treasure called again?
Yup, they're intelligent, but that doesn't make them immune to complusions, or arrogance for that matter.
I am not saying they can't(use the treasure). I am saying you can't bring such things to the boards because it is a house rule. I would not even do it at the table unless my group was good enough to deal with a tougher version of a monster though.
You already know that by RAW they don't allow for the treasure to be used. I often dont even give treasure for defeating an individual monster. I just make sure they get enough gold to stay relevant for their level.
No more silly questions Derek(the WoW one and gold dropping). I can't tell if you are trying to be humorous or not.So, if a monster has item x in his hoard and decides "Wow, maybe I could get use out of this" it's a houserule???
If that's the case, Pathfinder truly does suck ass. Major ass. And has forgotten the face of it's grandfather.
Yep. It is a houserule to allow the monster to use items. This has come up before. I am too lazy to find the thread though. One of the designers chimed in and said stock monster only=CR. Any changes that improve the stock monster add to the CR. The CR table in the bestiary compares to the stock monsters as they are. The only way a stock monster gets to use items is to give it class levels.
PRD:A monster with class levels always possesses treasure equal to an NPC of a level equal to the monster's final CR (as calculated in Step 3, below). To determine the value of this gear, use the value listed for a heroic NPC of that CR, as listed in Table: NPC Gear. Once a total GP value is determined, follow the rules for outfitting an NPC as outlined in that section. Gear should help a monster with class levels remain challenging and retain statistics close to those presented on Table 1-1: Monster Statistics by CR.
If you use the rules for adding racial HD, templates, and so on they don't get to use treasure, and keep the same CR.
|
Yeah. I kinda wish the dude with the AD&D books wasn't released, forcing me to play 3.x. O, as I like to call it: "Leave Common Sense at the Door - We're Playing A Game of Math!"As in: "It's perfectly fair for an intelligent monster to have a +4 stat booster or a scroll of [insert bad ass spell here], but, if they actually USE these items, oh noes, someone might get a booboo and cry".
We arent crying boo hoo we are crying adjust the CR because the CR as it stands is without equipment.
"Let me give them these items that grant greater power for free without the added difficulty level even though this makes them more difficult to kill!" sounds a little bit unfair.
If instead of giving them a headband of intellect +6 I gave them the ability score bonus anyways wouldn't I by the rules be required to raise the CR?
I don't know. when your Wizard puts it on, is he a higher level character?
The more I read these boards, the more I really can't stand Cook, Tweet and Williams screwing up a decent game.
|
|
The game is still available. Since you can't read posts of other people that bring rational points into play with the current game system I highly recommend with an attitude like that you return to AD&D, no one is stopping you.Not really humorous. I do think it's hilarious that people call 4e "WoW on paper" when 3x (and Pathfinder) apparently share the same mentality when it comes to making any kind of sense.
I get it, it's a game. Too bad 3.x/Pathfinder/4e never let me forget it's a game.
Damn, I miss AD&D.
No, no one is. However, to have a rational discussion, you'd have to be discussing something rational. Apparently Pathfinder isn't.
|
|
Yep. It is a houserule to allow the monster to use items. This has come up before. I am too lazy to find the thread though. One of the designers chimed in and said stock monster only=CR. Any changes that improve the stock monster add to the CR. The CR table in the bestiary compares to the stock monsters...Does the stock monster have an allowance for treasure? If so, why can't they use it? Or are they just things that drop treasure for players, a la WoW?So the stock monster, and the [stock monster + magic items] should have the same CR? That is what Cod is saying.It also doesn't make them too stupid to use what they have. Only bad DMs can do that.Why would a) an intelligent critter have a bunch of stuff he or she couldn't use lying around, and b) not use what they do have lying around?Ever seen the A&E show Hoarders? What's a Dragon's pile of treasure called again?
Yup, they're intelligent, but that doesn't make them immune to complusions, or arrogance for that matter.
I am not saying they can't(use the treasure). I am saying you can't bring such things to the boards because it is a house rule. I would not even do it at the table unless my group was good enough to deal with a tougher version of a monster though.
You already know that by RAW they don't allow for the treasure to be used. I often dont even give treasure for defeating an individual monster. I just make sure they get enough gold to stay relevant for their level.
No more silly questions Derek(the WoW one and gold dropping). I can't tell if you are trying to be humorous or not.So, if a monster has item x in his hoard and decides "Wow, maybe I could get use out of this" it's a houserule???
If that's the case, Pathfinder truly does suck ass. Major ass. And has forgotten the face of it's grandfather.
Ok, so official Pathfinder ruling says: "Monsters only have treasure to give to characters, unless they have a class level, they cannot use treasure that only exists for characters".
Got it.
So, let me get this right. The only way for players to get magic gear is at Wal*Mart? Critters never have it? There are no rules that say critters can have treasure?
And, seriously, I don't know. There is a rule that specifically disallows a monster or NPC from using treasure it may have?
No critters have it and can use it, but the CR for the said critter is NIGH gear in the book. You want to add gear or equipment then add to the difficulty, its not that hard man.
More difficult to kill = higher CR
why is it hard to understand that magic items or equipment make you more difficult to kill.
If you had an extra claw attack wouldnt you be harder to kill? if you had more damage on your claw attack wouldnt you be harder to kill?
Same thing for if you give the troll a higher damage weapon.
Saying that a monster has the same CR even though you give it fancy stuff is not only not fair it isn't even logically how the game works. Why would I build a monster with said abilities if I could just give them a magic item that does so?
It goes without saying if a magic item can be used by one it most likely can be used by another (unless of course for some reason it is incapatible, such as a greatsword for a dragon, although that might be interesting)
I never play with a walmart, but creatures that use magic items that make them harder to kill have a higher CR, it doesnt say that because it is implied that anything with more magical stuff is difficult to kill.
what about that is complicated to understand, let your dragon use all his magic stuff, just raise his CR. He is harder to kill, he isnt just a standard dragon.
I don't know. when your Wizard puts it on, is he a higher level character?
Nope, because it's accounted for in his WBL, which is assumed to be used. If an item isn't included in a creature's base stat block, it's assumed it's NOT being used and thus isn't included in the CR. If you want the monster to use items, that's fine and dandy. Just be sure to increase the CR (and thus the XP) appropriately. It's not really that hard.
Edit to add:
Ok, so official Pathfinder ruling says: "Monsters only have treasure to give to characters, unless they have a class level, they cannot use treasure that only exists for characters".
No, official ruling is that they don't, not that they cannot. It's up to the GM to decide why they don't. Or, y'know, don't include treasure that they would conceivable use and didn't, thus breaking a grognard player's sense of disbelief.
Yeah. I kinda wish the dude with the AD&D books wasn't released, forcing me to play 3.x. O, as I like to call it: "Leave Common Sense at the Door - We're Playing A Game of Math!"As in: "It's perfectly fair for an intelligent monster to have a +4 stat booster or a scroll of [insert bad ass spell here], but, if they actually USE these items, oh noes, someone might get a booboo and cry".
We arent crying boo hoo we are crying adjust the CR because the CR as it stands is without equipment.
"Let me give them these items that grant greater power for free without the added difficulty level even though this makes them more difficult to kill!" sounds a little bit unfair.
If instead of giving them a headband of intellect +6 I gave them the ability score bonus anyways wouldn't I by the rules be required to raise the CR?
I don't know. when your Wizard puts it on, is he a higher level character?
The more I read these boards, the more I really can't stand Cook, Tweet and Williams screwing up a decent game.
One: Monsters do not always have the ability to wield items, which is why the CR is always given sans the items. A wolf can't use a greatsword for instance. The designers couldnt account for all the magic items that you could randomly equip a monster with to adjust the CR so the CR is the base difficulty without magic items.
Two: CR is never, never, ever, indicated as being the level of the creature. Challenge Rating. CR. Traps dont have levels but they have a CR.
If a Roc fed adventurers to its babies in his nest he would probably have loot. Said roc cant use the loot so its CR stays the same.
If you were to make the roc the ability to wield these items he would have his original CR (just the monster alone, no magic items) plus whatever you decide to give to him in relative CR adjustment (the best way to do this is using the monster builder and gauging magic items with monster abilities).
You can't bring houserules to the boards. We all know this, and we know why.I'm sorry I don't see this as house rules.
Evidently your millage varies.
But if the bad guy has a magical sword he is allowed to pick it up and swing it if he wants to. A magical sword works in his hands and a non-magical sword doesn't become magical in his hands because its bonuses are expected... this isn't 4e, things are supposed to make sense here. If there is some RAW that says he cannot do so please cite it, cause it seems more than just quite silly to me.
As to adjusting a bestiary monster to have a different feat or spell selection there's also nothing wrong with that either.
None of these are house rules, rather they are designing an encounter.
Now again I'm not agreeing with Cod, however purposefully turning a blind eye here is just wrong.
-James
I said nothing about spells or feats. They don't increase CR by the rules even if they do make the monster better. Magic items do change CR though. It has always been that way. Why would any monster use its claws, unless it had a rider affect when weapons were available?
Story time:
I adjust a lizardfolk fighter for my group. The group was level 5. The monster had enough gold to buy fullplate according to its CR. With +1 fullplate, a heavy shield, and +5 natural armor it had AC of 27. As written the monster only had an AC of 22. All I did was change out its subpar equipment and spend some of the left over gold. My group won because I adjusted it for my group but my pathfinder standards the AC of 27 was fit for a CR 12 monster not CR 6.
The point is this. CR's have AC, to hit, damage and so on that fall within target numbers. Once you get outside of those numbers the CR changes. That is why you can't add equipment. If you look at the balor and pit fiend their AC, to hit, and so on are fairly close. There is also a chart in the bestiary for finding CR's of created monsters. Adding equipment takes these monsters beyond that chart. I understand no DM is bound to the chart. I am just explaining pathfinder has thresholds.
Ok, so official Pathfinder ruling says: "Monsters only have treasure to give to characters, unless they have a class level, they cannot use treasure that only exists for characters".
Got it.
No. read my other posts. Pathfinder just made CR as given the BASE CR for the creature. adding magic items adds power, thus making them tougher to kill, raising CR.
Self explanatory in my opinion.
Nope. Wrong. Not even close. Reread what I wrote and try again. I am too lazy to try to figure out what your tone of voice is so could you just state your case without trying to be creative. Thanks.I don't believe the stock monster does have an allowance for treasure to make them better in combat. They can and should use items they have access to; however the argument is that adding items should adjust the CR of the encounter.
Lets say you are fighting these two creatures:
AC39
Hit +36/36/36/36/36/36
Dam 4d6+21/2d8+14/2d8+14/2d6+7/2d6+7/2d8+21
Fort +23, Ref +14, Will +24
HP 377AC53
Hit +45/45/45/45/45/45
Dam 4d6+30/2d8+23/2d8+23/2d6+13/2d6+13/2d8+30
Fort +31, Ref +22, Will +32
HP 461Should they have the same CR? They are the same creature, with the second creature having better stats from items (no spells active).
From a common sense point of view they should use treasure, but the game assumes they are balanced without it. There is also an assumption being made that the items have to be directly on the monsters. Maybe the items are in storage, and are used to tempt mortals to draw them to the side of evil. If the demon needs to give someone a +3 sword to win them over then so be it. Maybe the adventurers got to the monster before he got to entice anyone with the current treausure"
PS:Insert other flavor as needed for monsters not using treasure.
Adding treasure to monsters is fine, but adding treasure and not changing the CR is not ok for a world-wide discussion.
Yeah. I kinda wish the dude with the AD&D books wasn't released, forcing me to play 3.x. O, as I like to call it: "Leave Common Sense at the Door - We're Playing A Game of Math!"
As in: "It's perfectly fair for an intelligent monster to have a +4 stat booster or a scroll of [insert bad ass spell here], but, if they actually USE these items, oh noes, someone might get a booboo and cry".
I took your statements as condescending and whether they were or not I won't be dragged into an argument. I retract the venom that laced my post. <Gives Derek a hug>
|
|
So, let me get this right. The only way for players to get magic gear is at Wal*Mart? Critters never have it? There are no rules that say critters can have treasure?Follow
And, seriously, I don't know. There is a rule that specifically disallows a monster or NPC from using treasure it may have?
Here is the logic.
A CR 1 fighter is CR 1.
A CR 1 Fighter with a +6 Belt of Physical Perfection, a +5 Sword, etc... is not CR 1.
If you improve the equipment, you improve the CR. Just like if you give the ogre a level of fighter, you improve the CR.
The CR is based on NPC WBL, which is very different than PC WBL.
Yeah. I kinda wish the dude with the AD&D books wasn't released, forcing me to play 3.x. O, as I like to call it: "Leave Common Sense at the Door - We're Playing A Game of Math!"As in: "It's perfectly fair for an intelligent monster to have a +4 stat booster or a scroll of [insert bad ass spell here], but, if they actually USE these items, oh noes, someone might get a booboo and cry".
We arent crying boo hoo we are crying adjust the CR because the CR as it stands is without equipment.
"Let me give them these items that grant greater power for free without the added difficulty level even though this makes them more difficult to kill!" sounds a little bit unfair.
If instead of giving them a headband of intellect +6 I gave them the ability score bonus anyways wouldn't I by the rules be required to raise the CR?
So, let me get this right. The only way for players to get magic gear is at Wal*Mart? Critters never have it? There are no rules that say critters can have treasure?
And, seriously, I don't know. There is a rule that specifically disallows a monster or NPC from using treasure it may have?
Only monster NPC's with no classes are denied treasure unless they are in the stat block. All you have to do is give it a class level, which is silly, but that is how it works.
Still going?
Yeah, but now they're arguing about how to interpret CR.
I never liked CR, it's always been a frustrating, arbitrary, confusing and ill-defined nonsense that should supposedly help me determine the difficulty of an encounter.
Pity it gets skewered fast past the first levels due to a plethora of hidden factors, such as monsters using equipments they possess as treasure and me having to adjust the CR depending on what they have, with little indication as to how I'm supposed to decide what they have or how to modify the CR proper.
But that's beyond the point. I'm still sad you can only accomplish most great stuff only through the use of spells, and even mundane achievements are surpassed with ease by the use of magic.
I think it's too late to get the thread back on track, but I wonder how much work it would be to adjust PF's spells to make most of the awesome magic not pullable with a snap of fingers every damn time I want, regardless of everything.
I liked the idea behind 4e's rituals, but not the execution. For one, I think that allowing some kind of save against every spell and balancing the growth of saves a bit, along with making it not so automatic to change a whole battlefield with a snap of fingers or cast 3 spells per round (is it still possible in PF without hassle? I'm not sure) would be a great step forward.
Then we'd need to find a way to make ordinary skills and nonmagical options more awesome and not strictly dependant on a feat build that either makes you do the same trick all the time or never try it ever, but that's quite a bit more challenging...
|
|
Only monster NPC's with no classes are denied treasure unless they are in the stat block. All you have to do is give it a class level, which is silly, but that is how it works.
Yeah. I kinda wish the dude with the AD&D books wasn't released, forcing me to play 3.x. O, as I like to call it: "Leave Common Sense at the Door - We're Playing A Game of Math!"As in: "It's perfectly fair for an intelligent monster to have a +4 stat booster or a scroll of [insert bad ass spell here], but, if they actually USE these items, oh noes, someone might get a booboo and cry".
We arent crying boo hoo we are crying adjust the CR because the CR as it stands is without equipment.
"Let me give them these items that grant greater power for free without the added difficulty level even though this makes them more difficult to kill!" sounds a little bit unfair.
If instead of giving them a headband of intellect +6 I gave them the ability score bonus anyways wouldn't I by the rules be required to raise the CR?
So, let me get this right. The only way for players to get magic gear is at Wal*Mart? Critters never have it? There are no rules that say critters can have treasure?
And, seriously, I don't know. There is a rule that specifically disallows a monster or NPC from using treasure it may have?
Yeah, the more I get into how this really works, the more I really dislike this (3x) game. The "unified theory" doesn't make any sense, CR is kind of a joke, there's an illusion of choice in character creation, because, unless you play story hour, choices matter and characters start looking very similar to one another, math is required to make an encounter, 13.333 encounters equals a level...
Screw it, maybe if I come out with Databases and Spreadsheets it'll sell like hot cakes. It already does with the right fluff added, apparently.
|
|
Only monster NPC's with no classes are denied treasure unless they are in the stat block. All you have to do is give it a class level, which is silly, but that is how it works.
Yeah. I kinda wish the dude with the AD&D books wasn't released, forcing me to play 3.x. O, as I like to call it: "Leave Common Sense at the Door - We're Playing A Game of Math!"As in: "It's perfectly fair for an intelligent monster to have a +4 stat booster or a scroll of [insert bad ass spell here], but, if they actually USE these items, oh noes, someone might get a booboo and cry".
We arent crying boo hoo we are crying adjust the CR because the CR as it stands is without equipment.
"Let me give them these items that grant greater power for free without the added difficulty level even though this makes them more difficult to kill!" sounds a little bit unfair.
If instead of giving them a headband of intellect +6 I gave them the ability score bonus anyways wouldn't I by the rules be required to raise the CR?
So, let me get this right. The only way for players to get magic gear is at Wal*Mart? Critters never have it? There are no rules that say critters can have treasure?
And, seriously, I don't know. There is a rule that specifically disallows a monster or NPC from using treasure it may have?
Silly is bad game design. Period. I don't blame Paizo, except for their "backward compatibility" thing. I blame Cook,Tweet and Williams. Cook for bringing Rolemaster crap into D&D, Williams for hating AD&D so much, and Tweet for not stopping them from making D&D/the Math Edition.
Yep. It is a houserule to allow the monster to use items. This has come up before. I am too lazy to find the thread though. One of the designers chimed in and said stock monster only=CR. Any changes that improve the stock monster add to the CR. The CR table in the bestiary compares to the stock monsters as they are. The only way a stock monster gets to use items is to give it class levels.Am I the only one who finds that REALLY arbitrary? Slap a class level on an intelligent monster and it can suddenly use it's treasure, but otherwise it can't?
Again, who says its treasure was usable in the first place? Wielding a large oil painting, a few priceless vases and a heap of gold coins isn't gonna do anything a whole lot of good (unless they've got Catch Off Guard or Throw Anything I suppose).
Yep. It is a houserule to allow the monster to use items. This has come up before. I am too lazy to find the thread though. One of the designers chimed in and said stock monster only=CR. Any changes that improve the stock monster add to the CR.That's not what house rule means and I had thought that you knew this.
Next you'll say its a house rule to make the encounter happen in anything but a flat featureless plain!
This is silly! Be better than this. There's a reason we chose pathfinder over 4e and this silliness is near the top of the list for most I would imagine!
A monster can CERTAINLY use items if it has them. Now somethings might require knowledge that the monster in question doesn't have.
And having the monster with all this equipment might indeed increase the EL of the encounter that you are designing.
But those aren't house rules.
House rules are things like natural 1s on skill checks auto-fail, fumble tables, or monsters can't use items. THOSE are house rules!
-James
When I said use items. I meant it is not supposed to use items not presented in the stat block to make them significantly better without changing the CR.
Even the monster creation rules has(should by design) to have the items being used accounted for in the CR. The PRD supports this.
It normally works out well, but it can change depending on various factors of course.
PS: I just reread your post. I think we agree then, that adding items should change CR. What CoD was doing was saying you need a +70ish AC to avoid a hit from a CR 20 monster, but the CR will still be 20.
That kind of change, without accounting for it in the CR system is what I was arguing against if presenting a case to the public. I make tough monsters, but the CR they have in my group, and the CR they have on these boards would be different.
Yep. It is a houserule to allow the monster to use items. This has come up before. I am too lazy to find the thread though. One of the designers chimed in and said stock monster only=CR. Any changes that improve the stock monster add to the CR. The CR table in the bestiary compares to the stock monsters as they are. The only way a stock monster gets to use items is to give it class levels.Am I the only one who finds that REALLY arbitrary? Slap a class level on an intelligent monster and it can suddenly use it's treasure, but otherwise it can't?
I think it is arbitrary too if you keep all of the treasure on the monsters.
Keep in mind my points are only being made for board purposes, and I tend to ignore certain rules as needed, as should we all. :)
Rulz sez:
"A monster with class levels always possesses treasure equal to an NPC of a level equal to the monster's final CR (as calculated in Step 3, below). To determine the value of this gear, use the value listed for a heroic NPC of that CR, as listed in Table: NPC Gear. Once a total GP value is determined, follow the rules for outfitting an NPC as outlined in that section. Gear should help a monster with class levels remain challenging and retain statistics close to those presented on Table 1-1: Monster Statistics by CR."
That last sentence is kind of a good guide for how to equip a creature. I would use it to cover weakest areas and some healing and support potions.
EDIT:
Found it!
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/creatingNPCs.html
Step 6.
I would say a dragon would spend less on weapons and armor or at least spend it differently.
Oh yeah, and wizards vs fighters! yeah...
Rulz sez:
"A monster with class levels always possesses treasure equal to an NPC of a level equal to the monster's final CR (as calculated in Step 3, below). To determine the value of this gear, use the value listed for a heroic NPC of that CR, as listed in Table: NPC Gear. Once a total GP value is determined, follow the rules for outfitting an NPC as outlined in that section. Gear should help a monster with class levels remain challenging and retain statistics close to those presented on Table 1-1: Monster Statistics by CR."That last sentence is kind of a good guide for how to equip a creature. I would use it to cover weakest areas and some healing and support potions.
"Gear should help a monster with class levels remain challenging and retain statistics close to those presented on Table 1-1: Monster Statistics by CR"-->In other words gear already in the stat block is only there to bring it up to whatever is in the chart for the CR's. As an example a monster with manufactured armor of CR X, and a creature with no manufactured armor of CR X should still have a similar AC.
examples:
Fire Giant CR 10 AC 24(with armor)
Clay Golem CR 10 AC 24(no armor)
Screw it, maybe if I come out with Databases and Spreadsheets it'll sell like hot cakes. It already does with the right fluff added, apparently.
I've kind of given up trying to play 3.5/PF online, since it appears the only viable way to play on the forums I know is a parallel game of math, spreadsheets and competitive deckbuilding.
Call me names all you want, I find the idea that a creature with a printed attack roll of +31 of CR 20 means having an AC of 40 by that level means it's okay to go toe to toe, since iterative attacks are bound to have lower bonuses anyways. But if this +31 actually becomes a +60 thanks to hidden factors, I wonder how much it's me being stupid and how much are the mechanics losing focus and getting more and more out of control.
Don't take it as an attempt for an edition war, but I love how I managed to run a 4e game for one year without ever referencing the monster manual, only using the guidelines for making monsters on the fly in the DM book. And it worked. As I read, there seem to be similar indications on Pathfinder books as well, but does it take into account only the base bonus? Because let's admit it: in 3.x/PF it's way easier to add +10 or even +20 to an attack roll than it is in 4e, so how do we use the CR system to take this kind of sudden or not so sudden changes into account?
I appreciate having surprises and complications, but when this means a CR 20 monster is actually CR 30 "If played right with no holds barred", there's something wrong, and it can get frustrating if not everyone in the game is on the same line on this, as it's happening this very moment in the forum.
It's like everyone is playing a game with the same name, but it's actually several different games that kind of punch each other in the face.
|
|
Screw it, maybe if I come out with Databases and Spreadsheets it'll sell like hot cakes. It already does with the right fluff added, apparently.I've kind of given up trying to play 3.5/PF online, since it appears the only viable way to play on the forums I know is a parallel game of math, spreadsheets and competitive deckbuilding.
Call me names all you want, I find the idea that a creature with a printed attack roll of +31 of CR 20 means having an AC of 40 by that level means it's okay to go toe to toe, since iterative attacks are bound to have lower bonuses anyways. But if this +31 actually becomes a +60 thanks to hidden factors, I wonder how much it's me being stupid and how much are the mechanics losing focus and getting more and more out of control.
Don't take it as an attempt for an edition war, but I love how I managed to run a 4e game for one year without ever referencing the monster manual, only using the guidelines for making monsters on the fly in the DM book. And it worked. As I read, there seem to be similar indications on Pathfinder books as well, but does it take into account only the base bonus? Because let's admit it: in 3.x/PF it's way easier to add +10 or even +20 to an attack roll than it is in 4e, so how do we use the CR system to take this kind of sudden or not so sudden changes into account?
I appreciate having surprises and complications, but when this means a CR 20 monster is actually CR 30 "If played right with no holds barred", there's something wrong, and it can get frustrating if not everyone in the game is on the same line on this, as it's happening this very moment in the forum.
It's like everyone is playing a game with the same name, but it's actually several different games that kind of punch each other in the face.
+1
(except the 4e stuff. Find the game kinda boring).
Did anyone read what I posted?
*sigh*
CR is not Level, those are different.
it does not say you need an NPC class level to use treasure ANYWHERE! use the treasure just up the difficulty of the monster, not all monsters can use all their treasure so saying "The CR should already include the treasure" is ridiculous!
Unintelligent monsters might have loot but unable to use the treasure while smart ones can, so they had to make all CR's based on original monster statistics.
if you want to add equipment to monsters adjust the CR.
Jesus why is that hard to grasp? you hate PF because it requires you to think with common sense?
Designers couldnt possibly interpret all the different combinations of equipment and treasure for them to use so how could you expect every CR to include the treasure adding to the CR? that is impossible! Do it yourself! its the DMs JOB for christ sake.
So frustrating everyone read the posts by Wraithstrike instead of mine when mine carefully explained why it is that way.
CR doesnt include treasure being used because YOU as the DM decide what treasure they have and some of that may or may not have will be usable by the creature, so adjust the CR based on what you give them to use.
The game works fine, the treasure works fine, CR is a number gauged to difficulty.
You dont like the number of the CR because a CR4 monster is too weak for a level 4 party? use CR 7 and scale everything up! its a measurement of difficulty not God's law for monsters.
Sorry for the rant but come on this is just ridiculous.
it does not say you need an NPC class level to use treasure ANYWHERE! use the treasure just up the difficulty of the monster, not all monsters can use all their treasure so saying "The CR should already include the treasure" is ridiculous!
Unintelligent monsters might have loot but unable to use the treasure while smart ones can, so they had to make all CR's based on original monster statistics.
if you want to add equipment to monsters adjust the CR.
Jesus why is that hard to grasp? you hate PF because it requires you to think with common sense?
Designers couldnt possibly interpret all the different combinations of equipment and treasure for them to use so how could you expect every CR to include the treasure adding to the CR? that is impossible! Do it yourself! its the DMs JOB for christ sake.
So frustrating everyone read the posts by Wraithstrike instead of mine when mine carefully explained why it is that way.
CR doesnt include treasure being used because YOU as the DM decide what treasure they have and some of that may or may not have will be usable by the creature, so adjust the CR based on what you give them to use.
The game works fine, the treasure works fine, CR is a number gauged to difficulty.
You dont like the number of the CR because a CR4 monster is too weak for a level 4 party? use CR 7 and scale everything up! its a measurement of difficulty not God's law for monsters.
Sorry for the rant but come on this is just ridiculous.
Toker you did not read my posts. What I was saying that if you want the monster to remain at the same CR you can not use treasure, and by the rules the monsters don't generally get to use their treasure without class levels.
I never said a DM is never allowed to add treasure for his monster's use.Once again my issue was adding +30 or more to a monster's to-hit, AC, and so on, but not accounting for it in the CR. As my earlier example when I used a CR 12 in one of my games, but only gave CR 10 xp for it. On the boards, and by the CR chart I know it was not a CR 10 though. I only gave my group XP for 10 because I went by the 1/2 CR per class rule instead of the chart.
I agree if your group is can beat up CR 4 monsters too easily then boost then and still use give CR 4 XP if that is what you need, but on the boards we should stay with the books. That chart in the book is what CR X should have. How else do we have discussion online about whether or not class Y can contribute against certain CR's? It becomes quiet impossible if my CR 10 and your CR 10 are miles apart.
CR doesnt include treasure being used because YOU as the DM decide what treasure they have and some of that may or may not have will be usable by the creature, so adjust the CR based on what you give them to use.
The game works fine, the treasure works fine, CR is a number gauged to difficulty.
I can cope with the treasure, but what about CR variations from monster features, such as spells?
A dragon has, let's say, +20 attack and AC 30, base values. However, when buffed with spells at his disposal that are part of his being a dragon, he goes to +30 attack and AC 40 and an increase in damage that we're not going to oddball because it's just an example and I suck at this kind of math.
It's the same monster, the very same monster, but with very different stats depending on whether he actually does something he always had the possibility of doing. How do I handle this? Is he, say, CR 10 but 20 when buffed? Do my players get less xp if they catch him pants down and unbuffed because he's so much easier? Do they get less loot as well?
What about other situational features? A level 10 NPC ranger with terrain mastery in something that isn't the encounter's location and where the PCs don't fall within any of his favoured enemy types, would still count as CR 10? Would a divination wizard fought randomly in a featureless plain be worth less xp and loot than if he had a chance to actually use his arsenal to its full extent?
I understand CR not being perfect and needing to be adjusted depending on the situation, but since the assignment of both xp and loot depends on that number, it could easily get confusing. I might be wrong, for example, but from what I gather, a higher CR monster should have more treasure: so a CR 6 something with items that appropriately buff would be, say, CR 8... And therefore have even more items due to his inflated CR?
Yes, this is pushing it, I realize, but the more I think of it, the less CR makes sense to me.
CR doesnt include treasure being used because YOU as the DM decide what treasure they have and some of that may or may not have will be usable by the creature, so adjust the CR based on what you give them to use.
The game works fine, the treasure works fine, CR is a number gauged to difficulty.
I can cope with the treasure, but what about CR variations from monster features, such as spells?
A dragon has, let's say, +20 attack and AC 30, base values. However, when buffed with spells at his disposal that are part of his being a dragon, he goes to +30 attack and AC 40 and an increase in damage that we're not going to oddball because it's just an example and I suck at this kind of math.
It's the same monster, the very same monster, but with very different stats depending on whether he actually does something he always had the possibility of doing. How do I handle this? Is he, say, CR 10 but 20 when buffed? Do my players get less xp if they catch him pants down and unbuffed because he's so much easier? Do they get less loot as well?
What about other situational features? A level 10 NPC ranger with terrain mastery in something that isn't the encounter's location and where the PCs don't fall within any of his favoured enemy types, would still count as CR 10? Would a divination wizard fought randomly in a featureless plain be worth less xp and loot than if he had a chance to actually use his arsenal to its full extent?
I understand CR not being perfect and needing to be adjusted depending on the situation, but since the assignment of both xp and loot depends on that number, it could easily get confusing. I might be wrong, for example, but from what I gather, a higher CR monster should have more treasure: so a CR 6 something with items that appropriately buff would be, say, CR 8... And therefore have even more items due to his inflated CR?
Yes, this is pushing it, I realize, but the more I think of it, the less CR makes sense to me.
That is personally why I say "CR is just a number"
To give a number to how challenging something is, is ridiculous in my opinion. i only use the number as a general guide line.
Which is why when people throw out CR X creature I tend to hush because most things CR is solely based on how they are played.
If I play a purple worm that only comes out of the ground to swallow you up and then returns using say the spring attack feat (due to a mod to make a different kind of creature and I replace a feat) then I now have a monster that can virtually cause a lot of distruction, blocks line of sight to most casters, and has to be defeated in a creative way despite his already being challenging.
Is that the same CR?
HELL NO! he is way harder to kill.
I dont even really go by experience points anymore, I just give the party their levels when I feel they have gone through appropriate amounts of suck :)
that is my personal house rule because CR is really arbitrary depending on the party type, size, location, abilities, treasure, time, ect.
Giving them a fixed number of experiences points even if it was way harder or way easier is not fair to me or my players. Levels happen when they happen.
I know thats a house rule and you guys can flame me for it but it is what works best for me.
With that said, if you use CR do it right, change it based on how difficult the encounter is, if there is a terrain problem factor that, magic items factor that, player strengths and weaknesses factor that.
I just choose to not factor it and go on with the fun stuff.
YMMV
I always had problems with casters vs noncasters in 3e, and am quite disappointed that Pathfinder didn't fix them. But wait, let me explain.
I don't like playing a roleplaying game like you would prepare your deck for a Magic: the Gathering tournament, all this CharOp stuff and talk of optimization and "hey wait there's this combo of options in this, that and that other source that totally proves my point" just confuses me.
What I know is: by playing with people that did not optimize, I have once made a wizard character that had probably one of the worst spell selections ever (don't ask me the details because I don't remember, honestly), but being 15th level, she had access to stuff like scry, detect location, teleport, phantom steed, fabricate, wall of iron and such.
The campaign was actually pretty "relaxed", in a way: to put it simply we were bad guys that got a castle by force of arms and the king just decided to play along and let us keep it.
At one point, I have stopped using divination spells, even though I was supposedly a specialist in the field, simply because it became clear after a while that my GM wasn't ready for that and I felt like a jerk for spoiling her investigation plots like that. I still did something here and there but it was minor. Arcane sight and prying eyes, mostly.
At another point, I had used wall of iron and move earth to rebuild way better fortifications than the place ever had, in about a week or so. Moat included, of course.
Even when I had the wrong spells, all it took was a bit of creativity: at one point we were chasing someone who could pass through walls more or less at will, and how did we enter a sanctum walled on all sides without opening and the right spell? Why, by casting "stone to flesh" and digging the flesh away. I never expected I'd use that spell that way.
tl;dr The problem is options. I might be a wizard with the wrong spell load, that has the wrong spells prepared, that doesn't have many of them, and those I have may not work for one reason...
You make good points, here. Wizards are the most powerful class in all iterations of the game.
It may just be a question of GM style, but meleeers were always capable participants, even at epic levels, in the games I've played.
Burning a few slots to make your fighter uber is standard procedure at high levels, in the games I've played. Casting spells on him is a force multiplier. He's deadly with a few spells cast on him, and some of those spells apply to the whole party.
Giving him resistances and mobility keeps the baddies off your casters for a round or two. He has magic items of his own at high levels, and you just cast a few spells to make him a game-changer in himself.
At high levels, you cast spells on the fighter and help him shred without being neutralized. I see nothing broken in that.
Silly is bad game design. Period. I don't blame Paizo, except for their "backward compatibility" thing. I blame Cook,Tweet and Williams. Cook for bringing Rolemaster crap into D&D, Williams for hating AD&D so much, and Tweet for not stopping them from making D&D/the Math Edition.
Please, for the love, don't say this. When 3E came out, it was not the game that people say it was today. Likewise, your ire is horribly misplaced. The 3.x games actually did say that creatures should be expected to use equipment that is within their treasure values. It actually said that if a +2 sword was included as part of a creature's treasure, if the creature could wield it, then they should. Given a bit, I could find the page number in the 3.5 DMG to say this.
Likewise, as far as I'm concerned, the average stats for creatures of each CR are pre-buffs. Take the Pit Fiend, CR 20. It's AC is 38 (2 points higher than the average CR 20 AC), and then it gets a +4 deflection bonus to AC and +4 to all its saving throws from unholy aura which it can cast at-will for 20 rounds per go. This means that prior to factoring in the pit-fiend's treasures, he will more than likely enter a fight with AC 42, Fort +28, Ref +25, Will +22. Higher than the creation guidelines already.
The pit fiend also has a +28 Use Magic Device. Apparently this is merely for show, since it can't actually make use of magic items, right? Hmmm, suspicious indeed. Crafty Pathfinder designers breaking their own rules, hmmm?
Let's see. The Pit Fiend has Double standard treasure. This means the pit fiend is carrying with him 134,000 gp worth of treasure. Damn that's a lot of treasure, huh? Seems that the pit fiend is carrying quite a lot of treasure, likely in the form of magical goodies. Nothing particularly strong for his CR (this is much less gear than an NPC of equal level).
Meanwhile, we can find in the Gamemastering section that NPCs are supposed to have about three times the amount of treasure that normal monsters are supposed to have due to NPC gear. We can also see that not all gear is accounted for with creatures, because even when listing equipment for generic NPCs like the hobgoblin doesn't list all of their NPC gear (the NPC creation section suggests giving them 40 gp worth of consumables, such as say, 4 acid flasks).
Now looking at the amount of NPC based treasure, we can see that their equipment values are only about 2 times the amount of a standard monster, which suggests that this in addition to any treasure the creature normally possesses (but this could just be an oddity).
However, the Gamemastering section actually notes that adding PC equivalent gear increases their CR by +1. This means that even if you were to simply outfit the creature with magic items within their treasure values, you still wouldn't increase their CR. It takes Player Character Equivalent Gear to increase their CR by +1.
Likewise, you will probably never sell me on the idea that swapping equal level spells or equal valued equipment will result in increased CR. Sorry, but I don't buy that. The CR system is not that precise, nor is it intended to be. An ogre with a greatclub is the same CR as an ogre with a longspear, even though the longspear greatly increases the ogre's combat ability (reach for days). An ettin in leather or no armor makes it faster (base speed 40 ft), and wearing a chain shirt would let it benefit from that, and it wouldn't increase it's CR.
I usually agree with Wraithstrike, however I believe that what they are suggesting is not only wildly off base, but actually against the way the game was intended to be played. Most of the CR 20 creatures in the Bestiary are so much stronger than the base statistics of the stats in Monster Creation that it's not even funny. A CR 16 Planetar has HP, AC, and saves on par. The planetar has on-par to above-average to-hit bonuses, their average high damage is 76.5 (average 80) without counting the damage from their holy weapon property which would boost it to 97.5. But wait, it can buff itself with spells like righteous might, bringing its attacks even higher and raising it's average to close to 100, or 117 with holy damage, and also raises its reach as well.
And the angel's additional abilities are far, far beyond what a generic "X to hit, X to damage" brute is capable of. Likewise, the angel's treasure values (and equipment) are based on the medium progression value, and you are expected to increase or decrease their equipment as appropriate to the campaign, but this doesn't change their CR.
Just some stuff to think about.
Silly is bad game design. Period. I don't blame Paizo, except for their "backward compatibility" thing. I blame Cook,Tweet and Williams. Cook for bringing Rolemaster crap into D&D, Williams for hating AD&D so much, and Tweet for not stopping them from making D&D/the Math Edition.Please, for the love, don't say this. When 3E came out, it was not the game that people say it was today. Likewise, your ire is horribly misplaced. The 3.x games actually did say that creatures should be expected to use equipment that is within their treasure values. It actually said that if a +2 sword was included as part of a creature's treasure, if the creature could wield it, then they should. Given a bit, I could find the page number in the 3.5 DMG to say this.
Likewise, as far as I'm concerned, the average stats for creatures of each CR are pre-buffs. Take the Pit Fiend, CR 20. It's AC is 38 (2 points higher than the average CR 20 AC), and then it gets a +4 deflection bonus to AC and +4 to all its saving throws from unholy aura which it can cast at-will for 20 rounds per go. This means that prior to factoring in the pit-fiend's treasures, he will more than likely enter a fight with AC 42, Fort +28, Ref +25, Will +22. Higher than the creation guidelines already.
The pit fiend also has a +28 Use Magic Device. Apparently this is merely for show, since it can't actually make use of magic items, right? Hmmm, suspicious indeed. Crafty Pathfinder designers breaking their own rules, hmmm?
Let's see. The Pit Fiend has Double standard treasure. This means the pit fiend is carrying with him 134,000 gp worth of treasure. Damn that's a lot of treasure, huh? Seems that the pit fiend is carrying quite a lot of treasure, likely in the form of magical goodies. Nothing particularly strong for his CR (this is much less gear than an NPC of equal level).
Meanwhile, we can find in the Gamemastering section that NPCs are supposed to have about three times the amount of treasure that normal monsters are supposed to...
It seems to me the prebuff numbers are on target. It is only after buffs that those numbers jump up. I don't think buffing yourself is breaking CR because you are using your abilities to do so. Using armor to push your AC up by 25 or other equipment to push your attack bonus up by 30 is not something that is expected. The treasure that pit fiend owns does not have to be on him. If they were expected to use other treasure I am sure there would be limits on how much was expected to go to AC and what not so DM's don't get carried away.
I agree that anything specifically stated to be owned by the monster should be used such as a the maralith's swords.
|
|
...Silly is bad game design. Period. I don't blame Paizo, except for their "backward compatibility" thing. I blame Cook,Tweet and Williams. Cook for bringing Rolemaster crap into D&D, Williams for hating AD&D so much, and Tweet for not stopping them from making D&D/the Math Edition.Please, for the love, don't say this. When 3E came out, it was not the game that people say it was today. Likewise, your ire is horribly misplaced. The 3.x games actually did say that creatures should be expected to use equipment that is within their treasure values. It actually said that if a +2 sword was included as part of a creature's treasure, if the creature could wield it, then they should. Given a bit, I could find the page number in the 3.5 DMG to say this.
Likewise, as far as I'm concerned, the average stats for creatures of each CR are pre-buffs. Take the Pit Fiend, CR 20. It's AC is 38 (2 points higher than the average CR 20 AC), and then it gets a +4 deflection bonus to AC and +4 to all its saving throws from unholy aura which it can cast at-will for 20 rounds per go. This means that prior to factoring in the pit-fiend's treasures, he will more than likely enter a fight with AC 42, Fort +28, Ref +25, Will +22. Higher than the creation guidelines already.
The pit fiend also has a +28 Use Magic Device. Apparently this is merely for show, since it can't actually make use of magic items, right? Hmmm, suspicious indeed. Crafty Pathfinder designers breaking their own rules, hmmm?
Let's see. The Pit Fiend has Double standard treasure. This means the pit fiend is carrying with him 134,000 gp worth of treasure. Damn that's a lot of treasure, huh? Seems that the pit fiend is carrying quite a lot of treasure, likely in the form of magical goodies. Nothing particularly strong for his CR (this is much less gear than an NPC of equal level).
Meanwhile, we can find in the Gamemastering section that NPCs are supposed to have about three times the amount of treasure that normal monsters
And also remember, using or not using buffs depends on how combat plays out. He may have time to buff, he may be surprised and think he can better use the round to beat you to death rather than buff.
An encounter happens and unfolds as it will. If he has time to plan, maybe he has his magic items in hand. Or maybe they are in the chest and he can better use that round to rip your eyes out.
|
|
...Silly is bad game design. Period. I don't blame Paizo, except for their "backward compatibility" thing. I blame Cook,Tweet and Williams. Cook for bringing Rolemaster crap into D&D, Williams for hating AD&D so much, and Tweet for not stopping them from making D&D/the Math Edition.Please, for the love, don't say this. When 3E came out, it was not the game that people say it was today. Likewise, your ire is horribly misplaced. The 3.x games actually did say that creatures should be expected to use equipment that is within their treasure values. It actually said that if a +2 sword was included as part of a creature's treasure, if the creature could wield it, then they should. Given a bit, I could find the page number in the 3.5 DMG to say this.
Likewise, as far as I'm concerned, the average stats for creatures of each CR are pre-buffs. Take the Pit Fiend, CR 20. It's AC is 38 (2 points higher than the average CR 20 AC), and then it gets a +4 deflection bonus to AC and +4 to all its saving throws from unholy aura which it can cast at-will for 20 rounds per go. This means that prior to factoring in the pit-fiend's treasures, he will more than likely enter a fight with AC 42, Fort +28, Ref +25, Will +22. Higher than the creation guidelines already.
The pit fiend also has a +28 Use Magic Device. Apparently this is merely for show, since it can't actually make use of magic items, right? Hmmm, suspicious indeed. Crafty Pathfinder designers breaking their own rules, hmmm?
Let's see. The Pit Fiend has Double standard treasure. This means the pit fiend is carrying with him 134,000 gp worth of treasure. Damn that's a lot of treasure, huh? Seems that the pit fiend is carrying quite a lot of treasure, likely in the form of magical goodies. Nothing particularly strong for his CR (this is much less gear than an NPC of equal level).
Meanwhile, we can find in the Gamemastering section that NPCs are supposed to have about three times the amount of treasure that normal monsters
And also remember, using or not using buffs depends on how combat plays out. He may have time to buff, he may be surprised and think he can better use the round to beat you to death rather than buff.
An encounter happens and unfolds as it will. If he has time to plan, maybe he has his magic items in hand. Or maybe they are in the chest and he can better use that round to rip your eyes out.
I really am wondering if your copy if the Bestiary is just chock full of typos.CR 25, Tarrasque: +37 to hit
CR 23: Solar: +35 to hit
CR 20: Balor: +31 to hit, ancient gold dragon: +36 to hit, pit fiend: +32 to hit, tarn linnorm +30 to hitWith an AC of 60, not a single one of those creatures will auto hit. For the non-mathematically inclined, 60-37 = 23. Would you like to revise your claim or just stick with your standard hyperbole?
If you're going to crunch numbers I would suggest that you allow these poor creatures some of the buffs that they could easily have.
Let's take the little goldie..
He has say a greater heroism (+4), haste (+1), GMF/amulet (+5), divine power (+5 ish) which brings him up to +51. That's not even trying.
Now all that said, your conclusions on other posters not withstanding, you shouldn't really take critters at this CR simply out of the box. Its not plug and play but rather requires some degree of crafting.
-James
He said "auto hit." I am giving the benefit of the doubt and assuming he means "2 or better." You managed to bring the Tarrasque (which would have no buffs) to a +52 (you forgot to add the haste bonus). He still falls short by 8. He would be unlikely to have those bonuses though.
|
|
Silly is bad game design. Period. I don't blame Paizo, except for their "backward compatibility" thing. I blame Cook,Tweet and Williams. Cook for bringing Rolemaster crap into D&D, Williams for hating AD&D so much, and Tweet for not stopping them from making D&D/the Math Edition.Please, for the love, don't say this. When 3E came out, it was not the game that people say it was today. Likewise, your ire is horribly misplaced. The 3.x games actually did say that creatures should be expected to use equipment that is within their treasure values. It actually said that if a +2 sword was included as part of a creature's treasure, if the creature could wield it, then they should. Given a bit, I could find the page number in the 3.5 DMG to say this.
Likewise, as far as I'm concerned, the average stats for creatures of each CR are pre-buffs. Take the Pit Fiend, CR 20. It's AC is 38 (2 points higher than the average CR 20 AC), and then it gets a +4 deflection bonus to AC and +4 to all its saving throws from unholy aura which it can cast at-will for 20 rounds per go. This means that prior to factoring in the pit-fiend's treasures, he will more than likely enter a fight with AC 42, Fort +28, Ref +25, Will +22. Higher than the creation guidelines already.
The pit fiend also has a +28 Use Magic Device. Apparently this is merely for show, since it can't actually make use of magic items, right? Hmmm, suspicious indeed. Crafty Pathfinder designers breaking their own rules, hmmm?
Let's see. The Pit Fiend has Double standard treasure. This means the pit fiend is carrying with him 134,000 gp worth of treasure. Damn that's a lot of treasure, huh? Seems that the pit fiend is carrying quite a lot of treasure, likely in the form of magical goodies. Nothing particularly strong for his CR (this is much less gear than an NPC of equal level).
Meanwhile, we can find in the Gamemastering section that NPCs are supposed to have about three times the amount of treasure that normal monsters are supposed to...
No, I blame the above mentioned for making D&D a math problem instead of an RPG.
...Silly is bad game design. Period. I don't blame Paizo, except for their "backward compatibility" thing. I blame Cook,Tweet and Williams. Cook for bringing Rolemaster crap into D&D, Williams for hating AD&D so much, and Tweet for not stopping them from making D&D/the Math Edition.Please, for the love, don't say this. When 3E came out, it was not the game that people say it was today. Likewise, your ire is horribly misplaced. The 3.x games actually did say that creatures should be expected to use equipment that is within their treasure values. It actually said that if a +2 sword was included as part of a creature's treasure, if the creature could wield it, then they should. Given a bit, I could find the page number in the 3.5 DMG to say this.
Likewise, as far as I'm concerned, the average stats for creatures of each CR are pre-buffs. Take the Pit Fiend, CR 20. It's AC is 38 (2 points higher than the average CR 20 AC), and then it gets a +4 deflection bonus to AC and +4 to all its saving throws from unholy aura which it can cast at-will for 20 rounds per go. This means that prior to factoring in the pit-fiend's treasures, he will more than likely enter a fight with AC 42, Fort +28, Ref +25, Will +22. Higher than the creation guidelines already.
The pit fiend also has a +28 Use Magic Device. Apparently this is merely for show, since it can't actually make use of magic items, right? Hmmm, suspicious indeed. Crafty Pathfinder designers breaking their own rules, hmmm?
Let's see. The Pit Fiend has Double standard treasure. This means the pit fiend is carrying with him 134,000 gp worth of treasure. Damn that's a lot of treasure, huh? Seems that the pit fiend is carrying quite a lot of treasure, likely in the form of magical goodies. Nothing particularly strong for his CR (this is much less gear than an NPC of equal level).
Meanwhile, we can find in the Gamemastering section that NPCs are supposed to have about three times the amount of treasure
ninja'd, but what about monsters that don't get buffs that are high level. Big T was where the ninja came in. A buffed Pit fiend with access to magic items would be harder to stop than Big T who is over CR'd to me anyway.
...Silly is bad game design. Period. I don't blame Paizo, except for their "backward compatibility" thing. I blame Cook,Tweet and Williams. Cook for bringing Rolemaster crap into D&D, Williams for hating AD&D so much, and Tweet for not stopping them from making D&D/the Math Edition.Please, for the love, don't say this. When 3E came out, it was not the game that people say it was today. Likewise, your ire is horribly misplaced. The 3.x games actually did say that creatures should be expected to use equipment that is within their treasure values. It actually said that if a +2 sword was included as part of a creature's treasure, if the creature could wield it, then they should. Given a bit, I could find the page number in the 3.5 DMG to say this.
Likewise, as far as I'm concerned, the average stats for creatures of each CR are pre-buffs. Take the Pit Fiend, CR 20. It's AC is 38 (2 points higher than the average CR 20 AC), and then it gets a +4 deflection bonus to AC and +4 to all its saving throws from unholy aura which it can cast at-will for 20 rounds per go. This means that prior to factoring in the pit-fiend's treasures, he will more than likely enter a fight with AC 42, Fort +28, Ref +25, Will +22. Higher than the creation guidelines already.
The pit fiend also has a +28 Use Magic Device. Apparently this is merely for show, since it can't actually make use of magic items, right? Hmmm, suspicious indeed. Crafty Pathfinder designers breaking their own rules, hmmm?
Let's see. The Pit Fiend has Double standard treasure. This means the pit fiend is carrying with him 134,000 gp worth of treasure. Damn that's a lot of treasure, huh? Seems that the pit fiend is carrying quite a lot of treasure, likely in the form of magical goodies. Nothing particularly strong for his CR (this is much less gear than an NPC of equal level).
Meanwhile, we can find in the Gamemastering section that NPCs are supposed to have about three times the amount of treasure that normal monsters
I think the game was made like it was so that more people could DM. Without the guidelines many players in the world would be a lot worse off. In doing so many things had to be standardized.
For every 1st or 2nd awesome story I have heard a stories of people who should never have been allowed to DM. Freedom(DM that is) was sacrificed for security.|
|
...Silly is bad game design. Period. I don't blame Paizo, except for their "backward compatibility" thing. I blame Cook,Tweet and Williams. Cook for bringing Rolemaster crap into D&D, Williams for hating AD&D so much, and Tweet for not stopping them from making D&D/the Math Edition.Please, for the love, don't say this. When 3E came out, it was not the game that people say it was today. Likewise, your ire is horribly misplaced. The 3.x games actually did say that creatures should be expected to use equipment that is within their treasure values. It actually said that if a +2 sword was included as part of a creature's treasure, if the creature could wield it, then they should. Given a bit, I could find the page number in the 3.5 DMG to say this.
Likewise, as far as I'm concerned, the average stats for creatures of each CR are pre-buffs. Take the Pit Fiend, CR 20. It's AC is 38 (2 points higher than the average CR 20 AC), and then it gets a +4 deflection bonus to AC and +4 to all its saving throws from unholy aura which it can cast at-will for 20 rounds per go. This means that prior to factoring in the pit-fiend's treasures, he will more than likely enter a fight with AC 42, Fort +28, Ref +25, Will +22. Higher than the creation guidelines already.
The pit fiend also has a +28 Use Magic Device. Apparently this is merely for show, since it can't actually make use of magic items, right? Hmmm, suspicious indeed. Crafty Pathfinder designers breaking their own rules, hmmm?
Let's see. The Pit Fiend has Double standard treasure. This means the pit fiend is carrying with him 134,000 gp worth of treasure. Damn that's a lot of treasure, huh? Seems that the pit fiend is carrying quite a lot of treasure, likely in the form of magical goodies. Nothing particularly strong for his CR (this is much less gear than an NPC of equal level).
Meanwhile, we can find in the Gamemastering section that NPCs are supposed to have about three times the amount of treasure
I liked it better when the DM mattered. You don't really need one any more.
stuff about not needing DM's
They did not make that much progress. The good thing is there are those of us that like a good story still, and don't use excel to actually make characters.
PS:If anyone reading this does use excel sheets to make characters I am not knocking it. It just is not my cup of tea.
I liked it better when the DM mattered. You don't really need one any more.
Now you're clear into hyperbole country.
|
I liked it better when the DM mattered. You don't really need one any more.
Meh. I think a lot of the 3.X/PFRPG stuff is silly, and thus I generally ignore it. NPCs that are of an equal level to the PCs should have comparable equipment. They shouldn't be penalized simply for not being the "main characters". WPL was NEVER meant to be the hardline rule that so many people on these forums treat it as. I'd say 90% of the magical items that I have any given monster/NPC toting around will be useable by them, and WILL be used by them. CR is a bit of a joke, and always has been.
My rule: do what feels right. If it feels right to you to have the orc warrior carrying around a +3 longsword but not using it in favor of his mundane short sword, it's your game...who am I to say you're doing it wrong?
The DM used to be an arbitrator. Now, he's mostly there to be the guy who runs the bad guys, and lets players play a structured module instead of just rolling on a table of wandering monsters.
You can't bring houserules to the boards. We all know this, and we know why.I'm sorry I don't see this as house rules.
Evidently your millage varies.
But if the bad guy has a magical sword he is allowed to pick it up and swing it if he wants to. A magical sword works in his hands and a non-magical sword doesn't become magical in his hands because its bonuses are expected... this isn't 4e, things are supposed to make sense here. If there is some RAW that says he cannot do so please cite it, cause it seems more than just quite silly to me.
As to adjusting a bestiary monster to have a different feat or spell selection there's also nothing wrong with that either.
None of these are house rules, rather they are designing an encounter.
Now again I'm not agreeing with Cod, however purposefully turning a blind eye here is just wrong.
-James
I agree with you that the monsters should be using their treasure. I do have a problem when all the treasure is specifically placed to make the monster more powerful. It's one thing to give an ancient gold dragon some items to boost it a bit (a ring of protection, a wand of bull's strength, whatever). It's an entirely different thing to take all the treasure and convert it to only items usable by the dragon. I think that the treasure used should be based on the monster's personality and goals.
I run a fast paced game. That means the ancient gold dragon should have 300,000 worth of treasure. I would probably have a good chunk of that as coins since I like the image of a dragon laying on its coins. That would leave about 100,000 to 150,000 in items. Some would be just because they are nice (art objects or items it can't use but are aesthetically pleasing). That would leave 75,000 to 100,000 worth of gear. This is where I would have some fun.
I also don't have any issues with some modifications to monsters so long as it doesn't actually change the CR. Changing the spells known for a dragon shouldn't change anything because a 3rd level spell is supposed to be equal to a 3rd level spell. I don't think that the dragon should have only combat spells though. I don't like when the DM changes the opponents because he feels they aren't powerful enough. Changing the feats can have a huge impact on the monster's CR. We all know that not all feats are created equal and that is by design.
You can't bring houserules to the boards. We all know this, and we know why.I'm sorry I don't see this as house rules.
Evidently your millage varies.
But if the bad guy has a magical sword he is allowed to pick it up and swing it if he wants to. A magical sword works in his hands and a non-magical sword doesn't become magical in his hands because its bonuses are expected... this isn't 4e, things are supposed to make sense here. If there is some RAW that says he cannot do so please cite it, cause it seems more than just quite silly to me.
As to adjusting a bestiary monster to have a different feat or spell selection there's also nothing wrong with that either.
None of these are house rules, rather they are designing an encounter.
Now again I'm not agreeing with Cod, however purposefully turning a blind eye here is just wrong.
-James
I agree with you that the monsters should be using their treasure. I do have a problem when all the treasure is specifically placed to make the monster more powerful. It's one thing to give an ancient gold dragon some items to boost it a bit (a ring of protection, a wand of bull's strength, whatever). It's an entirely different thing to take all the treasure and convert it to only items usable by the dragon. I think that the treasure used should be based on the monster's personality and goals.
I run a fast paced game. That means the ancient gold dragon should have 300,000 worth of treasure. I would probably have a good chunk of that as coins since I like the image of a dragon laying on its coins. That would leave about 100,000 to 150,000 in items. Some would be just because they are nice (art objects or items it can't use but are aesthetically pleasing). That would leave 75,000 to 100,000 worth of gear. This is where I would have some fun.
I also don't have any issues with some modifications to monsters so long as it doesn't actually change the CR. Changing the spells known for a dragon...
This makes sense too. Giving a monster 200000ish gp to spend will definitely change the fight. I know of know other way to push an attack bonus to over 50 from around 35.
|
|
I liked it better when the DM mattered. You don't really need one any more.Meh. I think a lot of the 3.X/PFRPG stuff is silly, and thus I generally ignore it. NPCs that are of an equal level to the PCs should have comparable equipment. They shouldn't be penalized simply for not being the "main characters". WPL was NEVER meant to be the hardline rule that so many people on these forums treat it as. I'd say 90% of the magical items that I have any given monster/NPC toting around will be useable by them, and WILL be used by them. CR is a bit of a joke, and always has been.
My rule: do what feels right. If it feels right to you to have the orc warrior carrying around a +3 longsword but not using it in favor of his mundane short sword, it's your game...who am I to say you're doing it wrong?
The DM used to be an arbitrator. Now, he's mostly there to be the guy who runs the bad guys, and lets players play a structured module instead of just rolling on a table of wandering monsters.
I've been playing for 31 years now, DMing for 25 I guess. Hit my groove in about 87 as a DM and do it pretty much the same way ever since. I ignore 90% of 3x/PF nuts and bolts stuff too.
I'm just saying they've taken a lot of the leeway DMs have away (as far as player expectations go). I haven't seen too many modern games that don't bog down at some point because player x has to belabor the point of the rule on page 135 until the DM wants to crawl under the table and find another hobby.
It's like the PrC thing: ostensibly the DM has discretion in what he allows in his game (according to the DMG 3.5), but the way the game was marketed, the DM is being a dick if he doesn't allow something from, say, the Complete Cheese a player dropped $30 on. It isn't a change made to make the game better, it's a change made to sell more books.
And the modern player expectation seems to be survive until level 20, which is mathematically unlikely. So the game mode default is "story hour", not "we live in a dangerous world".
I still make players make three or four characters and level them as their main guy goes up (I figure out magic items and stuff as necessary) because I don't pull punches.
But the bottom line is, 3.whatever is a player driven game, the DM has been told to just move the minis and read the boxed text, lest the players mutiny.
|
|
Now you're clear into hyperbole country.
I liked it better when the DM mattered. You don't really need one any more.
What do you need a DM for? I can go to any kindergarten and get story hour. And players know as much about the rules as DMs any more, so you don't need one to adjudicate anything. In fact, any time a DM does something logical in the world, it seems a player will go to some forum and b+$+* about it. And all of the other players will tell him the DM is a dick.
So, what do you need us for again?