Apologies if this has been discussed before (I used the search feature, but didn't find anything relevant to my question).
My question is this: Is there something other than the Draconic template from Draconomicon going on with these kobolds? I applied the draconic template to the standard kobolds from MM (changing them from warrior to rogue) and my math doesn't quite add up to the stats posted in the adventure. Any advice would be helpful here.
Thanks,
Rhen
Well, since I haven't looked at their stats closely and don't have the magazine with me here at work, I'm only guessing here, but maybe their stats have been upgraded with the "Elite Monster" upgrade? This would be an adjustment of +4 to two stats, +2 to two stats, +0 to one stat, and -2 to one stat compared with the baseline ability scores listed for kobold straight from the MM. If that math adds up, also taking into account any bonuses from the draconic template, then that should answer your question: they aren't your average Kobolds, they're elite draconic kobold rogues.
This would be an adjustment of +4 to two stats, +2 to two stats, +0 to one stat, and -2 to one stat compared with the baseline ability scores listed for kobold straight from the MM.
Well, thanks for the info, but I already thought of that. The difference, which I should have specified in my original post, is 4 points of Dex and 3 points of Wisdom, which doesn't add with the elite "add." Also, there's the Acid Resistance 15, which I assumed comes from Ilthane's elixir (which matches Shukak, the lizard "king"), but doesn't match with the acid resistance granted to Kotabas, the lizardfolk lieutenant, who also drank the elixir.
I know it probably sounds like I'm nitpicking, but I try to be as fair as I possibly can as a DM. My players wouldn't have it any other way.
Rhen
Well then, I have no idea how to account for the discrepancy. I know what you mean, though; I like for everything to be balanced and easily understandable in terms of the rules. My group's nowhere near EaBWK yet, so I haven't studied that module very closely yet. From the sounds of it, though, I'll be re-crafting the Kobolds slightly so that they're appropriately designed according to the rules in the core books, along with the draconic template. Since this potion that Ilthane has apparently given the kobolds and the lizardfolk king isn't described in detail in the adventure (that I'm aware of), I'll probably be removing its benefits entirely. I don't like just adding unspecified effects from sources I can't study and justify personally. Perhaps I'll replace it with extra gear provided by Ilthane, such as potions of Resist Energy [Acid].
Creative Director
|
The "discrepancies" between a standard draconic kobold and Ilthane's kobolds are due to the nebulous effects of Ilthane's elixirs and due to artistic license. The acid resistance comes from the elixirs. Their unusual stat array comes from artistic license. Usually, we try to stick with the elite array for monster stats (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, and 8). Sometimes, though, we simply assign scores as we see fit (which is the case for these kobolds, if I remember correctly). Writing adventures isn't just about the math; you have to allow for creativity and organic creation of stats as well.
Not every monster in Age of Worms (or Dungeon, for that matter) will be something you can "legally" build using the rules. In some cases, we ignore the rules and tweak monsters to make them more interesting and fit an encounter's theme better. Ilthane's kobolds are an example of this, and the BBEG for "The Champion's Belt" is another example. All of the new monsters in these adventures are also examples of creatures built using the rules as a guideline rather than as a computer program.
Of course, I encourage all of you to adapt the adventures as you see fit for your home campaigns. That's what they're for. That's what I do when I run a Dungeon adventure. But just because something can't be reverse engineered out of the magazine doesn't mean that it's unfair or broken. Ilthane's kobolds are balanced and CR'd appropriately (they might even be a tad underpowered), I think, even with their nebulous additional abilities. In fact, it might be easier to look at them as entirely new monsters rather than established monsters with templates and class levels.
I think my strong inclination to try and make all of the creatures and encounters in my games such that they could be "reverse engineered" comes from my days as a player (which seem further and further away lately). I always hated coming up against creatures, items, and devices that worked in ways that my character couldn't reproduce within the scope of the rules even if he tried. That frustration hasled me to always design encounters for my game in such a way that, were they so inclined, any of my players could conceivably accomplish given the right amount of work and the proper selection of choices available to the character. I don't by any means intend to belittle artistic license and creativity. I just like for my players to be able to accomplish anything that my NPCs can.
The difference is only between point-buying the stats and rolling for them (or pretending you rolled and assigning them).
Or you could just call it a new bonus type: DM bonus. Can be anything, stacks with everything, needs no written rules, just a good story (and maybe not even that, if the players never learn...). :)
Artistic license is great; it's what allows all these wonderful adventures to be published in Dungeon every month. Artistic license should be used when it comes to the motivations, territories, and objectives of the creatures encountered therein.
However, the greatest thing about 3.0/3.5 D&D (and what brought me back to the game in the first place) is the balancing act between CR/EL and the player characters. Having the enemies that you are facing "add up" according to the rules is one of the best things that every happened, in my opinion, to the RPG industry. This way, there's no guesswork about whether an encounter will be too tough or too easy. It all "adds up."
Playing fast and loose with the rules leads down a very rocky road. My first campaign that I played in under the 3.0 rules was run by a DM who significantly changed the creatures from the way they were written in the Monster Manual, without considering the balance act. As a result, we had nine character deaths less than halfway through the module "City of the Spider Queen." The campaign ended with a total party kill, but, realistically, the campaign was over long before that, as the players were pretty much disgusted with having to create new characters over and over again.
I am not trying to be overly critical and say that every single encounter must be the way it's written in the Monster Manual. There are ways presented there to vary the encounters to keep the creatures from getting stale. Templates, elite arrays and non-elite arrays are good examples of this. However, when one goes and changes things from the core rules without considering the consequences, then they're into trouble (and I'm not talking about the kobolds here, I personally think they're CR'd too high, but see the thread about the Mind Flayer Sorcerer for a good example).
I have a responsibility to my players to follow the rules. I will thus, in my campaign, rewrite the encounters so that they follow the rules. It's not that big of a deal to me, since I'm changing a lot (I'm running the AP in Eberron, so I have to make some changes). The thing that bothers me, though, is that "artistic license" is being used to justify breaking the rules and I can't agree with that.
Rhen
Edited to correct typos...
|
Creative Director
|
The thing that bothers me, though, is that "artistic license" is being used to justify breaking the rules and I can't agree with that.
The easiest way to handle that is to rewrite the kobolds or to write up the exact rules for the elixir that Ilthane gave them. Had we had time and space to present the elixir, I would have loved to do that. We had neither, so I went with the artistic license route.
Thanks, James. As I've said before, I don't want to come across as being overly nitpicky; I really love Dungeon and the direction that you guys have taken it. The storyline and entire premise of the AOW Adventure Path is hands down the best I've ever seen.
Kudos to you guys also for taking the time to participate in discussions such as this. The "human touch" adds immeasurable value to your publications.
Rhen
|
The thing that bothers me, though, is that "artistic license" is being used to justify breaking the rules and I can't agree with that.
This is my first "jaw-dropping" topic from the Paizo.com boards.
First of all, I never realized the scope of detail towards the critters and how CR/EL is determined. I knew there was a "formula", hell, I may even have read the mechanics at some point; I didn't know that the formula would/could/should be reversed engineered.
The fact that an astute reader does this both impresses and scares me at the same time. In addition, I've had something of an epiphany: I have "faith" that the published products are "correct" in regards to such mechanics.
I think I suddenly understand organized religions better. Scary.
The details that the astute Rhen notices and is concerned about are the very details that I, as a player/DM/person-of-faith, don't give a second (or first) thought towards. Perhaps it comes from having hours and hours of gaming with mechanic-poor rules systems and that I've come to have faith in "artistic license". Perhaps I have some sixth sense when reading gaming material to know when something doesn't work as written.
::shrugs::
I have no idea where/how/why my instinct comes to play; I now know there is a mechanic I can use to reverse engineer any encounter I have concerns about — after I put in my 40+ hours at work, deal with my domestic duties, prep for my game(s) in a reasonble fashion, get my Paizo.com fix, keep some room on TiVo...
Screw it. Faith is easier.
Yep, I definitely have a new understanding on organized religions...
Thank you Rhen and James for opening my eyes to an aspect of the 3.x beast that I barely comprehended. It's clear to me why I've never bothered to pursue "professional" adventure writing outside of the occasional Con game scenario.
Writing adventures isn't just about the math; you have to allow for creativity and organic creation of stats as well.
Blasphemy!
I fundamentally disagree with this statement. Math and stats, IMO, should go hand in hand.
In many cases I like to tweak monsters here and there. In order to do this I like to reverse engineer monsters, but I want to make sure the CR is balanced.
Changing the stats on humanoids isn't that big of a violation though. It's giving NPCs a higher "point buy".
In fact, it might be easier to look at them as entirely new monsters rather than established monsters with templates and class levels.
That's fine, as long as these "new monstesr" are legal. Ability scores are one thing; adding extra feats or tweaking BAB is a different story. If you don't explain how you're changing these monsters, how do we know that the changes were intentional or if you were just lazy or negligent of the monster building rules?
Changing the stats on humanoids isn't that big of a violation though. It's giving NPCs a higher "point buy".
Exactly. I have *no* idea why people are getting their panties in a bunch over a stat block that does not perfectly match a given array. My PCs do not use a standard array; why should every NPC? Do you demand straight average hit points as well?
Ability scores are one thing; adding extra feats or tweaking BAB is a different story.
I *do* agree with this point, however. Ability scores, hit points, equipment, magical buffs, etc. are fine, but everything should match up as far as saves, BAB, number of feats, etc. for a given creature. Of course, if they don't, it is simple enough to create a template, add hit dice, or use some other excuse to increase things.
MI
|
Creative Director
|
That's fine, as long as these "new monstesr" are legal. Ability scores are one thing; adding extra feats or tweaking BAB is a different story. If you don't explain how you're changing these monsters, how do we know that the changes were intentional or if you were just lazy or negligent of the monster building rules?
Never fear: ability scores and hit points are the only parts of an NPC's stat block that will EVER fall into the category of this type of "artistic license." That's because these are the only two parts of the game that are generated randomly. Everything else follows a formula, and as a result we can't just arbitrarilly decide "This elf can breathe fire or that owlbear has a Base Attack Bonus of +15" without explaining WHY that NPC has changes.
In the case of the Kobolds, their immunity to acid and other boosts come from Ilthane's elixir and from the draconic template.
|
Creative Director
|
Oh, and another thing.
If we stuck to only using average hit points and the standard or elite array for NPC ability scores, we're denying the possibility of exceptionally powerful or pitiful characters. There's certianly a place for the local strongman who happens to have an 18 Strength at 1st level. There's also a place for the village idiot who has an Intelligence of 3. These characters are possible in the context of the rules, but not possible if we enslave ourselves to the standard or elite arrays.
In any event, when we DO give out extra ability scores to an NPC (or short-change them on what they should get) those adjustments are always taken into mind when we determine the monster's CR.
|
Creative Director
|
In many cases I like to tweak monsters here and there. In order to do this I like to reverse engineer monsters, but I want to make sure the CR is balanced.
The first thing you have to accept about the CR system is that it is inherently flawed, especailly for high-level threats. A CR 5 undead will ruin a clericless party, but against a party made entirely of clerics, it might not even get a hit in.
CR is an estimate of a creature's average toughness. It's a mathematical way to simulate playtesting the monster without taking the time to run some mock combats against it. It's a really useful tool to measure how tough a monster might be against an average party of adventurers. But you won't know exactly how tough it is until you see the monster in action.