What would be the best way to lower the CRs of Yuan-Ti? My upcoming game is a low-magic one, but I'm really wanting to use the Yuan-Ti; halfbloods in particular. My target CR is 3. I was thinking of removing their spell-like abilities, but I don't know how that would balance out. Thoughts?
Also, I noticed something last night while reading through the Requium of the Shadow Serpent article in Dungeon #139. The article has a Yuan-Ti halfblood bard 9 with a CR of 11... How does that work?
I mean, the MM p.290 say to determine ECL, you add the monster's level adjustment (+5), it's hit die (7), and character class levels (9). 5 + 7 + 9 = 11? Um, no.
Granted, I may just not fully understand the relationships between CR and ECL, but this seems wrong. Again, thoughts?
-Kurocyn
Also, I noticed something last night while reading through the Requium of the Shadow Serpent article in Dungeon #139. The article has a Yuan-Ti halfblood bard 9 with a CR of 11... How does that work?I mean, the MM p.290 say to determine ECL, you add the monster's level adjustment (+5), it's hit die (7), and character class levels (9). 5 + 7 + 9 = 11? Um, no.
Granted, I may just not fully understand the relationships between CR and ECL, but this seems wrong. Again, thoughts?
-Kurocyn
Drop down a few pages to MM p.293-294.
Bard is a non-associated class for Yuan-Ti Pure Bloods. If one stacks levels of a non-associated class they only raise the CR by 1/2 until they are higher then the HD of whatever they are being stacked on.
So her levels for CR purposes is determined by first finding Yuan-ti Halfbloods HD which is 7. Now the first 7 levels of that bard are non-associated. That means they add only 3.5 to her CR. The last two levels add fully to her CR because her class levels now exceed her HD. So her CR is 5 (base Yuan-ti halfblood CR) + 3.5 (her non-associated class levels) + 2 (her class levels that exceeded the Yuan-ti halfbloods HD). That comes to 5 + 3.5 + 2 = 10.5.
Now by standard D&D conventions I think that should be rounded down to CR 10 but my gut guess is that James and the team decided that bard was 'kinda sorta asscoiated' and felt that rounding up would give her a CR closer to what her power level was then rounding down.
That solves it! Thank you.
I had flipped through that section seeing if there might have been a reason, but I guess I missed that.
So these non-associated classes, how do you determine them? Is there a chart there? (don't have MM handy) Or does it work with the monster's favored class somehow?
Thanks again, for the explanation.
-Kurocyn
So these non-associated classes, how do you determine them? Is there a chart there? (don't have MM handy) Or does it work with the monster's favored class somehow?
Thanks again, for the explanation.
-Kurocyn
It's a DM call. You should look at the basic function of the creature (such as combat/stealth/arcane magic/divine magic) then look at the class being added. If you're adding a spellcasting class to a combat creature, it's likely non-associated. Or if you add a combat class to a spellcasting creature. It's not an exact science, and some classes (like cleric) can muddy the waters a bit.
Yes, it's DM's call typically. A minotaur would have fighter and barbarian as associated classes, for example, because "Hit with Stick" is what they do normally, so those levels directly increase that ability. Rogue gives them abilities that really don't augment what they are already good at, so it would be non-associated.
On the other hand, a physical-attack-based ambush monster, like a Babau demon, would have rogue as associated class levels because it directly improves existing abilities, just like fighter and barbarian does for the minotaur.
The wierd thing is that fighter (and barbarian) levels only rarely dont offer significant advantages to a creature, so they are commonly associated levels.
Spellcasters are trickier. Somewhere in the MM is says something along these lines: If a creature already casts spells a member of X class (such as nagas, couatls, dragons, and driders, who all cast as sorcerers), then levels in that specific spellcasting class are associated and stack. If they lack that ability, then the levels are non-associated.
So, wizard or sorcerer would be non-associated for a minotaur or a babau, but sorcerer would be associated for a naga, which already casts as a sorcerer of X level. In fact, adding a sorcerer level increase it's caster level, spells known, and spells per day appropriately. So if a creature casts as a 9th level sorcerer naturally and gains a level in that class, they cast as a 10th level sorcerer. Wizard remains unassociated though, because the creature doesn't cast as a wizard.
Cleric levels are trickier, as they don't rely solely on the spellcasting component of the class, but also include good armor and weapon choices and a nice HD. Typically speaking, though, they are non-associated.
Actually, that makes me wonder about multiclassed NPCs. Should they follow similar rules? Say a fighter 4/wizard 5. Should his CR only be 7, rather than 9, since his largest group of HD are in the wizard class, and thus fighter is "non-associated?" Would the CR jump to 10 if he gained one more fighter level, or would it just go to 8?
I actually think I like that, since I agree with those on the boards who feel that NPCs are often far weaker than the equation "CR = class levels" states. This would do a little to mitigate that effect. Thoughts, opinions, hate mail? :)
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Actually, that makes me wonder about multiclassed NPCs. Should they follow similar rules? Say a fighter 4/wizard 5. Should his CR only be 7, rather than 9, since his largest group of HD are in the wizard class, and thus fighter is "non-associated?"
I'm inclined to disagree here. The associated vs. non-associated levels arguement falls flat when it comes to NPCs. I'm assuming by 'NPC' you mean characters who are from "playable" races with class levels like humans, elves, half-orcs, etc.
While the various races have their favored classes, the races were balanced with the idea that they would need to be viable no matter what class they picked up. Now, that's not to say a half-orc would make as good a wizard as an elf would, but I would argue that the difference is not substantial enough to warrant a CR adjustment.
Take the following into consideration: A half-orc barbarian 10 versus an elven fighter 4/wizard 6. One might argue that, since the bulk of the elf's levels are in wizard and since the elf loses Constitution, fighter would be 'non-associated' and therefore only count as 1/2 for the purposes of CR. So, the orc would be CR 10 and the elf CR 8. Put your average party against these two examples and see which one challenges the party more. I'm fairly certain you'll find them to be quite balanced. While the orc has more hit points and more melee damage potential, the elf has better saving throws, access to spells like expeditious retreat, invisibility, haste, and fireball, and more feats (and therefore more versatility) than the orc.
I, for one, agree with the CR = class levels approach.
Cleric levels are trickier, as they don't rely solely on the spellcasting component of the class, but also include good armor and weapon choices and a nice HD. Typically speaking, though, they are non-associated.
Many celestials (angels in particular) cast spells as clerics and would thus associate them.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Many celestials (angels in particular) cast spells as clerics and would thus associate them.
I would argue that this is true for most outsiders from the Outer Planes. Demons and devils have numerous spells and spell-like abilities that mimic cleric spells as well (unholy aura, implosion, magic circle vs. good, etc.).
Mimicing abilities and actually casting as a member of a given class are two very different things, and the former has no real impact on determining "associated" and "non-associated" levels.
However, I do think I agree with your analysis of the NPCs, though. It was just a thought. I still think they are weaker, especially at higher CRs, than monsters of the same ranking. CRs are funny, often totally subjective things.
I'm inclined to disagree here. The associated vs. non-associated levels arguement falls flat when it comes to NPCs. I'm assuming by 'NPC' you mean characters who are from "playable" races with class levels like humans, elves, half-orcs, etc.While the various races have their favored classes, the races were balanced with the idea that they would need to be viable no matter what class they picked up. Now, that's not to say a half-orc would make as good a wizard as an elf would, but I would argue that the difference is not substantial enough to warrant a CR adjustment.
Take the following into consideration: A half-orc barbarian 10 versus an elven fighter 4/wizard 6. One might argue that, since the bulk of the elf's levels are in wizard and since the elf loses Constitution, fighter would be 'non-associated' and therefore only count as 1/2 for the purposes of CR. So, the orc would be CR 10 and the elf CR 8. Put your average party against these two examples and see which one challenges the party more. I'm fairly certain you'll find them to be quite balanced. While the orc has more hit points and more melee damage potential, the elf has better saving throws, access to spells like expeditious retreat, invisibility, haste, and fireball, and more feats (and therefore more versatility) than the orc.
I, for one, agree with the CR = class levels approach.
While I would not go so far as to actually change the rules I disagree with the idea that a fighter 4 / Wizard 6 is the same level of challenge as either a Fighter 10 or Wizard 10. There are exceptions, usually based on some kind of a shtick like a double wand wielder, but in general I think you'd find that the Fighter 4/ Wizard 6 is pretty sub par in terms of a class combo and is just meat for the slaughter against the PCs.
AC remains lousy, hps are slightly better but a higher level wizard has better defensive spells to help in this area like Stone Skin and the offensive spells are much more dangerous and hard to resist for a 8th-10th level party. Similarly the 10th level fighter has a lot of feats, good AC and lots of hps and has a descent chance of being a viable challenge. A fighter/wizard generally just can't do either of its rolls very well. Hard to cast spells in melee and the fighter levels are mostly a waste if you stay out of melee and try and caste spells.
One can multi-class effectively but usually that involves something like stacking fighter levels on Barbarian levels or some such.
This is in large part an NPC weakness in my opinion as they usually only hang out for a very limited time on stage before dying. A player taking fighter 4 / wizard 6 might fair a little better as the class combo has advantages that are more likely to shine over the long haul. For example the character can effectivly fight all the low EL encounters without resorting to using up spell power and saving spell power for the BBEG fight.
While I would not go so far as to actually change the rules I disagree with the idea that a fighter 4 / Wizard 6 is the same level of challenge as either a Fighter 10 or Wizard 10.
I, for one, agree with the CR = class levels approach.
This boils down to intelligent character-building/multiclassing. For primary casters (cleric, druid, sorcerer, wizard, and variants), giving up more than one or two levels of spellcasting from multiclassing or a prestige class is usually counterproductive.
Now a Fighter 4/Wizard 6 is not an optimum build (Sorcerer might be better), but it can still be effective if the Fighter feats are concentrated in ranged combat (you CAN take Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization in missile or ray spells, plus Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot) and the Wizard spells are concentrated in ranged touch spells. He's not going to be a tank, but can work as a magical sniper (BAB +7/+2) that can fall back on a composite longbow when not casting spells. Even with Practiced Spellcaster and a couple metamagic feats (Enlarge Spell and Extend Spell perhaps) to round out the character, that still leaves one feat (two if human) free for something else.
Cast Expeditious Retreat, Mage Armor, and Shield on yourself. Cast an Extended Melf's Acid Arrow at the party's arcane caster from up to 800 ft away. Pepper the party with arrows and area spells. If someone gets close, let them have it with a Scorching Ray (with Point Blank Shot, Weapon Focus (Ray), and Weapon Specialization (Ray), two rays at +9 attack plus Dex and 4d6+3 damage each) and move away 60 ft as a move action. Then hit them with an Enlarged Ray of Enfeeblement (1d6+5 Str damage). If things get tight, run away (double move of 120 ft).
This boils down to intelligent character-building/multiclassing. For primary casters (cleric, druid, sorcerer, wizard, and variants), giving up more than one or two levels of spellcasting from multiclassing or a prestige class is usually counterproductive.Now a Fighter 4/Wizard 6 is not an optimum build (Sorcerer might be better), but it can still be effective if the Fighter feats are concentrated in ranged combat (you CAN take Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization in missile or ray spells, plus Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot) and the Wizard spells are concentrated in ranged touch spells. He's not going to be a tank, but can work as a magical sniper (BAB +7/+2) that can fall back on a composite longbow when not casting spells. Even with Practiced Spellcaster and a couple metamagic feats (Enlarge Spell and Extend Spell perhaps) to round out the character, that still leaves one feat (two if human) free for something else.
Cast Expeditious Retreat, Mage Armor, and Shield on yourself. Cast an Extended Melf's Acid Arrow at the party's arcane caster from up to 800 ft away. Pepper the party with arrows and area spells. If someone gets close, let them have it with a Scorching Ray (with Point Blank Shot, Weapon Focus (Ray), and Weapon Specialization (Ray), two rays at +9 attack plus Dex and 4d6+3 damage each) and move away 60 ft as a move action. Then hit them with an Enlarged Ray of Enfeeblement (1d6+5 Str damage). If things get tight, run away (double move of 120 ft).
Its ideas like this that make me think the class could work for PCs. For an NPC the combat probably won't last that long. They either die or retreat after 3-6 rounds. So things like falling back on a bow is not really required. Cast ones best spells for 3-6 rounds is usually a better option for an NPC.
Its ideas like this that make me think the class could work for PCs. For an NPC the combat probably won't last that long. They either die or retreat after 3-6 rounds. So things like falling back on a bow is not really required. Cast ones best spells for 3-6 rounds is usually a better option for an NPC.
3-6 rounds are usually the best you can hope for in a fight against a single NPC. If anything, a ranged attacker with superior mobility will probably last longer and have a better chance of escaping than the melee brute.
We're really derivating her, but I can't help myself. I agree, against a single NPC, you're going to get 3-6 rounds, or a TPK. NPCs typically have worse abilities scores and far less treasure than any given PC, so when facing off against 4 of them of similar level, they are simply surrounded and hacked to death. In order to boost their abilities to be scary enough to warrant proper respect from the party, or include a real "challenge," the NPC's level has to be sky rocketed above the party's.
So minions are always the way to go. Keep the BBEG equal to party level, or as high as party level +2, but no more. Throw in mooks and henchmen and bodyguards to soak up the actions and attention of the other PCs, and you've got a good encounter. Another good tactic is staggering. Let the fight for for a couple of rounds, then throw in another small group of foes to catch the party off guard, possibly cutting off retreat and setting up good flanking positions.
Campaign, adventure, and encounter design really should be a college course. And we need an awards show! Best villain, best dungeon layout....
Way off topic, now....
Umm... Just a little.
But thanks for the info everyone. ^ ^;;
-Kurocyn