[Grrr...the Postmonster ate my post. Let's try this again.]
I've made this point before in other threads (and in the Alpha playtest), but I think it bears repeating: Limiting spells that create flunkies to X HD is a poor way of balancing them. If you're going to use a number to restrict the flunkies you create/control, CR is a much better number than HD.
Examples:
- Planar Ally (a 12 HD trumpet archon is way, way better than a 12 HD fire elemental)
- Planar Binding (see above, plus the everpopular free wishes from efreeti
- Gate (using a 9th level spell to summon and control a solar is ridiculous, considering it has multiple 9th level spells it must use on your behalf)
- Simulacrum (don't want to Gate in a solar every time? Make a simulacrum instead)
- Animate Dead (not nearly as bad as the aforementioned spells, but a well selected 20 HD skeleton is generally much better than 10x 2 HD zombies)
- rebuke/command undead (see above, plus you can also get creatures with special abilities like shadows [spawn!])
I think the Polymorph spells are a good step forward in preventing players from abusing the ol' Monster Manual (although I'm not sure that every magic beast has a balanced Breath Weapon or Roar attack). I'd just like to see that approach applied to other spells as well.
(NOTE: I realise that the DM can stop each and every abuse of every rule in the game using Rule Zero and/or throwing hardcover books at his players. So you can consider that comment made.)
I'll agree with your comments, but I thought I'd point out that for Animate Dead, that problem is unavoidable. A single big creature is usually better than a number of smaller creatures. At least Skeletons and Zombies do directly scale with HD.
A single big creature is usually better than a number of smaller creatures. At least Skeletons and Zombies do directly scale with HD.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. What 1 HD skeletal creature "scales up" to be a 10 HD pyrohydra skeleton (to use a concrete example)?
I agree that Animate Dead is the least worrisome spell on that list, but I included it for completeness.
One more point: Another reason that HD makes a terrible proxy for power is that templates don't increase HD. So in that case, a half-dragon 10-headed hydra skeleton is just as easy to make or control as a 10-headed hydra skeleton.
I mean that a Skeleton or Zombie's CR is directly based off its HD in a more or less linear fashion, since they have no weird special abilities to much it up. They're a bag of HP with an attack.
|
He's saying that, unlike your Trumpet Archon versus Fire Elemental comparison, a 12 HD skeleton is better than an 11 HD skeleton is better than a 10 HD skeleton is better than a... etc. Wheras a 12 HD Trumpet Archon is not equal to a 12 HD Fire Elemental, and may even be better than a 13 HD one.
Something like that.
I mean that a Skeleton or Zombie's CR is directly based off its HD in a more or less linear fashion, since they have no weird special abilities to much it up. They're a bag of HP with an attack.
Well, I agree that you don't have a lot of weird special abilities, but for skeletons you're still cherry-picking creatures based on:
- number of natural attacks (the most important, generally)
- high Strength
- magical flight (this is also great, if you can get it)
- high speed (land or flight)
None of those things has anything to do with HD.
I kind of liked the 3.0 version of skeletons: a Large skeleton was a Large skeleton, regardless of whether it came from a horse, an orge, a half-dragon/half-fiendish fire giant, etc.
Some portions of this are difficult to mitigate outside of the Summon Monster approach, of barring certain monsters from being summoned/called/animated at full capability. The hydra is particularly noteworthy with regards to this and animate, but the same can be said of wish hacking efreet, and charm hacking succubi.
If you turn certain undead types in to templates, Create Undead becomes, hypothetically, far worse than Animate Dead, as you can hypothetically stack templates to create really unfortunate synergies (incorporeal undead with drain, create spawn and tremorsense are really, really meaner than anything has any right to be.)
Templates, for one, are part of this problem. Combining multiple templates in synergistic ways causes a number of problems.
Insofar as fixing it, it may simply be easiest to say that some things just don't work. Insectile Half-Fiendish Giants don't leave skeletons, so can't be animated. Hydras don't keep their multiple head attacks when made into zombies or skeletons, as that could be considered a special attack in the Bestiary, and therefore not carried over to the skeleton or zombie form.
Certainly, don't allow calling effects to target non-standard, templated exemplars, without pushing into the "calling an individual" rules.
Then, create tight rules governing genies and wishes, and any other outsider with their special abilities, specific to the type of outsider. Diplomacy already has a skill framework set up to get an NPC to Friendly attitude, which is shared with Intimidate, and Bluff provides a mechanic for convincing an NPC to do something they may otherwise not want to do. All Outsiders called are considered "at risk", because they are called, and not summoned, so any opposed check is automatically at +5 to +10 in the outsider's favor. I like opposed Linguistics checks for Genies versus the Genie's Bluff skill, hidden check, unknown result, with GM fiat on the wish or other special ability if the roll fails. I.E. permanent image in place of actual wish, or such like.
The real solution here is to add uncertainty. Your character may have trapped the succubus/efreet/noble djinn, but can you be certain that what the outsider has agreed to do is what you want them to do?
Insofar as fixing it, it may simply be easiest to say that some things just don't work. Insectile Half-Fiendish Giants don't leave skeletons, so can't be animated. Hydras don't keep their multiple head attacks when made into zombies or skeletons, as that could be considered a special attack in the Bestiary, and therefore not carried over to the skeleton or zombie form.
My suggestion would be to say "You can animate X CR worth of creatures" rather than "You can animate Y HD worth of creatures" (and likewise for Planar Ally, Simulacrum, etc.).
My suggestion would be to say "You can animate X CR worth of creatures" rather than "You can animate Y HD worth of creatures" (and likewise for Planar Ally, Simulacrum, etc.).
I intensely dislike using CR for anything outside of it's original role. ECL is imprecise, and poorly implemented, but at the core preferable. The question, as I see it, becomes this, at the core.
Can necromancers animate skeletal dragons? Can conjurers call genies to grant wishes?
I, for one, thing the answer should be yes to both questions. In regards to the first question, it can be patched by carefully constructing the dragon to not be too much better outside of special abilities, feats and special attacks than other creatures of the same or equal HD. Right there the problem can be considered solved.
Simulacrum, as a shadow illusion, can be patched to mitigate this somewhat. A simulacrum of an Chichimec Abomination, for example, is technically within RAW, if you can somehow get a Chichimec feather or other piece. And, the RAW is vague as to what is halfed with regards to SLAs. Using simulacrum to duplicate SLAs which would duplicate spells of 5th level and above should be right out, and any SLAs should follow the rules for Shadow Evocation and Shadow Conjuration, since the simulacrum is a shadow.
Calling spells are fixable with better rules outside of the calling effect itself. Planar Ally, at it's core, should only allow the calling of an outsider of Friendly disposition. Everything else should be up to Bestiary description.
...But for skeletons you're still cherry-picking creatures based on:
- number of natural attacks (the most important, generally)
- high Strength
- magical flight (this is also great, if you can get it)
- high speed (land or flight)
I kind of liked the 3.0 version of skeletons: a Large skeleton was a Large skeleton, regardless of whether it came from a horse, an orge, a half-dragon/half-fiendish fire giant, etc.
Hydras don't keep their multiple head attacks when made into zombies or skeletons, aers that could be considered a special attack in the Bestiary, and thefore not carried over to the skeleton or zombie form.
I agree Skeletons shouldn't have MultiAttack-as-Standard Attack, as that's more an ability of the (living) Creature.
Letting them keep the attack forms (for Full Attack) seems reasonable.Magical Flight should not transfer to the Skeleton, it seems more a property of the CREATURE, not of it's BONES.
"Normal" Movement, i.e. high land speeds, flight, swim speeds seem reasonable to extend to Skeletons.
I also wouldn't transfer Strength to Skeletons, it should just be normal for it's Size:
Muscles (or Special Qualities) provide Strength, not Bones.
There would still be "superior" Creatures to turn into Skeletons, but the variation could be reduced alot.
I intensely dislike using CR for anything outside of it's original role. ECL is imprecise, and poorly implemented, but at the core preferable. The question, as I see it, becomes this, at the core.
Can necromancers animate skeletal dragons? Can conjurers call genies to grant wishes?
I, for one, thing the answer should be yes to both questions.
What difference does it to make to your question whether CR or HD is used?
What difference does it to make to your question whether CR or HD is used?
Of the two functional metrics, one is directly tied to the advancement of the monster, and one is somewhat arbitrary and is indirectly linked to the advancement of the monster.
Most specifically, HD scales faster than CR, which makes a 20HD Magical Beast or Outsider advanced from CR2 much more potent than CR would indicate. Or do we need to go over the threads that got Crusader of Logic banned again?
Of the two functional metrics, one is directly tied to the advancement of the monster, and one is somewhat arbitrary and is indirectly linked to the advancement of the monster.
What difference does it to make to your question whether CR or HD is used?
Er...they're both somewhat arbitrary and are both indirectly linked to the advancement of the monster!
Er...they're both somewhat arbitrary and are both indirectly linked to the advancement of the monster!
Hit Die, within type, actually govern base saves, BAB, and are, in most ways, treated as class levels, down to providing feats and stat advancement at appropriate Hit Die intervals.
While it is certainly true that Monstrous Humanoid, Magical Beast, Undead, Outsider, Fae, and Dragon Hit Die mean radically different things, a 4 HD Magical Beast can be considered roughly similar in terms of BAB and Saves to another 4 HD Magical Beast. While there are obviously given special abilities, movement modes, and similar which vary greatly between different Magical Beasts, at the core a 20HD Worg is a linear progression from a 2HD Worg, and I would rather balance against the 20HD than the handful of CR increases which occur over that advancement. Putting a template on top of that to make it usable as an undead minion should provide only a moderate advantage when you are selecting within a specific type, as, hypothetically, all 20HD magical beasts should be close in CR when stripped of special attacks and most special qualities. Even amongst outsiders, the noble djinni and the efreeti are essentially identical, and, if I wanted to stat out a lesser efreet, it would be relatively trivial for me to do so.
In the case of Outsiders, it therefore becomes important to balance within type, and by special ability. Outsiders with travel abilities, high charisma, etc., are not as vulnerable to the Planar Binding trap as Outsiders without these features. If Planar Ally is massaged slightly on the monster side to provide limits per type as to what the called outsider agree to do, or try to do, then it preserves the functionality of the spell, while adding flavor.
I'll note that there are already threads on this subject for Undead and Planar Binding/Ally/Gate, and I'll suggest the same thing here that I did there:
Make the creating spells nearly blank, and provide more specific rules in the Bestiary for the specific monster. That way, it can be specific to the correct type of monster, and take into account all the relevant values (HD, CR, ECL, and potential shortcuts to certain spells).
I don't know what to do about a Simulacrum, though.
CR is a bad measurement to use.
Why?
Because when they set the CRs for the monsters, they intentionally made certain creatures higher or lower CR than they should be. Dragons are the most well-known example of this, but they aren't the only ones. Dragons are almost universally 3-4 CR lower than they "should" be given their abilities and the fact that Dragon Hit Dice might as well be called Deity Hit Dice.
CR is a bad measurement to use.
Why?
Because when they set the CRs for the monsters, they intentionally made certain creatures higher or lower CR than they should be. Dragons are the most well-known example of this, but they aren't the only ones. Dragons are almost universally 3-4 CR lower than they "should" be given their abilities and the fact that Dragon Hit Dice might as well be called Deity Hit Dice.
Then fix the CRs for dragons. Problem solved.
I agree that CR is only vaguely correlated with power level (which should be fixed, of course). But it's better than hit dice which has almost no correlation with power level whatsoever! Of course, the most accurate thing would be to have an animation cost for every single creature that could be made into a skeleton, plus a planar ally cost for every creature that could be called via Planar Ally, etc. (as Ross suggested), but that doesn't seem very practical to me.
For zombies and skeletons I suggest fixing the template to make it less likely that some creature will simply break with it (like hydras).
Limiting the number of natural attacks, speed, and strength scores, things like that.
For the Create Undead and Planar X spells, I think it may be feasible to give rules for each applicable monster. After all, not all Outsiders can really be Called, anyway. And some non-outsider extraplanar creatures should be able to be Called, like Inevitables.
One of the problems with CR is that it applies when opposing the party, not working with it. Efreeti grant Wishes, regardless of their CR. Grigs cast Irresistable Dance, regardless of CR. There's a reason ECL doesn't line up with CR either.
Grigs cast Irresistable Dance, regardless of CR.
Well, it affects a pixie's CR:
From the SRD:
"Challenge Rating: 4 (5 with irresistible dance)"
It seems silly to say: "CR will always be a bad approximation of combat power, so we should never use it" rather than saying "Let's fix CR so it's a good approximation of combat power".
CR is a bad measurement to use.
Why?
Because when they set the CRs for the monsters, they intentionally made certain creatures higher or lower CR than they should be. Dragons are the most well-known example of this, but they aren't the only ones. Dragons are almost universally 3-4 CR lower than they "should" be given their abilities and the fact that Dragon Hit Dice might as well be called Deity Hit Dice.
Then fix the CRs for dragons. Problem solved.
Dragons have lower CR for their abilities because they aren't made with "random encounter" in mind.
They were CR balanced with the Party knowing in advance what they were facing (ie, Breath weapon protection likely in place, and knowing the dragon's capabilities, lair, etc).
.
CR is definitely screwed up though. Undead HD advance at 4 per CR. A 20HD Zombie (attack bonus, hitpoints, saves, etc), are all intended to be for a CR6 encounter?
Templates too... that same Gray Render zombie is likely harder to turn than a higher level Lich or Vampire (even with turn resistance).
I hate to say this, but I also believe that CR is a better determination of creature's power then either ECL or HD. CR is an arbitrary value that can be sometimes difficult to set (and in the case of Dragons, may be intentionally set lower then it should be), but with the exception of certain kinds of "puzzle monsters", it's a WAY better numerical value to use to make comparisons between the relative power level of monsters then what we're using right now.
Grigs cast Irresistable Dance, regardless of CR.Well, it affects a pixie's CR:
From the SRD:
"Challenge Rating: 4 (5 with irresistible dance)"It seems silly to say: "CR will always be a bad approximation of combat power, so we should never use it" rather than saying "Let's fix CR so it's a good approximation of combat power".
My point is that there is no universal application of 'combat power'. A Golem is a much bigger threat to a Wizard than a Fighter. It stands to reason, then, that it's a bigger threat to a Rakshasa than an Earth Elemental. What are we using to benchmark CRs? Against a party of PCs we can roughly guess at composition. How do you do that against the universe?
DR/magic is nearly useless against humanoid opponents after a few levels, but most monsters would have trouble getting through it, even at high levels, for instance.
The Grig and the Pixie have low CRs, but are bumped up to Summon Nature's Ally IX, because they would grant PCs access to a level 8 spell.
CR is a bad universal metric, because it represents the threat a monster poses to a generic 4-member party, not the universe in general (and if it stopped only worrying about the party, it would become a bad metric for XP and building encounters.) This is true even if some monsters like dragons get their CRs fixed. The best you could do in this case is come up with a new designer-picked number, let's call it Summoning Value, designed to represent the monster's value as a summoned/called/reanimated minion.
And if you do that, how is that different than simply specifying stuff in that monster's block?
CR is a bad universal metric, because it represents the threat a monster poses to a generic 4-member party, not the universe in general[.]
Respectfully, I disagree (although I'm sure one can find isolated cases where a monster's CR is wildly different from its "power level").
Thank you Ross.
Although there are definite puzzle monsters, like the Succubus, it becomes far easier to stat the puzzle monster heavy groups, like demons and devils, around the possibility that those groups will be called, and used against challenges by the player characters.
If you make the puzzle monsters puzzles both on the calling side and on the opposition side, and massage calling rules so that it requires a remarkable success to convince an outsider to do something for the PCs that would not be level appropriate (efreeti wishes, unlimited succubi charm and suggestion), then Hit Die becomes reasonably okay as a metric.
CR is a bad universal metric, because it represents the threat a monster poses to a generic 4-member party, not the universe in general[.]
That should work fine since it establishes a ratio. Two 3rd level PCs will still have a harder time vs. a CR 5 creature than a CR 3 creature, even though both are technically above their APL. It's important to remember the "party of four" thing when balancing encounters, but if we're talking about an abstract ranking of power I think CR is a usable metric.
...so long as they fix the CRs, which Paizo has declared as its intention.
although I'm sure one can find isolated cases where a monster's CR is wildly different from its "power level").
These isolated cases are exactly the ones that cause problems, though. In combat an Efreet is just a firey genie. When called or bound on the player's side, it becomes a Wish machine. A Pixie is just a CR 5 fey, unless you put it on the wrong Summon Nature's Ally list and the Druid gets access to Irresistable Dance way before he gets 8th level spells. Hydra skeleton has the wrong CR because the hydra has a truly ridiculous number of natural attacks.
Different abilities mean different things on opposite sides of the table. That's why ECL and CR aren't the same.
Perhaps the problem is that some of these spells (Simulacrum, Animate Dead) are, in fact, reward spells, and some, (Planar Binding, Planar Ally, Gate) are encounter spells.
In the case of Simulacrum, it is a reward for obtaining a bit of the creature to be able to spend gold and time to create a half power version of the creature. If it can be ensured that the actual creature is, in fact, half powered, then I think it would be okay, as even a half powered puzzle monster or glass cannon can be balanced as a 7th level spell effect which has substantial expense. The real issue is what to do with SLAs, and I might consider halfing the saves for things which allow a save, and perhaps SLAs which don't allow saves can be treated per shadow conjuration or shadow evocation. No 9th level SLAs through a 7th level spell.
Animate Dead can be balanced out by cleaning up the zombie and skeleton templates. A dragon skeleton should, in fact, be better than a dire lion skeleton, which should be better than an ogre skeleton, which should be better than a hobgoblin skeleton. But the dragon should not be massively better beyond HD than the dire lion, the ogre, or the hobgoblin. This is not that difficult to do, but defeating a difficult critter and obtaining an intact body is, in fact, deserving of the reward of being able to turn it into a skeleton or zombie, and gain some of that power for the character's use.
The calling spells and effects are encounter spells, spells which are cast to create a favorable encounter with powerful NPCs. If the calling spells simply specify the rules under which the encounter occurs, puzzle and glass cannon creatures can have specific calling rules which govern how the encounter occurs, and use those rules to balance them out. Nobody is as worried about the Janni or Hezrou, but rather with the Efreeti and Succubi. Setting up these creatures so that the encounters provided by calling spells are only occasionally favorable enough to the caster to get exactly what the caster wants is ideal, in my opinion.
|
|
I agree Skeletons shouldn't have MultiAttack-as-Standard Attack, as that's more an ability of the (living) Creature.
Letting them keep the attack forms (for Full Attack) seems reasonable.
So, they could still attack with multiple heads, but, without the Multi-Attack feat (since it is a learned ability), these attacks would be highly inaccurate?
That sounds fair.
Perhaps the problem is that some of these spells (Simulacrum, Animate Dead) are, in fact, reward spells, and some, (Planar Binding, Planar Ally, Gate) are encounter spells.
In the case of Simulacrum, it is a reward for obtaining a bit of the creature to be able to spend gold and time to create a half power version of the creature. If it can be ensured that the actual creature is, in fact, half powered, then I think it would be okay, as even a half powered puzzle monster or glass cannon can be balanced as a 7th level spell effect which has substantial expense. The real issue is what to do with SLAs, and I might consider halfing the saves for things which allow a save, and perhaps SLAs which don't allow saves can be treated per shadow conjuration or shadow evocation. No 9th level SLAs through a 7th level spell.
I still don't know why it should be limited by number of HD, rather than some number that actually measures how powerful the resulting simulacrum is. Likewise for Planar Ally/Binding.
I can understand complaints that CR is not a perfect measure of how powerful a monster is, of course, but I think it's the best measure we currently have. The best answer would probably be to judge on a creature by creature basis (as Ross has recommended), but wouldn't be very useful in the case of a non-Pathfinder monster.
|
|
It seems silly to say: "CR will always be a bad approximation of combat power, so we should never use it" rather than saying "Let's fix CR so it's a good approximation of combat power".
Isn't that one of the design goals of the Pathfinder Bestiary?
The design team have already stated that most CR will stay the same, so as to reduce the need to mess with previously written encounters. However, the actual capabilities of some creatures will be examined, and if need be, amended, to better reflect the intended target CR.
So there's less need to worry about summoning/calling 'Outsider X', on the grounds that "Outsider X is too powerful for a creature of CR X", since the revised PF version of Outsider X will likely be a much different beast than currently written.
In the case of the worst offenders (the efreet/djinn wish factory) that can be as simple as an amendment that normal Genie 'Commoners' (ie the base type in the Monster Manual) just don't grant wishes. Why should they? Save that ability for the Royal Genies, with 17 arcane class levels, all of which are outside the bounds of the summoning/binding/ally rules.
See, if CR is a better measure of creature power, I can get behind using it as a guidepost for spells currently based on HD. However, this is predicated on puzzle monsters and glass cannons being radically altered. No one is upset about planar binding Vrocks, but people are absolutely up in arms over planar binding Efreeti. Making all wish granting efreeti/djinni individuals is certainly a good patch, as is tightening up the rules on calling unique beings from gate, and backporting those rules to cover planar ally and planar binding.
I am more than fine with using planar binding to call an efreet or noble djinn which can grant wishes. I want this to be possible, as it is a cannonical fantasy trope, and writing rules for it is important to me. I do not want it to be easy, and I want the rules for it to make it in all cases superior to find some other way to cast wish.
Gate, Planar Binding and Planar Ally are encounter spells, used to generate encounters with powerful outsiders. Considering all calling effects as encounters, and setting up specific rules on a per outsider basis as to what happens when they are called, treating every casting of the spell as an encounter, and allowing the PCs a mechanism to either succeed or fail on the encounter, is, in my opinion, the best way to fix the efreeti wish machine problem.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
My point is that there is no universal application of 'combat power'. A Golem is a much bigger threat to a Wizard than a Fighter. It stands to reason, then, that it's a bigger threat to a Rakshasa than an Earth Elemental. What are we using to benchmark CRs? Against a party of PCs we can roughly guess at composition. How do you do that against the universe?
I think this is a separate point. CR is obviously not a perfect metric for pegging power level for PCs. But it's lightyears ahead of HD. HD is a terrible, very bad, no good way of measuring monster power. The fact that it is used at all in the core rules is a design flaw/legacy issue. Monsters need a benchmark, and even though CR is a flawed benchmark, it is better than HD.
I suppose the other alternative would be to have an HD and CR limit - that might patch the system a little better. You would avoid the situations with insanely high HD generating low CRs. Unfortunately, it probably is a good idea to tack on a few monster-specific exceptions from these general rules (e.g., an efreeti can't be bound or some such qualifier).
It's not that CR is that great. It's that HD is that bad.
I'll agree that HD is a worse metric than CR would be. The reason I propose a 'case by case' solution isn't just that the problem is complex, but also to force the developers of new Pathfinder monsters to consider such things, rather than let 'book creep' spells like Planar Binding linger into the background. (Just like no one thought of Polymorph when statting up War Trolls.)
And if binding/ally rules are not provided for a new Outsider, or creation rules for a new undead, then the GM gets to make something up or it can't happen, avoiding rules arguments. Just like how the Summon lists work now. Unless directly specified, you can't Summon a new monster, unless you GM allows you and negotiates a proper spell level.
My idea still doesn't address Simulacrum, though.
In the case of the worst offenders (the efreet/djinn wish factory) that can be as simple as an amendment that normal Genie 'Commoners' (ie the base type in the Monster Manual) just don't grant wishes. Why should they? Save that ability for the Royal Genies, with 17 arcane class levels, all of which are outside the bounds of the summoning/binding/ally rules.
This suggestion needs to become Pathfinder Law!