I have been toying with the idea of letting a specific BBEG act more than once in a round, mainly to make the bad guy more tough, since this bad guy has no underlings and will not be at the end of a dungeon (AKA the party will be at 100%). Has anyone else done something like this before or have any idea how much more deadly this would be if i did implicate such an ability/rule? Assuming that I let him go only one additional time, the plan would be to have him take his second turn at half of what his normal initiative is or to at least let half of the party go before his second attack.
|
I have been toying with the idea of letting a specific BBEG act more than once in a round, mainly to make the bad guy more tough, since this bad guy has no underlings and will not be at the end of a dungeon (AKA the party will be at 100%). Has anyone else done something like this before or have any idea how much more deadly this would be if i did implicate such an ability/rule? Assuming that I let him go only one additional time, the plan would be to have him take his second turn at half of what his normal initiative is or to at least let half of the party go before his second attack.
You see I like this, it frees up the need to have multiple moderate CR mobs to make a fight tough.
I would think of this like an improved or greater version of the spell Haste. Say make it available at level 5 wiz/sorc?Sure he will still be susceptible to save/suck spells but that comes with the BBEG scenario itself.
What is your stance on the PC/NPC equality issue, i.e. is it OK with you (and your players) that GM-controlled creatures and characters can have abilities the player characters cannot have?
Because if you don't like it when NPCs can do stuff the PCs can't, you'll have to be very careful here: If you make this an ability anyone can learn, they will all want it! I mean, doubling your actions? Casting twice? Players will murder for this.
And in the hand of players, this will become that much more powerful: Hold person followed by coup-de-grace before the sucker has a chance to break free is only one example of things that will become a lot easier!
Possibilities for this:
What is your stance on the PC/NPC equality issue, i.e. is it OK with you (and your players) that GM-controlled creatures and characters can have abilities the player characters cannot have?
My stance is that the idea that PC and NPCs have to follow the exact same rules misjudges the nature of RPGs and deforms the way RPGs ought to be played. Consequently, I have no problem at all giving NPCs abilities that PCs can't have. Here're my rules for solo BBEGs:
* Do not adjust the solo’s CR.
* Multiply its hit points by the number of PCs it is facing to create "chunks" of hit points (e.g. four PCs, 4 x hit points in four chunks).
* If a PC drops, scratch off an entire chunk of hit points unless doing so will render the solo unconscious or dead.
* Start the creature with 2 Action Dice per PC it is facing. (My Action Dice rules are similar to those in d20 Modern.)
* Add the Extra Action extraordinary ability to the solo's stat block. (See below.)
Extra Action (Ex) Once per round at initiative count minus 10, the solo gets a single extra standard action. If the adjustment reduces the initiative court for the extra action to zero or less, the solo forfeits its extra action that round. For example, if the solo's initiative roll totals 15 it gets to act normally at 15 and then gets an extra standard action at 5.
I also have special rules for elite (but not solo) monsters. All of these, includng my Action Point system, are here.
* Do not adjust the solo’s CR.
So you Diablo the power level but not the reward?
It takes 4 characters as long as it takes 1 to drop the enemy, but they only get 1/4 of the XP. Doesn't seem right.
It takes 4 characters as long as it takes 1 to drop the enemy, but they only get 1/4 of the XP. Doesn't seem right.
Those four characters only get 1/4 of the XP for killing the BBEG regardless. Seems right to me, and the rules don't "Diablo the power level" (whatever that's supposed to mean). Instead, the rules fix the inherent flaws in the system when dealing with a party of adventurers facing a solo creature that is meant to be a challenge for the party.
It's no secret that a single CR 3 monster against a party of 3rd-level characters is very likely a lesser challenge than an APL 3 encounter of multiple creatures against the same party. There are oodles of threads here and elsewhere started by DMs complaining about how hard it is to balance the solo monster versus the entire party. There are three solutions to this problem:
1. Don't use solo BBEGs.
2. Engage in the increasingly more complex gruel of BBEG optimization in an effort to be "fair" (which turns the game into a player vs. DM competition).
3. Tweak the system to make the solo BBEG an actual challenge.
I opt for number 3, and the rules work great. The basic idea was thoroughly playtested before I glommed and tweaked it, and I've used it regularly with my face-to-face group post-tweaking.
The extra hit points make the BBEG almost impossible to one-shot (or one-round) even with all the PCs concentrating fire. The Action Dice help mitigate the effects of SoD and SoS spells. The Extra Action ability helps counter the action deficit faced by the BBEG. None of these actually make the BBEG any harder to hit. They don't jack up its saves. They require no retooling of stat blocks of at all.
It is, in effect, a special template (which you already suggested) that can be applied on the fly to any creature I want to be a solo BBEG, from a solo orc to a solo dragon.
For example, I used these rules with a solo 4th-level BBEG sorcerer against a party of six 2nd-level PCs. The result was a multi-round fight of epic proportions that challenged all of the PCs. Otherwise, the BBEG would've been a paper tiger dropped in a round or two with minimal effort as the PCs hammered him with eight actions a round versus the BBEG's two.
The kind of mechanics you are talking about are pretty standard for 4E BBEGs. You could try doing it with Pathfinder, though since in Pathfinder monsters and PCs basically operate under the same rule set, which is not the case in 4E, you might find it tough to make such a ruleset work and feel fair to the PCs. For example take a look at the end of Rise of Runelords (which is 3.5 not Pathfinder, but still applicable). They have the PCs fight the Runelord and they want to make him basically a solo monster, but have no real rules to do it with. They know if they just make him a wizard a few levels higher than the PCs, he'll be dead in about a round or two, so instead they stick him full of these gems that give him hp bonues, which is how they justify him all the extra hp (the normal rules wouldn't allow for this). Of course the gems are destroyed after he dies. He doesn't really have extra actions. I haven't actually played this encounter, but I think that a well built 3.5 party would have still crushed him like a bug.
If your bad guy is a big monster it's a little easier to justify it having extra actions. If it's a humanoid, a lot of players might feel put out because the game system doesn't really allow for that kind of thing.
I have been toying with the idea of letting a specific BBEG act more than once in a round, mainly to make the bad guy more tough, since this bad guy has no underlings and will not be at the end of a dungeon (AKA the party will be at 100%). Has anyone else done something like this before or have any idea how much more deadly this would be if i did implicate such an ability/rule? Assuming that I let him go only one additional time, the plan would be to have him take his second turn at half of what his normal initiative is or to at least let half of the party go before his second attack.
definitely makes me want a non spell casting "quicken" feat for my barbarian!
How about a speed based feat tree?
take that bbeg!
I have been toying with the idea of letting a specific BBEG act more than once in a round, mainly to make the bad guy more tough, since this bad guy has no underlings and will not be at the end of a dungeon (AKA the party will be at 100%). Has anyone else done something like this before or have any idea how much more deadly this would be if i did implicate such an ability/rule? Assuming that I let him go only one additional time, the plan would be to have him take his second turn at half of what his normal initiative is or to at least let half of the party go before his second attack.
It is awesome, for demi-gods and demonlords for most BBEGs not so much.
Part of the charm of many BBEG's is the fact he is like one of us. Most of the time the multiple actions and teamwork are the only things helping the pcs out.. and honestly they are meant to win.. well most of the time anyway.
I find this often is not a problem with the BBEG but a problem with a DM having a hard time to create a challenging encounter, key to this is preparation, environment, minions or some other advantage, sometimes the whole point for the pcs is trying to take away those advantages to have a good chance.
The recommended shortcut for BBEG in general makes things pretty boring, a little creativity will make for a much more challenging and memorable encounter.
Those four characters only get 1/4 of the XP for killing the BBEG regardless.
If they were alone, they'd get 4 times as much for the same amount of work:
1 character: fight against enemy with 50 HP getting 1000 XP. Needs to do 50 points of damage to get 1000 XP.
4 characters: fight against enemy with 200 HP getting 1000 XP total. Need to do 50 points of damage to get 250 XP.
Thus, they get less XP if they group up, but since the critter gets more HP, they will take just as long (and use up just as many resources) to kill it. And since it gets more actions, the beating they get will not exactly be lessened.
the rules don't "Diablo the power level" (whatever that's supposed to mean).
It's like in Diablo (II, I'm not sure about the original game) multiplayer: Whenever another hero joins the server, the critters all over become stronger and also award more experience.
Your rule diablos the power level (extra HP and the like), but without increasing the XP level.
This is a metagame rule, and the smart thing is to metagame the solution: only send one PC in. PC will kill the thing (which has a lot less HP than it would have otherwise) and gain the full XP.
You rotate "solo-slayers" to keep things even. And you load the solo-slayer with all the nifty gear you have so he'll have an easier time.
Sounds cheesy, I know, but the players didn't start it. Turn RPG into a board game and people will start to try and win it.
Instead, the rules fix the inherent flaws in the system when dealing with a party of adventurers facing a solo creature that is meant to be a challenge for the party.
There is no such flaw in the system. A decent GM will be able to challenge the players even with a single opponent.
Plus, it makes sense that if you face a group of four alone, they will be able to do four times as many things as you.
It's no secret that a single CR 3 monster against a party of 3rd-level characters is very likely a lesser challenge than an APL 3 encounter of multiple creatures against the same party.
You can't generalise it like this. If I had the choice between three wolves or one dire wolf, or between three gnolls or one ogre, I'd take on the crowds any time:
It is, in effect, a special template (which you already suggested) that can be applied on the fly to any creature I want to be a solo BBEG, from a solo orc to a solo dragon.
It is, in effect, a clone.
It's not really addressing the problems people seem to have with lone enemies. It circumvents them by basically putting two (or more) critters into the same square and pretending it is one creature.
There is no such flaw in the system. A decent GM will be able to challenge the players even with a single opponent.
I have found a way to challenge the players with a single opponent. Therefore, I am a decent GM. QED.
There is no such flaw in the system. A decent GM will be able to challenge the players even with a single opponent.I have found a way to challenge the players with a single opponent. Therefore, I am a decent GM. QED.
You changed the system. That doesn't count.
You changed the system. That doesn't count.
According to whom? You? Given you have 0 experience as a player in my game, forgive me for not taking your uninformed opinion of how well the rules work in actual play as gospel truth.
I *know* these rules work. I *know* they've been thoroughly playtested even before I started using them. So, unless you've actually tried the rules I've proposed, at best, you're expressing a preference for a different style of play. Good for you. I've not claimed my solution is going to fit all games in all places at all times.
Since this has now come down to you basically saying I'm not a decent DM based on that aforesaid 0 experience, I'm not sure I've much else to say to you.
Enjoy your game your way. I'll do the same.
|
You changed the system. That doesn't count.According to whom? You? Given you have 0 experience as a player in my game, forgive me for not taking your uninformed opinion of how well the rules work in actual play as gospel truth.
I *know* these rules work. I *know* they've been thoroughly playtested even before I started using them. So, unless you've actually tried the rules I've proposed, at best, you're expressing a preference for a different style of play. Good for you. I've not claimed my solution is going to fit all games in all places at all times.
Since this has now come down to you basically saying I'm not a decent DM based on that aforesaid 0 experience, I'm not sure I've much else to say to you.
Enjoy your game your way. I'll do the same.
Im with KaeYoss on this.
Your whole rant was highly amusing, especially when you said the system was broken because a Solo CR3 monster gets beaten by a 3rd level party and isn't suitable for a BBEG... If your throwing solo creatures of Cr equal to APL a party should be able to walk all over those encounters spending few resources.
Well duh. You should be looking at APL+2 or APL+3 for a start...
I'm glad you've found a method that suits you rather than actually learning to use the CR system effectively, but you've made life harder for the players without increasing their reward, you've made extra GM work for yourself, and youu've broken the versimilitude of the game (which incidentally is my big problem with 4E; read that lovely article on Gygaxian Naturalism which is on the forums if you get a chance).
^^^ All that said, ultimately its your game... (Although its not Pathfinder anymore IMO)
If your having fun and your players enjoy it thats what matters overall.
You changed the system. That doesn't count.According to whom? You? Given you have 0 experience as a player in my game, forgive me for not taking your uninformed opinion of how well the rules work in actual play as gospel truth.
I *know* these rules work. I *know* they've been thoroughly playtested even before I started using them. So, unless you've actually tried the rules I've proposed, at best, you're expressing a preference for a different style of play. Good for you. I've not claimed my solution is going to fit all games in all places at all times.
Since this has now come down to you basically saying I'm not a decent DM based on that aforesaid 0 experience, I'm not sure I've much else to say to you.
Enjoy your game your way. I'll do the same.
Im with KaeYoss on this.
Your whole rant was highly amusing, especially when you said the system was broken because a Solo CR3 monster gets beaten by a 3rd level party and isn't suitable for a BBEG... If your throwing solo creatures of Cr equal to APL a party should be able to walk all over those encounters spending few resources.
Well duh. You should be looking at APL+2 or APL+3 for a start...
I'm glad you've found a method that suits you rather than actually learning to use the CR system effectively, but you've made life harder for the players without increasing their reward, you've made extra GM work for yourself, and youu've broken the versimilitude of the game (which incidentally is my big problem with 4E; read that lovely article on Gygaxian Naturalism which is on the forums if you get a chance).
^^^ All that said, ultimately its your game... (Although its not Pathfinder anymore IMO)
If your having fun and your players enjoy it thats what matters overall.
well you are free to implement anything you want, if it is good fun go ahead, but I am inclined to agree with KaeYoss as well, there is a certain level of abstraction in the game up to a certain point, this is taking it a step too far imo.
I still think it's an interesting idea.
I don't use CR for rewards calculations at all, I'm more concerned with the ability to make a fight entertaining.
I'm sure you could adjust the CR for such an NPC if you felt it necessary. It's not that much different than the way that Pathfinder BBEGs are intentionally overstatted in point buy.
Mark doesn't want to raise the CR, KaeYoss does. Evil Lincoln doesn't use CR except for eyeballing challenges. Big whoopdie. We agree to disagree on that one.
Let's get back to the consequences of a single character having multiple actions.
You changed the system. That doesn't count.According to whom? You?
According to common sense.
You cannot use a modified version of a system to describe the system. That's like saying that commoners are a threat and "proving" this by admitting that in your game, commoners get full BAB and sorcerer spellcasting.
I *know* these rules work. I *know* they've been thoroughly playtested even before I started using them. So, unless you've actually tried the rules I've proposed, at best, you're expressing a preference for a different style of play.
It's not a different style of play. It's basically a different game.
This is not a "This Spes's Game" thread. It's about Pathfinder. Pathfinder doesn't Diablo "solo" critters in strength (but not CR) depending on party size.
Pathfinder still allows you to have decent challenges with lone creatures. And by "Pathfinder", I mean the rules as written. Not a houseruled version.
A good DM isn't afraid of bending or breaking rules if they get in the way of a fun playing experience.
I've done this very thing in the past and the players loved it. I say go for it.
As for those whining about the CR system, it doesn't work that way. It doesn't. Economy of actions is bar none the most powerful thing in the game. And it's not thematic. I'm sorry, but it's not. Great epic battles are fought 1 vs 1, not 4 vs 1. Thematic fights are when the paladin is alone and challenges the BBEG to a duel, or when the wizard and the evil lich begin casting and counter-casting against one another. Four dudes curbstomping a single guy isn't thematic, it's not particularly awesome, and it's not fun.
And as for the verisimilitude whine, it doesn't apply at all. This has nothing to do with verisimilitude. It's easy to give the BBEG a reason he moves more then once. Maybe he's been empowered by a powerful artifact. Maybe he's learned a spell the PCs haven't heard of, or knows a ritual, or has been given it as a boon from a powerful outsider. Who cares?
If your players stand up and snarl and leave the table because the BBEG moves more then once, then a) you have terrible players who refuse to allow themselves to be immersed in the game, and/or b) you as a DM have failed to immerse the players in the game.
And don't whine about 4e and being to "gamist." Nothing is more "gamist" then being a rules lawyer. This is Gygaxian at it's best - striding into unknown territory as a DM and making the calls as you see fit.
Your whole rant was highly amusing, especially when you said the system was broken because a Solo CR3 monster gets beaten by a 3rd level party and isn't suitable for a BBEG... If your throwing solo creatures of Cr equal to APL a party should be able to walk all over those encounters spending few resources.Well duh. You should be looking at APL+2 or APL+3 for a start...
Not understanding the rules and then ranting about it makes your face sooo red!
In his defence, it can be read as "If you have a level X encounter, one CR X creature will always be less of a threat than Y creatures that have a combined EL X"
Which is still wrong - there might be cases where it is true, but it is not always like this - but we can't accuse him of not understanding the basics of CR (i.e. CR equal to average party level isn't meant to be a big challenge worthy of an end fight)
I'm sure you could adjust the CR for such an NPC if you felt it necessary.
The necessity of this is plain to see. CR is a reflection of the monster's thread level. In game terms, monster statistics are expected to fall within certain ranges depending on its CR.
If you multiply monster HP, that part of the CR system is way out of whack. Now, the stats/CR table is just a guideline, but we're not talking about going a bit off the charts. We talk about throwing away all guidelines. Example: CR 6 critters are supposed to have around 70 HP. It doesn't have to be exactly 70. But 280 (assuming the critter is Diabloed to quadruple HP due to a party of four) is more in line with CR 17.
I know what you want to say: "Silly KaeYoss, if you had 4 CR 6 critters, you'd have 280 HP to deal with, too!". Sure, but that would be the equivalent to CR 10, not 6.
Not 17, either - but that's because it's easier to whittle down those 280 HP if they're spread over several critters, as the opposing force will drop whenever you kill one of the critters, and you can use stuff that affects several enemies at once (read: most of the stuff wizards do to go for HP - at 10th level, that fireball will deal 35 points of damage on average, or 17 if the victim makes his save. But against 4 smaller critters, you can get that to 140 if you hit them all and they all fail their saves. Their saves will be more in line with CR 6 critters, so they'll have a harder time making the save.
In addition to HP (which means staying power - and, as I said, it's more useful if it's concentrated, as you can't decrease it as swiftly as with groups), that extra action will increase average damage, sometimes considerably, meaning its offensive capabilities are too strong for the original CR as well.
It's not that much different than the way that Pathfinder BBEGs are intentionally overstatted in point buy.
Note that the better ability scores are nowhere near this sort of change. The better scores still work within the system - and they also increase the CR, like they should.
Mark doesn't want to raise the CR, KaeYoss does.
KaeYoss doesn't want the CR to be raised, the system does. And the system is backed by common sense here. Bigger threat = higher challenge rating. More HP means longer staying power means more time to hurt party. This is aggravated by the fact that it now can act more often.
Well, I can arbitrarily assign astronomical ability scores and it would affect the challenge considerably without affecting the CR. Let's say I add +20 to each score. Unless I use a post-hoc adjustment to CR at the point, there's nothing in the game that enforces a higher CR.
I guess my point is that there are countless ways for the GM to be a jerk and minmax challenge vs. CR, and they're completely book-legal. Giving NPCs awesome gear, for example. If what bothers you is the fairness of it, then you should adjust CR to adjust rewards.
The best way to discuss giving NPCs extra actions is to assess what kind of challenge it will actually create, so the GMs can be informed if they try this. After that much is known, individual GMs can adjust CR (or not) to their liking. CR is so imperfect in so many ways, discussing the CR adjustment before discussing the actual effects on play is putting cart before horse.
A good DM isn't afraid of bending or breaking rules if they get in the way of a fun playing experience.
A good GM knows the game and how it works. If that GM then breaks/changes a rule because he likes it better that way, that's okay.
But complaining about problems that don't exist and then trying to sell your houserule as a fix to that nonexisting problem does not a good GM make.
As for those whining about the CR system
I'll just give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't know that "whine" is generally considered inflammatory and insulting.
Don't use that word unless you want to flamebait people.
Four dudes curbstomping a single guy isn't thematic, it's not particularly awesome, and it's not fun.
Four (more or less) characters engaging any number of enemies (starting with 1 and having no real upper limit) is the very essence of Pathfinder. This game is played in multiplayer mode most of the time.
Single combat might be great for stories involving a single hero, or passive stories in general, but when the audience is the heroes at the same time, single combat is not very appealing, since it means that 3 out of 5 people sitting at that table to engage in active storytelling are forced to sit there. It's okay every once in a while, but it's not Pathfinder's theme. I'll go as far as saying that virtually no P&P RPG has that theme.
It's easy to give the BBEG a reason he moves more then once. Maybe he's been empowered by a powerful artifact. Maybe he's learned a spell the PCs haven't heard of, or knows a ritual, or has been given it as a boon from a powerful outsider. Who cares?
Players care. Because getting extra actions is quite powerful. If a guy who by all appearances is a human wizard (just an example) gets to do that, they want to know how it's done and do it, too.
If it's an artifact, they'll recover it once he's dead and want to use it. If it's a new spell, they'll either loot his spell book or start working on that spell. If it's a boon from an outsider, they'll get some outsiders on their side to do the same for them.
And at that point, you're either forced to let them do it, too, or you'll be the guy who has to resort to cheap tricks to challenge the players.
Especially if you do this more than once. Since I suspect that there will be more than one solo encounter in your average campaign, all your excuses are going to run pretty thin: Artifact? How comes every second critter, including some things like a lone dinosaur, has that artifact? Is there a ArtifactMart around? A powerful outsider endowing everyone with awesome powers, but only if they agree to be antisocial loners? How come this isn't a standard ability granted to all clerics by the gods, if it's so common? A really rare spell everybody gets to use except the PCs? Might work if you strand them in BizarroGolarion or something.
If your players stand up and snarl and leave the table because the BBEG moves more then once, then a) you have terrible players who refuse to allow themselves to be immersed in the game, and/or b) you as a DM have failed to immerse the players in the game.
Actually, by using metagaming on the players, it's you who destroys the immersion. They'll metagame right back at you.
And don't whine about 4e and being to "gamist." Nothing is more "gamist" then being a rules lawyer.
So everyone who disagrees is a whining rules lawyer? Nice!
This is not being a rules lawyer. We're not talking about something minor here. We're talking about a major increase in power that is just denied to PCs for no other reason than being too lazy to make an encounter challenging without cheating.
This is Gygaxian at it's best - striding into unknown territory as a DM and making the calls as you see fit.
This is GMing at its worst: Pretending to play a game with about 1000 pages worth of core rules but actually ignoring what's in there, pulling rules out of your head and ignoring the consequences.
Player "I attack the critter - I got a 30, that hits!"
GM (Damn, that would fell the BBEG) "No, you don't hit, as the enemy blocks your attack with his weapon!"
Player "Cool, I didn't know you could do that! I'm going to block his next swing like that"
GM (Damn, didn't see that coming) "No, you can't. It's a secret technique that only those of his bloodline can do. You cannot learn it"
Player "Screw you, I'm going to play Pathfinder, not 'The GM's mad ramblings'!"
Well, I can arbitrarily assign astronomical ability scores and it would affect the challenge considerably without affecting the CR.
You might want to actually read the rules regarding CR before making statements like that.
Because it's totally false.
Let's say I add +20 to each score. Unless I use a post-hoc adjustment to CR at the point, there's nothing in the game that enforces a higher CR.
Nothing except common sense and the desire not to screw your characters for no reason.
Let's say you do add +20 to each score. Call it the "Über Ogre"
Str 21 becomes 41. That means its attack is now +17 (2d8+22). The attack fits a CR 9 critter rather than a CR 3 one. The damage is more appropriate for CR 7. Okay, the numbers were a bit off before: the Attack was between CR 3 and 4, and damage was just right for CR 4. Still, the numbers are now off by 3
Con 15 becomes 35. HP go from 4d8+12(30) to 4d8+52(70). From fit for CR 3 to fit for CR 6.
And so on, and so forth. Saves are now fitting for CR 13 or so, AC to CR 9 (or more, if he gets a less encumbering armour)...
Sure, you can just say "even though I seriously jacked up this critter's every aspect, I'm not considering its CR increased, but then you can as well just rule that a dragon's CR is equal to his age category and bury your party in Reds and Golds.
I guess my point is that there are countless ways for the GM to be a jerk and minmax challenge vs. CR, and they're completely book-legal.
You'll have to provide proof to back up that claim, because I'm not buying it.
CR is so imperfect in so many ways
I can see where you get that conclusion if you think that the CR system supports adding +20 to all ability scores (more or less a quintuple advanced template, albeit without the natural armour increase. Still, that would be somewhere around +5 to the CR - assuming the template is usable multiple times) without changing the challenge rating.
Yet the rules about monster creation/advancement do not support that.
Heh, Recently I got an idea. 2 initiatives, double hp pool and resources, one of the presonalities drops when the hp are at 1/2, CR calculated for two creatures, but use just one creature to represent the thing. As a weird multidimensional beast or strange magic working wizard it could be an interesting fight.
I'm not taking the bait.
CR is the most boring part of this discussion.
Peace out.
I'm not taking the bait.
CR is the most boring part of this discussion.
Peace out.
He is right. The discussion is about multiple initiatives so let's get back on track. Obviously there legitimate ways of giving a bad guys multiple actions in the round. The Book of Vile Darkness has a few prestige classes that are great for bad guys (and a few that suck pistacios).
The reason why most BBEG's fall in one round is simply because they can't handle four actions on them at once or because of save or suck/die spells that they fail to save against. Here are some of the solutions I've used.
A ghost that the players fought during an arena fight would possess specific people in the crowd. Once the players figured out who would be possessed next they'ed knock them out (which they were all for). That same BBEGhost had a pain aura which inflicted non-lethal damage on everyone except the warforged whenever it took damage. This is something I highly recomend to anyone. Non-lethal heals along with regular damage so it wasn't that brutal, but it did force the players to reconfigure their resources.
A spectral entity possessed a vampires arm and would summon a different demon every round. Probably the most epic encounter we've had yet.
A black dragon two CR's higher than the party. If it wasn't for the celestial lion that was smiting the heck out of her she would've wiped out over half the party the following round ( they fought her in a cramp underground cavern, which limited her mobility and theirs).
A gargantuan boogeyman which the players had to hold off for only a few rounds (while a God of art fetched the one man who could defeat it). It had area attacks and a powerful menacing aura.
The best was a Lilitu (super succubus from the WotC demon book) which had dervish levels. Her poison gave neg levels and dervish let her attack multiple foes in a round while moving. A very brutal encounter indeed.
Ultimately though, I avoid one enemy against a group of players. Without tweaking it tends to be disappointing. When it works though, it can be epic. I never really considered giving one bad guy multiple initiatives. I might give them area attacks or attacks of opportunity when attacked from flank or something, but multiple initiatives I save for when I use multiple opponents. Which is pretty much all the time.
|
* Do not adjust the solo’s CR.So you Diablo the power level but not the reward?
It takes 4 characters as long as it takes 1 to drop the enemy, but they only get 1/4 of the XP. Doesn't seem right.
not sure why that doesn't seem right... dropping the BBEG in 1 round = a whole lot of not fun for everyone in the game...
dropping the BBEG in 4 rounds = a bit more fun!
Seems like a great reward to me
I was in a game where the GM did not use stats at all. He didn't write down hp at all. We fought it monsters until they had fulfilled their storytelling purpose. To me, RPGs are not the same MMORPGs where everything is run by a computer and there is no room for the human element of telling a story. I want a game that is more than just crunching numbers. I enjoy a story, and most of the time telling a GOOD story involves bending some rules. Otherwise I would just play World of Warcraft.
|
|
I have been toying with the idea of letting a specific BBEG act more than once in a round, mainly to make the bad guy more tough, since this bad guy has no underlings and will not be at the end of a dungeon (AKA the party will be at 100%). Has anyone else done something like this before or have any idea how much more deadly this would be if i did implicate such an ability/rule?How is this BBEG able to do this?
Can the PCs ever find out how to do this?
I, myself, am against arbitrary abilities for NPCs just for thematic reasons like this. It makes it more of a 'game' and less of a world within which I have a character playing.
Depending upon your players they may feel cheated and let down by this as your 'fix' for the encounter. Rather if you are designing an encounter expressly based upon the PCs power level and all, then increase the encounter and play within the rules to make something challenging yet balanced for them.
-James
interesting... I have never played in a game where the PCs knew every little thing that happened and could happen. As a GM I like to keep some sense of mystery in the game. I'm not fond of handing out sheets of the bad guys before or after combat for the PCs to examine... but I guess that is why people have different play styles to appeal to all kinds... *shrug*
Maybe I can shed some light on it, Krome.
As a GM, all the numbers are there to provide a level of abstraction for my own entertainment. Yes, I can simply decide what happens, but I derive much more enjoyment from setting up situations and watching them play out; and from occasionally being surprised by the outcome.
I could never run an improvised game like the GM you mention. Doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it... I've just thought long and hard about the reasons for all the dice and math and paperwork. Turns out it is there to make the game fun and unpredictable for the GM as well as the players.
What is your stance on the PC/NPC equality issue, i.e. is it OK with you (and your players) that GM-controlled creatures and characters can have abilities the player characters cannot have?
Because if you don't like it when NPCs can do stuff the PCs can't, you'll have to be very careful here: If you make this an ability anyone can learn, they will all want it! I mean, doubling your actions? Casting twice? Players will murder for this.
And in the hand of players, this will become that much more powerful: Hold person followed by coup-de-grace before the sucker has a chance to break free is only one example of things that will become a lot easier!
Possibilities for this:
Make it a special template. Inherited obviously, and let the requirements for getting this be something that is out of the question for characters.
Make it a spell/ritual/whatever that takes a heavy toll on you - something the BBEG will be fine with, but which the players will not want (though this is a temporary solution - the next time, the players will build around these problems)
Accomplish it indirectly: Make the BBEG identical twins (or maybe clones - though that opens the cloning thing to players) that are somehow fate-linked (i.e. what happens to one happens to the other, though they can never be affected by anything twice, so fireball doesn't get doubled-up). Having two identical creatures usually increases the encounter level by 2 (and doubles the XP gained from defeating them), though in this case, you might want to rule that it goes up only 1 (because of the link). Of course, this is mostly a one-time deal, as it becomes less and less plausible that there are so many twins opposed to the PCs...
I have only done this once, during the high level Pathfinder playtest, I added a multiple brain to a cthulhu-esque abomination while allowed it to act more often in the round, the amount of power a group of PCs can bring to bear in a round is formidable, and I wanted to test the group.
As has been mentioned before, a second head/brain can work wonders, especially if the PCs never noticed it, or it's like the Ettin from the Titan of Shadow trilogy where the second head could be 'retracted' into the body to disguise it.
Alternatively, an artefact that ages the BBEG 1 year for every round he wears it could potentially allow him to make an additional full round action every round, but the BBEG is obviously weakening, his hair turning grey, his skin sagging, so on and so forth.
As has been mentioned before, a second head/brain can work wonders, especially if the PCs never noticed it, or it's like the Ettin from the Titan of Shadow trilogy where the second head could be 'retracted' into the body to disguise it.
Alternatively, an artefact that ages the BBEG 1 year for every round he wears it could potentially allow him to make an additional full round action every round, but the BBEG is obviously weakening, his hair turning grey, his skin sagging, so on and so forth.
I like this sort of adjustments, but there should be a reason for the BBEG to do what he does, a reason besides being BBEG I mean.
It works fine for some creatures, but adding them to BBEG in general without reason for this strange ability does not fit in my version of pathfinder.
Heh, Recently I got an idea. 2 initiatives, double hp pool and resources, one of the presonalities drops when the hp are at 1/2, CR calculated for two creatures, but use just one creature to represent the thing. As a weird multidimensional beast or strange magic working wizard it could be an interesting fight.
The numbers should mostly check out. Of course, one target is not the same as two (you can't cleave personalities, you can't fireball both, etc - but on the other hand, one baleful polymorph will take care of both), but that should work out alright (you can made adjustments to the XP reward if you felt the party had an especially hard/easy time because of the special circumstances)
I'm not taking the bait.
CR is the most boring part of this discussion.
The only bait I'm seeing is you making outrageous claims about the CR system.
There is a real flaw in those house rules, and that flaw is that the CR is not adjusted.
Alternatively, an artefact that ages the BBEG 1 year for every round he wears it could potentially allow him to make an additional full round action every round, but the BBEG is obviously weakening, his hair turning grey, his skin sagging, so on and so forth.
What reason would he have to use this, beyond "I'm an encounter in a game, I exist to challenge the player character, I am supposed to lose, and have an ability that would screw me over if I didn't intend to die"?
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Alternatively, an artefact that ages the BBEG 1 year for every round he wears it could potentially allow him to make an additional full round action every round, but the BBEG is obviously weakening, his hair turning grey, his skin sagging, so on and so forth.What reason would he have to use this, beyond "I'm an encounter in a game, I exist to challenge the player character, I am supposed to lose, and have an ability that would screw me over if I didn't intend to die"?
If the BBEG was a vampire, he wouldn't care about a few extra years tacked on. :)
God forbid your players get ahold of said artifact and employ it to equally nefarious ends.
I see a lot of these "special rules" for BBEG encounters in modules for 4th Edition and Star Wars Saga. A BBEG might have some "super special power" that lets him take multiple actions. Anyone who's played the SW:Saga module "Dawn of Defiance" all the way through should know what I'm talking about when Inquisitor Draco uses his "Master of the Dark Side" power which allows him to take an action after EACH AND EVERY PARTY MEMBER, effectively letting him function as an entire party of super-badguys all by his lonesome. I find I don't care for this type of "rules BSing" and thus I run all my own stuff a bit closer to core.
Heh, Recently I got an idea. 2 initiatives, double hp pool and resources, one of the presonalities drops when the hp are at 1/2, CR calculated for two creatures, but use just one creature to represent the thing. As a weird multidimensional beast or strange magic working wizard it could be an interesting fight.The numbers should mostly check out. Of course, one target is not the same as two (you can't cleave personalities, you can't fireball both, etc - but on the other hand, one baleful polymorph will take care of both), but that should work out alright (you can made adjustments to the XP reward if you felt the party had an especially hard/easy time because of the special circumstances)
Yeah. I was thinking about 3/4 XP for two creatures and probably some save bonuses. I'm considring two joined simulacra of a sorcerer woh doesn't want to take care of the group personally yet.
The reason I suggested a cursed artefact was that the BBEG might be trying to 'de-curse' it, or reverse the process, using it to gain immortality, but the arrival of the PCs might force the BBEG to use the artefact regardless of the curse, meaning that the PCs are going to have to deal with a BBEG who can do two full-attacks or two castings per round (or 4 if he has Quickened Metamagic) and will be going hell-for-leather on the PCs to try and kill them quickly before he turns to dust!
Alternatively, throw the BBEG at them with a twist. He/She/It is under the control of an evil symbiote similar to Marvel's 'Venom'. PCs fighting the BBEG could be horrified to see the PC scream in horror and pain as the Symbiote partially emerges from the host as tendrils of jellified blood and ooze, allowing the BBEG to make additional attacks or act on two separate Innitiatives, the Host going after the Symbiote, which could potentially use Spell-Like Abilities or possess a number of 10-foot tentacles able to reach out and lash the PCs, possibly poisoning or even infecting them with the seeds of a Symbiote.
The PCs 'win' ... only to find out, to their horrors, that at least one of their number has a monster flowing though their veins, sending them on an epic quest to try and find a way to remove the creature that is now litterally a part of them, flesh and bone.
The reason I suggested a cursed artefact was that the BBEG might be trying to 'de-curse' it, or reverse the process, using it to gain immortality
So if you skip a turn, you get back a year? Make sure you reverse-engineer that one right, or you lose a year whenever you don't actually do anything. Like when you just sit there idly. Kinda like gnomes' Bleaching backwards on steroids. Take a five-minute time out and you become "de-born" as your age is reduced to less than 0.
The reason I suggested a cursed artifact was that the BBEG might be trying to 'de-curse' it, or reverse the process, using it to gain immortalitySo if you skip a turn, you get back a year? Make sure you reverse-engineer that one right, or you lose a year whenever you don't actually do anything. Like when you just sit there idly. Kinda like gnomes' Bleaching backwards on steroids. Take a five-minute time out and you become "de-born" as your age is reduced to less than 0.
I know. Isn't it wonderful when BBEGs whup the PCs, have their "I am so superior to you it hurts!" monologue, put on their epic artifact/'King of the Universe' crown ... and it blows up in their faces, often literally.
But more along the lines of, for every month he spends in 'status' he regains 1 year of life. So if the PCs drive him away, but the BBEG manages to get the artefact working correctly, disappears for a few years and comes back in the prime of his youth and even more powerful.
*edit the artifact one is bad if you have an elf
Be happy there are no dragons in there!
"KILL IT! KILL IT NOW BEFORE IT GROWS AGAIN AND GETS ITS ACID POOL ABILITY!"
*edit the artifact one is bad if you have an elfBe happy there are no dragons in there!
"KILL IT! KILL IT NOW BEFORE IT GROWS AGAIN AND GETS ITS ACID POOL ABILITY!"
At the risk of derailment, can you imagine how many horrific carnage-filled rounds the PCs would have to endure before a Dragon advanced from one age category to another using such an artifact?
Bite/claw/claw/wingslap/tailslap/ and then breath-weapon or spell or another round of bite/claw/claw/wingslap/tailslap?I think you'd be dealing with outright mutiny at the table, not including the pain of digging the die-cast d20's out of your skull afterwards.
I have been toying with the idea of letting a specific BBEG act more than once in a round, mainly to make the bad guy more tough, since this bad guy has no underlings and will not be at the end of a dungeon (AKA the party will be at 100%). Has anyone else done something like this before or have any idea how much more deadly this would be if i did implicate such an ability/rule? Assuming that I let him go only one additional time, the plan would be to have him take his second turn at half of what his normal initiative is or to at least let half of the party go before his second attack.
Letting him do it, as long as it is explainable in game is not a bad idea, but I would make it an exception as opposed to a normal thing. If it is normal then there is no reason the players can't do it.
I rather like Zmar's idea, one with which I've already toyed. I've already had similar ideas for the likes of, say, for example, a paragon Ettin warrior who's achieved complete understanding of his two halves, and is essentially, two ettins in one. Or even a cyclops whose single fateful eye has become oracular to the point that he sees openings where they shouldn't be and almost interacts with time differently than normal creatures (2 cyclopses in one.) There are combos that PCs can't access because they can't play Ettins or Cyclopses, or Two-Headed Monkey Demonlords. As long as you restrict these tricks to believable monsters and situations and have group boss battles as well, I think it's well believable.
Another handy move is to have multiple monsters serve as the appendages of a single uber-monster. Four Dire Eels with fly speeds instead of swim might be re-skinned as the appendages of an extra-dimensional monstrosity whose bulk stays in the shadow-plane, if you give them the extraplanar template and dr something or other. Technically, it is a multi-monster fight, but it looks like a single-monster battle.
There's also the matter of reach and restriction. A monster like a Froghemoth, Hydra, or a Kraken can be an effective solo-monster because it has tons of hit points, has reach, outdoes the players on # of attack actions, and can grab and restrain some characters from acting. Furthermore, if the monster attacks in a place where the heroes have limits to where they can move, but it can reach them almost everywhere, (a bog, or the deck of a ship being wrecked by said monster) it's surprisingly effective. Dragons can be good at this kind of thing, though they're even better in the air because they can force players to waste actions trying to catch up to their ridiculous airspeed. A smart dragon carpet bombs, flies away, recharges, and carpet-bombs again... or uses snatch to carry off party members and deal with them singly.
That all said... I find it telling, and perhaps a little disappointing, that the Gamemastery Guide's discourse on Solo Monsters (page 41) basically amounts to "Don't do it." I want to be able to have parties go into epic 4 on 1 battles against mega-monsters and super-villains once in a while, and I'd rather see advice on how rather than why not to do.
That all said... I find it telling, and perhaps a little disappointing, that the Gamemastery Guide's discourse on Solo Monsters (page 41) basically amounts to "Don't do it." I want to be able to have parties go into epic 4 on 1 battles against mega-monsters and super-villains once in a while, and I'd rather see advice on how rather than why not to do.
The how is easy. You are the DM so you make up a reason: magical item, new spell, born with the ability, and so on. The issue is that everyone in Pathfinder basically follows the same rules, and "because I said so" won't work well with a lot of groups, especially ones that know the rules.