Additional Ini was considered for 4e but got dropped because it screws too many aspects of the game without fixing anything that couldn't be fixed by simply giving the BBEG more to do on his own initiative.
So if you think your BBEG is too weak for the party, then spice him up and give him more to do on his initiative instead of giving him extra initiatives.
Just my opinion.
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...
And don't forget about things like awesome blow. Even the simplest brutes can send heroes flying somehwere where they dont want to, ...
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.
Sorry if I wasn't being clear enough. When I said "how" I meant, more by game mechanics terms, rather than coming up with in-game/world reasons for it. I can come up with in character reasoning. Lots of people can do that. For some of us, managing the rule system is trickier.
What I meant was, more or less, that it would be nice to see advice on how to create a creature, NPC, or encounter where one bad guy can solo-menace an entire party from a game-design, mechanics, stats, etc. perspective. How do you balance the actions economy, hit point resources, track a proper CR, avoid overwhelming the party (which often happens if you just nab a monster who's APL+a bunch,) and avoid giving reason for players crying foul on your rule administering?
I've never had a problem, as a DM or a player, with NPC's and monsters having some things that player's don't. I never had an issue (back in the day) with "NPC Only" classes that were a common part of Dragon magazine. Sometimes an NPC class is purposely designed to be "broke" or too strong for a PC class because if it were played over a long term then some of its traits that make for an interesting and useful NPC make for a broken and overpowering PC. I don't see the harm in building them differently since they serve such different roles and have such different lifespans and impacts on campaigns as a whole.
Additional Ini was considered for 4e but got dropped because it screws too many aspects of the game without fixing anything that couldn't be fixed by simply giving the BBEG more to do on his own initiative.
So if you think your BBEG is too weak for the party, then spice him up and give him more to do on his initiative instead of giving him extra initiatives.
Just my opinion.
Well, in MM2 for 4E, there are a couple of solo monsters (Behir & Bebelith) who act on 2 set initiatives. They don't roll, they just act at x and y on the initiative train.
And don't forget about things like awesome blow. Even the simplest brutes can send heroes flying somehwere where they dont want to, ...
I find Awesome Blow isn't as awesome as it used to be. Sure, it moves a single enemy to a different place, but it doesn't seem to do damage anymore (apart from a piddling possible 1-6,) unless I'm misreading it. When playing the wear you down before you wear me down game, that's kinda inefficient.
|
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
Yes because in the real world everyone always acts in a sequential manner and two people who are in roughly the same shape and skill level will always alternate actions between each other in synchronized fashion where you can tell when one deliberately isn't taking an action :D
And don't forget about things like awesome blow. Even the simplest brutes can send heroes flying somehwere where they dont want to, ...I find Awesome Blow isn't as awesome as it used to be. Sure, it moves a single enemy to a different place, but it doesn't seem to do damage anymore (apart from a piddling possible 1-6,) unless I'm misreading it. When playing the wear you down before you wear me down game, that's kinda inefficient.
the same is true for the barbarian knockback ability. You give up damage to move someone, hopefully, more than five feet away.
Hey Drakli, were you there when the party fought the Parthas Mountain dwarven vampire? He had knockback, but got dropped rather quickly. If I could redo that encounter (which I can because he got away, yay gaseous form!) I'll definetely change up a few of his abilities. Especially since he didn't even use half of his feats.
Running a solo is difficult. I'm proud of the few I've pulled off, but you're right, there is no guide.
Epiphany!
Perhaps we should all throw our hats into a thread that offers ways to run a solo? Or just really hammer it out here. What do people think?
And don't forget about things like awesome blow. Even the simplest brutes can send heroes flying somehwere where they dont want to, ...I find Awesome Blow isn't as awesome as it used to be. Sure, it moves a single enemy to a different place, but it doesn't seem to do damage anymore (apart from a piddling possible 1-6,) unless I'm misreading it. When playing the wear you down before you wear me down game, that's kinda inefficient.
Well, you kock opponent away and he falls prone. Standing up provokes AoO. If he wants back to melee, then he either goes through AoO or doesn't get in reach at all. Casting and shooting will likewise provoke, especially if you have 15 ft reach, from which the enemy can't 5 ft step away.
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?
1.
All depends on how old the thing was before it started ;-)
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.
Depends on your players, of course, but I agree: If you use it only sporadically, and make it a specific, unique ability that fits the concept, rather than a cop-out, the chances that this will be seen as an exciting challenge instead of a cheap shot will increase dramatically.
"We need to attack that guy now! If we don't, his friend will go away again! And you know that that means! SOLOZILLA!" This is like something out from OOTS.
Yes because in the real world everyone always acts in a sequential manner and two people who are in roughly the same shape and skill level will always alternate actions between each other in synchronized fashion where you can tell when one deliberately isn't taking an action :D
Doesn't apply. Pathfinder's initiative system is designed to let you act only once per round.
If you want someone acting more often, and not as a real rare special ability (that is figured into the CR), you should change initiative to work that way, i.e. everyone gets the chance to act more often.
Note that this would probably have far-reaching consequences to the game.
One possible system: You track rounds. At the beginning of each round, you roll an initiative check. The result is added to your total initiative score (which starts with an amount X at the beginning of combat).
A turn worth of actions costs Y amount of initiative points. So if you have accumulated Y or more init points, you get to act in this round - the guy with the highest total starts, then the next, and so on, and so forth.
When you act, you subtract Y from your total init score. If the remaining points are enough to get another turn out of it this round, you get to act again (on your new init count), and subtract Y again.
When everyone is finally below Y, you roll again.
You might have variable costs for variable action types, or even per action. Abilities like stun or slow will subtract points or make you accumulate them more slowly.
Sample "price list"
Swift action: 1 (need to execute at least two other actions, or one full-round action, before you can do that again)
Move action: 20
Standard action: 30
Full-round action: 40
(might need some tweaking, but the idea is that a move action costs less than a standard action, but two move actions cost more than a standard action, and a full-round action costs less than two standard action, maybe even less than a standard action + a move action)
I removed a couple posts. Please play nice with one another.
Well, you kock opponent away and he falls prone. Standing up provokes AoO. If he wants back to melee, then he either goes through AoO or doesn't get in reach at all. Casting and shooting will likewise provoke, especially if you have 15 ft reach, from which the enemy can't 5 ft step away.
Aye, chief, I dig ya, and stuff like that sounds good in the planning stage, but Awesome Blow is a standard action, which means that if you use it to shove one guy across the room, you've got no more attacks left over for all of his angry buddies crowding around you. You're down on the action economy again.
Hey Drakli, were you there when the party fought the Parthas Mountain dwarven vampire? He had knockback, but got dropped rather quickly. If I could redo that encounter (which I can because he got away, yay gaseous form!) I'll definetely change up a few of his abilities. Especially since he didn't even use half of his feats.
Running a solo is difficult. I'm proud of the few I've pulled off, but you're right, there is no guide.
Epiphany!
Perhaps we should all throw our hats into a thread that offers ways to run a solo? Or just really hammer it out here. What do people think?
I was there, yup!
You know, a thread about brainstorming about 3.5/Pathfinder Solos might be fun!
Done and done!
Something to consider with the 'Knockback' attacks is that they're not intended to be outright DPS moves on their own, but rather allow the Knockback-er to set up the battlefield to his or her (or it's!) liking.
Sorcerer giving you pain? Punt him into range of a grappler. Fighter wailing on your healer? Smack him over the edge of the balcony. Rogue about to run away with your cash? Knock him into the wall and then get somebody else to sit on him.
But in regards to the actual theme of the thread, other than the above listed suggestions I really can't think of any more real alternatives to creating a scenario that the OP asked for without game-breaking or unleashing the Munchkin-Fu!
|
|
You realize Kae that your entire response had absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying. My response was to him claiming that bad guys acting twice in initiative would break immersion to him. Maybe he has a different definition but to me immersion means that you suspend disbelief and feel as if you are in a real world. My point was that his argument that extra initiatives for baddies would break immersion to me seemed a strange argument, because there's absolutely no way in which initiative has any link to what seems realistic or believable.
Okay, for the OP, a Rakshasa Maharajah has the Supernatural Ability "Extra Initiative", allowing the Rakshasa Maharajah to roll twice for Innitiative. On the better roll, it can act normally, and on the second or lower initiative count, it can make a single standard action.
It's Pathfinder approved, in the "Escape from Old Korvosa" Gamemastery Adventure Path, and I'd definitely put it in as a CR +1 or even +2 ability for whatever boss you throw it at as an ability, given that a spellcaster can fire off a Spell, move up to his full speed and then at the next initiative count he gets, activate a magic item and perform some shenanigans, such as Boots of Flying (in which case swap the move and the activate magic item in order of uses) to get some distance between himself and the PCs, so on and so forth.
It's a potent ability, and a crafty DM/GM can use this to keep combat going indefinitely, so might pay to make the use of such an ability costly for the BBEG to use, such as only able to do it once every 5 rounds or something similar.
I think some of the greatest artists throughout history would disagree with you there ;)
I, and others, see this as bad form. Color within the lines and the pictures come out better.-James
And many people look at a Picasso and wouldn't give it space on their wall.
I agree with KaeYoss. It would really break my attention on the game as a player if the BBEG started doing this and was not somehow supernaturally allowed. Some creatures I would not have a problem with, creatures stuck in time, gods & demi-gods. These are things that the players cannot easily be. Standard BBEGs like dragons, lichs, and class leveled enemies I would have a big problem with giving this power. I would probably leave game at the end of the night.
Well, you kock opponent away and he falls prone. Standing up provokes AoO. If he wants back to melee, then he either goes through AoO or doesn't get in reach at all. Casting and shooting will likewise provoke, especially if you have 15 ft reach, from which the enemy can't 5 ft step away.Aye, chief, I dig ya, and stuff like that sounds good in the planning stage, but Awesome Blow is a standard action, which means that if you use it to shove one guy across the room, you've got no more attacks left over for all of his angry buddies crowding around you. You're down on the action economy again.
Depends on the composition of the group. If you have only one good melee fighter, than the rogue might have a problem withstanding a full attack from the BBEG next turn. Sure, theories are just that, but it could be nice have something like improed awesome blow. Grabs and other such things also may help, but it all comes down to one thing (already mentioned by people around and probably well known to you as well) - incapaciting the opposition. Terrain can help this immensely and awesome blow lets you send enemies flying to undesireable locaions easier IMO,
My favourite on this is two connected, identical, EGs who are both blinking. Party doesn't even realize they're fighting two baddies. :)
I agree with KaeYoss. It would really break my attention on the game as a player if the BBEG started doing this and was not somehow supernaturally allowed. Some creatures I would not have a problem with, creatures stuck in time, gods & demi-gods. These are things that the players cannot easily be. Standard BBEGs like dragons, lichs, and class leveled enemies I would have a big problem with giving this power. I would probably leave game at the end of the night.
@Caineach - I humbly suggest that you please give your DM the benefit of the doubt on situations like this. Remember that he knows things about the game world, the adventure and that particular adversary that the players can not and should not know, no matter how many rulebooks they have memorized. In a fantasy setting there are innumerable ways, within the rules, of giving a bad guy powers that might not be readily available to the PCs. In fact there are probably as many ways as there are clever DMs. Rather than wrack your brains trying to figure out how the bad guy is doing it, suspend disbelief and spend that brain power trying to figure out how to overcome it. I can pretty much guarantee you and your fellow players will have more fun.
|
|
I agree with KaeYoss. It would really break my attention on the game as a player if the BBEG started doing this and was not somehow supernaturally allowed. Some creatures I would not have a problem with, creatures stuck in time, gods & demi-gods. These are things that the players cannot easily be. Standard BBEGs like dragons, lichs, and class leveled enemies I would have a big problem with giving this power. I would probably leave game at the end of the night.I humbly suggest that you please give your DM the benefit of the doubt on situations like this. Remember that he knows things about the game world, the adventure and that particular adversary that the players can not and should not know, no matter how many rulebooks they have memorized. In a fantasy setting there are innumerable ways, within the rules, of giving a bad guy powers that might not be readily available to the PCs. In fact there are probably as many ways as there are clever DMs. Rather than wrack your brains trying to figure out how the bad guy is doing it, suspend disbelief and spend that brain power trying to figure out how to overcome it. I can pretty much guarantee you and your fellow players will have more fun.
Seriously, if a creature taking two initiatives is enough to have a person leaving the game, that's pretty over the top. Especially since the reason he want to do it is so that the players don't just curb stomp the baddy, no, we can't have that. I'd much rather you spent an extra 5 hours scouring different sourcebooks to combine feats and class features, or overdesigning the encounter since you know you have nothing better to do with your time, than to do this than just make it up or houserule it, because that's going to far even if the end result is the same.
Seriously, if a creature taking two initiatives is enough to have a person leaving the game, that's pretty over the top. Especially since the reason he want to do it is so that the players don't just curb stomp the baddy, no, we can't have that. I'd much rather you spent an extra 5 hours scouring different sourcebooks to combine feats and class features, or overdesigning the encounter since you know you have nothing better to do with your time, than to do this than just make it up or houserule it, because that's going to far even if the end result is the same.
I agree with KaeYoss. It would really break my attention on the game as a player if the BBEG started doing this and was not somehow supernaturally allowed. Some creatures I would not have a problem with, creatures stuck in time, gods & demi-gods. These are things that the players cannot easily be. Standard BBEGs like dragons, lichs, and class leveled enemies I would have a big problem with giving this power. I would probably leave game at the end of the night.I humbly suggest that you please give your DM the benefit of the doubt on situations like this. Remember that he knows things about the game world, the adventure and that particular adversary that the players can not and should not know, no matter how many rulebooks they have memorized. In a fantasy setting there are innumerable ways, within the rules, of giving a bad guy powers that might not be readily available to the PCs. In fact there are probably as many ways as there are clever DMs. Rather than wrack your brains trying to figure out how the bad guy is doing it, suspend disbelief and spend that brain power trying to figure out how to overcome it. I can pretty much guarantee you and your fellow players will have more fun.
Yes, I would rather we curb stomp the opposition than the GM cheat. There are dozens of ways to make a single BBEG a threat to a party. My party has had 2 encounters agaisnt a single BBEG recently where the bard ran out of music having started at full. One was a dragon using his supernatural senses in a dark cave flying higher than light spells will penetrate so we were reduced to using readied action. If we didn't use crit cards and get a crit reducing its dex based skill checks, it never would have landed, but it did once it could no longer guarantee to succeed on the fly checks and it died horribly as a result. The other was an etherial flyer. Lack of ranged magic damage made it difficult to hurt, and the terrain was an area where the ground was slowly falling out from underneath us so we couldn't stay in 1 spot. There are ways to manipulate the action economy to reduce character effectiveness and give a BBEG plenty of room to do his job.
If the GM just cheats in this way, you wont create the interesting encounter you want. You will create a slug fest that just takes a few extra rounds and has a significantly higher chance of killing PCs. Considering the BBEG can likely kill a PC every other round normally, this wont bode well for PC survival.
Yes, I would rather we curb stomp the opposition than the GM cheat. There are dozens of ways to make a single BBEG a threat to a party. My party has had 2 encounters...
Unclear to me from your phrasing whether you are using those as examples of how to do a BBEG encounter without "cheating" or if these are examples of cheating in your eyes. If the former, I completely agree. Good encounter design and my hat is off to your DM for making the encounters challenging. I tell my players that in my mind the ideal adventure session ends with the PCs stumbling away from the climactic encounter victorious having expended all their magic, reduced to a single hit point apiece, and damn glad to have that. I haven't yet reached that ideal, but I've come close a few times.
A couple of questions for you to clarify what you are saying:
1) Is character death acceptable to you? And if so, how often and in what circumstances?
2) Is the DM the final arbiter of everything in your game?
3) Do you believe that the DM can have knowledge that the players do not?
4) Do you believe that NPCs can/should have access to unique abilities, etc. not readily accessible to the PCs because of their background, divine intervention or whatever?
5) Is it more fun for you to have a challenging game even if that means the DM fudging the rules, or a rules-consistent game, even if that means it is less challenging?
I note that there are no correct answers in my opinion to these questions, although I certainly have my own opinions. They merely help illustrate preferred play style, with my assumption being all play styles are equally valid so long as everyone's having fun.
A couple of questions for you to clarify what you are saying:
1) Is character death acceptable to you? And if so, how often and in what circumstances?
2) Is the DM the final arbiter of everything in your game?
3) Do you believe that the DM can have knowledge that the players do not?
4) Do you believe that NPCs can/should have access to unique abilities, etc. not readily accessible to the PCs because of their background, divine intervention or whatever?
5) Is it more fun for you to have a challenging game even if that means the DM fudging the rules, or a rules-consistent game, even if that means it is less challenging?
1. Character death is fine. This ability though would bring it to a point where the PCs would be unable to avoid character death in pretty much any game I have played. Sorry, you don't get to run away after I did more than half you hit points in a full attack, I get annother one before you go.
2. Yes. That doesn't mean he can cheat, and I am perfectly able to walk away from the table if he does.
3. Yes. He should still be following and using the same ruleset though.
4. Almost always no. I would accept divine intervention/being a god as an exception. But then, you would have to have a reason why his god cared and the player's didn't, or wont in the future. Any ability the GM uses should be able to be gained by the PCs. Otherwise, the world works differently for different people and it breaks immersion.
5. I have had multiple DMs fudge the rules to attempt to create fun. Consistently, all it did was frustrate the players at the table. A couple dms will no longer get players at their table because of it. If game does not behave the way the players expect it to, it is extremely agrivating.
The idea that a GM can "cheat" is just insane to me.
1. Character death is fine. This ability though would bring it to a point where the PCs would be unable to avoid character death in pretty much any game I have played. Sorry, you don't get to run away after I did more than half you hit points in a full attack, I get annother one before you go.
2. Yes. That doesn't mean he can cheat, and I am perfectly able to walk away from the table if he does.
3. Yes. He should still be following and using the same ruleset though.
4. Almost always no. I would accept divine intervention/being a god as an exception. But then, you would have to have a reason why his god cared and the player's didn't, or wont in the future. Any ability the GM uses should be able to be gained by the PCs. Otherwise, the world works differently for different people and it breaks immersion.
5. I have had multiple DMs fudge the rules to attempt to create fun. Consistently, all it did was frustrate the players at the table. A couple dms will no longer get players at their table because of it. If game does not behave the way the players expect it to, it is extremely agrivating.
Thanks for your response. One thing I note is that you and I have a different definition of immersion. For you, since you know the rules well, it bothers you when you don't understand how the bad guy is doing something you couldn't. That starts your brain turning and ruins the immersion for you. I understand how you would feel that way. In contrast, I, when confronted with something like that, shrug my shoulders and assume the DM must know what he is doing and all the rules are subject to Rule 0 anyway, and just dive back into the game and try to win the fight/solve the problem anyway. Immersion for me is just playing in the world the DM creates and not worrying about the rules and mechanics. Not saying one way is better than the other, but I would just suggest that maybe next time you are confronted with a situation in which you think the GM is cheating and it's ruining the experience for you, try it my way and see how it feels. I have tried it your way in the past and didn't particularly like the result, which was a long argument with the DM about rules (boring) that led nowhere productive. Just a thought. Enjoy your game.
Anyway, time for me to stop chatting about games and actually go play. My dwarven cleric needs to kick some serious butt tonight.
In a world of magic there are plenty of things the PCs can face that will do things they can never do. My current ultimate BBEG will be basically a god of insanity. She'll be able to do all kinds of BS the players will NEVER be able to do. If that makes someone a bad DM so be it.
|
I understand that players want some sort of mechanical consistency with regard to PC/creature balance, I get that. I don't think creatures should do things just because - on the flipside I do take issue that Dragons (for example) follow all the same rules as smaller and weaker creatures.
I have stated this before in another thread (and got attacked) that some of the issues and desires of a GM wanting to have a solo BBEG is the stat changes/damage output transition from 2nd ed over to 3.0
I personally don't think that all abilities and features should be available to PCs - ex monster feats, templates and that should include a few mechanics unique to some creature types.
Stating up and advancing a creature such as a dragon using the exact same rules as a player character and hoping to get a solo BBEG is a set up to fail for the DM.
Use the quote option, people!
A couple of questions for you to clarify what you are saying:
1) Is character death acceptable to you? And if so, how often and in what circumstances?
2) Is the DM the final arbiter of everything in your game?
3) Do you believe that the DM can have knowledge that the players do not?
4) Do you believe that NPCs can/should have access to unique abilities, etc. not readily accessible to the PCs because of their background, divine intervention or whatever?
5) Is it more fun for you to have a challenging game even if that means the DM fudging the rules, or a rules-consistent game, even if that means it is less challenging?
I'll answer those questions, too:
1) Of course. Characters can die. In my games, it's not a regular occurrence. There are situations where the characters' life is threatened where I'll subtly help the characters, e.g. when the current enemy turns out to be too powerful and retreat is easier screamed than done, or when the Lady is really not with them. I will mercilessly kill characters when they got into this predicament due to an overdose of player stupidity (like when it's more than obvious that a creature/character is much too powerful for them and not about to attack the party, and they just draw weapons and charge).
Note that I usually give one final warning, like "are you sure?", and "mercilessly kill" means "let the dice fall as they may" in this regard. I will not fudge the dice in the NPCs favour, I will not let the NPCs act in an atypical way, or anything like that. If they manage to walk away from this, they have the right to be legends.
2) While the GM is the final arbiter, this is a group-based game. Maybe the GM "cannot cheat", but he can be a jerk, and when the GM starts being adversarial or cheap, or just a jerk, no "I'm the GM, my word is Law" will help him from being left/hit/ritually sacrificed in real life.
3) Of course. Part of the fun of being a GM is the mystery part. Still doesn't mean that he should go for cheap tricks and use "you don't know how it's done" as a cop out.
4) Depends. Of course monsters will be able to do stuff players won't be able to pull off. A roc can fly under its own power, a human can't. But such abilities should be fitting, and figured into the CR, so the characters are properly rewarded for overcoming the challenge.
Other reasons, like divine intervention, are okay, if they aren't overdone (and divine intervention could be argued to be overdone if done at all), and the abilities aren't out of line, and, again, if it is taken into consideration when you gauge the difficulty level of this encounter
NPCs should never have access to unique abilities because the GM says so.
5) The question is not as easy as "do you want challenge or correctness", as you can have challenge without altering the rules, and fudging can be done to help the players as well. More important is what the GM is fudging. Minor stuff like maybe giving a rogue proficiency with the scimitar for free because the rapier wouldn't have looked right is fine. Giving a critter twice as many HP (or more) as it is supposed to have, and granting it extra actions - all without adjusting the CR accordingly! - just because it is the only opponent in the encounter is not. The execution is wrong, as is the reason for doing it.
In a world of magic there are plenty of things the PCs can face that will do things they can never do. My current ultimate BBEG will be basically a god of insanity. She'll be able to do all kinds of BS the players will NEVER be able to do. If that makes someone a bad DM so be it.
There are worlds between granting a godlike entity godlike abilities because it's godlike and granting a mundane creature near-godlike abilities because it's a loner.
I do take issue that Dragons (for example) follow all the same rules as smaller and weaker creatures.
Why should the game basics be any different for them? They're part of the same game.
Note that dragons already get a nice package - strong BAB, best HD in the game, good skill progression, best possible save progression, and a decent package of resistances. True dragons also get a set of cool racial abilities, including spellcasting.
What should be different for them?
I personally don't think that all abilities and features should be available to PCs - ex monster feats, templates and that should include a few mechanics unique to some creature types.
Of course. Monsters will always be able to pull of some things humanoids can't, because they're monsters. I don't think anybody is contesting that.
Stating up and advancing a creature such as a dragon using the exact same rules as a player character and hoping to get a solo BBEG is a set up to fail for the DM.
Well, dragons already have their own, unique career path. You can also slap templates on them if you want an exceptional specimen. And, although they're supposed to advance in HD when they change age categories, it's not exactly forbidden to slap a couple of extra HD onto the critter. Finally, you can add class levels on top of all that (and some of them are just brutal if used by a dragon. Metallic paladins, anyone? Or chromatic anti-paladins.)
It's not all that scary folks. A single creature with multiple initiatives is really not as bad as two creatures with one initiative each. They share hit points!
This whole idea exists to create something between the difficulty of one and two creatures of the same power level. It's definitely unconventional, but not something I would consider crossing any line.
There's the whole CR battle from upthread, but I'm not even addressing that. As it stands, one creature with two full round actions is still weaker than two of the same creature.
|
|
I do take issue that Dragons (for example) follow all the same rules as smaller and weaker creatures.Why should the game basics be any different for them? They're part of the same game.
Note that dragons already get a nice package - strong BAB, best HD in the game, good skill progression, best possible save progression, and a decent package of resistances. True dragons also get a set of cool racial abilities, including spellcasting.
What should be different for them?
By-passable DR for one. At least dump the DR/magic formula, should be DR/Magic +2,+3, etc.
Getting only one stat boost per 4hd/level is another, fixed racial HP bonus, fixed/built-in racial feats wouldn't hurt.I would even trade all that in for some exceptional rules specific to the creature - abilities that may even break or supersede other rules.
I would apply aspects of what I just mentioned to a good number of creatures in the Bestiary.
DR and Resistances on some magical beasts/iconics should have been more of a common place feature on at least 50% of the monsters in the Bestiary. That is one of the most economical and balanced ways of keeping a monster in the fight - be it just a tough solo encounter or a solo BBEG.
This isn't PFs fault, but more of a design consideration failure of 3.0
Ex: DR is one of the most effective "power balanced" ways of keeping a monster in a fight.
Single PC vs. Owlbear with DR 2/-. That PC is going to do a little less with each of his melee attacks. It scales with the number of incoming attacks, and offers some front loaded durability without giving it something with long-term implications - like regeneration for example.
Same encounter vs. 4 PCs, Owlbear soaks up a net 6-8 pts physical damage per round, without seriously impacting individual PC damage effectiveness.
If you wanted the same Owlbear to be your BBEG you should be able to advance the creature and have its DR (and other features) increase at a fixed rate so it would be a viable solo creature without adding bizarre templates like half-troll.
If this was laid out in a pre-exiting formula it wouldn't be "at the DMs whim", this would be part of the creatures write-up and advancement.
On a side note I would really love to see some ability breakdowns and pricing per CR for creatures. Say you want to apply the Advanced Template, can I sub out one of those "+4 to ability score" bonuses to equal a point of DR 1/-? Or how much SR can I boost? I was hoping to get something like this out of the GMG, but that wasn't the focus of the book.
Well, dragons already have their own, unique career path. You can also slap templates on them if you want an exceptional specimen. And, although they're supposed to advance in HD when they change age categories, it's not exactly forbidden to slap a couple of extra HD onto the critter. Finally, you can add class levels on top of all that (and some of them are just brutal if used by a dragon. Metallic paladins, anyone? Or chromatic anti-paladins.)
And that is all great - I just don't think a gigantic ancient race of energy breathing lizards should advance the same as a human, take the same kind of damage or even be subject to the same rules as a human - even a heroic human.
Immunity to small arms fire, at X age immune to x level spells. To me they should be the toughest encounters at their CR and they seem to fall flat.But all those things you mentioned are still good viable ideas - its unfortunate that they do increase the CR without addressing high PC damage output and action economy.
I think some of the features and durability should have been built into monsters - should have been done when the damage output increased in 3.0 and the old system of single monster vs. party broke.
It's not all that scary folks. A single creature with multiple initiatives is really not as bad as two creatures with one initiative each. They share hit points!
This whole idea exists to create something between the difficulty of one and two creatures of the same power level. It's definitely unconventional, but not something I would consider crossing any line.
There's the whole CR battle from upthread, but I'm not even addressing that. As it stands, one creature with two full round actions is still weaker than two of the same creature.
You got that backward. The sharing of HP makes one creature with two actions MORE powerful than two creatures. When you fight two creatures, you can usually focus on killing one of them. When it dies, your enemies lose half their actions (the dead one has no more actions). But if you make just one of those same creatures, double its HP and give it two actions, now we cannot reduce its actions by doing half its total HP to it - unless you add this as part of your houserule, and if you do that, then they are equal, which still means you were inaccurate when you said "not as bad" ("not as bad" is clearly not the same thing as "equal").
On the other hand, when it comes to SoD/SoS spells and abilities, the simple fact that we might put the one creature to sleep, or hit it with a Hold Monster, or paralyze it, or whatever, means that one creature might very well be "not as bad" as two, but not for the reason you indicated ("They share hit points!") since these spells are almost always independent of the victim's HP (except in cases like Power Words which usually have a HP limit, and something with inflated HP might easily become immune to such spells, in which case the inflated HP works to its advantage even against SoD/SoS spells).
I think my statement holds, actually, because two creatures would have twice as many hit points, Blake.
I'm not talking about doubling HP, I'm saying that one creature with twice the actions (and no other change) is still less tough than 2 of the exact same creature.
Otherwise, I totally see what you mean, and you're right about that. Doubleing the HP *and* the actions would be a tougher fight for sure, unless physical position factors very heavily in the fight (or sneak attack, or a dozen other corner cases).
I think my statement holds, actually, because two creatures would have twice as many hit points, Blake.
I'm not talking about doubling HP, I'm saying that one creature with twice the actions (and no other change) is still less tough than 2 of the exact same creature.
Otherwise, I totally see what you mean, and you're right about that. Doubleing the HP *and* the actions would be a tougher fight for sure, unless physical position factors very heavily in the fight (or sneak attack, or a dozen other corner cases).
OK, I see your point now. But the original proposed "Solo monster bonusus" upthread suggested exactly that: doubling or tripling their HP, or even multiplying it by the number of PCs, and also increasing the actions.
I thought your post had meant this too.
About things that are not in the rules... What about the Legion Devil for example? What if I fielded 10 creatures that shared hp and you didn't know that these even existed? Would it ruin the immension for you too? And if I showed the creature to you in an official monster book, would it be fine suddenly?
There were and still are quite a few abilities inaccesssible for the players in the bestiary and who knows which ones will appear in Bestiary 2 or who knows where else and they are far from being anything like what's in the Core Ruleook. I'm not saying that we shoud always use this trick, but it could belong to DM's tools along with some good explanation for the PCs (and proper adjustment of CR and rewards of course).
Just going to leave this here for the OP to peruse.
At first I :|'d because it was tgd.
Then I laffo'd because it was Ace's post.
There are worlds between granting a godlike entity godlike abilities because it's godlike and granting a mundane creature near-godlike abilities because it's a loner.
1) You FEEL that way but logically there is no difference in game mechanics. Call it a god and suddenly it can get away with anything. Make a badass human in a world of magic and somehow it's inconceivable he could do something the PCs can't. Laughable. I didn't mention that plenty of other enemies they face will also possess abilities they can never get.
2) Why are we assuming the BBEG of the OP was meant to be somebody mundane? I'd assume from the OP this is someone that is a total badass and is meant to be a threat to a 4 person party SOLO. If the mechanics are making that impossible then the mechanics must be changed. That's just good DMing.
3) I shudder to imagine your reaction when I tell you I don't give XP for combat. I don't btw.
Perhaps the enemy in question has just sacrificed something to an entity that has control over Time and/or Space. Villain is about to fight the PCs when the altar envelopes him in a aura of sickly grey-hued light, and the Villain begins to vibrate, his time 'sped up' by whatever entity has his back. Now if the PCs manage to kill him .... witnessing that Villain get sucked towards the bloodstained altar, screaming in abject horror, as his very body is torn to pieces and in turn fed to the Entity.
"I will be watching you." The voice emerges from the Altar moments before the two-ton slab of black marble collapses into pale grey powder before the PCs can get a chance to study the engravings.
Or maybe the BBEG just learned a technique or magical ability to move extra fast and didn't teach anyone else because he doesn't want it used against him, and it dies with him ;p
There doesn't have to be a bigger power. He's the Big Bad, after all - make him the worst there is! People were getting mad about mundane characters or the big bad having super powers. Guys, he's the crescendo of the campaign - he's supposed to be awesome and deadly! ;p