Wizards vs Melee

[Jon Otaguro 428]

CoDzilla wrote:

Completely off base stuff ignored again.

AC 60 is bordering on automatic hit material. No one cares. Effective is 70. High is 80. Keep in mind this is level 20, so if you aren't also doing minimum 400 damage a round, and saves at or near 30, at minimum you're going to die all the time.

You should add me to your ignore list, because you live in fantasyland. In the Bestiary, the average high attack for a CR20 monster is +30. A Balor has +31 to hit. A CR25 tarrasue has +37 to hit.

In my opinion, you are someone with a vivid imagination that doesn't play the same game that the rest of us are playing. As such, your posts and opinions are irrelevent to the rest of us.

[CoDzilla]

Jon Otaguro 428 wrote:

CoDzilla wrote:

Completely off base stuff ignored again.

AC 60 is bordering on automatic hit material. No one cares. Effective is 70. High is 80. Keep in mind this is level 20, so if you aren't also doing minimum 400 damage a round, and saves at or near 30, at minimum you're going to die all the time.

You should add me to your ignore list, because you live in fantasyland. In the Bestiary, the average high attack for a CR20 monster is +30. A Balor has +31 to hit. A CR25 tarrasue has +37 to hit.

In my opinion, you are someone with a vivid imagination that doesn't play the same game that the rest of us are playing. As such, your posts and opinions are irrelevent to the rest of us.

In other words, you're basing it on a table that heavily lowballs enemy statistics, especially to hit?

That's almost as bad as using a game like NWN as the basis of comparison.

[Jon Otaguro 428]

CoDzilla wrote:

In other words, you're basing it on a table that heavily lowballs enemy statistics, especially to hit?

That's almost as bad as using a game like NWN as the basis of comparison.

Nope, I am basing it off of the rules as presented by the game designers. The game you are playing is not Pathfinder, hence your posts are irrelevent.

[Bob_Loblaw]

CoDzilla wrote:

AC 60 is bordering on automatic hit material. No one cares. Effective is 70. High is 80. Keep in mind this is level 20, so if you aren't also doing minimum 400 damage a round, and saves at or near 30, at minimum you're going to die all the time.

I really am wondering if your copy if the Bestiary is just chock full of typos.

CR 25, Tarrasque: +37 to hit
CR 23: Solar: +35 to hit
CR 20: Balor: +31 to hit, ancient gold dragon: +36 to hit, pit fiend: +32 to hit, tarn linnorm +30 to hit

With an AC of 60, not a single one of those creatures will auto hit. For the non-mathematically inclined, 60-37 = 23. Would you like to revise your claim or just stick with your standard hyperbole?

As for hit points and save DCs, again you need to either look at the Bestiary or get one that isn't full of typos. There are no monsters that need you to deal 400 points of damage per round. Not a single one. The saving throw DCs are not greater than 30. I also fail to see how one will "die all the time."

[james maissen]

Bob_Loblaw wrote:

I really am wondering if your copy if the Bestiary is just chock full of typos.

CR 25, Tarrasque: +37 to hit
CR 23: Solar: +35 to hit
CR 20: Balor: +31 to hit, ancient gold dragon: +36 to hit, pit fiend: +32 to hit, tarn linnorm +30 to hit

With an AC of 60, not a single one of those creatures will auto hit. For the non-mathematically inclined, 60-37 = 23. Would you like to revise your claim or just stick with your standard hyperbole?

If you're going to crunch numbers I would suggest that you allow these poor creatures some of the buffs that they could easily have.

Let's take the little goldie..

He has say a greater heroism (+4), haste (+1), GMF/amulet (+5), divine power (+5 ish) which brings him up to +51. That's not even trying.

Now all that said, your conclusions on other posters not withstanding, you shouldn't really take critters at this CR simply out of the box. Its not plug and play but rather requires some degree of crafting.

-James

[wraithstrike]

james maissen wrote:

Bob_Loblaw wrote:

I really am wondering if your copy if the Bestiary is just chock full of typos.

CR 25, Tarrasque: +37 to hit
CR 23: Solar: +35 to hit
CR 20: Balor: +31 to hit, ancient gold dragon: +36 to hit, pit fiend: +32 to hit, tarn linnorm +30 to hit

With an AC of 60, not a single one of those creatures will auto hit. For the non-mathematically inclined, 60-37 = 23. Would you like to revise your claim or just stick with your standard hyperbole?

If you're going to crunch numbers I would suggest that you allow these poor creatures some of the buffs that they could easily have.

Let's take the little goldie..

He has say a greater heroism (+4), haste (+1), GMF/amulet (+5), divine power (+5 ish) which brings him up to +51. That's not even trying.

Now all that said, your conclusions on other posters not withstanding, you shouldn't really take critters at this CR simply out of the box. Its not plug and play but rather requires some degree of crafting.

-James

The CR system assumes stock monsters. Once you start adding equipment it changes the CR. As of now Codzilla needs to get a refund for his book.

[Virgil]

CoDzilla assumes that the treasure that you get from the encounter will inherently be ideal magic items that the creature can and will be using to enhance its combat ability. And if it's a creature with spellcasting, such as the Solar, if it deigns to attack it will use various buffs to further enhance.

EDIT: If you noticed, the example James referred to was using the creature's own spellcasting to buff itself. A monster most certainly IS stock if it uses its own natural abilities on itself, like spellcasting.

[juanpsantiagoXIV]

CoDzilla wrote:

AC 60 is bordering on automatic hit material. No one cares. Effective is 70. High is 80. Keep in mind this is level 20, so if you aren't also doing minimum 400 damage a round, and saves at or near 30, at minimum you're going to die all the time.

Oh, you're a barrel of laughs.

Of the four critters that are CR 20 listed in the bestiary:

Balor +31/+26/+21/+16 (2d6+13)

Gold Dragon (ancient) bite +36 (4d6+21/19–20), 2 claws +36 (2d8+14/19–20), 2 wings +34 (2d6+7/19–20), tail +34 (2d8+21/19–20)

Pit Fiend 2 claws +32 (2d8+13), 2 wings +30 (2d6+6), bite +32 (4d6+13 plus poison and disease), tail slap +30 (2d8+6 plus grab)

Tarn Linnorm 2 bites +30 (3d8+16/19–20 plus poison), 2 claws +30 (2d6+16), tail +25 (3d6+8 plus grab)

None of those can hit a 60 AC. They have trouble hitting a 50.

Also, you seem to be laboring under the false impression that you must be the best to be "viable". The only thing a character concept needs to be "viable" is a player that enjoys playing that concept.

[Jon Otaguro 428]

The gold dragon doesn't have divine power or greater heroism on it's list. It has haste and divine favor, for +4 to hit. If you want to add extra stuff to monsters that aren't stock, then I believe the CR should be adjusted.

[Ardenup]

@ Codzilla

1.So the ability to full attack ALL THE TIME is irrelevant? Mounted Skirmisher lets you full attack while mounted as long as the mount moves it's speed or less. Available at 14. By now the mount can fly (same rescource needed for that Druid animal companion you advocated to do the melee earlier)
But a Melee'r far outdamages the Druid's tiger by now.

As for the enemy killing the mount. The preqs for Mounted Skirmisher mean you can negate 2 hits with a ride check. By now your ride skill is high, cavalier takes no penalty and a mounted ranger would be using mithral breastplate by now so his penalty is small.
The mount is also in armor and has some defensive items by now.

Is 'I full attack every round and the monster can't just move away and ruin my next full attack' not viable.

2. Also, fighter does his 200+ damage with that easy 30 DC save (Stun for fighters, Daze for others). (actually I checked a few of my previous builds between Paladin smiting, ranger max FE, Fighter it's closer to 250-300 for a full attack)

You suggested Monster would step away and teleport to go kill wiz (not realizing the fighter/paladin/ranger has stepup, following step, step up and strike- APG. Lets you Follow up to 10ft as an immediate action and get free AOO) so the melee'r got another AOO and monster has to save vs DC 30 again in the same round.
If the monster took a full move and went 30+ away then he took the AOO at 10ft for stepup and strike then another one for leaving the square the melee'r still threatened at 10ft. Save number 3. If he failed the stunning doen't end till after the melee'rs turn next round, so he's gonna eat ANOTHER full attack if he's still alive.

So after 1 round the melee'r has done near 300 for the full attack plus 2 AOO's (somewhere between 40-60 damage per hit depending on class and TWF vs THF)and had to make 3 DC 30 saves vs either Daze or Stun.

Still suck? What are the chances he made all 3 saves?
BTW if the Monster instead chose to full attack the melee'r, then he STILL begins next round adjacent and eats another full attack.And he didn't hurt a single ally. A monster taking even the "LOW" 200 damge 2 rounds in a row dies.

I know that my not be up to your standards but for most of us when a melee'r can two round a monster AND stop him from hurting your allies that's viable.
A side note: had the melee'r been a FIGHTER he could aslo fit Teleport Tactician (fighter only feat- lets him auto get an AOO if baddie tries to teleport while threatened- another SAVE).

This is not a high level feat synergy either. Straight fighter can have every one of those (plus combat reflexes for the AOO's) by level 12. Other classes can have them (except the teleport tactician and it's preqs) by 12 also.

3. I'd like your view on something. You stated TWF is viable for rogues a few pages back, due to SA damage bonuses.

What about for:
Fighters- total +10 bonus damage from feats/weapon training/Duelist Gloves (APG item adds +2 to your weapon training). Not near the SA dice BUT a fighter will likely get at least one/two more hits in due to his Much higher Attack Bonus.

Paladins/Cavaliers- when using smite or challenge (7/day) they add their level to damage. +20 vs 10d6. Once again their to hit is higher than a rogue (even with subtle wpns/flanking)

Rangers- They get a spell: Instant enemy. Allows you to treat one target as your best FE, lasts 1rd/lvl and is a swift action cast. No save. If said ranger puts all FE bonuses into say- evil outsiders, he'd get +10 to hit/damage vs those and any Instant enemy targets. He can cast it at least 8/day by 20, more depending on WIS+item. Once again 10 vs 10d6 but he hits more than the rogue because like the fighter he's getting +10 to hit that the rogue can't match.

Also alot of rogues can't afford GTWF (lack of feats and diminishing accuracy. But Ranger's, Cavalier's and Fighter's all get enough bonus feats to do it and with their much higher to hit that extra iterative has a better that 65% chance of hitting (More for the fighter, ranger than the cavalier)

Would you say TWF is worth it for them, like the rogue? If not, why not, please?

(I am genuinely keen to hear your views :)

[houstonderek]

Midnightoker wrote:

I love how he said in order to be good as a fighter one would have to metagame.

but he seems to always have the perfect spell prepared... even against things with SR, or telepathic monsters, or the tarrasque, or undead, or well anything that has ever existed in the game ever.

Too bad beholdersd dont still exist, that would be a monster wizards would pretty much need a fighter for...

Fighters have good fortitude saves, lots of hp, bravery, and weapon and armor training. Not to mention they get knowledge engineering and dungeoneering as skills (which I value knowledge skills highly and would take them.

A pillared dungeon is the setting. A large cavern opens up, there are several hundred sleeping goblins. He knows he doesnt have a chance. He sees the central pillar (knowledge engineering) and realizes that it is the central structure for this cavern. He pulls out his large hammer and makes a charge for his suprise round, he hits the pillar but its not enough. He takes his full attack next turn while the rest of the goblins attempt to stand up and move to him to swing at the pillar. CRACK! He runs as a shower of debris rains down on the goblins mass for 10d6, he claims 35 damage, plenty to keep him standing. The wails and screams of the goblin mass fill his ears as Mr. fighter grins

Not the best scenario but just an example.

Wrestling with medusa to pull a bag over her head would be another example after feeling the flesh to stone wash over him with a succesful fortitude save. Now he saved his whole party from a threatening monsters best attack instead of just himself.

I just dont think its all that black and white.

Just an example of when a fighters abilities extend past the swing and slash

Ok, so I would guess that your fighter either doesn't know how to swim, can't perceive anything, or know much about survival. Two skill points a level doesn't go far. Well, unless you're using the "easy mode" 25 point buy, in which case maybe you can pump Int as your fourth stat.

And the bringing down the pillar thing? Wizard can do that without entering the room. Also, "rocks fall - everyone dies"? Wow.

[Virgil]

Jon Otaguro 428 wrote:

The gold dragon doesn't have divine power or greater heroism on it's list. It has haste and divine favor, for +4 to hit. If you want to add extra stuff to monsters that aren't stock, then I believe the CR should be adjusted.

The gold dragon casts as an X level sorcerer with access to clerical spells, just like before. PF just gave us the mercy of saving time by preselecting the list, but its CR shouldn't be adjusted if its spells known are changed to something else. A sorcerer is a sorcerer, after all.

[houstonderek]

Virgil wrote:

CoDzilla assumes that the treasure that you get from the encounter will inherently be ideal magic items that the creature can and will be using to enhance its combat ability. And if it's a creature with spellcasting, such as the Solar, if it deigns to attack it will use various buffs to further enhance.

EDIT: If you noticed, the example James referred to was using the creature's own spellcasting to buff itself. A monster most certainly IS stock if it uses its own natural abilities on itself, like spellcasting.

Why would a) an intelligent critter have a bunch of stuff he or she couldn't use lying around, and b) not use what they do have lying around?

One of the single STUPIDEST things about 3.x is the assumption monsters don't use their treasure. Probably Skip Williams' influence. He hated AD&D (the last game that assumed if a critter had it and knew what it was, they'd use it. Now it's "party treasure". Can't mess with "party treasure".)

[Kaiyanwang]

Not every fighter has 2 skill point/level.

Combat expertise needs int 13, easy to be a 14.

Human fighter is + 1 skill. We are at 5 skill/level, barring magic items, class bonus, and such.

[ZappoHisbane]

houstonderek wrote:

Why would a) an intelligent critter have a bunch of stuff he or she couldn't use lying around, and b) not use what they do have lying around?

Ever seen the A&E show Hoarders? What's a Dragon's pile of treasure called again?

Yup, they're intelligent, but that doesn't make them immune to complusions, or arrogance for that matter.

[wraithstrike]

Virgil wrote:

CoDzilla assumes that the treasure that you get from the encounter will inherently be ideal magic items that the creature can and will be using to enhance its combat ability. And if it's a creature with spellcasting, such as the Solar, if it deigns to attack it will use various buffs to further enhance.

EDIT: If you noticed, the example James referred to was using the creature's own spellcasting to buff itself. A monster most certainly IS stock if it uses its own natural abilities on itself, like spellcasting.

GMF/amulet (+5) was in James example. I am not against doing this for a home game, but on the boards modifiying monsters and trying to used them to make an example won't get anyone too far.

[Midnightoker]

houstonderek wrote:

Ok, so I would guess that your fighter either doesn't know how to swim, can't perceive anything, or know much about survival. Two skill points a level doesn't go far. Well, unless you're using the "easy mode" 25 point buy, in which case maybe you can pump Int as...

Oh so you assume I max every skill at every level?

what an unfortunate assumption because I spread out my skills. Making skill checks arbitrarily is a move on the DM.

I would say finding the central structure of the build would require a DC 15 check. After all if you know anything about engineering you just need to know what to look for.

that means with 1 rank in it and the +3 for being trained I can 50% of the time succeed on said check.

Your right, my skill points are broken how could I have been so blind!

secondly yes a wizard could bring down the central structure of the room, if he put ranks in knowledge engineering, and a wizard has a lot of bases to cover even with his high intelligence score.

Unless he wants to give up one of the following: spellcraft, knowledge arcana, knowledge religion, knowledge planes, knowledge goegraphy, knowledge history, knowledge dungeoneering, any of the craft skills for his item crafting feats (which he would need to max to be any good at), or linguistics.

yeah. Swim and climb have a pretty small cap for when ranks are not really needed anymore, not to mention the fighters strength is scaling.

Saying that I would suck at any of those skills when they are usable untrained is not true, especially when they require Strength to use. all the knowledges require you to be trained to attempt.

Also those were general examples not rules of law for every encounter. They were meant to be examples for ways that a fighter could bring his usefulness outside of the sword swing, not to say wizards cant do this!

wizards can do anything with the right spell and time. But both of those are subject to a given situation and a how the DM runs things.

Also most of the spells you speak of (such as stone shape which is 4th level requires a touch... and you dont have the hit points to be in that room. Not to mention a fighter could do this at a much lower level than 7th. 11th level is the first time you get a stone manipulative at a range and it is your 6th level spell called stone to flesh. I am not sure flesh couldn't constitute living structure (although probably not) and even so at 11th level a fighter could still perform this task at a much lower level.

Do not start a flame war over this, I was giving an example of how using your resources as a fighter is no different than preparing your spells intelligently. To argue otherwise is to say that your DM is giving you situations that seem to always fit into your niche of play, and if a DM isn't causing you to think creatively with your spells, he isn't being a DM he is being a caster coddler in my opinion.

If you can always shine no matter what your spell selection then you are being coddled. That is the same thing as giving the fighter something he can always trip or grapple or a rogue something he can always sneak up on. Subject to player ability and DM encounters.

[houstonderek]

Virgil wrote:

Jon Otaguro 428 wrote:

The gold dragon doesn't have divine power or greater heroism on it's list. It has haste and divine favor, for +4 to hit. If you want to add extra stuff to monsters that aren't stock, then I believe the CR should be adjusted.

The gold dragon casts as an X level sorcerer with access to clerical spells, just like before. PF just gave us the mercy of saving time by preselecting the list, but its CR shouldn't be adjusted if its spells known are changed to something else. A sorcerer is a sorcerer, after all.

I got flak for changing an NPCs spells once. High level game, I was guest DMing. The DM gave me some 3pp adventure to run (can't remember what it was, sorry), but the BBEG was an Evoker.

That was changed.

The party survived with one fatality and one new statue, barely beating the BBEG.

Someone whined later after they read the module.

I don't like "stock" anything (except maybe mooks). No two dragons will know EXACTLY the same spells, no two anything will be exactly alike, and I dislike it when players expect them to be "by the book".

[Jon Otaguro 428]

Ok, I will give you that it would be reasonable for the dragon to replace some of it's spells. Though it's still my opinion that the creature's CR is based on how it's statted.

Even if you give the dragon the +10 to hit, +46 hit vs AC60 is not auto hit.

Also, if you take this as a context of caster vs non-caster, what is the caster going to do against this dragon that I upgraded to CL16, added protection from spells, spell turning, greater heroism, owl's wisdom, bear's endurance, and cat's grace so that it's new saves are Fort+37, Reflex+28, Will +38 to go along with it's SR31. Then to add onto that have it cast mind blank and greater invisibility. Has true seeing up and has precast dimensional lock from a wand on every square of the map.

The point being that at some point, the CR of the encounter is higher than the CR of the creature - and that you can skew whether casters or non-casters are ineffective in an encounter by how the creature gets buffed.

I haven't ever played Pathfinder at level 20, so these issues don't really come up from the majority of the encounters in the book (most monsters can't buff themselves).

[houstonderek]

ZappoHisbane wrote:

houstonderek wrote:

Why would a) an intelligent critter have a bunch of stuff he or she couldn't use lying around, and b) not use what they do have lying around?

Ever seen the A&E show Hoarders? What's a Dragon's pile of treasure called again?

Yup, they're intelligent, but that doesn't make them immune to complusions, or arrogance for that matter.

It also doesn't make them too stupid to use what they have. Only bad DMs can do that.

[wraithstrike]

houstonderek wrote:

ZappoHisbane wrote:

houstonderek wrote:

Why would a) an intelligent critter have a bunch of stuff he or she couldn't use lying around, and b) not use what they do have lying around?

Ever seen the A&E show Hoarders? What's a Dragon's pile of treasure called again?

Yup, they're intelligent, but that doesn't make them immune to complusions, or arrogance for that matter.

It also doesn't make them too stupid to use what they have. Only bad DMs can do that.

So the stock monster, and the [stock monster + magic items] should have the same CR? That is what Cod is saying.

[ciretose]

Bob_Loblaw wrote:

CoDzilla wrote:

AC 60 is bordering on automatic hit material. No one cares. Effective is 70. High is 80. Keep in mind this is level 20, so if you aren't also doing minimum 400 damage a round, and saves at or near 30, at minimum you're going to die all the time.

I really am wondering if your copy if the Bestiary is just chock full of typos.

It is probably next to his copy of the APG...

[ciretose]

wraithstrike wrote:

james maissen wrote:

Bob_Loblaw wrote:

I really am wondering if your copy if the Bestiary is just chock full of typos.

CR 25, Tarrasque: +37 to hit
CR 23: Solar: +35 to hit
CR 20: Balor: +31 to hit, ancient gold dragon: +36 to hit, pit fiend: +32 to hit, tarn linnorm +30 to hit

With an AC of 60, not a single one of those creatures will auto hit. For the non-mathematically inclined, 60-37 = 23. Would you like to revise your claim or just stick with your standard hyperbole?

If you're going to crunch numbers I would suggest that you allow these poor creatures some of the buffs that they could easily have.

Let's take the little goldie..

He has say a greater heroism (+4), haste (+1), GMF/amulet (+5), divine power (+5 ish) which brings him up to +51. That's not even trying.

Now all that said, your conclusions on other posters not withstanding, you shouldn't really take critters at this CR simply out of the box. Its not plug and play but rather requires some degree of crafting.

-James

The CR system assumes stock monsters. Once you start adding equipment it changes the CR. As of now Codzilla needs to get a refund for his book.

+1

[james maissen]

wraithstrike wrote:

GMF/amulet (+5) was in James example. I am not against doing this for a home game, but on the boards modifiying monsters and trying to used them to make an example won't get anyone too far.

Yes it was, and would be altering its feat choices as they are horrid.

At that level pulling out the monster manual (or bestiary as its now called) and saying you encounter it at 2d6x10 feet is ludicrous.

If you want to make arguments based on that have at it but they won't mean anything in terms of an actual campaign.

An ancient gold dragon certainly will be using items. If you want to adjust the CR based on that, or the fact that its not going to bamf into existence at 2d6x10 feet go for it.

Likewise its spell list is not set in stone for all gold dragons, rather its merely a sample. Prior editions didn't do this with I surmise the hope that people wouldn't just play them out of the box.

But if you are going to say that a gold dragon can't hit AC X because its book entry says +Y then you've made a HUGE assumption.

I'm sorry this is a FAR cry from making a custom monster, rather its simply taking more than a brief glance at the critter.

Perhaps in your campaigns 'monsters' aren't allowed to use items not in their stat blocks, but not in mine.

-James

[ZappoHisbane]

houstonderek wrote:

ZappoHisbane wrote:

houstonderek wrote:

Why would a) an intelligent critter have a bunch of stuff he or she couldn't use lying around, and b) not use what they do have lying around?

Ever seen the A&E show Hoarders? What's a Dragon's pile of treasure called again?

Yup, they're intelligent, but that doesn't make them immune to complusions, or arrogance for that matter.

It also doesn't make them too stupid to use what they have. Only bad DMs can do that.

The point is that that personality of dragons that I've always known is that they are covetous, arrogant, obsessive hoarders. Their specific traits and quirks can vary, but these are almost universal flaws (to my knowledge). High intelligence doesn't mean that you're free from mental quirks. One could easily argue the opposite in fact, but that's another story.

[ciretose]

Virgil wrote:

CoDzilla assumes that the treasure that you get from the encounter will inherently be ideal magic items that the creature can and will be using to enhance its combat ability. And if it's a creature with spellcasting, such as the Solar, if it deigns to attack it will use various buffs to further enhance.

EDIT: If you noticed, the example James referred to was using the creature's own spellcasting to buff itself. A monster most certainly IS stock if it uses its own natural abilities on itself, like spellcasting.

It comes pre-equipt.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/outsiders/angel/solar

But if you actually look on page 291 of the bestiary (I own it, and the APG...) there is a handy chart saying what the expected AC and Base attack for every level should be.

Level 20 high attack is +30.

[ciretose]

james maissen wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

GMF/amulet (+5) was in James example. I am not against doing this for a home game, but on the boards modifiying monsters and trying to used them to make an example won't get anyone too far.

Yes it was, and would be altering its feat choices as they are horrid.

At that level pulling out the monster manual (or bestiary as its now called) and saying you encounter it at 2d6x10 feet is ludicrous.

If you want to make arguments based on that have at it but they won't mean anything in terms of an actual campaign.

An ancient gold dragon certainly will be using items. If you want to adjust the CR based on that, or the fact that its not going to bamf into existence at 2d6x10 feet go for it.

Likewise its spell list is not set in stone for all gold dragons, rather its merely a sample. Prior editions didn't do this with I surmise the hope that people wouldn't just play them out of the box.

But if you are going to say that a gold dragon can't hit AC X because its book entry says +Y then you've made a HUGE assumption.

I'm sorry this is a FAR cry from making a custom monster, rather its simply taking more than a brief glance at the critter.

Perhaps in your campaigns 'monsters' aren't allowed to use items not in their stat blocks, but not in mine.

-James

Remember this is adjusted for NPC WBL, which is why the CR is what it is.

If a bestiary CR isn't considered CR 20, what is?

[OilHorse]

ZappoHisbane wrote:

houstonderek wrote:

ZappoHisbane wrote:

houstonderek wrote:

Why would a) an intelligent critter have a bunch of stuff he or she couldn't use lying around, and b) not use what they do have lying around?

Ever seen the A&E show Hoarders? What's a Dragon's pile of treasure called again?

Yup, they're intelligent, but that doesn't make them immune to complusions, or arrogance for that matter.

It also doesn't make them too stupid to use what they have. Only bad DMs can do that.

The point is that that personality of dragons that I've always known is that they are covetous, arrogant, obsessive hoarders. Their specific traits and quirks can vary, but these are almost universal flaws (to my knowledge). High intelligence doesn't mean that you're free from mental quirks. One could easily argue the opposite in fact, but that's another story.

Agreed...Dragons being naturally covetous wold be more loathe to use a wand (or any charged item) in case that it was burned up in the process...it is not to say they will not use their items, just more depends on the items...

[houstonderek]

wraithstrike wrote:

houstonderek wrote:

ZappoHisbane wrote:

houstonderek wrote:

Why would a) an intelligent critter have a bunch of stuff he or she couldn't use lying around, and b) not use what they do have lying around?

Ever seen the A&E show Hoarders? What's a Dragon's pile of treasure called again?

Yup, they're intelligent, but that doesn't make them immune to complusions, or arrogance for that matter.

It also doesn't make them too stupid to use what they have. Only bad DMs can do that.

So the stock monster, and the [stock monster + magic items] should have the same CR? That is what Cod is saying.

Does the stock monster have an allowance for treasure? If so, why can't they use it? Or are they just things that drop treasure for players, a la WoW?

[kyrt-ryder]

houstonderek wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

houstonderek wrote:

ZappoHisbane wrote:

houstonderek wrote:

Why would a) an intelligent critter have a bunch of stuff he or she couldn't use lying around, and b) not use what they do have lying around?

Ever seen the A&E show Hoarders? What's a Dragon's pile of treasure called again?

Yup, they're intelligent, but that doesn't make them immune to complusions, or arrogance for that matter.

It also doesn't make them too stupid to use what they have. Only bad DMs can do that.

So the stock monster, and the [stock monster + magic items] should have the same CR? That is what Cod is saying.

Does the stock monster have an allowance for treasure? If so, why can't they use it? Or are they just things that drop treasure for players, a la WoW?

Don't you know Derek? When you kill the bad guys GP (I've met players who are fond of calling this 'Gold Points' because of how they tend to accrue) just magically appear where the corpse was, as the corpse fades away.

[wraithstrike]

james maissen wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

GMF/amulet (+5) was in James example. I am not against doing this for a home game, but on the boards modifiying monsters and trying to used them to make an example won't get anyone too far.

Yes it was, and would be altering its feat choices as they are horrid.

At that level pulling out the monster manual (or bestiary as its now called) and saying you encounter it at 2d6x10 feet is ludicrous.

If you want to make arguments based on that have at it but they won't mean anything in terms of an actual campaign.

An ancient gold dragon certainly will be using items. If you want to adjust the CR based on that, or the fact that its not going to bamf into existence at 2d6x10 feet go for it.

Likewise its spell list is not set in stone for all gold dragons, rather its merely a sample. Prior editions didn't do this with I surmise the hope that people wouldn't just play them out of the box.

But if you are going to say that a gold dragon can't hit AC X because its book entry says +Y then you've made a HUGE assumption.

I'm sorry this is a FAR cry from making a custom monster, rather its simply taking more than a brief glance at the critter.

Perhaps in your campaigns 'monsters' aren't allowed to use items not in their stat blocks, but not in mine.

-James

You can't bring houserules to the boards. We all know this, and we know why. If everyone employs DM fiat we will never get anywhere. I might as well say my fighters can have a pet dragon. It is just as valid as any other house rule that might come up.

What you or I would do does not matter. What matters is that bring your(anyone) version of things to the boards has no merit. I have houserules. I think we all do, but you can bring house rules and expect credibility. Either Cod can drop the houserules and go after the fighter as is, or nobody pays any attention to him. Your dragon might only use 25% of his hoard, and mine might use all of it. That is why we can't do it. We need a baseline.
In any event once treasure is add the monster is not a CR 20.
Unless we can agree on a new baseline for what a CR 20 monster should be, and I don't think we will ever get a concensus on that.

[Jon Otaguro 428]

I don't believe the stock monster does have an allowance for treasure to make them better in combat. They can and should use items they have access to; however the argument is that adding items should adjust the CR of the encounter.

Lets say you are fighting these two creatures:

AC39
Hit +36/36/36/36/36/36
Dam 4d6+21/2d8+14/2d8+14/2d6+7/2d6+7/2d8+21
Fort +23, Ref +14, Will +24
HP 377

AC53
Hit +45/45/45/45/45/45
Dam 4d6+30/2d8+23/2d8+23/2d6+13/2d6+13/2d8+30
Fort +31, Ref +22, Will +32
HP 461

Should they have the same CR? They are the same creature, with the second creature having better stats from items (no spells active).

[wraithstrike]

ZappoHisbane wrote:

houstonderek wrote:

ZappoHisbane wrote:

houstonderek wrote:

Why would a) an intelligent critter have a bunch of stuff he or she couldn't use lying around, and b) not use what they do have lying around?

Ever seen the A&E show Hoarders? What's a Dragon's pile of treasure called again?

Yup, they're intelligent, but that doesn't make them immune to complusions, or arrogance for that matter.

It also doesn't make them too stupid to use what they have. Only bad DMs can do that.

The point is that that personality of dragons that I've always known is that they are covetous, arrogant, obsessive hoarders. Their specific traits and quirks can vary, but these are almost universal flaws (to my knowledge). High intelligence doesn't mean that you're free from mental quirks. One could easily argue the opposite in fact, but that's another story.

+1. It is just like a highly intelligent person who happens to have a family history of mental illness. Them being intelligent wont get rid of it.

The treasure hoarding and risking lives to kill other dragons to take their stuff already points to a certain amount of being irrational. Dying to protect treasure is also a part of this.

[ciretose]

Jon Otaguro 428 wrote:

I don't believe the stock monster does have an allowance for treasure to make them better in combat. They can and should use items they have access to; however the argument is that adding items should adjust the CR of the encounter.

Lets say you are fighting these two creatures:

AC39
Hit +36/36/36/36/36/36
Dam 4d6+21/2d8+14/2d8+14/2d6+7/2d6+7/2d8+21
Fort +23, Ref +14, Will +24
HP 377

AC53
Hit +45/45/45/45/45/45
Dam 4d6+30/2d8+23/2d8+23/2d6+13/2d6+13/2d8+30
Fort +31, Ref +22, Will +32
HP 461

Should they have the same CR? They are the same creature, with the second creature having better stats from items (no spells active).

Based on what they did in RoTRL with the big end boss, you would add at least 1 CR if you give them full equipment beyond what is described.

[wraithstrike]

Jon Otaguro 428 wrote:

I don't believe the stock monster does have an allowance for treasure to make them better in combat. They can and should use items they have access to; however the argument is that adding items should adjust the CR of the encounter.

Lets say you are fighting these two creatures:

AC39
Hit +36/36/36/36/36/36
Dam 4d6+21/2d8+14/2d8+14/2d6+7/2d6+7/2d8+21
Fort +23, Ref +14, Will +24
HP 377

AC53
Hit +45/45/45/45/45/45
Dam 4d6+30/2d8+23/2d8+23/2d6+13/2d6+13/2d8+30
Fort +31, Ref +22, Will +32
HP 461

Should they have the same CR? They are the same creature, with the second creature having better stats from items (no spells active).

From a common sense point of view they should use treasure, but the game assumes they are balanced without it. There is also an assumption being made that the items have to be directly on the monsters. Maybe the items are in storage, and are used to tempt mortals to draw them to the side of evil. If the demon needs to give someone a +3 sword to win them over then so be it. Maybe the adventurers got to the monster before he got to entice anyone with the current treausure"

PS:Insert other flavor as needed for monsters not using treasure.

Adding treasure to monsters is fine, but adding treasure and not changing the CR is not ok for a world-wide discussion.

[wraithstrike]

houstonderek wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

houstonderek wrote:

ZappoHisbane wrote:

houstonderek wrote:

Why would a) an intelligent critter have a bunch of stuff he or she couldn't use lying around, and b) not use what they do have lying around?

Ever seen the A&E show Hoarders? What's a Dragon's pile of treasure called again?

Yup, they're intelligent, but that doesn't make them immune to complusions, or arrogance for that matter.

It also doesn't make them too stupid to use what they have. Only bad DMs can do that.

So the stock monster, and the [stock monster + magic items] should have the same CR? That is what Cod is saying.

Does the stock monster have an allowance for treasure? If so, why can't they use it? Or are they just things that drop treasure for players, a la WoW?

I am not saying they can't(use the treasure). I am saying you can't bring such things to the boards because it is a house rule. I would not even do it at the table unless my group was good enough to deal with a tougher version of a monster though.

You already know that by RAW they don't allow for the treasure to be used. I often dont even give treasure for defeating an individual monster. I just make sure they get enough gold to stay relevant for their level.
No more silly questions Derek(the WoW one and gold dropping). I can't tell if you are trying to be humorous or not.

[houstonderek]

wraithstrike wrote:

Jon Otaguro 428 wrote:

I don't believe the stock monster does have an allowance for treasure to make them better in combat. They can and should use items they have access to; however the argument is that adding items should adjust the CR of the encounter.

Lets say you are fighting these two creatures:

AC39
Hit +36/36/36/36/36/36
Dam 4d6+21/2d8+14/2d8+14/2d6+7/2d6+7/2d8+21
Fort +23, Ref +14, Will +24
HP 377

AC53
Hit +45/45/45/45/45/45
Dam 4d6+30/2d8+23/2d8+23/2d6+13/2d6+13/2d8+30
Fort +31, Ref +22, Will +32
HP 461

Should they have the same CR? They are the same creature, with the second creature having better stats from items (no spells active).

From a common sense point of view they should use treasure, but the game assumes they are balanced without it. There is also an assumption being made that the items have to be directly on the monsters. Maybe the items are in storage, and are used to tempt mortals to draw them to the side of evil. If the demon needs to give someone a +3 sword to win them over then so be it. Maybe the adventurers got to the monster before he got to entice anyone with the current treausure"

PS:Insert other flavor as needed for monsters not using treasure.

Adding treasure to monsters is fine, but adding treasure and not changing the CR is not ok for a world-wide discussion.

Yeah. I kinda wish the dude with the AD&D books wasn't released, forcing me to play 3.x. O, as I like to call it: "Leave Common Sense at the Door - We're Playing A Game of Math!"

As in: "It's perfectly fair for an intelligent monster to have a +4 stat booster or a scroll of [insert bad ass spell here], but, if they actually USE these items, oh noes, someone might get a booboo and cry".

[Midnightoker]

wraithstrike wrote:

From a common sense point of view they should use treasure, but the game assumes they are balanced without it. There is also an assumption being made that the items have to be directly on the monsters. Maybe the items are in storage, and are used to tempt mortals to draw them to the side of evil. If the demon needs to give someone a +3 sword to win them over then so be it. Maybe the adventurers got to the monster before he got to entice anyone with the current treausure"

PS:Insert other flavor as needed for monsters not using treasure.

Adding treasure to monsters is fine, but adding treasure and not changing the CR is not ok for a world-wide discussion.

+1

[kyrt-ryder]

houstonderek wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Jon Otaguro 428 wrote:

I don't believe the stock monster does have an allowance for treasure to make them better in combat. They can and should use items they have access to; however the argument is that adding items should adjust the CR of the encounter.

Lets say you are fighting these two creatures:

AC39
Hit +36/36/36/36/36/36
Dam 4d6+21/2d8+14/2d8+14/2d6+7/2d6+7/2d8+21
Fort +23, Ref +14, Will +24
HP 377

AC53
Hit +45/45/45/45/45/45
Dam 4d6+30/2d8+23/2d8+23/2d6+13/2d6+13/2d8+30
Fort +31, Ref +22, Will +32
HP 461

Should they have the same CR? They are the same creature, with the second creature having better stats from items (no spells active).

From a common sense point of view they should use treasure, but the game assumes they are balanced without it. There is also an assumption being made that the items have to be directly on the monsters. Maybe the items are in storage, and are used to tempt mortals to draw them to the side of evil. If the demon needs to give someone a +3 sword to win them over then so be it. Maybe the adventurers got to the monster before he got to entice anyone with the current treausure"

PS:Insert other flavor as needed for monsters not using treasure.

Adding treasure to monsters is fine, but adding treasure and not changing the CR is not ok for a world-wide discussion.

Yeah. I kinda wish the dude with the AD&D books wasn't released, forcing me to play 3.x. O, as I like to call it: "Leave Common Sense at the Door - We're Playing A Game of Math!"

As in: "It's perfectly fair for an intelligent monster to have a +4 stat booster or a scroll of [insert bad ass spell here], but, if they actually USE these items, oh noes, someone might get a booboo and cry".

Exactly. Bunch of pansies I say ;)

[houstonderek]

wraithstrike wrote:

houstonderek wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

houstonderek wrote:

ZappoHisbane wrote:

houstonderek wrote:

Why would a) an intelligent critter have a bunch of stuff he or she couldn't use lying around, and b) not use what they do have lying around?

Ever seen the A&E show Hoarders? What's a Dragon's pile of treasure called again?

Yup, they're intelligent, but that doesn't make them immune to complusions, or arrogance for that matter.

It also doesn't make them too stupid to use what they have. Only bad DMs can do that.

So the stock monster, and the [stock monster + magic items] should have the same CR? That is what Cod is saying.

Does the stock monster have an allowance for treasure? If so, why can't they use it? Or are they just things that drop treasure for players, a la WoW?

I am not saying they can't(use the treasure). I am saying you can't bring such things to the boards because it is a house rule. I would not even do it at the table unless my group was good enough to deal with a tougher version of a monster though.

You already know that by RAW they don't allow for the treasure to be used. I often dont even give treasure for defeating an individual monster. I just make sure they get enough gold to stay relevant for their level.
No more silly questions Derek(the WoW one and gold dropping). I can't tell if you are trying to be humorous or not.

So, if a monster has item x in his hoard and decides "Wow, maybe I could get use out of this" it's a houserule???

If that's the case, Pathfinder truly does suck ass. Major ass. And has forgotten the face of it's grandfather.

[Midnightoker]

houstonderek wrote:

Yeah. I kinda wish the dude with the AD&D books wasn't released, forcing me to play 3.x. O, as I like to call it: "Leave Common Sense at the Door - We're Playing A Game of Math!"

As in: "It's perfectly fair for an intelligent monster to have a +4 stat booster or a scroll of [insert bad ass spell here], but, if they actually USE these items, oh noes, someone might get a booboo and cry".

We arent crying boo hoo we are crying adjust the CR because the CR as it stands is without equipment.

"Let me give them these items that grant greater power for free without the added difficulty level even though this makes them more difficult to kill!" sounds a little bit unfair.

If instead of giving them a headband of intellect +6 I gave them the ability score bonus anyways wouldn't I by the rules be required to raise the CR?

[houstonderek]

wraithstrike wrote:

houstonderek wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

houstonderek wrote:

ZappoHisbane wrote:

houstonderek wrote:

Why would a) an intelligent critter have a bunch of stuff he or she couldn't use lying around, and b) not use what they do have lying around?

Ever seen the A&E show Hoarders? What's a Dragon's pile of treasure called again?

Yup, they're intelligent, but that doesn't make them immune to complusions, or arrogance for that matter.

It also doesn't make them too stupid to use what they have. Only bad DMs can do that.

So the stock monster, and the [stock monster + magic items] should have the same CR? That is what Cod is saying.

Does the stock monster have an allowance for treasure? If so, why can't they use it? Or are they just things that drop treasure for players, a la WoW?

I am not saying they can't(use the treasure). I am saying you can't bring such things to the boards because it is a house rule. I would not even do it at the table unless my group was good enough to deal with a tougher version of a monster though.

You already know that by RAW they don't allow for the treasure to be used. I often dont even give treasure for defeating an individual monster. I just make sure they get enough gold to stay relevant for their level.
No more silly questions Derek(the WoW one and gold dropping). I can't tell if you are trying to be humorous or not.

Not really humorous. I do think it's hilarious that people call 4e "WoW on paper" when 3x (and Pathfinder) apparently share the same mentality when it comes to making any kind of sense.

I get it, it's a game. Too bad 3.x/Pathfinder/4e never let me forget it's a game.

Damn, I miss AD&D.

[wraithstrike]

houstonderek wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Jon Otaguro 428 wrote:

I don't believe the stock monster does have an allowance for treasure to make them better in combat. They can and should use items they have access to; however the argument is that adding items should adjust the CR of the encounter.

Lets say you are fighting these two creatures:

AC39
Hit +36/36/36/36/36/36
Dam 4d6+21/2d8+14/2d8+14/2d6+7/2d6+7/2d8+21
Fort +23, Ref +14, Will +24
HP 377

AC53
Hit +45/45/45/45/45/45
Dam 4d6+30/2d8+23/2d8+23/2d6+13/2d6+13/2d8+30
Fort +31, Ref +22, Will +32
HP 461

Should they have the same CR? They are the same creature, with the second creature having better stats from items (no spells active).

From a common sense point of view they should use treasure, but the game assumes they are balanced without it. There is also an assumption being made that the items have to be directly on the monsters. Maybe the items are in storage, and are used to tempt mortals to draw them to the side of evil. If the demon needs to give someone a +3 sword to win them over then so be it. Maybe the adventurers got to the monster before he got to entice anyone with the current treausure"

PS:Insert other flavor as needed for monsters not using treasure.

Adding treasure to monsters is fine, but adding treasure and not changing the CR is not ok for a world-wide discussion.

Yeah. I kinda wish the dude with the AD&D books wasn't released, forcing me to play 3.x. O, as I like to call it: "Leave Common Sense at the Door - We're Playing A Game of Math!"

As in: "It's perfectly fair for an intelligent monster to have a +4 stat booster or a scroll of [insert bad ass spell here], but, if they actually USE these items, oh noes, someone might get a booboo and cry".

Nope. Wrong. Not even close. Reread what I wrote and try again. I am too lazy to try to figure out what your tone of voice is so could you just state your case without trying to be creative. Thanks.

[james maissen]

wraithstrike wrote:

You can't bring houserules to the boards. We all know this, and we know why.

I'm sorry I don't see this as house rules.

Evidently your millage varies.

But if the bad guy has a magical sword he is allowed to pick it up and swing it if he wants to. A magical sword works in his hands and a non-magical sword doesn't become magical in his hands because its bonuses are expected... this isn't 4e, things are supposed to make sense here. If there is some RAW that says he cannot do so please cite it, cause it seems more than just quite silly to me.

As to adjusting a bestiary monster to have a different feat or spell selection there's also nothing wrong with that either.

None of these are house rules, rather they are designing an encounter.

Now again I'm not agreeing with Cod, however purposefully turning a blind eye here is just wrong.

-James

[houstonderek]

Midnightoker wrote:

houstonderek wrote:

Yeah. I kinda wish the dude with the AD&D books wasn't released, forcing me to play 3.x. O, as I like to call it: "Leave Common Sense at the Door - We're Playing A Game of Math!"

As in: "It's perfectly fair for an intelligent monster to have a +4 stat booster or a scroll of [insert bad ass spell here], but, if they actually USE these items, oh noes, someone might get a booboo and cry".

We arent crying boo hoo we are crying adjust the CR because the CR as it stands is without equipment.

"Let me give them these items that grant greater power for free without the added difficulty level even though this makes them more difficult to kill!" sounds a little bit unfair.

If instead of giving them a headband of intellect +6 I gave them the ability score bonus anyways wouldn't I by the rules be required to raise the CR?

So, let me get this right. The only way for players to get magic gear is at Wal*Mart? Critters never have it? There are no rules that say critters can have treasure?

And, seriously, I don't know. There is a rule that specifically disallows a monster or NPC from using treasure it may have?