Did anybody else notice when Ross started using the same copy/pasted statement to deal with this particular issue?
LOL yeah I was going to ask if he had it macro'd ;)
Heh, I always figured it was achieved at the moment each player feels they are contributing heroically to a situation where failure is a risk. But what the hell do I know?Its a fictional image created by players minds in order to suggest that their own inferior playing styles are insufficient because they can not use every tool of the game to its maximum advantage in a particular situation due to the inability to process the usefulness of a given attribute in all situations.
or something.
damn I am sorry i defined what I believed to be imbalance.
your definition of balance gives me warm fuzzies.
Heh, I always figured it was achieved at the moment each player feels they are contributing heroically to a situation where failure is a risk. But what the hell do I know?Its a fictional image created by players minds in order to suggest that their own inferior playing styles are insufficient because they can not use every tool of the game to its maximum advantage in a particular situation due to the inability to process the usefulness of a given attribute in all situations.
or something.
damn I am sorry i defined what I believed to be imbalance.
your definition of balance gives me warm fuzzies.
The only change I would remove the word "feels". If one character is not contributing, but the DM panders to his style of play, he too can "feel" he is contributing, but it's just the DM lying.
The only change I would remove the word "feels". If one character is not contributing, but the DM panders to his style of play, he too can "feel" he is contributing, but it's just the DM lying.Heh, I always figured it was achieved at the moment each player feels they are contributing heroically to a situation where failure is a risk. But what the hell do I know?Its a fictional image created by players minds in order to suggest that their own inferior playing styles are insufficient because they can not use every tool of the game to its maximum advantage in a particular situation due to the inability to process the usefulness of a given attribute in all situations.
or something.
damn I am sorry i defined what I believed to be imbalance.
your definition of balance gives me warm fuzzies.
A persons perception is their reality. If he believes he is helping and no one tells him otherwise, as far as he is concerned he IS helping.
Atleast I think thats why Evil Abe said feels.
|
Here's a handful of examples:
An encounter that does 90d6 damage to the whole party. What level is it?
An encounter that forces the entire party to make a DC 38 save or die. What level is it?
An enemy that surprises you and does 150+++ damage, and oh yeah, there's four of them. What level is it?
Those are random numbers, not examples.
Examples include references to spells, monsters, etc...in other words what did you face, what did they cast, what did you do.
As an example of a detailed explanation backed up by data, I made some updates and corrections to the fighter damage chart, including making all the math formulas visible.
This is for two weapon fighters, on a single attack after moving, with a two handed build.
Doesn't include weapon property damage as I'm debating when they would insert. Any suggestions?
|
|
Nice dodge. Answer the question. What level do you think those enemies were? You claim we're fighting easier enemies than their CR says, back it up.
Say: I think the encounter was ___ level. Fill in the blank with what you think the answer is. It's not hard.
What dodge? Your question is the equivalent of you asking me to guess your mother's weight. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and even if I got it right it would mean nothing.
If your party has higher WBL and point buy, they are already working above their CR. And if your DM runs the monster poorly or predictably, the CR is meaningless.
You have made this argument yourself.
I have no idea what you fought with a 90d6 attack. You could tell me, and that would actually address the question.
Nice dodge. Answer the question. What level do you think those enemies were? You claim we're fighting easier enemies than their CR says, back it up.
Say: I think the encounter was ___ level. Fill in the blank with what you think the answer is. It's not hard.
That isn't enough information to gauge anything in the "examples" listed. For instance, the 90D6 to the whole party:
Was it a targeted effected with multiple targets or was it AoE?
How long did it take the effect to come into being? Was it as a standard action?
What type of damage was it?
Was it a spell / How was the effect created?
What was its range?
Was it disruptable?
How many creatures did it take to create the effect?
What was the creature(s) who created the effects AC, saves, other forms of attacks and modes of defense, ect?
What was the conditions of the battlefield?
Is it a trap, hazard, or creature encounter?
Was the attack magical in nature?
And many more questions.
There is a difference say, if a handfull of dice is dropped onto the party by a trio of Vrocks dancing for a while, or if a single Wizard casts Meteor Swarm, or a volcano erupting, an so on.
I could say an enemy does 10d6. And ask you what the encounter level is with no other information and get the same effect as your "examples". That 10d6 could be a situational melee damage (something akin to sneak attack) and used repeatidly, or it could be a high level mage's throwaway lightningbolt.
Nice dodge. Answer the question. What level do you think those enemies were? You claim we're fighting easier enemies than their CR says, back it up.
Say: I think the encounter was ___ level. Fill in the blank with what you think the answer is. It's not hard.
What dodge? Your question is the equivalent of you asking me to guess your mother's weight. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and even if I got it right it would mean nothing.
If your party has higher WBL and point buy, they are already working above their CR. And if your DM runs the monster poorly or predictably, the CR is meaningless.
You have made this argument yourself.
I have no idea what you fought with a 90d6 attack. You could tell me, and that would actually address the question.
Sounds like a case of the jitters of being judged.
I find it kind of funny that the person who singlehandidly judges the most on these forums is so scared to be judged himself that he doesnt give enough information to be judged on his own math and examples merely because he gives the illusion that hes right without saying why.
"Because I said so" never had a more sour ring to it.
It's a high level game. Everyone's AC is on auto hit status or close to it. Theirs especially so. Their Will saves were absolutely terrible, because they had no items, and no buffs due to lacking the ability to utilize either. They did have Martial Study: Moment of Perfect Mind to at least ignore the first save or lose thrown their way. Even so, that's exactly how they were torn apart. Blast the Will save. Nothing that could have been done to save them from that. They also had Pounce, I think, but no melee damage to speak of - 50, maybe 75 on a full attack each. Completely ignorable.
Perhaps I should've been more clear. What was their AC, as in the specific number? What were their saving throws, as in the specific numbers? And a list of special qualities would be helpful.
Irrelevant, because it's a high level game. Everyone is flying, therefore all terrain is flat and featureless, regardless of its actual features. The only thing noteworthy about it is the clouds they were hiding in prior to jumping the party.
THIS particular encounter was in the open air and thus on a flat, featureless plane. Even at high levels where my players all make sure they have access to flying items or spells I rarely if ever have flat, featureless planes for combat - since there are still terrain features a DM can utilize in the air as well as environmental hazards. But that is a different topic, one that I'd actually like to discuss with you in a future thread if you'd entertain it.
Five.
Okay, a follow-up question, or rather questions. Did all 5 creatures need to work in tandem and all use their standard action to cause 90d6 total, or was it 90d6 each (thus 450d6 all together)? Was there a save involved, and if so, which and what DC?
Spell like abilities.
Was it usable at will, or a set number of times a day? Also which stastic was the saving throw DC based off of and what was that statistic? Also their HD (actual HP is a lot less important). Also CL (sometimes counterspelling / disrupting is the answer - usually with Dualward or Celerity.)
Such as?
Well, your responses answered a handful of them, but brought up some new ones. The ones right away are the ones above in this post.
Also, which system were you using? 3.5, PF, or one of the mentioned with houserules? Were there any houserules that were applicable in the situation? And if you use PF does your DM enforce use of the Fly skill checks (I've played with one that didn't and felt a fool for investing skill points in it as a wizard)? Also, which supplements were open? Many of them in 3.5 easily up the power curve to a point where the standard EL and CR system is obsolete unless you are changing those monsters as well (which IMO you should - my MM gives the Erinyes and Troll a handfull of useless feats, none of which add much to flavor nor survival, and can easily be replaced with more respectable feats to make the monsters actually pose a threat and possibly put a dent in a players resources at appropiate levels.)
None of these are at all relevant to the question of "what level is an encounter that does 90d6 to the whole party". But since you were reasonable about it, I'll answer anyways.
I feel that they are fairly relevent questions. A creature's CR is defined by more than just the damage it inflicts with a a single standard action. The other statistics are important, though grantedly less so in some styles of gameplay.
What is this 20 questions?
Just post what you fought or don't post it.
I agree it shouldnt be our job to prove him wrong it should be his job to prove himself right.
Blatant accusations dont make him right.
We shouldnt even have to ask, he should give all the information up front to prove his point or it is a moot point. Half giving his information only leads me to believe he is slipping as little information as possible because he is making it up as he goes and doesnt to divulge any information that might make his original hypothesis completely wrong.
I mean come on I am not going fishing for CODs fake stories anymore. Especially when his DM allows always featureless battlefields apparently. That isnt like my gaming worlds at all, if thats how you roll go ahead but it isnt comparable to any of the games I have ever played in so therefor it is erroneous information I could do without.
What is this 20 questions?
I need to find ways to entertain myself at work. I think it would be an interesting oppurtunity to ever play in or even just watch one of CoD's games in actions. I may not enjoy it, but I've been part of high-optimazation games before (my locals love to powergame), but his games even seem a step up from what I'm used to seeing, if he is telling the truth, which I have no compelling reason to believe he isn't. I only have a reason to believe that his style is vastly different from my preference and my experience.
But to post something on topic:
I rarely have only one enemy on a battlefield; the greater majority of the time I'm reluctant to go below three. Five is my average. Too few enemies, no matter how powerful, leads to a focus fire and SoL which end the encounter far too quickly for my tastes, and far less satisfying. My encounters generally last seven to ten rounds; which the players seem more than content with. I try to keep my backdrops varied and important - I love utilizing terrain to the fullest and adding hazards to the map in tune with the location, and try to mix my enemies between multiple combat styles (melee, casting, ranged, ect). I also like waves of enemies coming to attack PC's from various directions, which is one of the reasons I'm a fan of 4E encounter design, as it encourages many creatures to battle at once.
I find working is usually a pretty good method personally.What is this 20 questions?I need to find ways to entertain myself at work.
Well, my work consists of sitting behind a desk at a computer and waiting the 6 hours between the hour of paperwork at the beginning of my shift and the hour of paperwork at the end of my shift in case there is any trouble like responding the fire alarm, fixing the satelitte, collecting past due rent, shoveling snow; maybe check-in or -out a guest at the hotel, but this pretty much is my job - surfing on the internet, reading, working on my campaign(s), ect. Doesn't pay very good, but it is far from difficult.
but it is far from difficult.Which is why it doesn't pay good. :)
Getting paid to be doing things I'd be doing anyways in my free time is a good deal to me. ;P
Selective quoting and purposeful omissions designed to reinforce personal beliefs followed by ad hominem attacks against a complete stranger.
So much for extending a chance to offer constructive feedback...
CoD - "Because it's D&D, and thus is RLT."
You need to stop acting like a victim of the game and accept responsibility for your own playstyle.
The game doesn't "force" you to play anything, it is your choice.
If you want RTL, you make it RTL. If you want something different, you have all the tools to make it that way. Seriously, read the first few pages of the core rules. It lays out very clearly what the intended design goals are. It is a ROLE PLAYING game. Not a tactical wargame. If you play it like a pure tactical wargame, build characters based purely on numbers, and exploit whatever you can, you will have problems. Problems that are fairly easy to address, as the game is controlled by a thinking person, not an AI.
Seriously, read the first dozen pages of the core rule book, and accept some responsibility for your choices.
|
|
What is this 20 questions?I need to find ways to entertain myself at work. I think it would be an interesting oppurtunity to ever play in or even just watch one of CoD's games in actions. I may not enjoy it, but I've been part of high-optimazation games before (my locals love to powergame), but his games even seem a step up from what I'm used to seeing, if he is telling the truth, which I have no compelling reason to believe he isn't. I only have a reason to believe that his style is vastly different from my preference and my experience.
But to post something on topic:
I rarely have only one enemy on a battlefield; the greater majority of the time I'm reluctant to go below three. Five is my average. Too few enemies, no matter how powerful, leads to a focus fire and SoL which end the encounter far too quickly for my tastes, and far less satisfying. My encounters generally last seven to ten rounds; which the players seem more than content with. I try to keep my backdrops varied and important - I love utilizing terrain to the fullest and adding hazards to the map in tune with the location, and try to mix my enemies between multiple combat styles (melee, casting, ranged, ect). I also like waves of enemies coming to attack PC's from various directions, which is one of the reasons I'm a fan of 4E encounter design, as it encourages many creatures to battle at once.
Funny thing. That encounter had 5 enemies. It was two rounded. The one before that had 4. It was two rounded. The one after that had 1. It was one rounded. So you see, it doesn't much matter how many enemies are on the field. Good parties end it quick. Because it's D&D, and thus is RLT. You end it quick or it ends you quick.
I've also tried the whole detailed map thing. Everyone was flying, so it didn't matter. And if they weren't flying, doing things like knocking over pillars on someone were inferior to full attack full attack full attack, so no one did it. Not even the enemy. So what's...
So it is 20 questions.
You can post what you fought, but you won't.
You can post what each person was playing, but you won't.
You can post what each person cast, but you won't.
This is now a play by post game of CoDzilla: The RPG. Players apparently have to guess what you did, because you aren't going to tell us.
I'm not sure how one gains XP, but I feel like this clip reflects the outcome of receiving such XP.
If you would actually like to describe your game, that could actually be helpful. If you want to have people guess about your game...
I've already said I don't have access to the statblocks anymore. You aren't going to get any specific numbers. You're going to get the approximate numbers, and the general concept of the fight.
I'll give the benefit of the doubt here, even after a game I rarely have access to another DM's monster statistics.
I have a hard time believing that. At least, not any that would not hinder the enemy, who is also always flying as well. But I'll bite. What are they.
For example, when players aren't dungeon crawling indoors with a set height to the ceiling; I once had my players exploring a tropical jungle, heading toward a volcano. Along the way, in combats, they had to deal with several instances of ariel terrian. In the jungle itself, if they chose to fly they had to deal with cover and concealment granted by the canopy of treetops as well as needing Reflex saves vs entangling themselves in vines hanging from the trees. Further on they were at the bottom of a chasm, heading through it, searching for a cave entrance, when a fight broke out, even if they flew they had limited horizontal space, and there were also rock formations that stretched across the cavern walls, hindering movement, and blocking line of sight, as well as providing cover from effects. The enemies focused on hitting PC's into them with effects like Awesome Blow. Finally when they reached the volcano and battled the Red Dragon there, when they flew they had to deal with gysers and gouts of flame that blasted high into the air to bull rush and damage them, and also had to avoid clouds of noxious fumes from the volcano itself which periodically wafted out and floated about.
Personally I've always found it just as easy to intregrate arial terrian as land based when prepared for the PC's to take flight.
It was about 90d6 in total. There were Fortitude saves for half. I don't remember the exact number, but it was in the 20s. And anything below 30 would have been auto passed by the entire party anyways.
So, 18d6 each? Fort for half? Untyped? Half-Fiend? Able to hit the whole party regardless of standard postiioning? I'd guess that would be Horrid Wilting from 5 18 Hit Die Half Fiends with at least a few levels of Warblade (I'm not too versed in the ToB - don't own a copy, so moment of perfection whatever threw me off until I looked it up). Everything else aside I'd first think to set the encounter at EL25, or 5 20's, since an 18 ECL = 17 CR + 3 each for Half-Fiend above 11 HD. But I'd definately lower it a little bit: AC in the mid-20's and Will of lower than 10 with no gear listed? Much like many players a lot of NPC's with class levels' power is derived from gear. Of course with supplement books in 3.5 CR was a joke. Theoretically a CR 23 Shivad (from Frostburn) posed a challenge to a level 16 party of 4 or a 14 party of 7, but it never ended up that way (admitedly in with the party of 7 they had terrian and gear in their favor, as well as surprise and time to prepare).
Even with those things, counterspelling is a waste of time.
We'll agree to disagree then, eh? While I agree that readying your action to counterspell is generally a far poorer option than casting a spell, Dualward allowing you to do it as an immediate action is nice, since it doesn't soak up your standard for the turn and has been very useful in the past, especially at high levels for a measely 5th level spell slot.
90% of the caster's spells, and builds were strictly core
I'm honestly surprised. Most of the books I own for 3.5 is caster-crack. Or rather owned, I've sold most of them. I would've thought your group would like spells like Stunning Ray, which pretends to be a SoL but in reality is just L if they aren't immune to stunning effects.
And as for the monsters, of course they were changed. They still only used the resources entitled to them of course
I'll agree here. The only time I use the monsters as listed in the MM for 3.5 is when teaching new players the game. With my regulars, the greater of majority of whom like to optimize to strong degree have voiced their preference for this (except for one who gets upset when I work my DM magic on the monsters and he can't rely on the same old meta-game knowledge to fight whatever). Nobody likes to sit around bored, curb stomping stock monsters all day. PC's like to be surprised and challenged, and unless a player is new to 3.5, the monsters in the MM just don't do that.
In such a case you can also easily analyze the difficulty of the encounter from a single number.
In your style of game I don't doubt this. It is likely an effective measure by which to gauge threats to your party's, but wouldn't consider it to be universally applicable to all games by any means.
Funny thing. That encounter had 5 enemies. It was two rounded.
With saves and AC like that for an epic encounter as per the CR system, I don't doubt it. Martials could've taken them down without Shock Trooper to nix the penalty off of Power Attack; heck a casting of Confusion could done the job if they were spaced in a friendly manner. This isn't intened as an insult, but wouldn't you consider an encounter with such a powerful offensive trick but little to no defense a poor encounter design for this instance? Unless the enemies were mindless or kamikazi. How was the enounter defeated?
I would be interested in hearing what the party level and make up were that defeated this and the other encounters you listed with a bit more specific information, if you don't mind sharing.
I had more too this, but the messageboard ate it and didn't feel like typing it all back up, so this is the short version.
|
|
I've already said I don't have access to the statblocks anymore. You aren't going to get any specific numbers. You're going to get the approximate numbers, and the general concept of the fight.I'll give the benefit of the doubt here, even after a game I rarely have access to another DM's monster statistics.
But you do know what you fought. And you have access to your character. And you know what everyone else is playing, even if you don't have the stats, and you know the general outline.
And he is discussing a specific "best case" encounter, so all of the advantages regarding circumstance go to him.
If he can't even post any of the above info, I call BS and still believe his game is a farce.
The game is what it is, no matter how much you handwave to the contrary. No one is a victim here, except perhaps you, of the erroneous belief that facts are subjective.
The game is what it is. No doubt.
Since you haven't presented a single fact that supports the idea of Rocket tag being the "only way to play", you really can't claim that your opinions are anything but... opinions.
If you have some facts, by all means, enlighten me. All evidence so far indicates that there are many valid ways to play the game, all supported by the rules.
You will pack rocket launchers, because all enemies will, regardless of if you do or not. And either you are the rocketeer or the rocketee. Choose one.
All enemies can 1 shot you? No one can survive a few rounds of combat? That is an unsupportable statement. Nothing in the game forces you to play in that manner. In fact there are numerous guidelines for playing all kinds of games, with the default being a fairly easy version that allows any reasonable character to shine.
|
If you have a GM who's Balor spends a lot of time in meelee and who's dragons tend to ground themselves in combat, then yeah, it's fairly easy.
If you have a cutthroat GM who milks the most out of the monsters capabilities? It's rocket launcher tag.
By this very statement you undermine the 'D&D is RLT' stance.
Kyrt-ryder - I agree that it is a fairly subjective statement, as "easy" and "reasonable" are about the most subjective words I can think of. But it was based off of this:
"The Most Important RuleThe rules in this book are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt."
NOTE: My italics.
Cutthroat players and cutthroat GM's can affect the game in many ways, but there is a lot of wiggle room in the rules for both.
Don't get me wrong, there are many many things in the game that are not "equal" in power, and many things that could be improved, but the game doesn't require a particular playstyle to work out.
Ok. Well they were outside, as the comment about clouds indicates. And it wasn't a jungle. It was a wasteland type area. So while there was still some terrain there, everyone was flying over it.
Not much to do in a mundane wasteland for arial terrain I suppose. But I suppose it is the "normal" terrain that makes the magical stuff exciting and fantastical. Just to be clear though, I wasn't asserting that your fight took place in a jungle, or chasm, or any of those locations mentioned, I was just responding with examples of arial terrain I've utilized in the past.
The divide was actually slightly less even than that, but the total was 90d6. It actually might have been 92d6, 20d6 + 18d6 * 4. Point is, a lot of saves were passed, not a lot of damage was taken despite the impressive number. Though a weak party would have been torn apart by the sheer volume. And define standard positioning. It works as long as no one is more than 60 feet from anyone else. Someone 65 feet away is likely to be ambushed and slaughtered. In any case, they were gathered together because it was necessary as a result of the last fight, which they had immediately came out of.
You also seriously overestimated the level. See, HD doesn't equal CR for monsters. The actual level of that encounter was 20. And despite that being about 4 higher than the average party level, and just finishing a fight with something at APL +3 the party still won easily. Now I'll grant you the Will save made it laughable, but there's nothing that can be done, with the limited resources that were available. The AC is considerably less relevant - both because even good martial characters do not have nearly the same impact on an encounter as even a single well placed spell and because even a decent AC is still in auto hit range - only question is how much can you PA for? And with them all having hundreds of HP, you'll need to PA them nice and hard to plow through all that HP.
Standard positioning, to me, is how close the party is on overland travel. No two targets being more than 60 feet apart sounds reasonable to me, outside of maybe a druid, rogue, ranger, or whatever scouting ahead, if your mage didn't bring along his handy divinations for the day.
I deduced the best I could with the numbers you gave me: 90D6 untyped damage from a total of 5 targets as a standard action with a Fortitude Save for half. I knew they were Half-Fiend from what you told me, so what immediately made sense to me was Horrid Wilting off of the Half-Fiend template, which I believe used HD as CL for their SpL abilities. To make the math come out all it seemed each had to have 18 HD exactly. And when I thought you said they had a specific class ability, that meant they were 18 levels, or CR 17 each, adding 3 to each CR via the template, then adding the number of monsters to the CR to determine EL. Although 90D6 is far from frightening at high levels. That only an average of around 150 damage if you make your saves (which you said you had to roll incredibly low to fail) as a once a day ability. As I mentioned above, I'd drop the EL from that 25 do to the horrid AC and Will of the creatures.
And also to be clear, I never claimed HD = CR on anything. Class levels help with a good baseline, but most monsters I've seen have far more HD than CR.
So what's the lesson of the day? Magical Beasts (and anything else with a bad Will save) cannot pull their weight in an encounter. No matter how much they are optimized, you at most make it take two save or loses to take them down. Funny thing. In a scenario like this, SANCTUARY is a save or lose. I am not kidding. That little 1st level spell was actually critical to the group's success.
Just to clarify, were the creatures you fought that did the 90D6 Magical Beasts then? Or were they being with class levels? I suppose I should've added creature type to the earlier line of questioning... It does matter a bit to determine CR / EL. Oh, and don't I know it, I have an 11th level Cleric of Wee Jass (love the magic domain) that is running through 3.5 Shackled City now, Sanctuary has been kind to me, not as kind as Dismissal, but very kind.
In that case, it gets a little better, but still isn't worth it. Just save on a 2, or "counterspell" by hitting them with an orb or something.
Dualward I highly recommend for mages, stops most problems before they start, and not just for the caster. Since it is a buff that is previously up to combat (hopefully) it won't eat into your combat rounds, nor or actions (depending on just how many immediate actions you think you'll need). Made me appreciate a well placed counterspell again.
While there are save or loses there, there's really no need. Core provides plenty. Maze alone was responsible for trivializing at least two major battles. And that's no save at all.
Some of the spells, like Stunning Ray, you can ignore the saving throw for the most part anyway. Even if they save they are stunned for a round, or I think it is a D4+1 if they fail (its been ages since I've looked at the book, so that may be slightly off). Which, while not innately a victory in and of itself, it is often a death sentence for a critter, especially if it is by its lonesome. But it is true that Maze, and / or good old Otto's Dance with Reach was all you really needed back in 3.5 against singular opponents, until you ran into a Minotaur with immunity to mind-affecting abilities at any rate. Which is why I prefer combats with multiple opponents. AoE SoL, while it exists, is fewer in number and often less potent than single target SoL.
Not only that, but it's very rare for anything to have any material in its statblock not in core, or the same book. I dunno about you, but every single one of the melee type giants in a game I run have Power Attack, Improved Bull Rush, and Knockback - Giant Fighting Style, on top of whatever else they might have (assuming sufficient HD for more feats). Because that is how they fight. Hit it really hard, and send it flying. Some of them even take Dungeoncrasher Fighter. Because if you're going to field bruiser enemies at all, they must be optimized or they cannot be relevant. Same as for PCs, really.
For much of the simpler, brute like monsters I can see why they kept them to simple feats, some feats rely much more heavily on tatical choices that the less intelligent being might not so easily grasp. Also, if monsters in supplements took feats out of supplemental books other than the one they are in, it would add quite a bit to the stat-blocks to explain those abilities, since a company can't assume you own every peice of their wide selection of books. But Giants in my games take Power Attack, Brutal Throw, and often that feat that adds Con mod to Will saves (can't remember its name right now, and don't have the books on me), along with other feats to improve their combat effectiveness in a way that makes sense for their level of intelligence and the story. For me it isn't so much making sure that a melee monster poses a threat, as making sure a monster poses a threat. Using the MM monsters in 3.5 vs a party that has access to supplemental material is laughable. The PC's easily outpower it by more than is intended. They could take a dozen fights on EL without a sweat becasue the MM monsters aren't intended to deal with that level of threat. As a DM I want to give my players a credible challenge and an Ogre or a handfull around levels 3 to 6 just don't do that without being augmented by a substantial amount of allies or at least being updated to using more recent material.
Ugh, subjective dismissive handwaving. And you were doing so well, too. But do tell, by what means other than save or loses, or enough damage to actually matter does anything threaten anything? And if it can't threaten you, it's not a threat, therefore it is an accurate means of threat assessment.
Please don't dismiss that as a handwave, that wasn't my intention at all, I assure you. I've been pretty honest and vocal as to my opinion that the CR and EL system has never been appropriately balanced. Even within the CR's themselves there is an enormous disparity in realtive power, especially when considering outsiders and dragons. The CR system is supposed to look into the overall balance of a creatures AC, Saves, Damage, ect. Its overall immediate threat combined with its longevity and survivability. I've seen players have a lot of difficulty with encounters that were supposed to be be realitively easy to their APL and seen players breeze through encounters with creatures of much greater EL, all due to the resources that were available to them, time constraints, and terrain. It is impossible for CR and EL to give anything more than a vague area of levels in which standard parties should fight an encounter because the EL system didn't define the implied party makeup or its abilities, and can't account for all variables. The CR system, in my opinion - which I believe many will disagree with me, is broken, and it is a problem PF inheriated from its predecessor.
Several people actually had a kind of sort of decent AC (kind of sort of decent at these levels = mid 50s)
Yeah, late in 3.5 AC became something you either had or you didn't. Standard AC for those never intended to reach melee was usually about 20 + level in my games as a baseline, with front line warriors either have 30 + level, give or take, or less than 10. At level 15ish in my last campaign the party's "Paladin" (and by Paladin I mean he had a couple of levels and prestiged into all sorts of classes) had 39, but he could kick on Law Devotion and several other effects that were either swift, or lasted minutes (he had at least 6th level cleric spells) to easily push 50. Their Thayan Knight had 42, but was a level or two behind the party. And their Berzerker had an AC of 8, after raging.
Cut out quite a bit because I didn't have much to respond to it one way or the other and didn't want to stretch the page too much. And lets just copy this in case the post monster wanders by again.
|
Highest CR 10 Int score I saw was 17.I'm not sure we should go down this road. It's likely to lead to trying to tie real world IQ's to various int scores lol.
No, it's leading to the road that shows the "every opponent must be played at genius intelligence, therefore all PCs must be optimized or else they die" idea is a fallacy, and some people here are not exactly comfortable with admitting it :>
This is true. You can play it several different ways. If one presumes the enemies are played to their full potential, it becomes rocket launcher tag, but doing so isn't required. (Some people consider that it is for verisimilitude though, since most of such creatures are also insanely intelligent.)
I think there is a big difference between a monster playing with good battlefield tactics (in the traditional sense) and good game tactics based on mechanical rules knowledge, and system exploits. NPCs or even PCs when played as characters would know that a longsword is generally better then a shortspear, but they wouldn't know how to exploit jacking up the DCs of specific magic spells to exploit the turn based system.