|
Criticize it all you want, Monte Cook admitted traps options were built into 3.0, and neither 3.5 nor Pathfinder eliminated them.Well.. I criticize THIS too. The game is too situational to allow a "general better" option.
Eventually players learn that certain options are in general superior to others.Interesting.. source?
And more important.. WHEN did he say it? After being fired by Wotc? ;)
On his website, and I suppose. It doesn't matter, I discovered some of the traps he alluded to long before I ever read his musings on the topic.
But there aren't really optimal builds in and of themselves. And if I were a BBEG and they party used the same moves each time, I would use that against them.
If combat is only lasting a few rounds, that means that the party can only do a few things. If those things don't work because the enemy has prepped for them (or used illusions to make them waste spells, etc...) then they will have to become a more diverse and versatile party. Or die.
Until someone posts an truly "optimized" build, it's like a unicorn to me.
I will agree that "optimal builds" are usually optimal at doing something specific or working under a specific scenario while being level dependent, and not univerally applicable. But, especially in 3.5, I do find some feat choices, for example, to be far better than most.
As to the second paragraph, it is fun to watch a party squirm as their standard tactics fail on a prepared enemy and they need to think fast. Ring of Counterspells is one of my favorite methods. Wearing two is even more fun.
On his website, and I suppose. It doesn't matter, I discovered some of the traps he alluded to long before I ever read his musings on the topic.
Could you please bring an example of "trap"?
|
|
Could you please bring an example of "trap"?
On his website, and I suppose. It doesn't matter, I discovered some of the traps he alluded to long before I ever read his musings on the topic.
Taking toughness if you're not a wizard, for one. Playing a monk. The entire Dodge feat chain for fighters. Skill mastery feats. Sword and board. The standard stuff every CharOp board on the planet lists, basically.
That's why I get amused when people rail against optimization so much, it was built into the game, as a design feature. And none of it is any different in Pathfinder, really. Pathfinder is lightly houseruled 3.5. It isn't a new game.
To continue to use the simplistic example above, the Toughness feat could have been written to make it clear that it was for 1st-level elf wizards (where it is likely to give them a 100 percent increase in hit points). It's also handy when you know you're playing a one-shot session with 1st-level characters, like at a convention (you sure don't want to take item creation feats in such an instance, for example).
It seems here that he, at the end, says that is nice for very specific situations, not a trap by itself.
Is true that above in the article says:
This is the approach we took in 3rd Edition: basically just laying out the rules without a lot of advice or help. This strategy relates tangentially to the second point above. The idea here is that the game just gives the rules, and players figure out the ins and outs for themselves -- players are rewarded for achieving mastery of the rules and making good choices rather than poor ones.
But the most relevant part is this:
Perhaps as is obvious from the name I've coined for this rules writing style, I no longer think this is entirely a good idea.
I can't wait read this without smiling with malice. Very useful say this at the moment by Monte part I guess. :D :D :D
And, FAR MORE IMPORTANT: can I have a Pathfinder example of "Trap" :D?
|
|
To continue to use the simplistic example above, the Toughness feat could have been written to make it clear that it was for 1st-level elf wizards (where it is likely to give them a 100 percent increase in hit points). It's also handy when you know you're playing a one-shot session with 1st-level characters, like at a convention (you sure don't want to take item creation feats in such an instance, for example).It seems here that he, at the end, says that is nice for very specific situations, not a trap by itself.
Is true that above in the article says:
This is the approach we took in 3rd Edition: basically just laying out the rules without a lot of advice or help. This strategy relates tangentially to the second point above. The idea here is that the game just gives the rules, and players figure out the ins and outs for themselves -- players are rewarded for achieving mastery of the rules and making good choices rather than poor ones.
But the most relevant part is this:
Perhaps as is obvious from the name I've coined for this rules writing style, I no longer think this is entirely a good idea.I can't wait read this without smiling with malice. Very useful say this at the moment by Monte part I guess. :D :D :D
And, FAR MORE IMPORTANT: can I have a Pathfinder example of "Trap" :D?
And
They're all pretty much the same traps. Pathfinder isn't a new game.
Depends on the spell and the situation.Spell > non-spell. ;)Well.. I criticize THIS too. The game is too situational to allow a "general better" option.
Eventually players learn that certain options are in general superior to others.
"What do you mean Greater Mirror Image doesn't work against Grimlocks?"
|
|
They're all pretty much the same traps. Pathfinder isn't a new game.To continue to use the simplistic example above, the Toughness feat could have been written to make it clear that it was for 1st-level elf wizards (where it is likely to give them a 100 percent increase in hit points). It's also handy when you know you're playing a one-shot session with 1st-level characters, like at a convention (you sure don't want to take item creation feats in such an instance, for example).It seems here that he, at the end, says that is nice for very specific situations, not a trap by itself.
Is true that above in the article says:
This is the approach we took in 3rd Edition: basically just laying out the rules without a lot of advice or help. This strategy relates tangentially to the second point above. The idea here is that the game just gives the rules, and players figure out the ins and outs for themselves -- players are rewarded for achieving mastery of the rules and making good choices rather than poor ones.
But the most relevant part is this:
Perhaps as is obvious from the name I've coined for this rules writing style, I no longer think this is entirely a good idea.I can't wait read this without smiling with malice. Very useful say this at the moment by Monte part I guess. :D :D :D
And, FAR MORE IMPORTANT: can I have a Pathfinder example of "Trap" :D?
And
Well yes, if you want your Wizard to fight with a sword, you will have trouble. I wouldn't call those traps.
Monks just need to be built properly...but that is a whole other thread....
They're all pretty much the same traps. Pathfinder isn't a new game.
So we need to define trap. Yeah, there are things that MORE OFTEN are better.
But this does not make less optimal stuff a trap. Maybe I made a certain combinations of stats for feat prerequisite and that +1 HP /level is exactly what I need.
Yeah, I can use it less often. But it does not mean is a trap. Is there, for me, when I need it.
And, essentially, is what Monte said - it not necessarily sucks, simply is not stated that is more circumstantial.
Moreover, luckily, I can recreate and change the game and the campaing, so it can happen that things not relevant in one campaign are vital in another.
The game can turn into a rocket launcher arms race; I just don't think it automatically has to be.The problem is, if it can, then at some point it likely will. Not with every group obviously, and probably not with most groups. But with some, which one might consider a flaw in the design, or simply an imparital part of the system.
Oh, sure. I'll be the first one to say that the game isn't perfectly balanced and that the balance problems in a game tend to grow throughout the lifecycle of an edition for several reasons.
I just don't think in this case that imperfect equates to unplayable or absolutely demands major surgery to be playable.
Could you please bring an example of "trap"?
My favorite one is 3.0 Fighter 20. (Or any straight-classed fighter for more than, say, 4 levels.)
Note that I'm not saying every martial character or every build that includes levels of fighter is a trap.
There are a ton of traps built into the system and while Pathfinder has toned some of them down others are definitely still there.
Sword and Board is widely considered to be a trap strategy because the modest boost in AC is typically not worth the decrease in DPR. TWF S&B helps but it's pretty resource intensive.
Evocation Magic especially single target evocation (polar ray) is widely considered to be completely suboptimal.
Monks in general
Feat choices like the +2/+2 skill feats.
Exotic Weapon Proficiency
etc, etc.
The problem isn't so much that there are bad choices and good choices (although I would prefer choices to be equivalent) but that many of the suboptimal choices are the ones that most new players gravitate towards.
:(
|
|
There are a ton of traps built into the system and while Pathfinder has toned some of them down others are definitely still there.
Sword and Board is widely considered to be a trap strategy because the modest boost in AC is typically not worth the decrease in DPR. TWF S&B helps but it's pretty resource intensive.
Evocation Magic especially single target evocation (polar ray) is widely considered to be completely suboptimal.
Monks in general
Feat choices like the +2/+2 skill feats.
Exotic Weapon Proficiency
etc, etc.
The problem isn't so much that there are bad choices and good choices (although I would prefer choices to be equivalent) but that many of the suboptimal choices are the ones that most new players gravitate towards.
:(
All the monk hate...do we need to do that thread again...
There are builds that combined give outcomes, and also choices take away options.
Group dynamics trump all.
All the monk hate...do we need to do that thread again...
There are builds that combined give outcomes, and also choices take away options.
Group dynamics trump all.
The Monk post APG is meh but I still think that from an elegance of game design the Monk is crazy bad, weird exception based design after weird exception based design.
If they had just given the Monk full BAB instead of situational full BAB it would be a zillion times more elegant. I also hate how the class that is fundamentally set up to be a fast moving skirmisher is so crippled at actually doing that role.
Considering the class has soooo much potential I think that it deserves alot of the ire it receives.
Dragons are hoarders, not adventurers. They are so sure of their own capabilities that they are probably not dumping all their wealth into combat gear. Reading through the dragon entries, there are even descriptions of what their hoards generally look like.Translation: You need highly intelligent enemies to behave incredibly stupidly just so the things you claim are just fine can barely function. I think we've already established that. It's just as invalid as it was the first time.
Against a real dragon, low tier classes are dead in a round.
Mmm, no. You need highly intelligent enemies who have a massive racial fixation on displays of wealth to have both those displays and intelligence. Aka, you need dragons to act like dragons. And, since you like to get so smug and high and mighty about your adherence to 'the actual game', let's take a look.
CR 20 treasure (pg 53 DMG 3.5). A dragon has triple standard.
25% chance for no magic items.
40% chance for 1d4 medium items. (typically 10,000 gp each)
35% chance for 1d3 major items. (typically 40,000 gp each)
But that's only part of the dragon's treasure. He also has a 63% chance for 18,000 gp in gold (avg) and a 35% chance for 22,000 gp in platinum (avg). Also has a 36% chance for 6000 gp in gems and a 62% chance for 27,000 gp in art.
So, shaking that up, averages to 57,000 gp in coins, 57,000 gp in goods and 114,000 gp in magic items.
Your dragon has 114,000 gp in treasure for magic items. Even assuming it was tailored to his personal usage magic items, that's an amulet of natural attacks +3 and a belt of giant strength +6. Total of +6 attack from items, with 24,000 gp left over. Which results in a gap of +9 to +15 required from buffs. Which you have yet to provide.
You are still running away from your claims about balors, pit fiends, and still fail to give the dragon buffs they need to get to +58. Translation: you don't actually have the ability to prove your so called objective claims, because you aren't really playing DnD.
Vuron, I do not think that S&B is suboptimal in PF. I'm GMing one right now and is carzy effective.
The damage dealt is decent and the control is awesome. the guy loves to divide and lockdown foes (he's Kopesh + S&B core fighter archetype) and is very imaginative on the battlefield (bull rushes enemies one on the another and smashes them on the wall, smashes foes into black tentacles and so on).
Is able to do a real mess and he's damage is great. It can be feat intensive but with that combination of feat you can do a lot of things.
Evocation and Monk.. already discussed. Better skip ;)
+2/+2 has been pumped. Again, not always chosen, but nice to cover some corner in some instance, exspecially if I NEED a decent score on a skill and my int/stat sucks.
I somewhat agree on EWP - but Falcata disagrees.
Essentially, even if I disagree, I can see your points, with the exception of S&B now.
The whole issue of whether or not creatures are supposed to use their treasure for items to buff themselves, or just as a simple hoard was already debated back in the original WizardsVsMelee thread, around page 10-13. I don't recall any official word saying that a creature's treasure was meant to buy NPC gear and if so, if that should increase the CR. Rehashing the argument here is not likely to clarify things.
The Monsters using their "hoard" question should be solved by the Balor stat block. Balors have standard CR 20 treasure (something like 67,000) of which an unholy long sword and a flaming whip are a portion of the total wealth.
I really have no problem with a Balor having an headband of charisma and a belt of strength and constitution to fill out their hoard.
Sure it boosts their combat statistics some but it also gives them something useful to loot.
Outside of the rare situations where a monster will be tasked by a superior to guard a special treasure I really don't see why monsters wouldn't use items that they could realistically use.
Personally, I assume that most monsters don't exactly have the ability to trade for "optimized" items and as such tend towards having a large number of lower strength items many of which aren't appropriate (such as spell completion items, rings, armor, etc). That's because I assume that most of a hoard is composed of items looted from failed adventurers rather than custom crafted items.
Am I the only one who thinks NOT preparing a dragon (or true fiends for that matter) to be all he can be, with spells, items and unique powers, mooks and so forth is a huge insult to a creature that is so smart it makes Einstein seem like a short-bus candidate, so patient it makes Ghandi seem like a spoiled teenager with ADD, and enough charisma to make Hitler seem like a introvert recluse?
I mean, they are DRAGONS. They were in the TITLE of the game. They should inspire awe and terror, lay waste to countries, and make the paladin only HOPE his inevitable sacrifice should be enough to stop it.
My dragons have names, lairs, LEGENDS. If I am going to use dragons later in the game, the players will hear of them long before, when they are still inexperienced and fresh, tales spoken in hushed voices, stories how an ancient and powerful creature that make history and nations their playthings has come and gone with the centuries, and that even the gods fear the time when it awakens, for even their champions will stand impotent against the greatest engine of doom that ever dominated the sky.
As much as I'd like to agree with you, that simply isn't the case. Take a look at the dragon entries. Just looking at the chromatic dragons, black dragons start with an 8, the white is a 6, the others are all 10. Then you add from +2 to +12 as they age. That means the smartest of the chromatic dragons have only a 22 after 1200 years.
I like how you handle dragons. I just wanted to point out that they are generally no smarter than the adventurers they face off against. At least not as they appear in the Bestiary.
Am I the only one who thinks NOT preparing a dragon (or true fiends for that matter) to be all he can be, with spells, items and unique powers, mooks and so forth is a huge insult to a creature that is so smart it makes Einstein seem like a short-bus candidate, so patient it makes Ghandi seem like a spoiled teenager with ADD, and enough charisma to make Hitler seem like a introvert recluse?
I mean, they are DRAGONS. They were in the TITLE of the game. They should inspire awe and terror, lay waste to countries, and make the paladin only HOPE his inevitable sacrifice should be enough to stop it.
My dragons have names, lairs, LEGENDS. If I am going to use dragons later in the game, the players will hear of them long before, when they are still inexperienced and fresh, tales spoken in hushed voices, stories how an ancient and powerful creature that make history and nations their playthings has come and gone with the centuries, and that even the gods fear the time when it awakens, for even their champions will stand impotent against the greatest engine of doom that ever dominated the sky.
As much as I'd like to agree with you, that simply isn't the case. Take a look at the dragon entries. Just looking at the chromatic dragons, black dragons start with an 8, the white is a 6, the others are all 10. Then you add from +2 to +12 as they age. That means the smartest of the chromatic dragons have only a 22 after 1200 years.
I like how you handle dragons. I just wanted to point out that they are generally no smarter than the adventurers they face off against. At least not as they appear in the Bestiary.
Yeah, the low end runts are far from impressive, I know. And I am not so gung-ho about dragons that ALL dragons need to be their own legend. I am speaking of the old ones who survived natural selection.
I rarely take BBEG creatures straight from the bestiary. The dragon in question for my post-kingmaker campain both has class levels (up to +4 to stats) and the advanced template (additional +4). This means a great red has around 30-ish in all mental stats, before applying magical items (yes, he is obscenely rich, as he conquered nations and such, and since it is the end-game battle, it doesn't matter if the PCs become millionaires, as the game is over.)
|
All the monk hate...do we need to do that thread again...
There are builds that combined give outcomes, and also choices take away options.
Group dynamics trump all.
The Monk post APG is meh but I still think that from an elegance of game design the Monk is crazy bad, weird exception based design after weird exception based design.
If they had just given the Monk full BAB instead of situational full BAB it would be a zillion times more elegant. I also hate how the class that is fundamentally set up to be a fast moving skirmisher is so crippled at actually doing that role.
Considering the class has soooo much potential I think that it deserves alot of the ire it receives.
Yup. Every time I think of building one, I just know I'll hate myself later on when the mechanics prevent me from doing the cool things.
|
|
Not true, there are plenty of new traps, in addition to all of the same traps. The entire critical line, for starters. The entire maneuver lines, all of them to follow up.
I REALLY HATE the Vital Strike line. The insulting thing is that it requires level 6 to take the first step (BAB 6 pre-req). Huh? At least let me take it at level 1, and then swap it out at level 4 as a fighter.
Geez louis.
|
|
Not true, there are plenty of new traps, in addition to all of the same traps. The entire critical line, for starters. The entire maneuver lines, all of them to follow up.I REALLY HATE the Vital Strike line. The insulting thing is that it requires level 6 to take the first step (BAB 6 pre-req). Huh? At least let me take it at level 1, and then swap it out at level 4 as a fighter.
Geez louis.
At 1st level with power attack you do more damage than the average CR character has. How much more do you need at that level?
Not true, there are plenty of new traps, in addition to all of the same traps. The entire critical line, for starters. The entire maneuver lines, all of them to follow up.I REALLY HATE the Vital Strike line. The insulting thing is that it requires level 6 to take the first step (BAB 6 pre-req). Huh? At least let me take it at level 1, and then swap it out at level 4 as a fighter.
Geez louis.
Vital strike is situational, but since we are playing Core, and thus restricted to Core Rulebook & APG for feats, I've found it more useful than most fighter-type feats for situations where I cannot full-attack, or facing off against enemies I can only hit on 16+ on the first attack (rare, but severe debuffs when facing bosses makes this happen every now and then), and so forth.
It is worth taking when you have all the statics that will always work for you, and the rest is... well, worse. Using it instead of full attack is for the most part pants-on-head retarded in my experience.
|
|
Not true, there are plenty of new traps, in addition to all of the same traps. The entire critical line, for starters. The entire maneuver lines, all of them to follow up.I REALLY HATE the Vital Strike line. The insulting thing is that it requires level 6 to take the first step (BAB 6 pre-req). Huh? At least let me take it at level 1, and then swap it out at level 4 as a fighter.
Geez louis.
Vital strike is situational, but since we are playing Core, and thus restricted to Core Rulebook & APG for feats, I've found it more useful than most fighter-type feats for situations where I cannot full-attack, or facing off against enemies I can only hit on 16+ on the first attack (rare, but severe debuffs when facing bosses makes this happen every now and then), and so forth.
It is worth taking when you have all the statics that will always work for you, and the rest is... well, worse. Using it instead of full attack is for the most part pants-on-head retarded in my experience.
Absolutely, but you aren't doing more than a single attack under full until 6th anyway, unless you are going TWF.
I find of those feats annoying the intensivity of prerequisites, or the fact that one must buy vital strike 3 times instead of having it scale.
Said this, at least in my experience, they are not traps, you just have to understand why and when apply them.
Say that whirlwind works versus kobolds only means have never seen a properly played guisarme wielder.
I find of those feats annoying the intensivity of prerequisites, or the fact that one must buy vital strike 3 times instead of having it scale.
And the fact that it forces people into wielding those ridiculously huge weapons, which make them look like they're overcompensating for something. A skilled fighter should not need a 10-foot-long sword to inflict injury. That's just stupid. This is how we've rewritten Vital Strike:
VITAL STRIKE (STRIKE)
Prerequisite: BAB +6
Benefit: When making a single attack as a standard action, or as part of a Spring Attack or charge, you deal an additional +2d6 damage. If your BAB is +11 or higher, the bonus damage increases to +4d6. At BAB +16, it increases to +6d6.
Special: If you also have the Skirmish feat, you can apply your Vital Strike damage to iterative attacks made while moving.
Special: A fighter with the Foehammer talent doubles the bonus damage from Vital Strike when making a single attack, and also ignores the target's DR.
Notice the minor scaling with BAB, and the major synergy with other feats/talents.
Absolutely, but you aren't doing more than a single attack under full until 6th anyway, unless you are going TWF.
Not true, there are plenty of new traps, in addition to all of the same traps. The entire critical line, for starters. The entire maneuver lines, all of them to follow up.I REALLY HATE the Vital Strike line. The insulting thing is that it requires level 6 to take the first step (BAB 6 pre-req). Huh? At least let me take it at level 1, and then swap it out at level 4 as a fighter.
Geez louis.
Vital strike is situational, but since we are playing Core, and thus restricted to Core Rulebook & APG for feats, I've found it more useful than most fighter-type feats for situations where I cannot full-attack, or facing off against enemies I can only hit on 16+ on the first attack (rare, but severe debuffs when facing bosses makes this happen every now and then), and so forth.
It is worth taking when you have all the statics that will always work for you, and the rest is... well, worse. Using it instead of full attack is for the most part pants-on-head retarded in my experience.
Of course, it goes without saying that the only ones who should ever consider vital strike are 2h fighters that can deal double digits with damage dice alone. If you wield a greatsword and have to move, having vital strike on average increases damage by 7 for every feat.
I find of those feats annoying the intensivity of prerequisites, or the fact that one must buy vital strike 3 times instead of having it scale.And the fact that it forces people into wielding those ridiculously huge weapons, which make them look like they're overcompensating for something. A skilled fighter should not need a 10-foot-long sword to inflict injury. That's just stupid. This is how we've rewritten Vital Strike:
VITAL STRIKE (STRIKE)
Prerequisite: BAB +6
Benefit: When making a single attack as a standard action, or as part of a Spring Attack or charge, you deal an additional +2d6 damage. If your BAB is +11 or higher, the bonus damage increases to +4d6. At BAB +16, it increases to +6d6.
Special: If you also have the Skirmish feat, you can apply your Vital Strike damage to iterative attacks made while moving.
Special: A fighter with the Foehammer talent doubles the bonus damage from Vital Strike when making a single attack, and also ignores the target's DR.Notice the minor scaling with BAB, and the major synergy with other feats/talents.
I think that the fact that the feat is better with some weapons is a feature - it's the fighter choosing "the right tool for the job", in the same way other weapons are better to trip, disarm or such.
Said this, I love your scaling and synergy, it's something I advocate from a long time (even if I'm concerned by my own idead because it COULD create a "wall of difficulty" for newbyes, and I think it should be tested the effect with monsters using those feats).
|
|
Of course, it goes without saying that the only ones who should ever consider vital strike are 2h fighters that can deal double digits with damage dice alone. If you wield a greatsword and have to move, having vital strike on average increases damage by 7 for every feat.Absolutely, but you aren't doing more than a single attack under full until 6th anyway, unless you are going TWF.
Not true, there are plenty of new traps, in addition to all of the same traps. The entire critical line, for starters. The entire maneuver lines, all of them to follow up.I REALLY HATE the Vital Strike line. The insulting thing is that it requires level 6 to take the first step (BAB 6 pre-req). Huh? At least let me take it at level 1, and then swap it out at level 4 as a fighter.
Geez louis.
Vital strike is situational, but since we are playing Core, and thus restricted to Core Rulebook & APG for feats, I've found it more useful than most fighter-type feats for situations where I cannot full-attack, or facing off against enemies I can only hit on 16+ on the first attack (rare, but severe debuffs when facing bosses makes this happen every now and then), and so forth.
It is worth taking when you have all the statics that will always work for you, and the rest is... well, worse. Using it instead of full attack is for the most part pants-on-head retarded in my experience.
Taking a feat to deal 7 points on average is terrible. Gaining 1 level gets close to 7 HP.
I rather have non-casters get more options rather than deal more damage, but I wouldn't turn down more damage either. If a fighter can one-shot things, I'd wouldn't complain as much (because I would like to do more than just one-shot this, one-shot that. One-shotting is more fun in video games).
ridiculously huge weapons, which make them look like they're overcompensating for something. A skilled fighter should not need a 10-foot-long sword to inflict injury. That's just stupid. This is how we've rewritten Vital Strike:
VITAL STRIKE (STRIKE)
Prerequisite: BAB +6
Benefit: When making a single attack as a standard action, or as part of a Spring Attack or charge, you deal an additional +2d6 damage. If your BAB is +11 or higher, the bonus damage increases to +4d6. At BAB +16, it increases to +6d6.
Special: If you also have the Skirmish feat, you can apply your Vital Strike damage to iterative attacks made while moving.
Special: A fighter with the Foehammer talent doubles the bonus damage from Vital Strike when making a single attack, and also ignores the target's DR.Notice the minor scaling with BAB, and the major synergy with other feats/talents.
I think that the fact that the feat is better with some weapons is a feature - it's the fighter choosing "the right tool for the job", in the same way other weapons are better to trip, disarm or such.
Said this, I love your scaling and synergy, it's something I advocate from a long time.
I'm concerned by my own idead because it COULD create a "wall of difficulty" for newbyes, and I think it should be tested the effect with monsters using those feats.
Maybe a good compromise could be introduce these synergies not in the form of feats, but as optional rules in a combat dedicated splat.
Special "techniques" for specific weapons and a better use of swift and immediate actions could be well justified in a splat for ADVANCED rules.
Said this, even if I don't always agree with you Kirth, I strongy praise and encourage you for this work. Go on! :)
Yeah, the low end runts are far from impressive, I know. And I am not so gung-ho about dragons that ALL dragons need to be their own legend. I am speaking of the old ones who survived natural selection.
I rarely take BBEG creatures straight from the bestiary. The dragon in question for my post-kingmaker campain both has class levels (up to +4 to stats) and the advanced template (additional +4). This means a great red has around 30-ish in all mental stats, before applying magical items (yes, he is obscenely rich, as he conquered nations and such, and since it is the end-game battle, it doesn't matter if the PCs become millionaires, as the game is over.)
This is how I like to see dragons as well. But you already know that by doing this you have increased its CR by at least 8. I did something similar with the first dragon the party meets in Age of Worms (I don't know if they are going to encounter more, I'm still reading the campaign). I gave her a few alchemist levels because the adventure actually said that she was an alchemist and her previous actions supported that. The dragon was supposed to be tougher than a run of the mill dragon from the bestiary. The party had to go back to fight her multiple times. They couldn't take her on the first two times they fought her. The third, they had recruited more help (gotta love Diplomacy).
Am I the only one who thinks NOT preparing a dragon (or true fiends for that matter) to be all he can be, with spells, items and unique powers, mooks and so forth is a huge insult to a creature that is so smart it makes Einstein seem like a short-bus candidate, so patient it makes Ghandi seem like a spoiled teenager with ADD, and enough charisma to make Hitler seem like a introvert recluse?No, you're not. Unfortunately quite a few people need to nerf the enemies as they are incapable of even playing on Normal difficulty. Which would be fine if they were a bad player and being quiet or honest about this fact, but when bad players attempt to question skilled players they will be stared down.
After all, there's games I'm bad at. And I don't go around bragging about those or giving the skilled players trouble.
You are confusing "nerf" with "buff." If you take something straight from the book without adjustment, you are not nerfing it. If you add to it, you are buffing it. If you take away, you could be nerfing (it may not be, you could be making appropriate adjustments to its CR because you need to).
Because you play with such a high point buy and allow for up to twice the WBL, you inevitably need to increase the power of the opponents. That's exactly what is supposed to happen. If you played with lower point buy and didn't allow people to break WBL, you would not need to buff the opposition. Which is exactly what's supposed to happen.
If the rocket launcher tag is such an issue due to NPC's using it, when your chance of success with an optimized SoL is 75% against an enemy with a weak save, why the heck doesn't the NPC's say "hey, frack this, I'm getting iron will and imp iron will, and I'm taking a level or monk/two levels of paladin!"?
Seriously, it seems you jack up your save DC's to maximize the chance to drop sub-optimal opponents in the first round, then they try to compensate by jacking up their offensive powers to match yours and optimize more. Both parties thus lack appropriate defensive options. Why not optimize the other way, increasing their defensive options against SoL's?
If a fighter can one-shot things, I'd wouldn't complain as much (because I would like to do more than just one-shot this, one-shot that. One-shotting is more fun in video games).
Fighter can, de facto, one shot things.
A Devastating Blow with a scythe can go over 300 damages. Heck, ANY full attack at high level means death for a lot of enemies, and if not, 2-3 CD 30 saves vs stun and daze.
Said this, yeah,I agree. If you want to improve something, better increase felxibility and interesting options over raw damage.
Raw damage is more than enough - ovrspecialization is a greater issue.