I don't care what proportion of a creature's wealth it uses for buffing its combat ability. If it's using none, I look at the resulting creature stats and the situation it's encountered in and assign CR as fits. If it's using all of it, I look at the resulting creature stats and the situation it's encountered in and assign CR as fits. This can vary depending on how appropriate it is for the creature to have valuable combat gear.
The how and why of where the creature got its stats never matters. Only the final list of stats and abilities does for determining CR in my games.
This may not be the official way of doing things, but it's my way. For the same reason, I don't use the given CR adjustments for templates. A spellcasting creature with the young template is definitely not less dangerous, for example, while the same might gain very little or even become less able with the giant template.
I'm saying that from a design pov, the stat block is an example configuration of the creature. Not every Orc has a Falchion, and if you equip yours with a Glaive instead, the CR doesn't change.
We have a GP value fixed to the creature that tells us how much treasure it has. Some of that treasure will be useful and useable by that creature.
We know that according to the rules, giving a creature PC WBL gear bumps it's CR by 1, so anything less dramatic then that is probably not worth worrying about CR over.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know that.
If I change a creature's gear, I look at how that affects it to determine CR. PC wealth might be a big pile of 'misc' that doesn't raise it, or it might be extensively optimised combat gear that raises it as much as 2 or 3.
I don't assume that it's as simple as a +1 every time.
|
Trick question: is a PC Wizard who spent his entire WBL on bags of holding the same as a PC Wizard who spent his entire WBL on metamagic rods, stat boosters and defensive items? Which of those two would you prefer to have in your party? Do you think that both bring the same power to the table?
Or actually, let's use a class that's magic item dependent. A Fighter with bags of holding and a +1 whip next to a Fighter with +3 keen greatsword, +5 full plate, ring of protection, cloak of resistance and stat booster.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trick answer: Which of those two wizards would give your party a higher APL?
Ashiel, are you trying to tell us that a CR 19 dragon fully decked in magic items is the same as a CR 19 Shoggoth who, by virtue of being an ooze, can't be decked out in any magic items?
First off, I have no idea. I don't know what a Shoggoth is. Let me go look...
Okay, assuming it's this shoggoth, yeah, I do. That thing is nasty. It's an aquatic thing with a crazy good speed, heavy resistances, a SR that has a 50% chance to evade against a 19th level caster, all manner of blind-senses, a 30 ft. reach, 4 attacks w/ grab (at a very high +39 grapple), DR 10/-, fast healing 10, immunity to cold, sonic, critical hits, poison, sleep, paralysis, polymorph, stunning, flanking, gaze, illusions, any sight-based effect, has decent saves and lots of HP.
What else do I see from it's statblock? Well the 50 ft. swim speed is pretty killer underwater, which is its natural habitat. The sucker can charge up to 100 ft. through said water while using its Trample attack. It's a huge (literally) creature, so the AoE path of that trample is bloody terrible. At a DC 36 reflex save to take half damage, you're in for a bad surprise round. Each enemy hit by their trample can be engulfed and swallowed whole. While it does this, it uses a free action as part of its (possibly surprise-round) trample to force a DC 22 Will save vs screwing up the minds of everything within 60 ft. of it. That's also before it's +11 Initiative modifier.
So when I look at this creature, this is what I see. This is a big, bad, unspeakable horror of Lovecraftian proportions. You're swimming about in an underground dungeon, lake, river, somewhere. It's dark. You're feeling pretty safe because you've got 24/7 water breathing, true seeing, and freedom of movement active, and you're wandering about under the water. It's dark and murky down here so it's kind of like being in an obscuring mist, so you're not super sure what's up ahead. When all of a sudden there is this hellish unnatural sound accompanying what appears to be some sort of jet-streaming thing slams across you and your party. Suddenly, your wizard, cleric, and rogue are all gobbled up into its amorphous body, and it beats you on the Initiative check...
Or that a CR 12 Lich (combat magic itamz all way down, that's how they roll in Ashielverse) is equal to a CR 12 Sea Serpent (treasure: none)?
Combat magic items? All the way down? What is all the way up? Are you suggesting liches wouldn't have magic items? I give my liches standard NPC wealth for their CR as expected...
Okay, well let me go look up a sea-serpent now...
Okay, yeah, definitely worthy of it's CR 12. Again, it's aquatic (god aquatic monsters are bad), has stupidly high +40 Stealth, cannot be tracked, permanent CL 20 nondetection, and the works. Also a 60 ft. swim speed and +35 grapple, and swallow hole. This one is easy, and so cruel that I probably wouldn't want to use the creature. However, he simply comes up from the depths. Pop, bite, grapple, makes his way off. Like a shark taking out a seal. Sucker can swim 30 ft. through the water with its swim speed while grappling. Even hasted, you cannot swim faster than 20 ft. with a successful swim check without a Swim speed, so you're not catching it. Once it gets out of sight, the only way to find your missing friend is if your friend can escape his innards himself (what with the horrible nondetection abilities).
Worst yet, you don't even have to actually be in the water at the time. He can capsize your boat from beneath you. Once he turns over the ship, it's feeding time.
Or finally, that Shakaroth the Unbound, a CR 12 Lich who spent all his treasure on rods of metamagic and stat boosters is equal to Zoomey the Looney Lich, who has an eccentric collection of bags of holdings and handy haversacks obsessively collected over the course of her undeath?
You can't really get a whole lot of that stuff with the 21,000 gp that the lich has. Best case spread, I see maybe a couple of lesser metamagic rods, and a minor assortment of magic items. Meanwhile, the lich with no meaningful gear has -1 CR, as per the rules in the Gamemastering section that note +1 CR for NPCs with PC gear, and -1 CR for creatures who are under geared.
I know that.
If I change a creature's gear, I look at how that affects it to determine CR. PC wealth might be a big pile of 'misc' that doesn't raise it, or it might be extensively optimised combat gear that raises it as much as 2 or 3.
I don't assume that it's as simple as a +1 every time.
Sorry I was replying to Wraithstrike, you Ninja'd me. Most of your posts in this thread are about your house-rules or off the cuff ways of dealing with these issues, right? They seem good, and common sense.
What do you think the intent was though? What do you think of the OP? Is her way of doing things a deviation from the game as it was designed? Or has she caught on to something that many of us have overlooked?
|
Of course, we could use the APs and Modules as a a guide and see what Paizo do.
Welcome to Skull's Crossing!
The Ettin has loads of cash loot, plus gems (i.e. portable cash) and magic items it cannot use (scrolls, phylactery). Does not use treasure
The ogres have no treasure on them Does not use treasure
The trolls have no treasure on them Does not use treasure
Skulltaker Dens treasure but no monsters... Wow, so PCs get the appropriate treasure without prising it from cold, dead hands of monsters. Treasure not used against PCs
Grazuul wields a +1 vicious adamantine trident Uses treasure against PCs
Skullripper has treasure in room that it might use but does not Does not use treasure
I chose this as a mid-level CR in the sweet-spot and with intelligent, mostly-humanoid monsters (and because I've recently been flicking through my new RotRl).
Conclusion:
1. Standard foes do not carry or wield treasure to use against PCs.
2. Named BEGs and BBEGs sometimes carry and wield treasure designed to make an unusual, interesting and/or unique encounter (not necessarily optimal gear for eith PCs or the NPC/monster).
Obviously this is based upon a fairly small sample but it is from an experienced and celebrated writer and was developed by James Jacobs (twice!) so should be pretty representative of Paizo's style. It is also from an AP which was widely regarded as more difficult/challenging than the current APs.
It's passive-agressive stuff. All of the cheerleading means that, instead of reading and considering Ashiel's opinions, people are looking to be the flipside of Grimmy's cheerleader. It's a natural response, seeking that balance.
It doesn't help either that anyone who disagrees with Ashiel gets cheerleader-jabbed so that rather than having
thesis+antithesis=synthesis
we have
thesis+antithesis=thesis+antithesis,
without any resolution and little development of ideas or arguments.
It's cool that you two get on so well and have such similar gaming styles and experiences. And I love that this is a friendly website.
But sometimes .My initial response to Ashiel's post was 'Hmm, I wander how that plays out, I'll ponder that and think about it again.'
Grimmy's first post almost turned that into: 'It's not the most amazingly unique idea ever, is it?'
I'm not a perfect saint, none of us are... I know this is a bit rambling but I hope it makes some kind of sense and doesn't come across as antagonistic, I don't want it to...
Below a quote from Monster Advancement :
"A monster with class levels always possesses treasure equal to an NPC of a level equal to the monster's final CR (as calculated in Step 3, below). To determine the value of this gear, use the value listed for a heroic NPC of that level, as listed in Table: NPC Gear. Once a total GP value is determined, follow the rules for outfitting an NPC as outlined in that section. Gear should help a monster with class levels remain challenging and retain statistics close to those presented on Table 1-1: Monster Statistics by CR."
I have been wondering about one thing :
In the case of a medusa, a CR 7 creature that gets double treasure, upgraded to CR 11 for class levels, she gets gear/treasure value equal to that of an 11th level NPC. Should she not get additional treasure equal to a CR 7 creature, since that is what additional treasure she usually gets ?
I do assume treasure to be part of a creature's CR, and the way it uses that gear part of her intelligence among other things, though I don't believe a GM should strive for a level of optimization that goes beyond your players.
|
|
1. Did you try comparing the Shoggoth to a CR 19 Dragon and the Serpent to a CR 12 one? Of course I mean no-magic item dragons, not Ashielverse Dragons. Of course I believe that both Shoggy and Serpy are worthy of their CR, now I'm curious if you believe that both dragons are not within their CR *without* a full array of magic items.
I won't even mention the fact that an Ashielverse PC party (read: optimized) would laugh at Shoggoth, because they all can just fly up and nuke it from orbit.
2. Zoomey the Looney lich isn't undergeared. The rules say clearly: A classed NPC encountered with no gear should have his CR reduced by 1 (provided that loss of gear actually hampers the NPC). The rules don't operate with the word "undergeared", because how does one gauge that? The only thing that's out of discussion is a zero situation. She isn't gearless, it's just her gear isn't optimized. By RAW she is the same CR as Shakaroth.
I know that.
If I change a creature's gear, I look at how that affects it to determine CR. PC wealth might be a big pile of 'misc' that doesn't raise it, or it might be extensively optimised combat gear that raises it as much as 2 or 3.
I don't assume that it's as simple as a +1 every time.
Sorry I was replying to Wraithstrike, you Ninja'd me. Most of your posts in this thread are about your house-rules or off the cuff ways of dealing with these issues, right? They seem good, and common sense.
What do you think the intent was though? What do you think of the OP? Is her way of doing things a deviation from the game as it was designed? Or has she caught on to something that many of us have overlooked?
CR rules are not strict rules. None of them are. They're guidelines at best, solely in the hands of the GM.
A GM should never try to game CR to screw the players.
Ashiel has posted orcs (in another thread) that could instantly kill first level characters with ease and called them CR 1/3, because they were built solely with monster resources that added up to CR 1/3 by the book.
@gerraint elberion: it doesn't come across as antagonistic at all, I appreciate the candor, but if you read the post history, I'm not a blind Ashiel cheerleader, when we do disagree I say so. Last time I can think of was over the charm person interpretation, where we got locked into debate and had to start a new thread to move the argument to, which in turn got locked. Not that that's a glowing example of me contributing to a harmonious message board either, but there it is. We still don't agree, but we're still cool
Also, thesis+antithesis=synthesis is exactly what I value and hope to see, and I hope that will become more apparent as time goes by.
Ashiel you know we assume the standard on the boards. We went over this last time. That is how I got the 30000ish for the ghaele. The game assumed the medium XP track. I did not ignore anything.
The game specifically notes 3 distinct XP progressions, and notes the changes that you make in all cases. In no case do you ever change CR. Likewise, the Bestiary makes this same notation. This is not a matter of house rules or GM fiat. It is a fact and will continue to be a fact. It is as much part of the rules as there being Ghaeles at all.
Do it. I am sure taking +4 away reduces her chances to hit. The point with the Ghaele per this discussion was based on the numbers. You showing how she can teleport will not discount that fact that she needs that sword to match up numberwise. In short you proved nothing, except that she has other abilities that she can use beyond the sword.
I did before, but if you must have the reiteration, fine.
The standard ghaele has a +2 to hit due to her 30,000 gp weapon. Her attack routine is +22/+17/+12 dealing an average of 19 damage per hit. Using her own abilities which she has an easy time using, her attack routine becomes +26/+26/+21/+16, and deals an average of 23 damage per hit. By default, counting her equipment, the Ghaele is actually exceeding by a surprisingly large magnitude the Monster Creation chart that you cling so tightly to. In fact, her numbers are actually closer to a CR 16 or 17.
Now we take away her shiny +4 equivalent weapon. We give her a stick. Not even a sword. Let's give her a CLUB, just to put this to rest. She buffs just as she does, using her entirely innate own abilities (no magic items at all). Her attack routine becomes +24/+24/+19/+14, and her damage is 17.5 with each attack. Her attack routine is now equivalent to a CR 15 creature. If we had just let her have a sword (and not a club) then her routine would have been about CR 15-16 again, based solely on her attack routine alone.
But she's still a CR 13. High end difficulty for 13, but no higher than maybe 14 if you wanted to ad-hoc it a bit. Point being, her overall difficulty is marginally affected between swapping her +4 sword for a +0 sword. Given her broad range of capabilities anyway, it's entirely possible that you would never even notice the difference.
So if you basically took the Ghaele's sword away and gave her 0 gp worth of treasure/equipment, she would still be about CR 13. Likewise, upping her sword from +4 to +5 would have a minimal impact on how powerful she was. It would only mean you get more loot at the end.
Trick answer: Which of those two wizards would give your party a higher APL?None, because both are within WBL of appropriate level. One of them spent 100k on optimized gear, the other on 100k of funny out-of-combat and utility gear. Next question?
Right, exactly. I was trying to use rhetoric, not sure if I did it right. What I was driving at was, doesn't this go for creatures and CR as well? I don't know for sure, officially, but I think within reason it could.
So a monster with 1000 GP of jewelry I guess would have the same CR as a monster with a +1 shield. I would only make an adjustment if it got pretty extreme.
Of course, we could use the APs and Modules as a a guide and see what Paizo do.
Welcome to Skull's Crossing!
** spoiler omitted **I chose this as a mid-level CR in the sweet-spot and with intelligent, mostly-humanoid monsters (and because I've recently been flicking through my new RotRl).
Conclusion:
1. Standard foes do not carry or wield treasure to use against PCs.
2. Named BEGs and BBEGs sometimes carry and wield treasure designed to make an unusual, interesting and/or unique encounter (not necessarily optimal gear for eith PCs or the NPC/monster).Obviously this is based upon a fairly small sample but it is from an experienced and celebrated writer and was developed by James Jacobs (twice!) so should be pretty representative of Paizo's style. It is also from an AP which was widely regarded as more difficult/challenging than the current APs.
** spoiler omitted **...
1. Interesting. Does this mean they always had the exact weapons and gear listed for a creature of their type in the bestiary?
2. How did this gear seem to effect the CR? Was it NPC treasure values, or PC WBL equivalents?Good idea checking this out, it's a good frame of reference.
1. Did you try comparing the Shoggoth to a CR 19 Dragon and the Serpent to a CR 12 one? Of course I mean no-magic item dragons, not Ashielverse Dragons. Of course I believe that both Shoggy and Serpy are worthy of their CR, now I'm curious if you believe that both dragons are not within their CR *without* a full array of magic items.
I'm not sure what you mean here.
I won't even mention the fact that an Ashielverse PC party (read: optimized) would laugh at Shoggoth, because they all can just fly up and nuke it from orbit.
Um, where do you get this stuff? The vast majority of my group's optimization tends to extend very little past the purchase of their ability scores. My brother's favorite character was a kobold sorcerer who tended to melee via polymorphing into a dragon. Not exactly the greatest example of Scry & Die there ever was.
You keep making assertions about my games (a bit rudely I might add), but you're wildly off base. I'm not so sure that nuking them from above the surface of the water is all that helpful anyway. Last I checked, the water surface blocks LoE (though that might just be fore fire spells, I'd have to double check). Anyway, I don't see how it would help the situation when you got ambushed from underwater and 3/4ths of your party swallowed whole during the surprise round...
2. Zoomey the Looney lich isn't undergeared. The rules say clearly: A classed NPC encountered with no gear should have his CR reduced by 1 (provided that loss of gear actually hampers the NPC). The rules don't operate with the word "undergeared", because how does one gauge that? The only thing that's out of discussion is a zero situation. She isn't gearless, it's just her gear isn't optimized. By RAW she is the same CR as Shakaroth.
At this point, I'd have to say to use some good sense. It notes that the CR is modified if the lack of equipment has a meaningful impact on their difficulty. What you are describing is akin to raising the CR of an NPC because he owns a Castle (I believe the cost of a castle in 3.x was 1 million gp), even though the castle has nothing to do with his combat effectiveness. If the lich has spent his entire wealth on pretty tapestries that do nothing, or a collection of handbags that are only good for holding stuff, then the lich effectively has no gear for combat purposes.
It seems an asinine argument to make. What's your goal here?
|
|
Trick answer: Which of those two wizards would give your party a higher APL?None, because both are within WBL of appropriate level. One of them spent 100k on optimized gear, the other on 100k of funny out-of-combat and utility gear. Next question?Right, exactly. I was trying to use rhetoric, not sure if I did it right. What I was driving at was, doesn't this go for creatures and CR as well? I don't know for sure, officially, but I think within reason it could.
So a monster with 1000 GP of jewelry I guess would have the same CR as a monster with a +1 shield. I would only make an adjustment if it got pretty extreme.
Actually, with non-PCs there is a difference with player class NPCs with NPC gear being at listed CR and player class NPCs with PC gear being +1.
So the rules do speak about a CR difference based on value of gear a creature uses.
Now our problem is, that Ashiel says that monsters should be decked out in full combat gear and it doesn't change their CR. Umbral Reaver says that CR should go up *if* that gear affects combat efficiency of a monster. I (and apparently Paizo designers as noted above) don't see that Treasure = combat gear, and while there's not doubt that sometimes a part of treasure ends up as a combat gear, there's no obligation to do so.
One useful thing might be to have a look at the strict mechanical effects of CR.
1. Experience for overcoming the encounter.
2. Spell resistance.
Anything else? Wealth isn't directly linked, since it can be anywhere from none to triple or even more if needed, with the chart merely as a guideline.
Aside from the spell resistance (which with tweaks could be based on hit dice or something), all CR does is tell you how much XP you get.
It doesn't say whether the GM is allowed to throw it at the party or not. A GM can send endless waves of APL + 20 encounters at the party if desired. There's no rule to say that's wrong. It might be a naff game, but it's not against RAW.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I was interested in the people at Paizo's opinion on this, so I asked James Jacobs, in the thread of that name.
Here's what he said:
So, I'm curious about the game's baseline assumptions.
When I run a game, the monsters have a tendency to use their useful treasure against the PCs (for reasons of logic), many people say that this should raise their CR...and I can see where they're coming from, though I obviously don't entirely agree with them.
So, my question is what's the basic intent there?
Should a Succubus with a Headband of Charisma +2 and a Mithral Chain Shirt (roughly her treasure allotment) be higher CR than one sans useful treasure?
What about a Marilith with the majority of her theoretical 64k in combat gear? A total that allows for +10 or +11 AC easily with less than half of it, just for example.
I'm not talking about more than the standard amount of treasure or anything, just what's listed, actually used in combat.
I get that as a GM, I can do what I like, and as a player, what the GM says goes...but I'm interested in the intent of the people writing the game and the adventures.
Give two GMs identical monsters, identical resources to pick feats and skills, identical point buys for stats,a nd identical gp values to outfit the monsters, and I'll show you two completely different monsters with different effective power levels that could change again depending on the exact mix and skill level of the player characters they face. Yet despite ALL of this, they'll still have the same CR.
AKA: if a monster spends its money to gear up, then no, that does not change the monster's CR. But if you happen to be the type of GM who is REALLY GOOD at buffing a monster by bending rules... it's probably not a bad idea to take your finalized monster, compare its numbers to Table 1–1 in the Bestiary, and then re-assign its CR if you cheesed it up into a higher category.
I mean... most monsters you can just spend a tiny fraction of their gold to put them into a suit of full plate and increase their AC WAY too high for their CR.
That's not playing the game, though. That's gaming the game. My reccomendation is to resist that. If you want to pile cool gear onto your monsters... you should give them a few class levels and make them into unique and memorable NPCs, not just mooks with toys.
I basically agree with that, so it's what I'm going with.
|
|
1. Did you try comparing the Shoggoth to a CR 19 Dragon and the Serpent to a CR 12 one? Of course I mean no-magic item dragons, not Ashielverse Dragons. Of course I believe that both Shoggy and Serpy are worthy of their CR, now I'm curious if you believe that both dragons are not within their CR *without* a full array of magic items.I'm not sure what you mean here.
I won't even mention the fact that an Ashielverse PC party (read: optimized) would laugh at Shoggoth, because they all can just fly up and nuke it from orbit.Um, where do you get this stuff? The vast majority of my group's optimization tends to extend very little past the purchase of their ability scores. My brother's favorite character was a kobold sorcerer who tended to melee via polymorphing into a dragon. Not exactly the greatest example of Scry & Die there ever was.
You keep making assertions about my games (a bit rudely I might add), but you're wildly off base. I'm not so sure that nuking them from above the surface of the water is all that helpful anyway. Last I checked, the water surface blocks LoE (though that might just be fore fire spells, I'd have to double check). Anyway, I don't see how it would help the situation when you got ambushed from underwater and 3/4ths of your party swallowed whole during the surprise round...
2. Zoomey the Looney lich isn't undergeared. The rules say clearly: A classed NPC encountered with no gear should have his CR reduced by 1 (provided that loss of gear actually hampers the NPC). The rules don't operate with the word "undergeared", because how does one gauge that? The only thing that's out of discussion is a zero situation. She isn't gearless, it's just her gear isn't optimized. By RAW she is the same CR as Shakaroth.At this point, I'd have to say to use some good sense. It notes that the CR is modified if the lack of equipment has a meaningful impact on their difficulty. What you are describing is akin to raising the CR of an...
Gee, I get to play Ciretose. Great.
1. I asked how you consider a relation between a CR 19 Dragon in full magic loudout and a CR 12 Shoggoth without any magic items (because they can't use them). You answer me that a Shoggoth is worthy of CR 19. That's cool, something we both agree on. Now, you didn't touch the Dragon at all. Is a bare-bones CR 19 Dragon equal threat to a Shoggoth or does he require, as your paradigm dictates, to be fully geared up in order to pose a CR 19 thread, due to the Treasure=Stablock clause?
2. Saying that an aquatic monster is powerful because the standard scenario is an underwater ambush smells of fresh straw. Especially when your repeated point about weakness of many classes is that they can't handle a flying opponent due to not being able to fly out of the box.
Now, as to rhetoric. It's you, who in your opening post, kicked off by condescending on people who have a different opinion on rules from you. You can't be thick-skinned when speaking of others and a delicate little flower when others discuss your views.
3. The game does not differentiate between the quality of items on a creature as long as their total worth is within given WBL. APL rules are silent on whether you should adjust the party APL for quality of party gear. But the rules are also silent on the other thing - if the APL assumes that the party is optimized?
Now if you take that to monsters, nowhere do the rules explicitly say that CR assumes a fully optimized loud-out of items.
Well, I was interested in the people at Paizo's opinion on this, so I asked James Jacobs, in the thread of that name.
Here's what he said:
...So, I'm curious about the game's baseline assumptions.
When I run a game, the monsters have a tendency to use their useful treasure against the PCs (for reasons of logic), many people say that this should raise their CR...and I can see where they're coming from, though I obviously don't entirely agree with them.
So, my question is what's the basic intent there?
Should a Succubus with a Headband of Charisma +2 and a Mithral Chain Shirt (roughly her treasure allotment) be higher CR than one sans useful treasure?
What about a Marilith with the majority of her theoretical 64k in combat gear? A total that allows for +10 or +11 AC easily with less than half of it, just for example.
I'm not talking about more than the standard amount of treasure or anything, just what's listed, actually used in combat.
I get that as a GM, I can do what I like, and as a player, what the GM says goes...but I'm interested in the intent of the people writing the game and the adventures.
Give two GMs identical monsters, identical resources to pick feats and skills, identical point buys for stats,a nd identical gp values to outfit the monsters, and I'll show you two completely different monsters with different effective power levels that could change again depending on the exact mix and skill level of the player characters they face. Yet despite ALL of this, they'll still have the same CR.
AKA: if a monster spends its money to gear up, then no, that does not change the monster's CR. But if you happen to be the type of GM who is REALLY GOOD at buffing a monster by bending rules... it's probably not a bad idea to take your finalized monster, compare its numbers to Table 1–1 in the Bestiary, and then re-assign its CR if
JJ is the friggin man. Great idea asking him.
One useful thing might be to have a look at the strict mechanical effects of CR.
1. Experience for overcoming the encounter.
2. Spell resistance.
Anything else? Wealth isn't directly linked, since it can be anywhere from none to triple or even more if needed, with the chart merely as a guideline.
Aside from the spell resistance (which with tweaks could be based on hit dice or something), all CR does is tell you how much XP you get.
It doesn't say whether the GM is allowed to throw it at the party or not. A GM can send endless waves of APL + 20 encounters at the party if desired. There's no rule to say that's wrong. It might be a naff game, but it's not against RAW.
I'd only base SR on the base gear of the creature though, if that succubus oracle that has accidently been set free from that mirror of opposition engages the party it will be CR -1, then she ends up teleporting away to a stash of gear she has hidden ages ago. Later she surprises her party fully geared as a PC wealth BBEG, her CR +1.. her SR shouldn't suddenly go up by 2 compared to the first encounter.
I can agree with JJ on that as well. No CR change. If you're being crazy with it, CR change as necessary. I just think it takes a pretty significant improvement to get a full CR increase (the Gamemastering rules basically give an example of fighting enemies with blindsight in an area that suppresses all light as being worth +1 CR, and that's a pretty big advantage).
I'm not sure what he means by cool gear though. Some mooks need cool gear. Orcs need their swords and their armor. Otherwise they...are my CR 1/4 naked killing machines...
I would say the GM rules about that blindsight encounter are hilariously off. Fighting blindsight creatures in an area with suppressed light means if you don't have alternative senses or other options, it's along similar lines as encountering a Shadow with no magic weapons. It's a 'non-challenge' on the side of being nigh unbeatable. I use challenge here to mean something that can be overcome.
|
|
I can agree with JJ on that as well. No CR change. If you're being crazy with it, CR change as necessary. I just think it takes a pretty significant improvement to get a full CR increase (the Gamemastering rules basically give an example of fighting enemies with blindsight in an area that suppresses all light as being worth +1 CR, and that's a pretty big advantage).
So's a +4 to all stats per the Advanced Simple Template. If you're giving +2 to hit, +2 AC, +2 dam, etc. in every area that matters to the creature, I'd say you're giving it enough for a CR up.
Less than that? You're probably not.
I'm not sure what he means by cool gear though. Some mooks need cool gear. Orcs need their swords and their armor. Otherwise they...are my CR 1/4 naked killing machines...
I think he was talking more along the lines of the +11 AC you can give a Marlith for 34k (Mithral Chain Shirt +5, AoNA +2). That's...a focused enough bonus that it's gonna legitmately screw up PCs ability to attack against the Marlith's AC (at least comparatively), and makes it's CR effectively higher, especially combined with a +2 Cloak, a Belt of Str +4, and a Headband of Cha +2, or a similar set of enhancing items.
So let's discuss this topic, hm? (^-^)
Is there really a need to discuss the thing? I thought it was the most basic of common sense that intelligent creatures don't carry around wagons of unused gold just to drop it for whomever slays them.
Trick answer: Which of those two wizards would give your party a higher APL?None, because both are within WBL of appropriate level. One of them spent 100k on optimized gear, the other on 100k of funny out-of-combat and utility gear. Next question?Right, exactly. I was trying to use rhetoric, not sure if I did it right. What I was driving at was, doesn't this go for creatures and CR as well? I don't know for sure, officially, but I think within reason it could.
So a monster with 1000 GP of jewelry I guess would have the same CR as a monster with a +1 shield. I would only make an adjustment if it got pretty extreme.
Actually, with non-PCs there is a difference with player class NPCs with NPC gear being at listed CR and player class NPCs with PC gear being +1.
So the rules do speak about a CR difference based on value of gear a creature uses.
Now our problem is, that Ashiel says that monsters should be decked out in full combat gear and it doesn't change their CR. Umbral Reaver says that CR should go up *if* that gear affects combat efficiency of a monster. I (and apparently Paizo designers as noted above) don't see that Treasure = combat gear, and while there's not doubt that sometimes a part of treasure ends up as a combat gear, there's no obligation to do so.
Right. IMO "PC gear equals CR +1" gives us a great benchmark as to how much gear you would have to equip a creature with to effect it's CR. Thats something I've been trying to say for sure, throughout this thread.
I suppose there are some clever things you could do with a much smaller budget that would make a CR worth of difference (or even just consumables that you intend the creature to just nuke with abandon) so that would be a good place to make a judgement call I guess, if you felt you had to deck them out that way for some reason.
I also don't see that treasure=combat gear. I agree with you there. I don't think anyone has suggested that as far as I've seen. I would just say that in a reasonable assortment of valuables, there's going to be some things of practical use mixed in there, and the creature will probably use it. In most cases I don't see that effecting CR.
Rather, the CR changes when you start giving a creature gear equivalent to PC WBL which is quite a big jump, certainly beyond the GP level of a creatures treasure value.
Maybe I am approaching this topic from the wrong direction, but...
Why oh why are so many people on this forum so, soryy to put it bluntly, anal about the holy grail called CR?
CR is, for all I can say, supposed to be a guideline, not a legal tool, and most certainly not a straitjacket.
Do you need to justify the opponents you throw at your players?
Is an Ashielized encounter consisting of nine under-equipped (and thus only CR 1/3) 15pt point buy Orc Barbarians (Str 22 Dex 14 Con 14 Int 5 Wis 5 Cha 5, plus rage) with loinclothes and greatclubs a valid CR 4 encounter, and thus perfectly legal fair play for a Level 1 group?
Is a surprise ancounter with a *ahem* young (CR-1) advanced (CR+1) Shadow Demon (CR 7) antipaladin 2 (CR+1, since Pallys are non-key, hurr hurr) in a labyrinth of underwater caves the PCs have to squeeze through a viable CR8, and, as such, only midly challenging for an average Level 6 group?
Will, on the other hand, an over-optimized group of experienced players sue you if you dare to put them against an effectively weak but technically CR+4 encounter?
If I think an opponent can make good use of ist wealth, it will do so. If this puts the encounter beyond the bounds I deem appropriate for the CR, I re-consider whether this will be challenging to my players, and modify the XP I give out.
Same goes for encounters in environments that strongly play to the strength (or weakness) of either party. Actually, I could have sworn there was a section in the rules that stated exactly that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gee, I get to play Ciretose. Great.
You're not arguing in circles yet, stalking me on the internet, or trying to twist my words and lie about me, so I don't mind talking with you.
1. I asked how you consider a relation between a CR 19 Dragon in full magic loudout and a CR 12 Shoggoth without any magic items (because they can't use them). You answer me that a Shoggoth is worthy of CR 19. That's cool, something we both agree on. Now, you didn't touch the Dragon at all. Is a bare-bones CR 19 Dragon equal thread to a Shoggoth or does he require, as your paradigm dictates, to be fully geared up in order to pose a CR 19 thread, due to the Treasure=Stablock clause?
Okay, now I get it. NO I do not think a naked dragon is worth its CR. A CR 19 Ancient Red Dragon isn't squat compared to a shoggoth in terms of party killing potential. At best it's a brute with 15 level sorcerer casting. Strait out of the book minus their triple treasure value, I don't see a them being more than CR 18. It's a dragon. It has that going for it. I imagine it would use its best tricks to the best of its abilities, but frankly the sucker would be dismantled without much effort by a 19th level party. His breath weapon is not very fearsome, his dispels are weaksauce, his attack routine is good but requires him to be ground-zero and not moving and that makes him a target (and your garden variety 19th level martial could tank him quite a few rounds anyway), and the save DCs for his spells are rather low (even a with a +5 base, +5 resistance, and +0 ability, you'll have about a 55% chance of saving against them).
Without his treasure value, he cannot cast limited wish which is one of his spells known, which means no spontaneous awesomeness, nor throwing a -7 to a saving throw (though it wouldn't matter much since he lacks any spells to really capitalize on it). I'm sure he'll try a few tricks, like the ol' greater invisibility dragon, and stoneskin might slow down a martial for a bit (but stoneskin crushes his DPR, so we'll call that one a wash), and his CL is low enough that most of his good buffs can get stripped with a single greater dispel magic (1d20+20 vs DC 26 = 70% chance to break the dragon's spells).
No, I don't think that he's as scary as the shoggoth if you don't allow him to use any of his treasure at all.
2. Saying that an aquatic monster is powerful because the standard scenario is an underwater ambush smells of fresh straw. Especially when your repeated point about weakness of many classes is that they can't handle a flying opponent due to not being able to fly out of the box.
You are expected to encounter enemies in their favored location. If you don't, it's -1 CR for the enemy. It would be like me complaining that sharks aren't worth much XP if you fight them on land. I'm looking at the creature as-is, in the setting you are expected to encounter them in. If a creature is out of its element (such as a tiger in the desert) then they get -1 CR.
Also, I'm going to ask for some citations on that flying thing. I'm pretty sure I've mention carrying ranged weapons for dealing with flying enemies. You must have me confused with someone else.
Now, as to rhetoric. It's you, who in your opening post, kicked off by condescending on people who have a different opinion on rules from you. You can't be thick-skinned when speaking of others and a delicate little flower when others criticize you.
Um, say what? Okay, I take it back. You do seem to lie about my posts. Exactly how is noting my problems with an argument that an unnamed person has made equate to speaking condescendingly to them?
3. The game does not differentiate between the quality of items on a creature as long as their total worth is within given WBL. APL rules are silent on whether you should adjust the party APL for quality of party gear (the fact that people do that out of common sense is a whole different story).
So we can agree that CR doesn't change by the rules. So now let's discuss the narrative. Can you pose an argument as to why a hobgoblin wouldn't use the +1 sword in their treasure horde?
Of course, MA. But the topic is not "what is CR?" but "what do I get when I pull a dragon out of Bestiary? A naked dragon, a dragon with some magic items on him and the rest in his hoard, or a turbodragon decked out with stuff like he's aiming to win DPR Olympics?"
My answer: Whatever I deem appropriate for my group.
So let's discuss this topic, hm? (^-^)Is there really a need to discuss the thing? I thought it was the most basic of common sense that intelligent creatures don't carry around wagons of unused gold just to drop it for whomever slays them.
I think the folks on the other side of the discussion, in this thread at least, always agreed that it was more common sense to have creatures use their gear, they were just concerned about game balance issues. I think they just felt this was an area where you had to sacrifice some common sense and realism in order for the numbers to pan out. That's the impression I got anyway.
|
|
Of course, we could use the APs and Modules as a a guide and see what Paizo do.
Welcome to Skull's Crossing!
** spoiler omitted **I chose this as a mid-level CR in the sweet-spot and with intelligent, mostly-humanoid monsters (and because I've recently been flicking through my new RotRl).
Conclusion:
1. Standard foes do not carry or wield treasure to use against PCs.
2. Named BEGs and BBEGs sometimes carry and wield treasure designed to make an unusual, interesting and/or unique encounter (not necessarily optimal gear for eith PCs or the NPC/monster).Obviously this is based upon a fairly small sample but it is from an experienced and celebrated writer and was developed by James Jacobs (twice!) so should be pretty representative of Paizo's style. It is also from an AP which was widely regarded as more difficult/challenging than the current APs.
** spoiler omitted **...
1. Interesting. Does this mean they always had the exact weapons and gear listed for a creature of their type in the bestiary?
2. How did this gear seem to effect the CR? Was it NPC treasure values, or PC WBL equivalents?Good idea checking this out, it's a good frame of reference.
Those without treasure had normal CR.
Grazuul was a unique creature (scrag with levels) and so I'm not sure if the weapon affected CR, I don't think it would have as it is only one item and not really optimised.
What was interesting is that the treasure existed but it was not tied to the creatures (it was not treasure that belonged to them, or even that they were aware of but eventually the PCs gt it).
For the skullripper you got an Ioun Stone that was part of some furniture decoration (keeping it vague for soilers).
Some treasure belonged to a group that had recently left the area because they were dying out: it's completely logical for it to be there but none of your foes know about it.
This all chimes really strongly with what JJ said (good work Deadmanwalking on that question). The 'standard' foes carry no gear beyond what's in the bestiary, the stand-out BEG with levels has some cool gear.
Oh, and thanks for taking my comments in the manner they were intended. :D
|
|
Now, as to rhetoric. It's you, who in your opening post, kicked off by condescending on people who have a different opinion on rules from you. You can't be thick-skinned when speaking of others and a delicate little flower when others criticize you.Um, say what? Okay, I take it back. You do seem to lie about my posts. Exactly how is noting my problems with an argument that an unnamed person has made equate to speaking condescendingly to them?
I think you might want to be more circumspect about your use of the word 'stupid' if you don't think you were being condescending...
Is there a point...?
I don't have a point exactly. More like I'm ranting about something that I see as simply stupid...
I can agree with JJ on that as well. No CR change. If you're being crazy with it, CR change as necessary. I just think it takes a pretty significant improvement to get a full CR increase (the Gamemastering rules basically give an example of fighting enemies with blindsight in an area that suppresses all light as being worth +1 CR, and that's a pretty big advantage).So's a +4 to all stats per the Advanced Simple Template. If you're giving +2 to hit, +2 AC, +2 dam, etc. in every area that matters to the creature, I'd say you're giving it enough for a CR up.
I'm not so sure. The advanced simple template is not that great in my experiences. It certainly doesn't work for everything. In fact, I'd go so far as to say there are more NPCs that it doesn't work for than it does. On some creatures, it can throw their numbers into the stratosphere (for example, toss the advanced template on a big zombie and you'll add a ton more HP, since it gets +2 HP / HD), while others it influences their abilities so marginally that you wouldn't notice (for example, suggesting that the advanced template moves a pit fiend from a CR 20 to CR 21 encounter is laughable). I think the advanced template is as misleadingly bad as the skeletal champion template (which is the template that I think stringburka [sorry if I'm wrong!] used to break the CR system into pieces with the CR 5 skeletal uberfiend).
I'm not sure what he means by cool gear though. Some mooks need cool gear. Orcs need their swords and their armor. Otherwise they...are my CR 1/4 naked killing machines...I think he was talking more along the lines of the +11 AC you can give a Marlith for 34k (Mithral Chain Shirt +5, AoNA +2). That's...a focused enough bonus that it's gonna legitmately screw up PCs ability to attack against the Marlith's AC (at least comparatively), and makes it's CR effectively higher, especially combined with a +2 Cloak, a Belt of Str +4, and a Headband of Cha +2, or a similar set of enhancing items.
Fair enough. However, I want to look at something concerning that.
+5 large non-humanoid mithral chain shirt (29,100 gp)+2 amulet of natural armor (8,000 gp)
+2 ring of protection (8,000 gp)
+3 cloak of resistance (9,000 gp)
6 longswords plus about 4,000 gp left.
Looking at her gear...I still don't see a CR increase. She's just more defensive. Her AC is nothing impressive at CR 17 (seriously, it's 32 counting her deflection bonuses and high dexterity, which is hit-able 55% of the time with only a +17 BAB and a +5 weapon). Even if she was wearing all this gear, she would tap out at AC 45. Difficult to hit at this level, but not impossible. BAB +17, +7 Strength, +5 weapon hits on a 16 (25% chance to land the hit). That's before buffs like haste, weapon training/specialization, favored enemy, smite, etc.
Plus, she'd have invested almost all of her wealth into merely being able to melee with the party martial without it being an act of self-inflicted suicide. She still looks highly vulnerable to crowd control to me, and she's still vulnerable to debuffing herself.
Just making an observation.
|
|
Ashiel:
OK, let's do some math. Yeah, I know, that's the hard part. Let's take the suggested monster creation table entry for CR 19 and compare both monsters vis a vis.
HP: 330/ Dragon 362/ Shoggoth 333. Dragon wins and is above the guideline.
AC: 34/ Dragon 38/ Shoggoth 33. Dragon wins, not mentioning shield
High attack: 29/ Dragon +35/Shoggoth +30. Dragon wins.
Avg damage: 110/ Dragon 139/Shoggoth 104. Dragon wins.
Abilty DC: 26/ Dragon breath 30, spells 21/Shoggy 22. Hard to compare, tbh.
Good Save: 21/Dragon 22,21 on two saves/Shoggy 19 on best save. Dragon wins.
SR: Dragon 30/Shoggy 30. Draw.
Gee, does that mean that Shoggy is under-CR'd? Of course not! Shoggy has fast healing, better DR, ooze traits and is really really nasty in aquatic terrain (providing the party isn't freedom of movement-ready, which I believe is the case with many high level groups), easily netting him CR 19. The Dragon, on the other hand, has a rack of sweet spells (greater dispel? teleport? displacement? spell turning? Hey, that's pure GodWizard material there!).
Now give the Dragon a pair of sweet stat boosters, AoMF, two solid rings, +5 saves cloak and suddenly poor old Shoggy looks slightly left in dust. Don't you agree?
BAB +17, +7 Strength, +5 weapon hits on a 16 (40% chance to land the hit).
Huh? In my math, a 16+ to hit equals a 25% chance...
Now, as to rhetoric. It's you, who in your opening post, kicked off by condescending on people who have a different opinion on rules from you. You can't be thick-skinned when speaking of others and a delicate little flower when others criticize you.Um, say what? Okay, I take it back. You do seem to lie about my posts. Exactly how is noting my problems with an argument that an unnamed person has made equate to speaking condescendingly to them?I think you might want to be more circumspect about your use of the word 'stupid' if you don't think you were being condescending...
Is there a point...?
I don't have a point exactly. More like I'm ranting about something that I see as simply stupid...
The idea that sentient creatures just burst into coins, or carry huge amounts of absolutely useless treasure? I'll continue to say that is stupid. That is one of the stupidest things that I've ever heard. If you told me to set my hair on fire, I'd tell you that was a stupid idea. If you told me that we found a +2 sword in the dungeon where we had just dispatched some 50 hobgoblins and not a single one was wielding the sword, I'd say that was stupid too.
Calling an argument stupid is not being condescending to the person making the argument. It's calling the argument stupid. There is no harm in calling the absurd the absurd, nor would I find it unfair to say "I think that's a stupid idea" when someone suggests you stick your hand in a running blender.
BAB +17, +7 Strength, +5 weapon hits on a 16 (40% chance to land the hit).Huh? In my math, a 16+ to hit equals a 25% chance...
Oops, thanks Midnight Angel. It's 7am and I've not been to bed. I think it's getting to me. Anyway, I fixed it. Thanks for pointing it out.
|
|
I imagine it would use its best tricks to the best of its abilities, but frankly the sucker would be dismantled without much effort by a 19th level party.
That's perfectly fine - remember, a CR = APL means a regular encounter that will likely force the party to expend a bit of resources but won't put anybody at major risk unless major mistakes or misfortune strikes.
An APL 16-17 party is what would have the Dragon as an epic foe.
Actually I am surprised that with your knowledge of system mastery you're even construing an argument that's based around "an equal APL party will handle him easily".
Ashiel:
OK, let's do some math. Yeah, I know, that's the hard part. Let's take the suggested monster creation table entry for CR 19 and compare both monsters vis a vis.
HP: 330/ Dragon 362/ Shoggoth 333. Dragon wins and is above the guideline.
AC: 34/ Dragon 38/ Shoggoth 33. Dragon wins, not mentioning shield
High attack: 29/ Dragon +35/Shoggoth +30. Dragon wins.
Avg damage: 110/ Dragon 139/Shoggoth 104. Dragon wins.
Abilty DC: 26/ Dragon breath 30, spells 21/Shoggy 22. Hard to compare, tbh.
Good Save: 21/Dragon 22,21 on two saves/Shoggy 19 on best save. Dragon wins.
SR: Dragon 30/Shoggy 30. Draw.Gee, does that mean that Shoggy is under-CR'd? Of course not! Shoggy has fast healing, better DR, ooze traits and is really really nasty in aquatic terrain, easily netting him CR 19. The Dragon, on the other hand, has a rack of sweet spells (greater dispel? teleport? displacement? spell turning? Hey, that's pure GodWizard material there!).
The dragon's statistics are comparable to the Shoggoth's, but the shoggoth's offense is scarier than the dragon's (the Shoggoth has the ability to plow through enemies and possibly TPK them on the surprise round easily). Meanwhile, the dragon has potential due to spells, but his caster level and save DCs with those spells are somewhat poor for a main antagonist at this level. More akin to the demon mooks you'd be fighting in droves in the same XP bracket. For example, he would only have a +15 on his Dispel checks. The DC to overcome a base 19th level wizard's spell? DC 30. So he's got about a 25% chance to successfully dispel a spell. Since he has no gear, and thus no metamagic rods, then he's also going to be burning an action trying to do it. Which means an entire round for the party to screw him up good. He lacks any big hits, or any really terrible party control. He's just not as threatening as the Shoggoth.
Now give the Dragon a pair of sweet stat boosters, AoMF, two solid rings, +5 saves cloak and suddenly poor old Shoggy looks slightly left in dust. Don't you agree?
Not at all. The AoMF will eat most of his cash for little payoff unless he can assuredly full attack constantly (which he can't). The +save item would be a good one to avoid being turned into a lawn ornament by the old limited wish + flesh to stone trick. Needs more dakka though. Perhaps some scrolls so he can summon some friends and get his bases covered. Then he might be about as scary as the terror in the deeps.
I imagine it would use its best tricks to the best of its abilities, but frankly the sucker would be dismantled without much effort by a 19th level party.That's perfectly fine - remember, a CR = APL means a regular encounter that will likely force the party to expend a bit of resources but won't put anybody at major risk unless major mistakes or misfortune strikes.
An APL 16-17 party is what would have the Dragon as an epic foe.
Actually I am surprised that with your knowledge of system mastery you're even construing an argument that's based around "an equal APL party will handle him easily".
Epic encounters have a high risk of TPK. Standard encounters are expected to reduce a 4 person party's resources by about 25%, with the chance of a PC death. It's been that way since 3.x/PF came out. If you need an epic encounter to risk a PC death, then there is something wrong in the neighborhood.
|
|
Of course, an APL 16 party will be in dire straits, an APL 17 party will have to step up to avoid big trouble, an APL 18 might have a tumble or two and an APL 19 party will just walk past after blowing a few resources. In that regard, your comment about the Dragon not being a problem for an APL 19 party should be hardly surprising, because CR 19 creatures aren't supposed to be a problem for such a party.
Just some argument dissectin' with ya. I believe we have to agree to disagree regarding the level of danger both monsters pose, but the comparison to guidelines stays.
If an APL +0 encounter is supposed to include risk of PC death, what percentage chance (averaged over a campaign) is expected? Even if it's something like 1%, that is a lot when you consider that an average of 13 or so encounters of equivalent level are required to level up.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If they have the equipment, do they use it.
Of course.
If they have more equipment than is listed under the entry, are they more powerful for the purposes of CR evaluation than the entry?
Of course.
What equipment they have beyond what is listed is DM discretion (if you agree with the argument) or GM fiat (if you don't...)
Oh, and thanks for taking my comments in the manner they were intended. :D
No problem. I'm from the east coast and I'm used to bluntness and appreciate it. You just said what others were only thinking. It gave me an insight into how I was triggering what seemed like really funny reactions from people.
Of course I don't agree with 98% of what you accused me of, but I believe you that it looks that way to you, and I gather to others as well. I won't argue my case, I just hope what I'm all about becomes more apparent as people get to know me better on here.
*paging Ciretose, paging Ciretose*
So there is a page feature on the boards. I haven't found it.
Depends on the demoness, some of them might enjoy it while living. :)
And make the Paladin or Good alaigned cleric have to go in for atonement or loose all powers. ~wicked smile~ Hey, I am sure that the demoness is doing her best to make them fall... HARD!!!