Being that it is a huge creature how does it only have a 17 str? Based on size bonus alone it should be getting a +16 strength? Realistically shouldn't it be looking at a 26 strength or higher?
I'll take a stab at it and guess that it's because the hydra gets so many attacks. If the hydra had a 26 st. it's to hit would go from a +6 to +11 with 5 attacks that each do 1d8+8 dmg it could be a little too tought for a CR 4 creature. To add to this hydras can gain heads (and attacks) if their heads regenerate or by having dit dice added to them (although that does increase their CR).
I believe the size bonus you refer to is the bonus granted for increasing a creature's size to Huge from smaller sizes, which is different from creating an original creature.
The "Monster Creation" page does list 26 STR as the average for a Huge creature, but that doesn't mean all Huge creatures must have 26 STR.
For the hydra specifically, as a CR 4 creature with 5 attacks, a lower Strength score than the average is pretty much needed in order to keep it from dealing far too much damage compared to other creatures of similar CR.
I agree with your assessments, yes if it had a 26 strength CR 4 would be inappropriate. It seems like the creature is one size category too large. It would fit perfectly if it were large creature rather than huge with the stats presented.
I guess if I were building it from scratch the CR4 hydra would be reduced to a large creature and a huge hydra would be at 26 Str but taken to CR6.
Water creatures, pound for pound, tend to be less strong than land creatures. Their muscle structure is generally designed for propulsion through the water and not much else.
The reason for that, evolutionarily speaking, is because water has a lot of resistance but lessens the effects of gravity. Thats why water creatures are able to get so big.
The closest natural creature to the Hydra is probably the Crocodile (some of the larger ones definitely qualify as Huge). Crocs are really, really specific in their design. They move fast through the water, they bite hard, and then let their bulk drag their prey into the water.
On the other hand, you can tie their jaws shut with floss and control them pretty easily by holding onto their tails.
Game balance aside, Hydras are exactly as strong as they need to be to survive. No more or less.
You want a more dangerous Hydra, give them the ability to start a grapple with their bite, or rule that they can Drag their prey.
I'd imagine being in the water with a hydra would be a lot like being held down my a Croc while being attacked by a school of piranha.
Grifter: Averages are only that; the average. Most creatures won't match the average for their size in one or more areas. Some will have higher STR than the average, and some will have lower STR than the average.
For instance, the average physical stats for Medium creatures are 10 STR, 10 DEX, 10 CON. But few Medium creatures actually have 10's in each of those stats.
I think the hydra is fine as a huge creature (except it would be nice if the 3.5 "hydras can attack with all heads as a standard action" functionality was restored!). STR is low (17 compared to average 26), but DEX is high (12 compared to average 6), while CON is exactly average (18 equals average 18).
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being that it is a huge creature how does it only have a 17 str? Based on size bonus alone it should be getting a +16 strength? Realistically shouldn't it be looking at a 26 strength or higher?
One of the things we wanted to do as much as possible in those early days was remain as compatible as possible with the previous edition of the game, in order to ease transitions. One of the things I found while developing the monsters for the bestiary was that a lot of them were WOEFULLY under-CRd for what they were supposed to do. Particularly, big creatures with lots of attacks.
When you have a creature of Large or larger size, it makes sense that the monster would and should be stronger, if not MUCH stronger than a human. Note: It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that a Strength of 18 or 20 is not high enough for this kind of situation... since those are scores that a starting human could technically begin play with, but remember that most humans have a Strength of 10 or 11.
ANYWAY.
The hydra's strength is only 17 because that's as high as I felt comfortable pushing it while keeping it at a CR of 4, which is what the baseline hydra was in 3.5 D&D. Even then, with five attacks, it's doing an average of 37.5 points of damage per round, which is INCREDIBLY high for a CR 4 creature (normally, a CR 4 creature should be doing a high average damage of only 16 points).
So even at a Strength of 17, the hydra's doing well over twice the average damage a high-damage CR 4 monster should be doing. It's a very strong CR 4 monster, especially against players who don't know how to fight them.
The dire ape's another great example of a creature who, logically, should have a higher strength but doesn't because we didn't want to change the CR.
In fact, we DID change a few CR scores for some monsters. The kraken, for example, went from a CR 12 creature up to a CR 18 creature, and it's STILL not as strong as it was in 3.5. We felt a bit more wiggle room was available for the kraken to make this change, since it's a much more rarely used monster than a CR 4 hydra. And I've never ever ever had anyone complain to me that we made the change. I'm not sure many folks even noticed.
Anyway, feel free to increase the Strength of hydras in your game... but keep in mind you'll be increasing the amount of damage an already heinously high damage monster inflicts.
In fact, we DID change a few CR scores for some monsters. The kraken, for example, went from a CR 12 creature up to a CR 18 creature, and it's STILL not as strong as it was in 3.5.
The kraken suffered a huge power hit going from 3.5 to Pathfinder, like most other grappling monsters.
In fact, we DID change a few CR scores for some monsters. The kraken, for example, went from a CR 12 creature up to a CR 18 creature, and it's STILL not as strong as it was in 3.5. We felt a bit more wiggle room was available for the kraken to make this change, since it's a much more rarely used monster than a CR 4 hydra. And I've never ever ever had anyone complain to me that we made the change. I'm not sure many folks even noticed.
I noticed that, actually. I didn't care much, since I've only used a kraken in a game once :)
But while the kraken was probably too good for CR 12, I think it's too weak for CR 18. It matches up pretty poorly compared to the other CR 18 creatures (ancient blue dragon and ancient bronze dragon) in the Bestiary.
Being that it is a huge creature how does it only have a 17 str? Based on size bonus alone it should be getting a +16 strength? Realistically shouldn't it be looking at a 26 strength or higher?One of the things we wanted to do as much as possible in those early days was remain as compatible as possible with the previous edition of the game, in order to ease transitions. One of the things I found while developing the monsters for the bestiary was that a lot of them were WOEFULLY under-CRd for what they were supposed to do. Particularly, big creatures with lots of attacks.
When you have a creature of Large or larger size, it makes sense that the monster would and should be stronger, if not MUCH stronger than a human. Note: It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that a Strength of 18 or 20 is not high enough for this kind of situation... since those are scores that a starting human could technically begin play with, but remember that most humans have a Strength of 10 or 11.
ANYWAY.
The hydra's strength is only 17 because that's as high as I felt comfortable pushing it while keeping it at a CR of 4, which is what the baseline hydra was in 3.5 D&D. Even then, with five attacks, it's doing an average of 37.5 points of damage per round, which is INCREDIBLY high for a CR 4 creature (normally, a CR 4 creature should be doing a high average damage of only 16 points).
So even at a Strength of 17, the hydra's doing well over twice the average damage a high-damage CR 4 monster should be doing. It's a very strong CR 4 monster, especially against players who don't know how to fight them.
I appreciate the insight. I would say that rather then increasing the strength I would reduce the monster one size category to a large creature and make the appropriate changes to dex, natural AC while keep strength and con the same. Looking at the creature closely it appears that it is suffering from the penalty's of being huge but gaining few of the advantages. Its stats are off and even it's bite damage is one category too small. I am not arguing that the monster is not an efficient build and it absolutely is a killer at CR4 but mathematically it's just a large creature incorrectly sized as a huge creature.
That being said I understand the smooth transition aspect and respect your decision to do what you did. My concerns would be with whomever originally designed the monster not for the Pathfinder conversion.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You could consider that the necks are Str 17 and the body perhaps Str 25, but as you don't interact with the body very much, the neck strength is what matters.
Hydra, do you even lift?
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/do-you-even-lift
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hydras are certainly not underpowered on offense for their CR.
I might have tried an alternate means to achieve the same damage output,
boosting their STR but making their Bites uniquely count as Secondary Attacks instead.
That boosts their CMD, gives them better single attack damage, but wouldn't change their full attack/pounce damage appreciably.
I think them being such large (huge) creatures is actually a refreshing change from the norm,
it also has an actual effect on maneuvering in combat, e.g. setting up Flanks and the like.
If you encounter the Hydra in an indoor/constrained setting, it's very likely that you just aren't going to get around it.
If it's blocking the only exit, or the exit that you want to take because worse stuff is thru the other door,
that Huge size is a signifigant factor to the encounter...
If you encounter the Hydra on an empty infinite plain, it's just going to get murderized because even totally non-Ranged-Specialized characters can kite it to death if they have bows/x-bows and mounts to keep it out of melee range.
Being that it is a huge creature how does it only have a 17 str? Based on size bonus alone it should be getting a +16 strength? Realistically shouldn't it be looking at a 26 strength or higher?One of the things we wanted to do as much as possible in those early days was remain as compatible as possible with the previous edition of the game, in order to ease transitions. One of the things I found while developing the monsters for the bestiary was that a lot of them were WOEFULLY under-CRd for what they were supposed to do. Particularly, big creatures with lots of attacks.
When you have a creature of Large or larger size, it makes sense that the monster would and should be stronger, if not MUCH stronger than a human. Note: It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that a Strength of 18 or 20 is not high enough for this kind of situation... since those are scores that a starting human could technically begin play with, but remember that most humans have a Strength of 10 or 11.
ANYWAY.
The hydra's strength is only 17 because that's as high as I felt comfortable pushing it while keeping it at a CR of 4, which is what the baseline hydra was in 3.5 D&D. Even then, with five attacks, it's doing an average of 37.5 points of damage per round, which is INCREDIBLY high for a CR 4 creature (normally, a CR 4 creature should be doing a high average damage of only 16 points).
So even at a Strength of 17, the hydra's doing well over twice the average damage a high-damage CR 4 monster should be doing. It's a very strong CR 4 monster, especially against players who don't know how to fight them.
The dire ape's another great example of a creature who, logically, should have a higher strength but doesn't because we didn't want to change the CR.
In fact, we DID change a few CR scores for some monsters. The kraken, for example, went from a CR 12 creature up to a CR 18 creature, and it's STILL not as strong as it was in 3.5. We felt a bit more wiggle room was available for the...
Um, I always figured that hydras were so physically powerful in melee because they are absolute gosh-awful at sneaking up on anyone and are so amazingly slow that it's easy to just take them apart without them hurting you (at least in any location they could reasonably fit inside or squeeze). I mean, you have a hydra in The Red Hand of Doom that even gets an ad-hoc opportunity to ignore its enormous mass when being sneaky due to the way things work out, and even in that game the 3.5 hydra was incredibly east to defeat.
Now the hydra has a higher than average attack damage if all its attacks connect but its +6 attack bonus is on the low end of the scale. Any martial with a mundane breastplate, heavy shield, and +2 Dexterity has an unbuffed AC of 20 which is only a 35% chance to hit on any given attack. With so much as a 1st level spell buff (like shield of faith) brings it down to only a 1/4 chance to hit, which means only an average of 9.375 damage per round if the hydra is full-attacking the martial guy in a mundane breastplate, mundane shield, at 5th level, with a 1st level buff spell active. Kind of pathetic for a creature intended to be a brute monster. Toss in its hit dice and saving throws and the sucker is really just asking to be steamrolled.
I find myself often turning down hydras as monsters now in my games because it feels like a free XP-bump in most cases. They're just too easy to beat. I mean your average CR 4 tiger or sea hag makes a hydra look a bit like a sissy who gets picked on at Monsters Inc.
:P
For in-character rationalization...
The body is much stronger than 17. But each individual head has to be weaker because they are all attached to the same body. Much the same way each finger must be weaker than the arm to which they are attached.
So the body (if it ever comes up) has a strength of 28, but the heads doing the combat have a strength of 17.
But monsters don't deal damage in averages. The result of one roll doesn't determine the result of subsequent rolls; that's the Gambler's Fallacy. If the hydra has a 1 in 3 chance of hitting it doesn't mean it's only going to hit 1 out of every 3 rounds. 37.5 damage is putting a big hurt on a 4th level character.
Rolling four 20's in a row on a d20 sounds improbable but it has the exact same probablity as rolling a 5, then a 12, then a 2, and then an 18. And if a I roll four 20's in a row four times in a row, my chance of doing it a fifth time is exactly the same as it was the first. This is why I hate all of the hyper-optimization average-analysis based threads that pop up all the time now. Games don't flow based on midpoints and arithmetic means. Well, they do if you decide to continue with the trend of removing as many random influences from the game as possible because, for some reason, randomness restricts creativity and is badwrongfun. :/
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But monsters don't deal damage in averages. The result of one roll doesn't determine the result of subsequent rolls; that's the Gambler's Fallacy. If the hydra has a 1 in 3 chance of hitting it doesn't mean it's only going to hit 1 out of every 3 rounds. 37.5 damage is putting a big hurt on a 4th level character.
Rolling four 20's in a row on a d20 sounds improbable but it has the exact same probablity as rolling a 5, then a 12, then a 2, and then an 18. And if a I roll four 20's in a row four times in a row, my chance of doing it a fifth time is exactly the same as it was the first. This is why I hate all of the hyper-optimization average-analysis based threads that pop up all the time now. Games don't flow based on midpoints and arithmetic means. Well, they do if you decide to continue with the trend of removing as many random influences from the game as possible because, for some reason, randomness restricts creativity and is badwrongfun. :/
Each incident has the same chance, but over time things progress towards the average which is why when talking about the game in general referencing averages is useful. Sure a single Kobold could walk up to the party and roll nothing but 20s and the party could all roll 1s and the Kobold would have TPK'd the party, but does that make the Kobold some mega-monster? Obviously not because the rolls in that one single incident were skewed. Instead you ask how likely is that to happen on average and the answer is not likely at all.
The same goes for the players, sure in any one encounter the dice could fall one way or the other, but over the characters career things will approach the average. Part of the fun of the game is that you don't know what the exact outcome of any encounter is going to be, you have to roll it out. However by analyzing the averages you can determine how likely you are to win the encounter.
From a game design perspective you have to analyze and balance the averages as that is what is going to occur at most tables most of the time. You also want to take the extremes into account as those will happen on occasion and you don't want those to be too extreme either. Each point of analysis has its benefits but it is only with a holistic examination that you get the best information.
Each incident has the same chance, but over time things progress towards the average which is why when talking about the game in general referencing averages is useful.
Actually, it doesn't. That's the Gambler's Fallacy again; assuming that previous results somehow have an effect on future results. They don't.
Sure a single Kobold could walk up to the party and roll nothing but 20s and the party could all roll 1s and the Kobold would have TPK'd the party, but does that make the Kobold some mega-monster? Obviously not because the rolls in that one single incident were skewed. Instead you ask how likely is that to happen on average and the answer is not likely at all.
It only seems skewed because you obssessing over averages. If I flip a nickel a hundred times, how likely is it that I'll get heads every single time? Not very. But that chance isn't isn't any less than any other single combination of flips. Because how many times I flip heads has no bearing on how many times I'll continue to do so. The d20 is a flat probability. That "skewed" example you gave is no less likely than any other set of numbers than any other set of rolls the party an kobold might generate.
The same goes for the players, sure in any one encounter the dice could fall one way or the other, but over the characters career things will approach the average. Part of the fun of the game is that you don't know what the exact outcome of any encounter is going to be, you have to roll it out.
This goes counter to all your previous points. By your logic, you do know how an encounter's going to go because you've already run the numbers. When the probablity curve is completely flat, there are no extreme results. Your "avergae" result is no more likley than any other and isn't going to occur more often.
However by analyzing the averages you can determine how likely you are to win the encounter.
From a game design perspective you have to analyze and balance the averages as that is what is going to occur...etc etc.
If this were really true, there would be no need to roll dice at all. You could just apply averages every round since, by your postulation, that's the end result anyway. These aren't things I'm making up here; these are established mathematical proofs. Things in PF are skewed but it's from looking for race/class/feat/spell combinations that load the results towards one end of the spectrum but none of that unflattens the probability of a certain number being rolled.
Unfortunately, IMO, your view is becoming more true as we continue to remove random elements from the game. Few roll stats, rolling hp is becoming less common, save or die results are largely gone and so tension is removed from the game because we've cooked the numbers to generate what we think the results should be and so, in that regard, the game is much more predictable. Letting the dice "fall as they may" is almost gone from PF because we take feats and abilities to ensure that doesn't happen.
That tension that you mentioned earlier no longer exists because we've made optimization (unfortunate as such a need scares off newbies especially as more material comes out) a virtual requirement so as to remove that tension. And players who don't get what they want get pissed so we play at higher than normal point buys and look for every bonus to remove how many time players need to boo-hoo over a bad roll. The biggest example of this was when treasure went from being something you earned to something you made for yourself while sipping afternoon tea plotting out your character already knowing what items he's going to get for the next 12 levels.
If you really want tension, look to indie games or games made before 3.0 came out. That was tension. PF? Not so much. PF is the rpg version of the first-person shooter when you've entered the cheat for extra ammo and lives (but not quite god-mode).
Each incident has the same chance, but over time things progress towards the average which is why when talking about the game in general referencing averages is useful.Actually, it doesn't. That's the Gambler's Fallacy again; assuming that previous results somehow have an effect on future results. They don't.
Sure a single Kobold could walk up to the party and roll nothing but 20s and the party could all roll 1s and the Kobold would have TPK'd the party, but does that make the Kobold some mega-monster? Obviously not because the rolls in that one single incident were skewed. Instead you ask how likely is that to happen on average and the answer is not likely at all.It only seems skewed because you obssessing over averages. If I flip a nickel a hundred times, how likely is it that I'll get heads every single time? Not very. But that chance isn't isn't any less than any other single combination of flips. Because how many times I flip heads has no bearing on how many times I'll continue to do so. The d20 is a flat probability. That "skewed" example you gave is no less likely than any other set of numbers than any other set of rolls the party an kobold might generate.
The same goes for the players, sure in any one encounter the dice could fall one way or the other, but over the characters career things will approach the average. Part of the fun of the game is that you don't know what the exact outcome of any encounter is going to be, you have to roll it out.This goes counter to all your previous points. By your logic, you do know how an encounter's going to go because you've already run the numbers. When the probablity curve is completely flat, there are no extreme results. Your "avergae" result is no more likley than any other and isn't going to occur more often.
...However by analyzing the averages you can determine how likely you are to win the encounter.
From a game
Gamblers Fallacy only applies if you are talking about a single incident and expecting previous incidents to influence the outcome. When you step away from analyzing a single incident is when averages are useful, you are not analyzing one roll but a string of rolls. Examining the probability of the set has value when you look further than your own character or game. When evaluating a rule or a character build and trying to determine how mechanically well it will function using averages is helpful. It is not the only measure but a useful one.
Sir Jolt,
Yes, you are technically correct. He was not mathematically rigorous. However, this is not a statistics class.
The terms and wording he used is not precisely correct. However, it is good enough for discussing with non-mathematicians for practical purposes.
In effect - things do eventually tend toward averages.
|
The point is that the range from min to max (mostly just the max value in this case TBH) is just as important as the average. Ideally you'd build your probablility curve and analyze that. Flat and fat is bad.
Generally, having probabilities that cluster closely to the average is great for both the GM and the players. The players won't TPK nearly as much to random chance (though it can still happen) and the GM has an easier time designing encounters because he/she can assume averages fairly safely.
Yosarian's example is right on the money. 20 average damage isn't bad, but the max of 100 is unacceptable. You want the average to be noticeable, but the maximum not automatically deadly. This goes for SoD/SoS spells too. A mass SoD on the group isn't bad if there are 5 players. Yes, you're more likely to kill a player, but you're alot less likely to TPK. A mass SoD on a group of 3 is probably a bad idea.
The point is that the range from min to max (mostly just the max value in this case TBH) is just as important as the average. Ideally you'd build your probablility curve and analyze that. Flat and fat is bad.
Generally, having probabilities that cluster closely to the average is great for both the GM and the players. The players won't TPK nearly as much to random chance (though it can still happen) and the GM has an easier time designing encounters because he/she can assume averages fairly safely.
Yosarian's example is right on the money. 20 average damage isn't bad, but the max of 100 is unacceptable. You want the average to be noticeable, but the maximum not automatically deadly. This goes for SoD/SoS spells too. A mass SoD on the group isn't bad if there are 5 players. Yes, you're more likely to kill a player, but you're alot less likely to TPK. A mass SoD on a group of 3 is probably a bad idea.
An orc wielding a scythe has a maximum damage of 56. It's a low probability, but it can happen. It's also a CR 1/3 creature. I think I'll stick to my averages when building encounters, thanks.
It's not just the maximum, Ashiel. More important then either the average or the maximum is "how likely is lethal damage to happen in one round".
An orc hitting and then critting happens, what, 1 time in 40 or something? And a orc hitting, critting, and rolling lethal damage happens less then that. Sure, it can happen, and that's fine, some element of risk is good, but it's going to be pretty rare, and I'm not worried about it.
On the other hand, "you probably die in one round if all 3 heads hit, and that happens 1 time in 3" seems a lot more dodgy to me. It's not a bad thing, necessarily, but you probably don't want every encounter to be that risky, unless you're the kind of DM that doesn't mind leaving a trail of dead characters after every quest.
Not sure where you're getting that number from. Against a 1st level melee combatant of average AC (18), all 5 heads hit 1.8% of the time. That number is significantly worse against against a 4th level melee combatant.
Edit: And abysmal if said combatant is using a shield instead of a two-hander, going down to .53%.
Edit 2: Heck, against a dude in leather with 10 dex (AC 12) the hydra still only lands all of its hits 23.7% of the time.