I've noticed, from time to time, that people assume you can stack the same template over and over again. Normally, this is only done as a thought exercise, or as an abuse by GMs to crap on their players, like here. However, a great many people believe that this is RAW and RAI. Where is this belief coming from? I've seen nothing published by Paizo that even hints that you can have a twice young creature or a three times giant behemoth.
I personally don't think doing such a thing is at all legal.
I don't want to prove you wrong. I would think any thinking along this line comes purely from a "you're not told no" mindset.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wrong end of the stick. Everything not explicitly forbidden is permitted. Prove yourself right : where is there a limit on stacking templates?
Cf. This thread here or here. Consensus seems to be that "rage restricts what it says it restricts, nothing more" and the argument is over whether sneak attack, in particular, falls into one of the categories of things that are restricted (whether it requires "patience or concentration."
Everything not explicitly forbidden is permitted.
That looks like a strawman to me. With that logic, there is nothing stopping my intelligent wizard from building a nuclear bomb.
It's legal.
How do we know that? All I've seen to date are peoples' assumptions. Is there an official statblock published somewhere that has utilized this practice which I may have overlooked?
That looks like a strawman to me. With that logic, there is nothing stopping my intelligent wizard from building a nuclear bomb.
Nope. Nothing at all. Make an appropriate craft check at an appropriate DC.
That looks like a strawman to me. With that logic, there is nothing stopping my intelligent wizard from building a nuclear bomb.
Nope. Nothing at all. Make an appropriate craft check at an appropriate DC.
Which craft skill would you use pray tell?
Which craft skill would you use pray tell?
I'd suggest "Craft (Atomic Weapons)," with a DC of approximately 10^1000 and a circumstance penalty of approximately 10^-1000 representing the circumstance that no one around has Knowledge (Nuclear Physics) at a suitably high level.
|
Which craft skill would you use pray tell?I'd suggest "Craft (Atomic Weapons)," with a DC of approximately 10^1000 and a circumstance penalty of approximately 10^-1000 representing the circumstance that no one around has Knowledge (Nuclear Physics) at a suitably high level.
LOL!
Ok...maybe a bit of a strawman. :p
Sorry, I mistyped above. 10^-1000 should of course have been -(10^1000). (I hate ASCII formulae.)
No one has yet to answer the initial question. Why is it that people seem to be under the impression that stacking identical templates is both RAW and RAI?
If nothing else, surely it would break the "no stacking from the same source" general rule. What's more, with all the abuses and imbalances it opens up, it should be obvious that it isn't RAI.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No one has yet to answer the initial question. Why is it that people seem to be under the impression that stacking identical templates is both RAW and RAI?
Because no one can show that template stacking is forbidden, and because there's no reason that something young can't be standing next to something even younger.
If we accept that a "young" ogre is an adolescent or tweener and the size of a human,... well, presumably that ogre wasn't born as an adolescent. Her younger brother may well be the size of a halfling. But even a human toddler can be a dangerous animal; how many children have accidentally strangled a cat or something without realizing what they were doing?
If for some reason I need the statistics of a newly hatched griffin, as distinguished from a merely young one, stacking the young template seems an appropriate way to do it.
Similarly, the leader of a group of elite monsters (already defined as having the Advanced template) is probably still more powerful. There's a third party that has published a "Mighty" template (roughly an advanced-advanced template), but why not simply apply the advanced template twice?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Inversely, why do you think you can't stack templates?
|
|
No one has yet to answer the initial question. Why is it that people seem to be under the impression that stacking identical templates is both RAW and RAI?
If nothing else, surely it would break the "no stacking from the same source" general rule. What's more, with all the abuses and imbalances it opens up, it should be obvious that it isn't RAI.
That depends on what you're stacking. If it's typed bonuses, no, they don't stack. Some templates obviously can't be added to themselves...half-fiend, for example...and I'd be leery of stacking the same templates...but stacking templates is legal as a rule...and some templates work when stacked with themselves...not many...
If nothing else, surely it would break the "no stacking from the same source" general rule. What's more, with all the abuses and imbalances it opens up, it should be obvious that it isn't RAI.
I'm a little curious about what these "abuses and imbalances" that are opened up actually are. Monster design has traditionally been the purview of the game master, who in turn is given a free hand about what she chooses to introduce into the game. I can make a custom creature, call it a Wonkysaurus, with whatever statistics I like, and present it to my players. This of course is a standard feature of all of Paizo's published works; all or nearly all of them include some sort of custom monster not yet seen.
Now you're suggesting that a Young-Young-Griffon is illegal for the game master to create, but an independently designed Wonkysaurus with identical stats is fine?
Because no one can show that template stacking is forbidden, and because there's no reason that something young can't be standing next to something even younger.
If we accept that a "young" ogre is an adolescent or tweener and the size of a human,... well, presumably that ogre wasn't born as an adolescent. Her younger brother may well be the size of a halfling. But even a human toddler can be a dangerous animal; how many children have accidentally strangled a cat or something without realizing what they were doing?
If for some reason I need the statistics of a newly hatched griffin, as distinguished from a merely young one, stacking the young template seems an appropriate way to do it.
Similarly, the leader of a group of elite monsters (already defined as having the Advanced template) is probably still more powerful. There's a third party that has published a "Mighty" template (roughly an advanced-advanced template), but why not simply apply the advanced template twice?
I would think that a hatchling anything would be a noncombatant. A leader of an advanced monster squad would not only be advanced himself but also have extra racial hit dice, class levels, and/or better gear.
There's no need to ever double stack templates whatsoever (and in fact, doing so almost always leads to highly skewed imbalanced builds). Therefore I contend with the idea that it is RAI.
Honestly, templates are the domain of the GM, and the GM is always right. If he wants to stack templates on a creature thats his perogative. Why does it matter?
If it's a player trying to add templates to his character, smack him and tell him no.
I would think that a hatchling anything would be a noncombatant.
Horses and ponies can stand, walk, and kick within hours of being born.
A leader of an advanced monster squad would not only be advanced himself but also have extra racial hit dice or class levels.
Shrug. PoTAYto, PoTAHto.
There's no need to ever double stack templates whatsoever. Therefore I contend with the idea that it is RAI.
It's your game. If you want to tell yourself that you aren't allowed to game-master in a certain way, I doubt you need the ruleset to enforce that.
No one has yet to answer the initial question. Why is it that people seem to be under the impression that stacking identical templates is both RAW and RAI?
Surely someone will point out the "GMs do what they please" thing.
Aside from that, it seems obvious that identical templates cannot stack in general, because there are specific examples that seem ridiculous. For example, a 'ghost ghost' or 'lich lich'.
If anyone truly thinks that identical templates can stack, then surely they can provide an example of this in a published Paizo AP? There are so many monsters in published APs, surely if it were RAW/RAI then it would appear somewhere?
P.S. Now I want to make a Lich Lich (Meta-Lich?) whose phylactery is a Lich, though it's clearly not legal.
I've noticed, from time to time, that people assume you can stack the same template over and over again.
Probably because it's easier than creating a custom creature from scratch. Which is the entire point of templates.
Normally, this is only done as a thought exercise, or as an abuse by GMs to crap on their players
But never to provide a fun challenging encounter for the party, who are still expected to win, right? Only to crap.
However, a great many people believe that this is RAW and RAI. Where is this belief coming from?
It probably comes from the understanding that a GM can determine the statistics of a monster they are building, and that if the GM wants to simply apply the giant template twice instead of manually modifying the Target Statistics by increasing size by two categories, increasing natural armor by +6, increasing the attack dice by 2 steps, and applying a +8 size bonus to str and con while applying -4 dex, he should certainly be allowed to since it makes no difference whatsoever and is completely transparent to the characters.
So if your actual question is "Can a GM apply the same template twice?" then the answer appears to be "No, however the GM can build the creature in such a way as to result in the exact same changes as applying the same template twice."
You can stack template or add class levels or gear...
But you need to check then new monster vs this table when you are done doing all your tinkering.
[url=http://paizo.com]http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/monsterCreation.html
To see if monster is right in the CR. Then adjustas you see fit.
Advanced a mnonter or make new one is art not science. Yea X+Y=Z but some time Y is not equal to Y.
Fun.
Makes me wonder if the Stacking in the Common Terms section of the book should be clarified to say "bonuses from the same source do not stack" (since I'm one of those who feels that you shouldn't be able to stack the same template multiple times). All the usual about "unless otherwise noted" etc.
Just to ask: What's a specific example of how this causes "abuse"? If your DM is looking to screw over the party by throwing them up against a creature that's too powerful, then they can do that with or without template stacking. I guess I'm just not sure why this is an issue (unless we're talking about some sort of moderated play).
[edit]
Ninja'd in my sentiments by Grick. If your DM is bad and is not taking CRs into account, and throwing your party up against encounters that you can't win, then that's a problem with the DM - and will happen whether he's stacking templates or he's creating his own creature from scratch.
|
The Deinonychus entry in the Bestiary says you can make a Velociraptor by applying the Young template to the Deinonychus. But what if I wanted a young Velociraptor? The Young template seems the logical choice.
Unfortunately, that's -4 Constitution twice, which might be unhealthy. Some templates will work poorly if applied multiple times.
Aside from that, the Shaman druid archetypes might want to apply the same template multiple times - to create a wolf worthy of Summon Nature's Ally IX for example. (I'm not sure that's a good idea, and probably not intended to be possible.)
Aside from that, it seems obvious that identical templates cannot stack in general, because there are specific examples that seem ridiculous. For example, a 'ghost ghost' or 'lich lich'.
Well, these are clearly illegal under the specific rules of the template. For example, a lich template can be applied to "any living creature" and changes the type to undead; hence a lich is not a suitable subject for applying the template to. That's the reason you can't have a ghost ghost -- and, for that matter, why you can't have a ghost lich or a lich ghost as written. Or a clockwork ghost.
If anyone truly thinks that identical templates can stack, then surely they can provide an example of this in a published Paizo AP? There are so many monsters in published APs, surely if it were RAW/RAI then it would appear somewhere?
That seems a poor argument, first by the general principle that everything not forbidden is permitted, and second, by the fact that most of the stacked possibilities start to break the CR system, and Paizo doesn't want to publish a broken monster, thirdly, by the fact that it's time-consuming and troublesome to apply multiple templates and it's easier simply to make a new set of stats, fourth by the fact that Paizo wants to create new monsters because that will provide new content to sell new materials, and fifth, by the simple fact that probably 90% of the stacked concepts are rather lame. While the idea of a Dire Dire Dire Dire Dire Hamster may be good for a giggle, it's not actually something I'd want to use in a serious game.
Using templates on prewritten monsters is homebrewing anyway.Templates are just a crutch to make it easier. There are no rules for homebrewing monsters so I don't know what the question even means.
If a GM wants to give a monster 10 extra arms then that is perfectly ok, if he knows what he's doing.
The other thing is in general if you add young or Gaint temple you should increase or decrease HD by 50% as well.
This is Optional rule but should be use is add the young or gaint template more than once. But most GM ignore this rule or guid point for the sake of speed or time.
I mean if I have CR 7 monster size med monster with 6 HD and I add yong template once it is CR 6. Most of time. If lower HD by 3 it is mostly CR 5 or CR 4. If Add template again it will be CR 4 or CR 3. Then I lower HD to 1 it most likely CR 2 or CR 1.
I personaly will only add 1 template with out checking the whole thing all over. If have time I will still check if with only one template.
Just to ask: What's a specific example of how this causes "abuse"? If your DM is looking to screw over the party by throwing them up against a creature that's too powerful, then they can do that with or without template stacking. I guess I'm just not sure why this is an issue (unless we're talking about some sort of moderated play).
The other thread referred to making extremely low CR creatures by abusing overlapping and stacking templates. i.e. CR 5 pit fiend which could be seen as more powerful than its normal CR build.
In this scenario, the Young template was stacked 4 times AFTER the skeletal champion template was applied. The Skeletal Champion lets it keep all of its feats, skills, caster level, etc. while the Young template doesn't remove any of this. I'd argue that each stacking of the Young template would REMOVE abilities from a creature. Also, in this scenario, Young should at least be applied before it was made a Skeletal Champion (it doesn't get younger AFTER you make it undead), thus making it a CR 9 creature (still pretty beefy for its level).
P.S. Now I want to make a Lich Lich (Meta-Lich?) whose phylactery is a Lich, though it's clearly not legal.
That makes me think of Raistlin and Fistandantilus.
Short of a rule explicitly stating that you can, a developer stating that you can, or a sample stat block from an official Paizo published source*, what would it take to convince you that stacking templates is legal?
Short of a rule explicitly stating that you can't, a developer stating that you can't what evidence do you have that stacking templates is not legal?
Or, to put it another way, short of a developer stepping in, how do you expect this argument to be resolved, other than people saying "it should be obvious" back and forth?
*Realizing that published stat blocks do sometimes contain errors or mistaken assumptions
The other thread referred to making extremely low CR creatures by abusing overlapping and stacking templates. i.e. CR 5 pit fiend which could be seen as more powerful than its normal CR build.
In this scenario, the Young template was stacked 4 times AFTER the skeletal champion template was applied. The Skeletal Champion lets it keep all of its feats, skills, caster level, etc. while the Young template doesn't remove any of this. I'd argue that each stacking of the Young template would REMOVE abilities from a creature. Also, in this scenario, Young should at least be applied before it was made a Skeletal Champion (it doesn't get younger AFTER you make it undead), thus making it a CR 9 creature (still pretty beefy for its level).
Understood. Is that necessarily a problem with template stacking, though?
I would posit that it's a combination of factors:
1. The Young template has inherent flaws in it where it doesn't address creatures that have skills\abilities it might not have.
2. The template rules lack clarity on how templates interact - i.e., you cannot add a Young template to an Undead creature, since it would have to be young first, then undead.
3. First and foremost, I see bad DM skills - abusing the limitations of the CR system to 'punish' players.
Again, they could say "You can't stack templates", but in the above example, a DM who really just wanted to eff with people would just make the exact same creature with the same CR without the aid of the template concept.
The other thread referred to making extremely low CR creatures by abusing overlapping and stacking templates. i.e. CR 5 pit fiend which could be seen as more powerful than its normal CR build.
In this scenario, the Young template was stacked 4 times AFTER the skeletal champion template was applied. The Skeletal Champion lets it keep all of its feats, skills, caster level, etc. while the Young template doesn't remove any of this. I'd argue that each stacking of the Young template would REMOVE abilities from a creature. Also, in this scenario, Young should at least be applied before it was made a Skeletal Champion (it doesn't get younger AFTER you make it undead), thus making it a CR 9 creature (still pretty beefy for its level).
Understood. Is that necessarily a problem with template stacking, though?
I would posit that it's a combination of factors:
1. The Young template has inherent flaws in it where it doesn't address creatures that have skills\abilities it might not have.
2. The template rules lack clarity on how templates interact - i.e., you cannot add a Young template to an Undead creature, since it would have to be young first, then undead.
3. First and foremost, I see bad DM skills - abusing the limitations of the CR system to 'punish' players.Again, they could say "You can't stack templates", but in the above example, a DM who really just wanted to eff with people would just make the exact same creature with the same CR without the aid of the template concept.
I agree with all 3 of your points. Isn't there a monster builder template that can be used to determine the CR of a creature being built from scratch?
|
|
I agree with all 3 of your points. Isn't there a monster builder template that can be used to determine the CR of a creature being built from scratch?The other thread referred to making extremely low CR creatures by abusing overlapping and stacking templates. i.e. CR 5 pit fiend which could be seen as more powerful than its normal CR build.
In this scenario, the Young template was stacked 4 times AFTER the skeletal champion template was applied. The Skeletal Champion lets it keep all of its feats, skills, caster level, etc. while the Young template doesn't remove any of this. I'd argue that each stacking of the Young template would REMOVE abilities from a creature. Also, in this scenario, Young should at least be applied before it was made a Skeletal Champion (it doesn't get younger AFTER you make it undead), thus making it a CR 9 creature (still pretty beefy for its level).
Understood. Is that necessarily a problem with template stacking, though?
I would posit that it's a combination of factors:
1. The Young template has inherent flaws in it where it doesn't address creatures that have skills\abilities it might not have.
2. The template rules lack clarity on how templates interact - i.e., you cannot add a Young template to an Undead creature, since it would have to be young first, then undead.
3. First and foremost, I see bad DM skills - abusing the limitations of the CR system to 'punish' players.Again, they could say "You can't stack templates", but in the above example, a DM who really just wanted to eff with people would just make the exact same creature with the same CR without the aid of the template concept.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/rules-for-monsters/monster-creation
So taking the example of the Young Young Young Young Undead Pit Fiend: Based on the stats\abilities remaining after applying the templates, HP, etc., what would the CR of such a creature be using the monster creation rules?
I think a rule of thumb should be that if there is a major difference in the CR of a creature modified by templates and the exact same creature (minus description) built from scratch using the monster creation rules, then the appropriate CR would be whichever was higher.
This of course assumes that the DM is fair enough to do the legwork. In the pit fiend example above, that's questionable.
So taking the example of the Young Young Young Young Undead Pit Fiend: Based on the stats\abilities remaining after applying the templates, HP, etc., what would the CR of such a creature be using the monster creation rules?
I think a rule of thumb should be that if there is a major difference in the CR of a creature modified by templates and the exact same creature (minus description) built from scratch using the monster creation rules, then the appropriate CR would be whichever was higher.
This of course assumes that the DM is fair enough to do the legwork. In the pit fiend example above, that's questionable.
20 HD, undead is already a CR 14 per the builder. That's before throwing in all of its spell-like abilities. I think one of the issues here is that the Skeletal Champion template states that it's equal to the CR of that creature per the Skeleton template + 1. An 18-20 HD creature becomes a CR 8 skeleton when the normal template is applied. However, they lose all feats, skills and Special Qualities. I'd think that Spell-Like Abilities would fall under this. In addition, the Skeletal Champion template doesn't even mention Special Qualities while it doesn't specifically call out that it loses its feats like a regular Skeleton, it does specify that you give it an additional one.
I've seen other abuses over the years, Roanark, all related to stacking the same template.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then fix that template. And perhaps more importantly, point out to the DM that the creature does not follow the guidelines for CR on encounters and monster difficulty - and if he tells you, "Tough kittens," or does it consistently, leave the table.
Again, this doesn't seem to be a problem to me with template stacking, but with a particularly bad template and (what sounds like) bad DMs (or at least ones with a poor grasp of how CR, monster creation, and encounter mechanics work).
I would point out that while it is not explicitly called out, the rules for acquired and inherited templates have a clear order of operations: inherited first (since they represent the creature's natural state) followed by acquired (alterations from the creature's natural state). The problem comes from so-called Simple Templates, which are neither acquired nor inherited. I would suggest (yay, house rule rather than RAW) that simple templates fall into their own classification which is applied before inherited. You don't make a ghost half-fiend young unicorn: you make a young half-fiend ghost unicorn.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Legality is such a weird concept when you apply it to a GM tool like a template.
If I want to apply the young template twice to make a baby, sure I can. I'll need to vet for myself whether the resulting CR is a meaningful number or broken nonsense.
But never for a moment am I concerned if it is possible within the rules. Possible doesn't matter. CR doesn't constrain the GM, it exists to help him or her hit the target. Challenge Rating is a yardstick, not a pillory.
The point at which the numbers become unhelpful is the point at which you can't really stack templates.
EDIT: In short, GMs can't "abuse" rules, because the GM's goal is not to "win" the game. Applying a CR to get a result way out of line with the intent of CR isn't abuse of rules, it's being a bad GM who doesn't understand what his role in the game is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would point out that while it is not explicitly called out, the rules for acquired and inherited templates have a clear order of operations: inherited first (since they represent the creature's natural state) followed by acquired (alterations from the creature's natural state). The problem comes from so-called Simple Templates, which are neither acquired nor inherited. I would suggest (yay, house rule rather than RAW) that simple templates fall into their own classification which is applied before inherited. You don't make a ghost half-fiend young unicorn: you make a young half-fiend ghost unicorn.
Well, if that guideline helps you,....
Personally, I prefer a more general guideline, to wit, "don't put broken s**t in front of the players." RAW, RAI, or RA-the-Sun-God, if a monster doesn't fit what you want it to do, change it until it does.
I'm assuming that anyone who didn't just fall off the back of a truck knows that CR 5 monsters don't have Reflex saves of 25, DR of 15, AC of 34 and 250+ hit points. Certainly the person who posted that monstrosity of a build knows that.
RAW, RAI, or RA-the-Sun-God...
I like that!
@Orfamay Quest
I agree with you up to about here:
second, by the fact that most of the stacked possibilities start to break the CR system, and Paizo doesn't want to publish a broken monster, thirdly, by the fact that it's time-consuming and troublesome to apply multiple templates and it's easier simply to make a new set of stats, fourth by the fact that Paizo wants to create new monsters because that will provide new content to sell new materials, and fifth, by the simple fact that probably 90% of the stacked concepts are rather lame. While the idea of a Dire Dire Dire Dire Dire Hamster may be good for a giggle, it's not actually something I'd want to use in a serious game.
...where I would start taking out your excessive use of "the fact that" and replace it with "my humble opinion that". :)
The point is that this is an area that hasn't been specifically ruled on by the designers, and interpretations of RAI for what is appropriate for a GM are just that - interpretations.
My opinion is that Pathfinder sets up monster creation guidelines and other parameters for GMs to help them create reasonable and interesting challenges with players. I think that the intent for templates is not to stack identical ones under their guidelines.
However, this is Pathfinder and GMs can do as they please, so it's certainly not disallowed. I would offer that it is my opinion that the reasonable guidelines (not strict rules) do not intend for GMs to stack identical templates.
This opinion could be contradicted easily if someone demonstrated a monster from an AP that has identical stacked templates... If it's in an AP, then it would seem to be intended for use under reasonable GM guidelines, and I would have to reconsider my position.
|
|
The simple templates are basically a shortcut for GMs who want to scale a monster up or down without a complete review. They work well enough if you apply one template, but if you apply multiple templates, the inaccuracies pile up to the point where the template's CR adjustment is clearly incorrect. A Young creature is fine, but a Young Young Young Young Young creature has -20 to Strength and is in trouble...
I would think that a hatchling anything would be a noncombatant.Some venomous snakes are deadly at birth.
And for Harryhausen fans, one of the Sinbad movies featured a battle between some sailors and a newly hatched 2-headed roc. So we've got both real life and classic cinema suggesting that a young-young-young-young monster isn't unreasonable.
And for Harryhausen fans, one of the Sinbad movies featured a battle between some sailors and a newly hatched 2-headed roc. So we've got both real life and classic cinema suggesting that a young-young-young-young monster isn't unreasonable.I would think that a hatchling anything would be a noncombatant.Some venomous snakes are deadly at birth.
That works out all fine and well with animals/magical beasts where they may have multiple attacks and a poison or something similar.
I highly doubt that a new-born devil is just as powerful (spell wise) as a 1 thousand year old demon.
|
I wanted medium sized Remorhaz's for a recent game so I applied the young template 2X to get their size down, and nerfed some abilities to make them a bit weaker. Why is stacking templates bad? Because a GM could use it to make a monster? It's the GM's game, if they want to stack templates (whether legal or not), then they are the GM and they are allowed.
If it turns out that the stacking is making the game a problem and the players are upset then there is a whole other issue: The Players don't like the difficulty of the game and should discuss this with their GM.
Legal or not legal stacking of templates is BS. If GM decides to do it and the players don't take issue it is a non-issue.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." - Gary Gygax