...Or under six if said prey is a commoner.
Yep, pretty sure Golarion mosquitoes are from the Worldwound. Or at least Hell. Since a relatively small swarm of them can outrun most medium-sized prey, and murder the hell out of said prey in a matter of under 30 seconds.
Later on we've taken to leaving particularly strong or annoying defeated enemies shackled up on the island to become infested with ghoul fever - long-term we hope to repeat the original Chelaxian plot to use ghouls as biological weapons.
The swarm subtype description states "A swarm of Diminutive creatures consists of 1,500 nonflying creatures or 5,000 flying creatures", so a mosquito swarm is ~5000 mosquitos.
Finally got around to actually looking at those things, and OH MY HOLY DAWNFLOWER!! How the hell does a swarm of mosquitoes deal 2d6 damage plus 1d6 bleed????? Where are these mosquitoes spawning?? The Worldwound?
I was hoping this was a typo. Sadly it is not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I was agreeing/supporting you. If I quote your post, it doesn't necessarily mean I'm arguing with you, y'know? :PYeah, I know. just clarifying my position. :)Riddle Me This:
I just quoted you both... Who am I arguing against?
Fighters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I was agreeing/supporting you. If I quote your post, it doesn't necessarily mean I'm arguing with you, y'know? :PYeah, I know. just clarifying my position. :)Riddle Me This:
I just quoted you both... Who am I arguing against?
Both!
And if you give me a few days and access to the "edit" option for a dictionary, I can craft an argument to support that bald-faced lie.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yep, pretty sure Golarion mosquitoes are from the Worldwound. Or at least Hell. Since a relatively small swarm of them can outrun most medium-sized prey, and murder the hell out of said prey in a matter of under 30 seconds.
Piranhasquitos?
... Is that a SyFy movie?
Yep, pretty sure Golarion mosquitoes are from the Worldwound. Or at least Hell. Since a relatively small swarm of them can outrun most medium-sized prey, and murder the hell out of said prey in a matter of under 30 seconds.Piranhasquitos?
... Is that a SyFy movie?
...I'll open the pool with 5 bucks in the "3-6 months" bracket.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...I'll open the pool with 5 bucks in the "3-6 months" bracket.Yep, pretty sure Golarion mosquitoes are from the Worldwound. Or at least Hell. Since a relatively small swarm of them can outrun most medium-sized prey, and murder the hell out of said prey in a matter of under 30 seconds.Piranhasquitos?
... Is that a SyFy movie?
I don't think it was a SyFy original, but I did see an awful film called "mansquito" on it one night. Given their current trend, maybe they'll make "Ghost Sharknado versus Mansquitocano".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds awesome! :-)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it was a SyFy original, but I did see an awful film called "mansquito" on it one night. Given their current trend, maybe they'll make "Ghost Sharknado versus Mansquitocano"....I'll open the pool with 5 bucks in the "3-6 months" bracket.Yep, pretty sure Golarion mosquitoes are from the Worldwound. Or at least Hell. Since a relatively small swarm of them can outrun most medium-sized prey, and murder the hell out of said prey in a matter of under 30 seconds.Piranhasquitos?
... Is that a SyFy movie?
So I sometimes read the forums while I'm on the toilet (and by sometimes, I mean nearly every time I'm on the toilet) and this made me tinkle a little.
TMI?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No. If you had jingled, though, that would have been TMI.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it was a SyFy original, but I did see an awful film called "mansquito" on it one night. Given their current trend, maybe they'll make "Ghost Sharknado versus Mansquitocano"....I'll open the pool with 5 bucks in the "3-6 months" bracket.Yep, pretty sure Golarion mosquitoes are from the Worldwound. Or at least Hell. Since a relatively small swarm of them can outrun most medium-sized prey, and murder the hell out of said prey in a matter of under 30 seconds.Piranhasquitos?
... Is that a SyFy movie?
So I sometimes read the forums while I'm on the toilet (and by sometimes, I mean nearly every time I'm on the toilet) and this made me tinkle a little.
TMI?
As if SyFy exists in the realm of the appropriate? :P
Mosquito swarm. This thing is deadly if you don't have particular spells available. I adjust the CR accordingly (+1 unless the party has readily-available AoE damage).A million times this, especially since they're immune to weapon damage and they fly faster than most 3rd level PCs can run. Amazing TPK potential for a party that's low on AoE blaster casters or didn't have the money or foresight to buy a crate of acid flasks and alchemist's fire.
** spoiler omitted **
Finally got around to actually looking at those things, and OH MY HOLY DAWNFLOWER!! How the hell does a swarm of mosquitoes deal 2d6 damage plus 1d6 bleed????? Where are these mosquitoes spawning?? The Worldwound?
Cue the science music!!!
According to science, it takes around 400,000 mosquitoes all pulling their maximum capacity of blood to kill a human, ...
Yeah, that's why I try not to use the swarms in my home game. They just don't make sense. My suspension of disbelief can only extend so far. Unless, of course, they are some sort of magically created demonic swarm. Ok, then it can at least kinda make sense.
I'm fine with using swarms in general, but many normal animals don't merit having swarms to begin with. Things like mosquitoes and flies should be environmental hazards not terrors that kill you in seconds. Also mosquitoes should be fine sized but for some reason aren't, though that only ups the swarm number to 10,000 still not enough to believably kill a person or have reason to.
I don't think it was a SyFy original, but I did see an awful film called "mansquito" on it one night. Given their current trend, maybe they'll make "Ghost Sharknado versus Mansquitocano"....I'll open the pool with 5 bucks in the "3-6 months" bracket.Yep, pretty sure Golarion mosquitoes are from the Worldwound. Or at least Hell. Since a relatively small swarm of them can outrun most medium-sized prey, and murder the hell out of said prey in a matter of under 30 seconds.Piranhasquitos?
... Is that a SyFy movie?
Was that the one with huge mosquitos the size of a man?
I'm still upset they aren't calling Snarknado 2: Aftersharks (pun on word aftershocks after a earthquake).
Like most templates vampires are under CRed if applied to lower level monsters and under cred if applied to higher level monsters. It should be an inverse sliding scale for CR.
You know, as a wee lad, I would have been delighted with the idea of a channel specifically dedicated to science fiction. Sadly, I had not thought through the consequence of Sturgeon's Law.
Let's see, under/over CR'd... What's the stance on vampires? Does the +2 CR sync up with the actual danger level they represent? And how much does the answer vary with the vampire's class?
Played properly? Under CR'd.
Vampire CR also kind of depends on the character it's given to. Someone who tanked Cha and boosted Con is going to be significantly more frail after becoming an Vampire, for example.
I'm not sure how they interact with the 'key class' on things with racial HD, but generally speaking you shouldn't be using NPC classes to beef up monsters.Why? Why would you say that? Adding class levels to monsters has been a thing since 3.0 debuted, and there's a whole section in the bestiary devoted to this...
I didn't say you shouldn't add classes. I said you shouldn't be using NPC classes. Why would you add Warrior levels to a monster when you could add Fighter or Barbarian levels instead? Why add levels of Adept when you could pick, well, any other spellcaster?
Dot.
|
I didn't say you shouldn't add classes. I said you shouldn't be using NPC classes. Why would you add Warrior levels to a monster when you could add Fighter or Barbarian levels instead? Why add levels of Adept when you could pick, well, any other spellcaster?I'm not sure how they interact with the 'key class' on things with racial HD, but generally speaking you shouldn't be using NPC classes to beef up monsters.Why? Why would you say that? Adding class levels to monsters has been a thing since 3.0 debuted, and there's a whole section in the bestiary devoted to this...
Because they are free. At least the first level it is.
It can be a good way to round out a saving throw, add in some extra hp or bab without affecting CR when dealing with optimized PCs. As long as you don't go far out of bounds on CR designated values it's a great way to provide some extra power while being cheap on the xp side.
I didn't say you shouldn't add classes. I said you shouldn't be using NPC classes. Why would you add Warrior levels to a monster when you could add Fighter or Barbarian levels instead? Why add levels of Adept when you could pick, well, any other spellcaster?I'm not sure how they interact with the 'key class' on things with racial HD, but generally speaking you shouldn't be using NPC classes to beef up monsters.Why? Why would you say that? Adding class levels to monsters has been a thing since 3.0 debuted, and there's a whole section in the bestiary devoted to this...
Because NPC classes are never considered key. So adding 5 levels of warrior to a troll increases it's CR by 2, in return he gets 5d10+ con HP, 5 BAB, some feats, small boost in saves, proficiency is most weapons and armor, and a few skill points.
[Edit] You might toss some Adept levels onto a Chuul and give it the Adept Channel feat along with Extra Channel and now you've got a 'Chuul Sea Witch' style character or a brood mother that can heal her younglings (Chuul with young template).
NPC classes rock.
[Edit2] Oops, Adept Channel doesn't work on Chuul, not high enough Charisma. That's what I get for just pulling a creature off the top of my head :P
I usually dip an NPC class level on my monsters. A little more HP, and the BAB boost often helps then qualify for feats or push them over for an extra iterative, or upgrade power attack.
|
|
I'll admit to a certain weakness for adding 1-2 levels of the Expert class. That Will save boost and a plethora of unexpected skills are mighty nice to use against a PC who has memorized the Bestiary, and I don't have to track any additional mechanics in the form of PC abilities.
Sorry. Off-topic, I guess.
Actually it's spot on-topic if you think about creatures that are not performing at CR expectations.
If you can get away with a power increase without adding to CR - and this can be done by swapping out feats, adding an NPCs level, etc - you are fixing the creature to operate and perform closer to it's listed CR.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's rather rough on the illusionists, enchanters, slumber-hex witches and others who're accustomed to "Will Save = I Win," but somehow I think I'll manage to endure their suffering. It's only a 10-15% increase in successful saves, after all. ;)
You could take low will save monster and add a level of Expert, Aristocrat and Adept and get a +6 bonus to Will saves in exchange for an increase of +1 in CR.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorceror: You don't kiss anything on an otyugh.
Alternate ending:
Aberrant Bloodline Sorcerer: You kiss everything on an otyugh!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because they are free. At least the first level it is.
If you're doing this because the creature underperforms at it's CR, then what the rules say about adjusting the CR is irrelevant: You've decided the original CR was in error.
If you're doing this because you want the absolute toughest monster for the XP to torment your players with, then you're using a loophole to justify using a more powerful monster for no additional benefit to the player. Which is certainly abusing the spirit of the rules.
I feel that they help lessen the vast power gulf between PCs and NPCs. I'm not sure I would do it at super low levels (1-3), but past that the Players seem to steamroll everything, especially since mine have hero points available.
|
|
It's rather rough on the illusionists, enchanters, slumber-hex witches and others who're accustomed to "Will Save = I Win," but somehow I think I'll manage to endure their suffering. It's only a 10-15% increase in successful saves, after all. ;)
If their suffering leads to tears, please do me a favor and bottle them up. I think I can sell them on Paizo.com as a fun item - DMs/GMs only.
I also get weepy when I see a player get upset that his binary power doesn't work to shut down a legal build at CR.
-
Oh wait...I actually don't.
-
Bonus Time (only for those jerk DMs who like to add in NPC levels on the cheap):
Another fun trick for low hd creatures (4 or less) is adding in Fiendish or Counterpoised templates for some SR, smite and energy resistances for free.
|
|
Because they are free. At least the first level it is.If you're doing this because the creature underperforms at it's CR, then what the rules say about adjusting the CR is irrelevant: You've decided the original CR was in error.
I'm not deciding - I'm checking the back of Bestiary 1 and looking at all the relevant stats that are wanting at CR. I do feel that SEVERAL creatures in the Bestiaries are listed in error - Paizo doesn't even follow their own guidelines on several monsters (as witnessed by this thread). My options for an error listed creature are:
- Change the numbers to match CR by fiat (just make them so - I'm not opposed to this, but some by-the-book GMs will balk and feel uncomfortable with this).
- Use the advancement rules (which add +CR which to already inflated CR)
- Add Levels (which add +CR which to already inflated CR)
- Find some good, CR +0 ways to legally beef up a stat block. I don't do this to every creature, just those in dire need of a makeover.
- Recost/Assign CR. What I've done im my home games is add in a 1/2 CR increments. So an underperforming CR 4 creature is now listed as a CR 3.5 creature. Instead of being worth 1,200 xp it is now worth 1,000 xp. Only for creatures that frequently fall out of the pg 291 guidelines on multiple aspect get this change.
Most Gms who run "by-the-book" will also avoid recost or changing CR values.
- Rebuild the creature - primarily feat swaps. This can be good or not, if the problems are deeper than a single +1 to hit or save.
Not many options (I mostly rule out the first 3 in my games).
-
If you're doing this because you want the absolute toughest monster for the XP to torment your players with, then you're using a loophole to justify using a more powerful monster for no additional benefit to the player. Which is certainly abusing the spirit of the rules.
LOL, you just made my day! Thanks Ross.
By your reasoning, running a slow xp advancement game per the charts is "no additional benefit to the player", since in effect they have to fight more creatures than players who are using the average advancement rate chart?
-
I'll try to keep this discussion in mind next time one of my players picks a hyperoptimized class/feat combo.
So if a player does it via splat options, it's optimization/game mastery/using his resources available to him.
If a DM does it (and it falls within the rules and number ranges) he is "abusing the spirit of the rules".
Got it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a DM does it (and it falls within the rules and number ranges) he is "abusing the spirit of the rules".
If the GM makes the rules, doesn't that mean he makes the spirit of the rules too?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I throw out the ship in a bottle as a noticeably under CRed enemy.
Highlights (at CR 2)
- 40 ft. fly speed
- DR 5/bludgeoning
- +7 to-hit bonus on a ranged attack.
- Construct Traits
If you're doing this because you want the absolute toughest monster for the XP to torment your players with, then you're using a loophole to justify using a more powerful monster for no additional benefit to the player. Which is certainly abusing the spirit of the rules.LOL, you just made my day! Thanks Ross.
By your reasoning, running a slow xp advancement game per the charts is "no additional benefit to the player", since in effect they have to fight more creatures than players who are using the average advancement rate chart?
Well, no, because that's part of the agreed baseline when starting a game.
And if your agreed baseline is that you're going to push the characters to their limit, that's fine. But you don't need the permission of some chart or formula to do that. Your players have given you that permission by coming to that type of game. You could just use an APL +1 or +2 encounter and assign APL XP and treasure for it.And, as I said, if you've decided a creature is over or under it's CR, you don't need the book's permission to fix it. You've already decided the book is wrong. (And there are many examples in this thread that show when the book is wrong.) You don't need to 'stealth' fix it by applying a +0 CR class level. You can just boost its stats. Or add racial HD. Or just add numbers where you feel they're deficient. You don't need a level in Expert if what you really think you need is +2 to will saves. Just give it the saves.
-
I'll try to keep this discussion in mind next time one of my players picks a hyperoptimized class/feat combo.So if a player does it via splat options, it's optimization/game mastery/using his resources available to him.
If a DM does it (and it falls within the rules and number ranges) he is "abusing the spirit of the rules".Got it.
It's not quite the same thing. More like the CR guidelines are meant to let you ask "I've made X creature, what CR is it?" more than "I have a CR budget of X, how big of a monster can I cram in it?"
And frankly, yes, I consider certain types of player optimizations to be 'abusing the spirit of the rules'. Others might use the word 'cheesy' or whatever, but the sentiment is similar.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, no, because that's part of the agreed baseline when starting a game.
And if your agreed baseline is that you're going to push the characters to their limit, that's fine. But you don't need the permission of some chart or formula to do that. Your players have given you that permission by coming to that type of game. You could just use an APL +1 or +2 encounter and assign APL XP and treasure for it.
Or I can keep the listed CR then add in an NPC level to shore up any deficiencies.
Some creatures are barely out of CR while others are glaringly out of CR - I would use different tools for different situations. All legal options should be used without guilt or casting aspersions.And, as I said, if you've decided a creature is over or under it's CR, you don't need the book's permission to fix it. You've already decided the book is wrong. (And there are many examples in this thread that show when the book is wrong.) You don't need to 'stealth' fix it by applying a +0 CR class level. You can just boost its stats. Or add racial HD. Or just add numbers where you feel they're deficient. You don't need a level in Expert if what you really think you need is +2 to will saves. Just give it the saves.
I don't need the books permission - I use those values as a guideline. And if a creature is below those values then I do what I can - legally - to make the creature fall in line with those expected values listed in those guidelines.
These are not stealth fixes, these are legit and legal fixes. And your suggestions of adding racial HD, while not changing CR (also redlining) doesn't really work. You have either added +1 CR to the creature (which is already overvalued and doesn't fix the problem) or if you just add 1 HD and not adjust CR then you are effectively doing nothing different than what I am doing by adding a crappy NPC level. Redlining/Optimizing the encounter - legally.
Arbitrarily assigning the values works for me - I put in what I would need because I get the math/challenge/expected numbers. Most GMs around here DO NOT feel comfortable changing a stat arbitrarily because they have been given DETAILED rules for advancing creatures and they are now (per your suggestion) bypassing those rules.
I don't consider players optimizing as Cheesy unless of course they are twisting a rule to get an exploit. Using something that is superior to something that is subpar is cheesy, it's just building out a character for best results and success - this coming from a ref who despises the CharOp/Build out to 20 mentality.
I didn't say you shouldn't add classes. I said you shouldn't be using NPC classes. Why would you add Warrior levels to a monster when you could add Fighter or Barbarian levels instead? Why add levels of Adept when you could pick, well, any other spellcaster?I'm not sure how they interact with the 'key class' on things with racial HD, but generally speaking you shouldn't be using NPC classes to beef up monsters.Why? Why would you say that? Adding class levels to monsters has been a thing since 3.0 debuted, and there's a whole section in the bestiary devoted to this...
Because Fighter sucks. I'd actually be improving the monster in a meaningful way with warrior levels as their HD, BAB, Saves, and Skills would get noticeably better. Now if we're talking disassociated levels, sure I suppose there's little difference between adding 2 Fighter until adding 2 warrior would be a better effect.
Adept levels are a good way to splash a variety of minor magics, and are better at creating gishy enemies who are like shamans. For example, since adept levels are always unassociated, for +1 CR you're getting +1 BAB, +2d6 HD, +1 Will, +2/3 Ref & Fort, 4 skill points, +2 adept caster levels, +2 levels of familiar special qualities. Are they the power-houses that a full-caster is? Nope, but they do some things really well and are pretty solid for building a more rounded enemy.
NPC classes also have the benefit of being simple. Heroic classes typically have a lot of abilities that need to be accounted for. NPC classes are generally raw statistics + feats, or in the case of the adept, a smattering of useful spells from different spell lists and a good caster level.
For example, sorcerers used to be pretty awesome from an NPC building perspective as you didn't need to worry about which spells were prepared, didn't have to stock a spellbook, and though it was lame that they had few class features it made throwing them together pretty fast. Now sorcerers are more of a pain to stat out as NPCs than wizards because of bloodlines. I've mostly switched to psionics for casty-NPCs because it's just a lot easier to GM for and a fireball is a fireball.
Experts and Aristocrats are agreeably kinda "meh" for the most part. I usually use warriors and adepts. It'd be nice to have an NPC class that had a good reflex save as well. However, even experts aren't terrible since they get +1.5 BAB, +2d8 HD, +1 Will, +2/3 Fort & Ref, and 12 skill points per +1 CR.
But fighters? Gross. No. Never. I use barbarians, rangers, and paladins, but never Fighter. There's just nothing that lots of fighter levels bring to a martial NPC that more warrior levels won't do better. That's a failing with the Fighter class, not the warrior.
For example, once the levels are considered associated, Fighter gives +1 BAB, +1d10 HD, +0.5 Fort, +1/3 Ref & Will, +1/4 ability bump, +0.5 combat feats, +0.5 feats, 2 skill points, +1/4 hit and damage (with a specific weapon group, begins at 5th level), and +1/4 saves vs fear, for +1 CR.
The warrior gives +2 BAB, +2d10 HD, +1 Fort, +2/3 Ref & Will, +1/2 ability bump, +1 feat, and 4 skill points (and +2 skill cap). Simpler? Yes? Better? Oh yeah.
The warrior on the same budget gets more BAB, more HP, better saves, better skills. Armor training is negated by the fact having more ranks in the skill is just better. The fighter's +1 to hit and damage every 5 levels is overshadowed by +2 BAB / level and Power Attack or Deadly Aim.
The higher base saves, BAB, and extra HD allow the NPC martial to be at least mildly challenging without being decked out completely in PC wealth gear, because martials really want those things like enhancement bonuses, better armor, etc. That stuff is often hard to afford on an NPC budget, which makes them little more than speedbumps, and unlike monsters with special abilities or spellcasting there is little that the martial NPC is going to do if they're not being a martial.
A 7th level Fighter is 6,000 gp as an NPC. Once you take 1500 gp for full plate, he's got 4,500 gp. He's pretty much hosed. With a masterwork weapon (not magical), and a +1 cloak of resistance, and a +1 ring of protection, and a mundane shield, he's got a little less than 500 gp left to spend. He's supposed to be CR 6, except he's horrible. His saves are a joke (his best save is around +8, his worst around +3, his HP's not that good, his to-hit is only around +12 (+7, +3 Str, +1 enhancement, +1 weapon training). His AC counting magic items is only 23, and his HP is about 57. His average damage on a full-attack if everything hits is only 17.
He's a sad joke by CR 6 standards which includes things such as: ankylosaurus, babau, bralani, ettin, girallon, half-fiend minotaur, kyton, lamia, salamander, shambling mound, white dragon (young), will-o'-wisp, wood golem, woolly rhinoceros, wyvern, xill, and xorn.
What's crazier is that he's already fully geared. Most of the above bestiary monsters have none of their treasures accounted for. The generic lamia has a +1 dagger and 2,000 gp of additional goodies, the half-fiend minotaur has 2,000 gp worth of goodies, as does the Babau, Kyton, Salamander, and Xill. In the case of the Lamia and Brilani, they have 4,000 gp worth of total treasure (the Bralani is actually over budget by about 1,100 gp).
They're better than the fully geared fighter naked and still have treasure on top of that which probably includes sweet magic items.
NPC levels are also really solid for rounding out odd concepts that aren't usually do effectively. For example, if you want a low-CR mage-knight or something you can slap a few levels of warrior onto a wizard or something, no funky prestige classes necessary.
For example, we have a CR 4 (5th level) wizard. We add 4 levels of Warrior onto said wizard, bringing her from CR 4 to CR 6. She now has a +6 BAB, 4d10+5d6 HP, +5 Fort, +2 Ref, +5 Will, 18 skill points, 5th level spells, appropriate proficiencies, etc. With the feats gained from the warrior levels we slap two-weapon fighting and improved unarmed strike on her, and we give her spells like mage armor, shield, shocking grasp, vampiric touch, mirror image, and invisibility. Voila, we've got a mage-knight at CR 6. No dealing with prestige classes, lots of unneeded class features, etc.
Arcane strike would work pretty well too. In any case, normally this would either require you to be a magus or an eldritch knight. Magus is statistically similar, but you're trading major class features like their pool and spellstriking for better base statistics (in this case BAB, HP, and skills), and slightly more options when it comes to spellcasting (since you have the wizard spell list instead of the magus'), though the two would probably look similar in play (we've feated her out so we can give her a gauntlet and let her deliver touch spells through her gauntlet as part of her attack routine by holding the charge).
I'm also in agreement that Witchfires are a sick joke. An 8d6 touch attack with a DC 22 save or become vulnerable (+50% damage) to their attack is harsh to begin with (especially combined with their formidable defenses), but if you meet one with the Vital Strike feats, just run for your lives.
The standard witchfire qualifies for vital strike, which allows her to smash someone for 16d6 fire damage as a standard action. Then if you fail a DC 22 Will save after the touch, you're effectively getting smashed for 34d6 fire damage every round thereafter. At CR 9. Yeah...
EDIT: Which is coupled with at-will SLA invisibility, the ability to summon 0-2 will o' whisps, and a +10 Initiative. An invisible incorporeal creature is effectively super-invisible since they don't make sound unless they desire, they have no scent, they don't move objects, and now you can't see them, so they're pretty much certain to get the opening attack, and kill someone on round 1.
Surprise: Witchfire moves up to the party's Fighter under cover of invisibility with a +39 Stealth (and scent, blindsense, and blindsight do nothing) and smashes said warrior for 16d6 (56 average) damage on round 0.
Round 1: A weak-willed character is probably going to fail a DC 22 save at this level, so on the next round, the warrior gets smashed for an average of 84 damage, for a total of 140 damage, then the witchfire sinks into the ground gaining total cover.
Round 2: The witchfire, while chillin' in the ground, becomes invisible again and using its brilliant intellect decides to screw with the party by letting them buff up and get ready to fight, and then just not fighting them, wasting their resources.
Round ??: The witchfire follows the party and waits until they rest. A 16d6 coup de grace is pretty much 100% foolproof.
I'm pretty sure you can't Vital Strike a touch attack or a ranged touch attack, both attacks the Witchfire has are those. If you can, then Shocking Grasp and Ray-users just got a massive damage boost.
===Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, no, because that's part of the agreed baseline when starting a game.
And if your agreed baseline is that you're going to push the characters to their limit, that's fine. But you don't need the permission of some chart or formula to do that. Your players have given you that permission by coming to that type of game. You could just use an APL +1 or +2 encounter and assign APL XP and treasure for it.Or I can keep the listed CR then add in an NPC level to shore up any deficiencies.
Some creatures are barely out of CR while others are glaringly out of CR - I would use different tools for different situations. All legal options should be used without guilt or casting aspersions.
I can definitely say that dropping a level of warrior or adept onto something to grant them some proficiencies or give 'em a +2 save bump is often pretty solid. I wouldn't even say that it's not without reward either because generally players are going to loot their gear, and NPC classed characters use generally have double-treasure values (if you double the standard treasure you generally get heroic NPC treasure, which is what classed monsters get as if their level = CR, according to the Bestiary).
I still use a lot of PC classes when making NPCs though. I'm sure I've mentioned Captain Scurvy the Pigmy Pugwampi Pirate a few times on these boards. Captain Scurvy is a diminutive CR 4, 6th level pugwampi (the young template makes him smaller to represent his pygmy nature). He rides on his animal companion, a warf-rat named Skitters. He's a sneaky little fellow who climbs onto ships (he has pass without trace and a +31 Stealth modifier, and skitters has a swim and climb speed) and lets his aura of unluck ruin the crew while his band of gnoll pirates takes control.
He's a jolly little sucker, and his favored enemies are humans (+4) and animals (+2). He wields a diminutive +1 flaming shortbow that launches 1d2-3 + 1d6 fire damage arrows at people. His attack routine with rapid shot is +9/+9/+4, and he can deadly aim for +4 if needed, and he full attacks each turn while riding around on skitters who has a 40 ft. movement speed and can double-move each turn with no real problems for Captain Scurvy.
I think Ross is saying that NPC's were not intended to be used as monsters and technically it is just gaming the CR system, so instead of just justifying it*, with NPC levels just make the monster tougher, but keep the CR the same.
*I said justifying because a GM may say what he did was rules legal, just like some players use RAW as an excuse to bypass RAI.
PS:
|
|
I think Ross is saying that NPC's were not intended to be used as monsters and technically it is just gaming the CR system, so instead of just justifying it*, with NPC levels just make the monster tougher, but keep the CR the same.
*I said justifying because a GM may say what he did was rules legal, just like some players use RAW as an excuse to bypass RAI.
And what I was saying was that some DMs do not feel comfortable by "just making the monster tougher" without some rules behind it. This is a highly codified gaming environment - Paizo promotes that mentality, yet the offered fix is DM Fiat?
As to the spirit of the rules/RAW/RAI- I'm not buying it.
Nowhere in the rules as written or even intended does it say you cannot add NPC levels to any creature. There is a guide and number parameters that list CR baseline values which I as a DM should be trying to follow.
On the other hand players who are hyper-optimized, do not have such a guide. There isn't a list of "what your numbers should be like" for PCs or even quantifying abstract abilities (newest splat exploitable spell or feat) where now a 5th level PC should be instead treated as a 6th level PC.
If I use a rule in the bestiary and don't break those values (291) I am not breaking RAW or even RAI - since there is no inference that these NPC classes (page 297-298) are for humanoids only. These classes do not have a racial or stat requirement - they don't even have a status requirement (Corporeal, alive, etc). This is not a nebulous debate about a new spell (create pit) and how it can be abused. Adding in levels to creatures has been an option since 3rd ed was published. In PF, the first NPC level doesn't count if it doesn't match or exceeded HD. If a creature is performing under CR, then I see this as both a legit (RAW) and reasonable (RAI) fix.
If I add a level of Warrior to a Gelatinous Cube I am not looking to make a Cube that once served in the city militia and now decided to explore the local crypt because it was bored with city life. I'm looking for a mechanical, legit way to customize a monster besides advancing HD or adding in a template. In some cases the monster's new values will then take it out of CR range - in which case it gets a bump..... and in some cases the CR will stay the same since many creatures in PF are over-priced.
In effect, adding a single NPC level (the thing Ross is calling an exploit) is like adding in a single monster HD for effect - in my case, I don't want to break CR while still having the options to increase skill points, feats, weapon proficiencies, minor magic, etc + some customization so sometimes adding in that free level (if it doesn't break values) works for me.
I personally would be much happier with pure monster class levels as an option since these would work better - even if they bumped the CR. But since Paizo is adamant about NOT publishing a monster builder book (it can't be done!!!!) and I get shouted down every time I mention the desire for such book so I use what I have available to me.
|
I'm pretty sure you can't Vital Strike a touch attack or a ranged touch attack, both attacks the Witchfire has are those. If you can, then Shocking Grasp and Ray-users just got a...I'm also in agreement that Witchfires are a sick joke. An 8d6 touch attack with a DC 22 save or become vulnerable (+50% damage) to their attack is harsh to begin with (especially combined with their formidable defenses), but if you meet one with the Vital Strike feats, just run for your lives.
The standard witchfire qualifies for vital strike, which allows her to smash someone for 16d6 fire damage as a standard action. Then if you fail a DC 22 Will save after the touch, you're effectively getting smashed for 34d6 fire damage every round thereafter. At CR 9. Yeah...
EDIT: Which is coupled with at-will SLA invisibility, the ability to summon 0-2 will o' whisps, and a +10 Initiative. An invisible incorporeal creature is effectively super-invisible since they don't make sound unless they desire, they have no scent, they don't move objects, and now you can't see them, so they're pretty much certain to get the opening attack, and kill someone on round 1.
Surprise: Witchfire moves up to the party's Fighter under cover of invisibility with a +39 Stealth (and scent, blindsense, and blindsight do nothing) and smashes said warrior for 16d6 (56 average) damage on round 0.
Round 1: A weak-willed character is probably going to fail a DC 22 save at this level, so on the next round, the warrior gets smashed for an average of 84 damage, for a total of 140 damage, then the witchfire sinks into the ground gaining total cover.
Round 2: The witchfire, while chillin' in the ground, becomes invisible again and using its brilliant intellect decides to screw with the party by letting them buff up and get ready to fight, and then just not fighting them, wasting their resources.
Round ??: The witchfire follows the party and waits until they rest. A 16d6 coup de grace is pretty much 100% foolproof.
Vital Strike requires the attack action. Abilities that involve touch attacks are their own, separate, standard actions.