| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To my mind, there are many reasons why the developers didn't go through and purchase all their gear for them, not the least of which is it is a time sink that a publisher cannot afford, but GMs can.
What exactly is it you think the authors, developers, and designers that contribute to these books do? The entire point of Bestiaries is you can take that stat block and run a game with it. It's better for one developer to take the time to get it right than have a thousand GMs do the same.
The NPC Codex was not a set of instructions saying 'It's a level 13 wizard with X GP of gear, figure it out yourself.'
NPCs and monsters with class levels have specific guidelines for splitting up their wealth. Stock monsters have the random treasure tables.
Changing feats changes the difficulty of the monster. If not I would never change feats so it "should" change the CR, but I dont change it.I must admit this is something I wrestle with.
Changing feats / customising shouldn't, IMO, change CR. What it should do is change specialisation - a bit like it does with PCs; i.e. make them stronger in some areas, weaker in others.
Assuming, of course, sensible feat selection.
What I find sometimes is, quite frankly, baffling feat selection in some of the monsters in the bestiary and published modules. It's almost as if they've been deliberately made weaker in order to make the encounter easier for PCs without changing the reward (i.e. the CR).
Then a little bit of sensible feat choosing ramps the power of the creature to where it should be.
IMVHO.
Richard
I think some monsters are not optimized with feats because the average gamer is assumed to be fighting them. I don't normally get "Average" players, so I have to change feats out to make them into a real challenge.
PS: Defining average might be another topic, but I think you get what I mean.
Based off some designer posts, Paizo balances the game around the assumption that the average gamer has, "6 months play experience or has played 1 adventure path before".
Anyone who doesn't fall into that criteria isn't an average gamer. Which is probably most everyone who plays Pathfinder.
I guess that is a good timeline to go by, but I don't know how much better people get on average. But then again I see a lot of new people or those that are really good, and not too much in between.
To my mind, there are many reasons why the developers didn't go through and purchase all their gear for them, not the least of which is it is a time sink that a publisher cannot afford, but GMs can.What exactly is it you think the authors, developers, and designers that contribute to these books do? The entire point of Bestiaries is you can take that stat block and run a game with it. It's better for one developer to take the time to get it right than have a thousand GMs do the same.
The NPC Codex was not a set of instructions saying 'It's a level 13 wizard with X GP of gear, figure it out yourself.
NPCs and monsters with class levels have specific guidelines for splitting up their wealth. Stock monsters have the random treasure tables.
exactly.
If I had to buy the book and still do more work I would not buy the book.PS: Trading feats is a lot easier the deciding what gear to add.
|
Mathwei, if it did real damage it would say so...ALL the shadow subschool spells that do real damage say so.
Since it doesn't...it doesn't. You're operating off a false premise that 100% real damage is the base.
==Aelryinth
The core rules of the game state that all shadow spells do real damage it's the individual spells themselves that limit that.
The default is if a shadow spell does x damage you take x damage, shadow conjuration for example adds the extra line that says if you disbelieve it you only take 20%.Specific trumps general but if there is NO specific then the general rule is enforced. The general rule for all shadow spells is the damage is real, that's black and white straight from the book.
The specific rule for Project Image is that they are intangible.
Specifically intangible trumps the general rule of shadow spells.
Yup and the specifics of this spell state it CAN affect objects
Objects are affected by the projected image as if they had succeeded on their Will save.
so even though it IS intangible the specifics of the spell allows it to interact with real things.
Now, you all are trying to say that a 7TH level arcane spell is supposed to only do what a 3rd level spell (Major Image) can do?
Shadow spells generate semi-real things that can be used as things are. All the limitations that you all are trying to apply to this extremely high level spell are not written anywhere in the rules and directly contradict the written rules. Now if there is something out there that I've missed where it limits this spell this much I'd definitely like to see it.
When you succeed on a will save against the image, you know it's not there and is not real.
So if objects are affected as if they succeeded on their will save, then objects are affected as if it wasn't there.
Are you reading this at all or what?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now, you all are trying to say that a 7TH level arcane spell is supposed to only do what a 3rd level spell (Major Image) can do?
It does more than major image. You can see through its eyes and cast spells through it. You use it as a proxy while remaining where nothing can hurt you. That's pretty good. If you're lucky, some foes waste some attacks/spells on it before they disbelieve it.
The spell description specifically says it is intangible. You cannot stab someone with an intangible sword.
Edit: Simulacrum is also a 7th level [shadow] spell. It does what you want project image to do. But it is much more expensive and the clones are not as powerful.
|
|
When you succeed on a will save against the image, you know it's not there and is not real.
So if objects are affected as if they succeeded on their will save, then objects are affected as if it wasn't there.
Are you reading this at all or what?
That actually isn't true. All disbelieving does is reveals that this is an illusion, it doesn't do anything else.
A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline.
Heck, unless it's a figment or phantasm it doesn't even make the illusion disappear for you.
Intangible doesn't mean it can't attack, it doesn't actually mean ANYTHING since it's not a game term. If they had said incorporeal it would make a difference but since there is no Intangible condition it has no effect.
Now since the spell is specifically calling out that the image CAN affect objects (yes it is as if they made the save but since the save doesn't mean the object can't be touched it just makes all the saves against the image) AND every other quasi-real shadow spell in the game can inflict damage on living things (show me any instance in the game where quasi-real doesn't do damage) and there is nothing written in the spell to counteract the stated rule that shadow spells do damage why should this spell be different?
It's a shadow spell shaped to look like a sword wielding monster who then proceeds to stick a quasi-real sword through someones mid-section, they should take damage. 7th level spells are no joke and break all the rules of reality within the confines of the spell.
edit: Simulacrum is a better written spell I'll admit but is exactly the same strength as this one, just trades flexibility for power.
With that said these two spells are from the same school, same level and roughly same intent. Why would anyone expect them to be so vastly different in power?
Intangible doesn't mean it can't attack, it doesn't actually mean ANYTHING since it's not a game term. If they had said incorporeal it would make a difference but since there is no Intangible condition it has no effect.
It isn't a game term. It's a word. In English. It means 'cannot be touched' or 'insubstantial'.
What you are trying to describe is a spell substantially better than simulacrum, which is also 7th level, or astral projection, which is 9th level.
There is so much you are trying to assume the spell does that the spell description does not include, based on a combination of wishful thinking and a vague subschool rule.
You are assuming that an intangible spell effect can make attacks.
You are assuming the illusions can fight separate targets (or the same target from different angles) effectively, despite the spell description specifically saying it requires a move action not to just mimic your own movement.
You are assuming that the [Shadow] subschool's quasi-realness refers to the ability to inflict damage, rather than the fact that the illusion has eyes and ears that work and can be a source for spell effects.
You are right that the illusion remains if disbelieved: you can still use it as a source for spell effects, even if the target knows it is a shadow.
|
|
It isn't a game term. It's a word. In English. It means 'cannot be touched' or 'insubstantial'.Intangible doesn't mean it can't attack, it doesn't actually mean ANYTHING since it's not a game term. If they had said incorporeal it would make a difference but since there is no Intangible condition it has no effect.
Right, just like incorporeal but those critters still get to do damage.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mathwei, I'm not going to argue with you on this because you are deadset on ignoring everything other than your opinion. Project Image cannot be used to make melee attacks.
If you want to use it to make melee attacks, then it's a house rule in your game and not how the spell is actually used.
Intangible means Intangible, not everything needs to be a game term to carry weight or else the entire rule book is meaningless. Why? Because the vast majority of the rulebook means nothing unless each word is defined as a game term.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Right, just like incorporeal but those critters still get to do damage.It isn't a game term. It's a word. In English. It means 'cannot be touched' or 'insubstantial'.Intangible doesn't mean it can't attack, it doesn't actually mean ANYTHING since it's not a game term. If they had said incorporeal it would make a difference but since there is no Intangible condition it has no effect.
Yes, and they generally get touch attacks that deal non-physical damage. As a specific rule to that particular monster. The project image spell does not give any information about such attacks.
Though the way this conversation is going, I expect you to think this means that those 16 duplicates your mariliths have following them around get to target touch AC instead.
|
For me, it's actually pretty hard to say which creatures are over CR'ed or under CR'ed. But if I had to, certain creatures that you can use as a player race (eg the aasimar) are pretty much under CR'ed as they have a default CR of either 1\2 or 1\3 (I can't remember off the top of my head).
However, those particular races can easily be made into very difficult encounters (because you're not going to have players battle a lone hobgoblin whose practically naked and armed only with a club, you're going to make them battle against a gang of hobgoblins that are bedecked in full plate steel armour and armed to the teeth with finely crafted swords and shields) thus increasing the CR. Of course, if you go too far, those same encounters could very easily become over CR'ed.
Mathwei nothing in that spells say that it can make actual attacks, and a spell level is not a good debate point. Foresight is 9th level spell and it is not even close to the other 9th level spells.
The only point of this spell is to cast spells from another location. That is how it falls in line with the shadow subschool since the spells are real, and it can do real damage.
That does not mean the projection of your image can attack anything, or the book would have called it out.
So how can the illusion interacting with an object if it is insubstansial? If it is because the illusion is considered the source of the spells so if it cast a spell on an object then it is interacting with the object.
"The projected image can't cast any spells on itself except for illusion spells. "
That means that the spell can be considered the source of casting the spells even if the come from the actual caster of project image.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To get things back on track the CR 6 or 7 clockwork soldiers have a high "to hit" for their CR. I think it is close to a +20.
Well they could if you're cheating. I love projected image and it's one of the strongest spells in a wizard's arsenal, but it does not work like Mathwei is describing. It's an intangible proxy that you can cast spells through (which is freaking awesome...except for the Maralith who's severely limited in that regard).
Of course, PC wealth adds +1 CR to a creature. Yet for some reason, Aelyrinth seems to think that picking out some cheap magic items means suddenly the monster is like +bajillion CRs higher!
Sorry, this system is not that broken. It seems like Ross & Aelryinth don't have much faith in it, but it really works quite well and you don't have to assume that monsters are dumb. And no, a dragon's horde does not consist of only its encounter wealth. A dragon's lair includes incidental treasures for all the traps and boogeymen guarding it as well.
Because frankly, a dragon's "horde" would be incredibly disappointing if it was limited to just triple treasure. Especially given that fighting a dragon in its lair is so ***-****ed difficult compared to fighting it in the wilds. >_>
However, on the subject of treasures...
Building a Treasure Hoard
While it's often enough to simply tell your players they've found 5,000 gp in gems and 10,000 gp in jewelry, it's generally more interesting to give details. Giving treasure a personality can not only help the verisimilitude of your game, but can sometimes trigger new adventures. The information on the below can help you randomly determine types of additional treasure—suggested values are given for many of the objects, but feel free to assign values to the objects as you see fit. It's easiest to place the expensive items first—if you wish, you can even randomly roll magic items, using the tables in Magic Items, to determine what sort of items are present in the hoard. Once you've consumed a sizable portion of the hoard's value, the remainder can simply be loose coins or nonmagical treasure with values arbitrarily assigned as you see fit.
So yeah, magic items and junk first, pocket change rounds it out.
Project Image also makes you blind and deaf while using it, so you'd look pretty silly trying to fight while the image is Aiding you.
If you have a party of optimized players then do like I do and don't use stock monsters. I am not saying it is "wrong" to use the treasure or change feats. I am saying that after you add so much gear or change certain feats the monster can be a lot tougher, even if by the rules the CR is the same.I think the CR's are normally on par for many players. I just have get those players too often.
The marilith specifically is weaker compared to other CR 17 creatures due to overvaluing its many attacks. I equip other creature for verisimilitude reasons but the marilith specifically needs a new CR or to get a boost. Rune giants, wendigos, and bandersnatch all out perform the poor demon generals considerably. I'm leaving out the CR 17 dragons because they outperform everyone because dragons are almost all under CRed.
Re the equipment. Monsters would have what they consider useful and have had time to acquire and keep. So the orc just back from rampaging would have his battle gear (the best he could get), plus some cash, plus some useless but semi-valuable crap he's just liberated from that farmhouse. If he happened to find a wand in the temple he ransacked, he'd have traded it to the shaman (who would keep it and use it) in exchange for something he could use.
Sometimes, the orc shaman would have been killed, and there would be this useless wand kicking around in the cave being used as a drumstick or child's arrowshaft or stick for cleaning the cesspit.
And so it goes with other monsters.
I have faith in the CR system. I just think that if you're consistently upgrading monsters with things that 'round down' to the same CR, like adding one level of a non-key class or turning treasure into gear, then you're running a more powerful game than the default assumption. Which is fine: maybe you're fixing a monster that underperforms. Maybe you're countering out the fact that your players' characters are better optimized than the default assumption. You're the GM. You can and should do what it takes to challenge your players while awarding XP at a rate everyone thinks is fun.
What I reject, and have argued against in this thread, is that such things should be done as a matter of course. That non-key class levels should be added because they are "free". That every intelligent monster should turn as much treasure as possible into combat gear (and the corresponding assertion that 'triple standard treasure' means a more powerful monster, instead of just a monster with a collection fetish that offsets the treasure curve for 'none' treasure monsters.)
The non-key classes are in my opinion dumb, but the MMO raid boss drops based on treasure value is equally dumb.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have faith in the CR system. I just think that if you're consistently upgrading monsters with things that 'round down' to the same CR, like adding one level of a non-key class or turning treasure into gear, then you're running a more powerful game than the default assumption. Which is fine: maybe you're fixing a monster that underperforms. Maybe you're countering out the fact that your players' characters are better optimized than the default assumption. You're the GM. You can and should do what it takes to challenge your players while awarding XP at a rate everyone thinks is fun.
Look at it like this. Monsters have weapon proficiencies. Monsters have treasure. Monsters are smart. Not all of them, but many of them. Some of them even have class features (celestials commonly cast spells as bards or clerics). Many of them use their treasures. Why is this a problem? It's standard. It's assumed in the system. The treasure section of the monster entry even notes that you will need to adjust the gear of creatures up or down depending on what advancement speed you're running at.
Adding one-level of a non-key class is generally not going to have a big influence on them. More often than not, it's probably going to be done to represent something a little special about that individual creature, such as some combat training or some sorcerous ability. I suppose that you could dump 1 non-associated level onto something to get the heroic stat bumps, but generally if I'm advancing a monster then I'm advancing them with a purpose of some sort, which usually either means a tiny dip for some proficiencies (because maybe I want the dryad to wield a sword), some magic ability (a level of adept on the ogre makes it an ogre medicine man), or I want something that's going to change it drastically (like adding multiple class levels) and those sorts of changes always up the CR because you're not going to drastically change anything with 1 nonassociated class level, 2+ is going to be needed.
Likewise, there's a really good reason why monsters with equipment purchased out of their treasure values - which the bestiary has frequently demonstrated not only acceptable but commonplace - aren't given full gearsets. The Bestiary (or MM in 3.x) is meant to have lots of generic monsters you can grab and run out of the book. It's a lot easier to add on than it is to take-off. Instead of picking out every item for the GM, it's left up to the GM what they have in regards to their treasure values.
Look at orcs, goblins, and kobolds for example. They have NPC gear appropriate to NPCs of their level. That's 260 gp worth of gear. Most are listed with a default loadout that usually looks something like 1 mundane weapon, 1 mundane armor, maybe 1 mundane ranged weapon, and then other treasure. It's not that they don't have more treasure, but the bestiary gives them kind of a bare-bones thing. That's helpful for several reasons.
1. It makes it easier to adjust the treasures on the monsters for a fast or slow XP game, high or low fantasy.
2. As noted before, it's easier to add on than take off, with some exceptions (the ghaele's +4 sword is its only treasure so replacing a single item on a slow / fast / low / high fantasy dial isn't much of an issue, but you try rebuilding an entire kit just to run a slower XP progression game and you'll end up wasting tons of time).
3. There's a lot of wiggle room. According to the rules, adding PC Wealth to a creature increases its CR by +1. That's it. + 1. Even triple wealth doesn't come close to scratching PC wealth. Most monsters that don't have treasure also don't need it.
Is a succubus CR 7? Yep. Is a succubus with a +1 ring of protection and a +1 sword CR 7? You betcha!
Same with feats. Does picking different feats give you a level adjustment? Do you suddenly start using the Monsters as PCs rules if you take Power Attack instead of Run? No. You don't. You just have X feats. The end. >_>
What I reject, and have argued against in this thread, is that such things should be done as a matter of course. That non-key class levels should be added because they are "free". That every intelligent monster should turn as much treasure as possible into combat gear (and the corresponding assertion that 'triple standard treasure' means a more powerful monster, instead of just a monster with a collection fetish that offsets the treasure curve for 'none' treasure monsters.)
What constitutes as "combat gear"? Is it only stuff that makes them better in combat? Well, that's...most magic items. Most monsters that the PCs face are generally in positions to want things like rings of protection, or amulets of shield, or a cloak of mountebank, or boots of speed.
Why is it fine for an ogre magi to have a masterwork weapon and and 6400 gp in "other treasures", but not allowed to have "other treasures" that actually mean something? I mean, right here in the Gamemastering Section about building a treasure horde it says...
Magic Items: Of course, the discovery of a magic item is the true prize for any adventurer. You should take care with the placement of magic items in a hoard—it's generally more satisfying for many players to find a magic item rather than purchase it, so there's no crime in placing items that happen to be those your players can use! An extensive list of magic items (and their costs) is given in Magic Items.
So what's the problem with turning that 6400 gp into a +1 weapon (in addition to being masterwork) and a +2 cloak of resistance? That leaves him with about 400 gp for things like hard currency and/or luxury items (such as golden armlets, or a mithral belt buckle or something).
The rules seem to expect this. Here we have rules for building treasure hordes, and we have monsters with treasure, but we're apparently doing something nefarious by actually doing what the game is telling us to do? Something that actually makes the game run well? Something that makes logical and verisimilitude cultivating sense? But it's somehow not within the spirit of the rules?
Well, y'know, you can go grab a copy of a 3.x DMG from back when this system was invented and find where it says that monsters that can will definitely use their magic items. Where it says that if there is a +1 sword in an adventure full of gnolls, then by golly one of those gnolls better be wielding it and not just keeping the sword stashed in a chest in the back room. >_>
Pathfinder streamlined encounter design in big ways. It did not, however, dumb it down as some seem to be implying.
|
|
That non-key class levels should be added because they are "free".
And what I have argued in this thread is that they are only free if they do not take the creature out of its current CR values, otherwise they are +1 CR and I can think of better ways to boost a monster than to add a level of expert.
They are a good way to get a few numbers/sp/abilities without wildly changing the creatures powers and ability at it's current listed CR and a quick way to fix an under-performing creature without an entire re-write.
Intangible doesn't mean it can't attack, it doesn't actually mean ANYTHING since it's not a game term.
Pathfinder rules are not made up solely of game terms. When a term is not a game term, the common language definition is used, and that can and does have mechanical impact. This isn't Magic: The Gathering, where the card text can be auto-generated by a short script. If it was, it wouldn't be a roleplaying game--there wouldn't be enough freedom to do anything outside the bounds of the rules. (Yes, Virginia, you really can take a dump in Golarion!)
Project image projects . . . an image. That's it. Anything the image can do that major image cannot is specified by the spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To return to the original topic, I have noticed that higher CR creatures, particularly ones with SLAs, can perform much better or much worse depending on if the GM knows how to use them properly and the setup of the area.
To use the example of the marilith again, there is a big difference between a marilith that tries to use full attacks to start with and one that hides behind a projected image to soften up its targets first. It is non-obvious to the GM that a creature with 10 attacks should not try to make full attacks as soon as possible. It doesn't have a tactics block.
Heck, project image can be a source for line-of-effect, so with at-will castings, it is possible to use them to turn corners. A marilith in a labyrinth can be two or three corners back from actually being visible. It isn't a foolproof defense, but it is the kind of thing that can force their opponents to run though (or spend spells avoiding) blade barriers all while getting pummeled by telekinesis.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"A marilith in a labyrinth" looks like one of those things that's really hard to say five times fast. But it really isn't hard at all.
Is a succubus CR 7? Yep. Is a succubus with a +1 ring of protection and a +1 sword CR 7? You betcha!
And you're absolutely right. But at the same time, that doesn't mean a GM who runs it straight out of the book with a pile out gold in the next room is doing it wrong, either. You said it yourself: a couple +1's isn't going to make or break the monster.
In the end, CR comes down to threat. If the treasure makes the monster more threatening than a typical monster of its CR, raise the CR. If it doesn't, or if it actually lowers the threat below the typical monster of its CR, lower the CR.
It really is that simple, but it isn't always easy. CR is an art, not a mathematical discipline.
To get things back on track the CR 6 or 7 clockwork soldiers have a high "to hit" for their CR. I think it is close to a +20.
They actually have two attack rolls. +18/+13, which are abnormally high. According to the bestiary's monster creation section +12 would be a "high" attack value for a CR 6 creature.
That is pretty high, especially with such a powerful attack. Compare hill giant, which is one CR higher and has less to-hit, less damage per hit, no DR, and only slightly higher hit points and AC. Granted, hill giants are "intelligent", at least. A clockwork soldier is not.
It strikes me that the gear and feats controversy here has a few general consequences. As has been stated, it is about threat. A marilith with gear to give her a significantly better AC is a different challenge than a baseline one. One that uses poisoned weapons might be too. Same with various scrolls, wands, or the like. They have a honking great number of feats, streamlining these for, I dunno, extra attacks of opportunity and reach, or combat maneuvers, or something else might also change the threat she brings. At the same time, other aspects of her combat ability take a hit. It remains to determine where the actual CR ends up. If a modified creature changes threat level enough, it should no longer have the same CR. You can't just assume that because it still has the same value of gear and the same number of feats, CR is unchanged. More likely, CR goes up, but she gets a weak spot or two.
... i.e. the same process that is called optimization when PCs do it. Which in turn raises the question if a heavily optimized PC should travel in the same party as non-optimized ones.
Could the Marilith not just use weapons two-haned, thus cutting her number of necessary weapons in half and increasing the damage per swing, while funneling the extra gold into her defenses?
Seems kind of a win-win in my book.
The damage doesn't matter when she can't hit for squat. Quantity > quality when you don't have quality, so no. It's not a win-win, especially since the PA penalties will increase.
The damage doesn't matter when she can't hit for squat. Quantity > quality when you don't have quality, so no. It's not a win-win, especially since the PA penalties will increase.
No her power attack penalties do not increase because her BAB has not increased. What she gets is 1.5 strength damage on all of her attacks and 3:1 return on her Power Attack.
Her attack routine would be more like the following: +1 longsword +24/+19/+14/+9 (2d6+11/17–20), 2 +1 longswords +24 (2d6+11/17–20), tail slap +17 (2d6+3 plus grab)
or
with power attack +1 longsword +19/+14/+9/+4 (2d6+26/17–20), 2 +1 longswords +19 (2d6+26/17–20), tail slap +12 (2d6+8 plus grab)
If you want to get *really* cheesy, the RAW of the Marilith's Multiweapon Mastery says she never takes penalties to her attack roll when fighting with multiple weapons. So RAW (and total cheese) is that she can fight with Power Attack at no penalty to her attack roll. So it would be more like:
+1 longsword +24/+19/+14/+9 (2d6+26/17–20), 2 +1 longswords +24 (2d6+26/17–20), tail slap +17 (2d6+8 plus grab)
It's not great, but it's a lot better than she was before.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Could the Marilith not just use weapons two-haned, thus cutting her number of necessary weapons in half and increasing the damage per swing, while funneling the extra gold into her defenses?
Seems kind of a win-win in my book.
Two-bladed swords FTW.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that the biggest challenge for a marilith using her equipment of any sort is the 50 lb. weight limit. She's a large creature, and unlike in 3.0, you take a -2 penalty if you wield weapons out of your size category, so she's stuck using large weapons, then any armor that she would wear is at minimum double-heavy. Since even most wondrous items weigh 1 lb., it's really difficult for her to actually use anything at all (her default mundane swords are 48 out of her 50 lb. limit).
The fact her movement forms suck at this level is also painful. She has a 40 ft. speed as a large creature and is one of the only high level outsiders that cannot naturally fly somehow. All it takes is a single 4th level dimensional anchor and she's pinned.
Because of this, I think I'm going to re-stat the maralith because y'know, I like maraliths. They've always been one of my favorite demons conceptually, but they just don't live up to their fluff at all.
Ashiel, are you up late, or awake early?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ashiel, are you up late, or awake early?
Awake early. I got a job in town to help out with household bills and such. I have to be there this morning at 7:15am, so I got up at about 6am, showered, got dressed, and I'm chillin' on the forums 'till then.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the biggest problem with this is kind of 2 fold.
First is the issue that once you get up past about 12th any ability to really gauge CR well kind of breaks down. Wizards start to be able to do crap that would be godly in most other narratives and barbarians begin to be able to realistically be able to make a planet fall in full gear and survive if they drink their potions, have a lick of build/gear sense, and their party does not hate them.
Second the idea of gear representing the total value of everything they own just seems preposterous. The aforementioned Marilith is one of the rarest and most powerful outsiders in a LITERALLY INFINITE PLANE OF EXISTENCE. She is able to command armies with populations larger than some planets and can expect to be tasks as easy as conquering a continent to lay the ground work for an invasion that will bring a WHOLE PLANET under heel and likely with her heading or heading a large chunk of the charge. That is her regular day job on the easy mortal plane, where everyone isn't immortal, crazy evil, and as ambitious for her things as she is. It makes 0 sense that the sum total of all of this immortal and effectively god like beings wealth is the tidy sum of 64,000 gp. Hell if it was she would probably be broke after building her keep on her home plane, trapping it to the 9's (to discourage those pesky adventurers and other demons who might come snooping while she is gone), and paying her own troops or those who enslave them to stay loyal (and realize I am using pay here to read more as the more likely extort/bribe/feed/etc. than necessarily actually paying them).
In my mind that cash they bring is their "business cash". It is there purely for them to fund their own protection and needs to that end. They buy what they need to do their soul born calling (read conquer the ever loving s%*$ out of everything through bloody conflict) and maybe commission an artist to paint a mural of it while they are at it. On top of that remember they just generate here and most of them are probably just visiting. The material plane to them is over seas work they suffer through a place not full of an infinite supply of every vice you can and cannot imagine and this stupid atmosphere that doesn't make chaos and evil stronger while making stupid paladins and their similarly aligned friends choke just by being their. And they do all this so they can get back to doing what they really want to do, getting bigger and becoming demon lords themselves so they don't ever have to leave home unless they want to pick up a snack, like say golarion.
Seriously look no further than WotR itself. There is a Marilith right there in that book mentioned as early as book 2. She has a castle with full defensive capabilities, an army, pets, R&D teams working on mythic shenanigans, and arms for all of them. That lair is deadly as hell and is hers, every stone, every monster, every slave and demon and she earned it just like any other. There is no way though that we would factor out every soldier, sword, and crenelated wall from her treasure though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So... little bit of a scary thought that combines my above post on two-handing with the Marilith. Replace Improved Disarm and Combat Expertise with Multiweapon Fighting (it replaces TWF for creatures with more than 2 arms) and Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, which, as written, give an additional attack with your offhand.
Multiweapon fighting specifies all attacks other than your primary are 'off-hand' attacks. So Improved Two-Weapon Fighting would grant up to 5 additional attacks on her off hand; 2 additional attacks if she's two-handing.
Pure Cheese
It gets even worse because Imp. TWF gives a second attack at a -5 penalty and Multiweapon Mastery, the Marilith special ability, lets her make attacks with multiple weapons at no penalty on the attack roll. So she could have an attack bonus of:
+1 longsword +24/+19/+14/+9 (2d6+26/17–20), 2 +1 longswords +24/+24 (2d6+26/17–20), tail slap +17 (2d6+8 plus grab)
Two-bladed swords FTW.Could the Marilith not just use weapons two-haned, thus cutting her number of necessary weapons in half and increasing the damage per swing, while funneling the extra gold into her defenses?
Seems kind of a win-win in my book.
This was my first thought when Ashiel mentioned the encumbrance issue, but surprisingly two-bladed swords weigh two pounds more than two longswords.
So you're down a proficiency feat and have higher encumbrance with no real upside - the enchantment costs are still the same and because of Multiweapon Mastery there's no benefit from having a light off-hand.
Hm... Changing the grip on a weapon is a free action. I think a marilith could technically wield two longswords, then free action swap the blades to a new hand between each attack?
That kind of changes the marilith from "Blade Storm" to "weird sword-juggler" though.
Figures. Hmph.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen hamatulas evaporate under summoned bralani and their damned high crit range weapons.
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate...
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen hamatulas evaporate under summoned bralani and their damned high crit range weapons.I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate...
All of these things will soon be gone, like tears in the rain.
Seriously though, f***ing bralani azatas with enhanced summoning.
Back on the treasure thing..
The problem is that the design mechanic specifically calls out that if treasure isn't provided (say by an earlier CR 10 encounter having treasure none) that the treasure needs to be 'made up' by later encounters. Namely..
None: The creature does not typically possess treasure and an encounter solely against creatures with this treasure type should not award any treasure. You can still award treasure for this encounter if uncommon circumstances warrant it. The value that would have been awarded for this encounter can be saved to increase the value of a treasure from a later encounter.
So if we push that to its most ridiculous ethic, our Marilith could populate her dungeon entirely with like, a variety of oozes and then use the 'saved up' ecl based loot to deck herself out with permanency'd enchantments.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As much as I enjoy seeing all the math involved in customizing monsters based on their treasure allotments, it does seem to rather skew the stats based on CR.
Take the Marilith that's been thrown around so much.
I know the CR tables are more 'guidelines' than anything, but they're still the base measuring stick we use to determine a creature's CR. According to the table, a few stats grabbed at random for a CR 17 are: HP 270, AC 32, High Attack 27, Good Save 20, Bad Save 15.
The Marilith is already off by a few. HP 264, AC 32, Attack +24 at the highest, Fort +25, Ref +18, Will +13. So it's about right on HP and AC for its CR, but off on Attack, and both quite high on Save and low on Save, which kind of balances out anyway.
However, if we start adding multiple AC boosters, cloaks of resistance +x, con boosters, etc, the stats jump all over the place. With just two +2 AC items, the Marilith's AC jumps 4 points to 36, and this is before any spell buffs you might also add via scrolls, potions, allies, etc. A +3 resistance item gets them a Fort +28, which according to the CR table is the High Save of a CR 27 monster.
All of this might even be acceptable practice when making monsters, but the biggest question I haven't seen answered in this thread is this: What about monsters with Treasure none?
Just a quick look on the web and I found 3 CR 16's with Treasure none: Mithral Golem, Ecorche, and Plasma Ooze. This means these creatures can't use their treasure to increase their stats like the Marilith can, or really any monster with treasure.
So it begs the question. IF you can use treasure to improve a monster, and that improvement DOESN'T increase the CR, then why are creatures with Treasure none equal in CR to creatures with Treasure double or Treasure triple? Why are a Mithral Golem and Plasma Ooze equal in CR with a Planetar and Mature Adult Gold Dragon?
|
|
As much as I enjoy seeing all the math involved in customizing monsters based on their treasure allotments, it does seem to rather skew the stats based on CR.
Take the Marilith that's been thrown around so much.
I know the CR tables are more 'guidelines' than anything, but they're still the base measuring stick we use to determine a creature's CR. According to the table, a few stats grabbed at random for a CR 17 are: HP 270, AC 32, High Attack 27, Good Save 20, Bad Save 15.
The Marilith is already off by a few. HP 264, AC 32, Attack +24 at the highest, Fort +25, Ref +18, Will +13. So it's about right on HP and AC for its CR, but off on Attack, and both quite high on Save and low on Save, which kind of balances out anyway.
However, if we start adding multiple AC boosters, cloaks of resistance +x, con boosters, etc, the stats jump all over the place. With just two +2 AC items, the Marilith's AC jumps 4 points to 36, and this is before any spell buffs you might also add via scrolls, potions, allies, etc. A +3 resistance item gets them a Fort +28, which according to the CR table is the High Save of a CR 27 monster.
All of this might even be acceptable practice when making monsters, but the biggest question I haven't seen answered in this thread is this: What about monsters with Treasure none?
Just a quick look on the web and I found 3 CR 16's with Treasure none: Mithral Golem, Ecorche, and Plasma Ooze. This means these creatures can't use their treasure to increase their stats like the Marilith can, or really any monster with treasure.
So it begs the question. IF you can use treasure to improve a monster, and that improvement DOESN'T increase the CR, then why are creatures with Treasure none equal in CR to creatures with Treasure double or Treasure triple? Why are a Mithral Golem and Plasma Ooze equal in CR with a Planetar and Mature Adult Gold Dragon?
CR is a guideline on expenditure, not a guideline on punching power. A CR 14 creature isn't equivalent to a 14th level character. He's a threat designed to consume 1/4th of a 14th level party of four people, consisting of a rogue, cleric, wizard and fighter.
Keep that in mind. This is why I don't put too much truck in CR.
The idea is, I encounter a Mithril Golem. The wizard /expends/ several boosting spells or environmental spells to deal with it. The fighter barrels up and expends hit points. The cleric expends healing. And the rogue expends rogue-ishness in the form of hit points, magic item usage, or the like.
Basically, after getting whallped and having to use whalloping, the idea in theory is the 14th level party is down 1/4 of their effectiveness roughly as a whole.
Now, the reason I don't think that a 14th level character is strictly equal to a 14th level CR is because the CR still applies as if there is a whole party there. CR says 'a party of four people (rogue, fighter, cleric, wizard) would beat this guy and he would consume 1/4 of their assets).
That almost kind of makes sense mathematically, when you think its just say...an individual up against four guys, but that doesn't actually work. The real math involves the opportunity cost, the action economy and so on. So a 14th level fighter doesn't quite eat up a 4th of the party's effectiveness (however the hell you quantify that), he might just eat up like..a single spell, or alternatively he might get a crit and take out the wizard.
So we're left with the assumption that CR is actually the proposed average of outcomes that a party of a given level will have upon encountering the threat. So a CR 14 ranges from whatever the mathematical equivalent of one dead pc to 'moderate inconvenience' and somehow comes out to being a quarter of their 'effectiveness.'
This might mean that low CR guys who over-perform or under-perform might just be demonstrating that the creatures don't have an equal statistical distribution around their CR. For example a monster might have no problem with the cleric and fighter, but gets mauled by the wizard. Or alternatively, the monster might only really be good against rogues, on every thursday.
As a result CR is a good 'guidepost,' but one still needs to review the actual stat-blocks.
THe issue might be that we need to acknowledge that not all CR 14s are created equal, or are supposed to.
I mean, hell, an orc is 1/2 CR and he hits way above his weight class just because his default weapon has a high crit range.