pathfinder monsters that aren't fun for their CR


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

301 to 350 of 661 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
137ben wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Casts Ashiel's Happy Huggles at everyone!
Woo! What level is that? Is there a martial maneuver which accomplishes something similar?
It's a cantrip and can be replicated by a grapple check from a kobold on a caffeine high. :P

Sweet! I'm gonna make a kobold warder with all the grapple-related Broken Blade maneuvers, and since I'm a mythic backer I'll get Mythic Caffeine when the MHH comes out, then I'll return with 137ben's Happy Huggles!

Anyways, back on topic: Iron Golems. Utterly defenseless against level 10 PCs, and can't easily utilize items to deal with its weaknesses due to having no INT or CON. Or maybe it can, and I just haven't bothered to figure out how yet since there are other constructs I like more.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah golems tend to be kinda meh in general. These days I find myself using animated objects far more often to fill the roles that I would've used golems for traditionally.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Golems only exist to piss off your wizard after like nine sessions of preparing spells with spell resistance cause you were going easy on him.

or to absolutely infuriate your blasters.

My blaster wizard when a golem shows up - dimension door out. Me - I'm gonna go watch some tv, call me when you guys are done!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Or to be given intelligence!

I have this thought dancing around in my head, of combining the Adamantine Golem with the Annihilator Robot. It keeps winding up being kind of ridiculous though. D:


Can I get your sim rewrite?

Spellbane is super easy to abuse. Gets worse if you claim that you can cast suppressed spell while in one and just have it go off over there.

Blood money needs a cap. Maybe 1 str/CL. A 20th level wizard can still get a free wish with some work but easier.

LW geas is really lame.

MJ allows for some really crazy stuff. Spirit Jars can even be manipulated to get a the fighter into the giants body. Pretty awesome stats even if you use alter self to get back to medium.

Still that one is just big numbers and survival mechanism. There are some many worse things you can do with that spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mathius wrote:

Can I get your sim rewrite?

Spellbane is super easy to abuse. Gets worse if you claim that you can cast suppressed spell while in one and just have it go off over there.

Blood money needs a cap. Maybe 1 str/CL. A 20th level wizard can still get a free wish with some work but easier.

LW geas is really lame.

MJ allows for some really crazy stuff. Spirit Jars can even be manipulated to get a the fighter into the giants body. Pretty awesome stats even if you use alter self to get back to medium.

Still that one is just big numbers and survival mechanism. There are some many worse things you can do with that spell.

Sure, here's a link to one of the postings (it's been posted and reposted so many times): Ashiel's Simulacrum. It provides some reasonable limits on the things you can create with it, prevents using it to get things like simulacrums that cast major spells at high caster levels and such, etc.

It doesn't prevent you from using it to create solars and such but you will get a majorly watered down solar. :3


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just stop them from using SLAs and that mimic spells with costly spell components (like Wish) and count the Simulacrum against WBL... Planar Binding is a bit more difficult to rule in a clear, balanced and consistent way, IMO.

Then again, my players don't usually try to abuse the rules because they know I'm willing and capable of doing the same... And no rule is more abusable than rule 0... >:)


Not a bad rewrite at all. I think I would also require piece of original as focus. It only requires 24 HD that has wish a SLA to pick up wish. There is a Div that can pull that off. No getting a piece of one of those until you cast gate.

The piece requirement also helps the GM control of what the PCs can get.

I really like the list of SAs it can have but removing all the extras so the GMs do not need to worry about the pun pun effect.

I have though about removing constructs, undead, and outsiders from the list of what it can make but not sure on that one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mathius wrote:

Not a bad rewrite at all. I think I would also require piece of original as focus. It only requires 24 HD that has wish a SLA to pick up wish. There is a Div that can pull that off. No getting a piece of one of those until you cast gate.

The piece requirement also helps the GM control of what the PCs can get.

I really like the list of SAs it can have but removing all the extras so the GMs do not need to worry about the pun pun effect.

I have though about removing constructs, undead, and outsiders from the list of what it can make but not sure on that one.

So the focus costs, what, 5, 6 thousand? Ultimate Equipment lists a jeweled egg containing the blood of an epic-level sorcerer as 4,500 gp, a gold urn with the ashes of a legendary hero as 5,000 gp, a pit fiend's skull as 5,000 gp, a crystallized dragon's heart as 7,000 gp, and the crystallized breath of a god as 10,000 gp. Sure, it's expensive, but nowhere near as big a limitation as properly casting gate would be. In fact, forget "properly casting". A scroll of gate is only 3,825 gp.


Planar binding is a tough one but binding lawful creatures seams like a dangerous idea since they will always have some where to be and will be missed.

If you grab an imp his boss might not be able to get to you and his bosses boss might not care. Grab a shield Archon and star archon general might just gate it (or you) right back. Demon and elementals are much less likely to care.


Scroll of gate will not let you control anything over 21 HD and cost 10k more to force something through. Okay so they have price. That does not mean the PCs can easily find one for sale. Great place to start for pricing that kind of stuff but still adds a limit on it. Also good for story.

Did not know that kind of thing was out there.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Actually in core you can gate in up to a 25HD creature and make it your biznatch. Clerics are best at this.


Ashiel wrote:

I'm reminded of a conversation with Wraithstrike wherein it was revealed that a Ghaele Azata is pretty much the same CR whether she's wielding a club, her +4 greatsword, or a variety of different trinkets.

Monster treasure is in fact so very flexible that the bestiary actually expects you to adjust their equipment depending on whether you're running a slow, medium, or fast XP progression appropriately. For example, in a slow-XP game, a ghaele azata cannot afford her +4 item, while in a fast-XP game she instead can afford a +5 weapon instead. Naturally the CR doesn't change.

That's probably quite telling since the WBL of players doesn't change, the CR doesn't change, but the amount of gear monsters have DOES.

Bestiary - Monster Introduction wrote:
In cases where a creature has specific magical gear assigned to it, the assumption is a medium game—if you play a fast or slow game, you'll want to adjust the monster's gear as appropriate.
At least we're not talking about dragons wearing studded leather armor. *snickers*

That is not what got out of that debate. I will go into detail once I get home.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

In a campaign where the GM plays efreet as creatures with their listed stats, it should be very hard to planar bind an efreeti. An efreeti has enough Spellcraft to know what planar binding is, enough Wisdom to know that people will want to bind it, and enough Intelligence to utilize a few straightforward defenses against planar binding.

The first thing any efreeti worth its stats will do in life is acquire a loyal minion (preferably an intelligent minor magic item, which is both affordable and easy to control). The efreeti can grant its minion three wishes per day and have the minion use those wishes to the efreeti's advantage. First order of business: protect the efreeti from calling spells via contingency and dimensional anchor.

Heck, the entire City of Brass (and every other place inhabited by efreet) should be blanketed with dimensional lock effects so none of its residents can be whisked away by calling spells. None of that makes it impossible to planar bind efreet, but the process should be much harder than just casting planar binding and asking for an efreeti.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
At least we're not talking about dragons wearing studded leather armor. *snickers*
That is not what got out of that debate. I will go into detail once I get home.

Hm, odd. I didn't even think we were debating that time, rather than having just a generally interesting conversation.

I seem to recall that a ghaele azata blew the monster creation chart out of the water whether she's wielding a club or her +4 weapon. Of course, most monsters do. The creation chart is exceedingly misleading as anything other than a rough skeletal structure. Many monsters throughout the bestiary poo all over it, and the chart is useless at gauging the value of abilities of a monster.

The chart says nothing as to the value of things like fast healing, regeneration, resistances, spell resistance, immunities, non-AC avoidance, attacks that don't do hit point damage or have rider effects, or pretty much anything other than the base statistics of a creature. >_>

Looking forward to your arrival home. You're one of my favorite posters and it's always fun to talk with you. :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:

Hm, odd. I didn't even think we were debating that time, rather than having just a generally interesting conversation.

I seem to recall that a ghaele azata blew the monster creation chart out of the water whether she's wielding a club or her +4 weapon. Of course, most monsters do. The creation chart is exceedingly misleading as anything other than a rough skeletal structure. Many monsters throughout the bestiary poo all over it, and the chart is useless at gauging the value of abilities of a monster.

The chart says nothing as to the value of things like fast healing, regeneration, resistances, spell resistance, immunities, non-AC avoidance, attacks that don't do hit point damage or have rider effects, or pretty much anything other than the base statistics of a creature. >_>

Looking forward to your arrival home. You're one of my favorite posters and it's always fun to talk with you. :)

LOL. I know we debated(did not agree on a similar topic), and the other time it was a conversation. Maybe my memory is foggy, and I just realized what thread I was in. I will put this sub-topic on pause so as to not take it off the rails however. I also need to read the preceding post to make sure I know what I am talking about before I have to say "nevermind". :)

edit: The site just messed the quotes up. I will have to fix this.
Somehow a "quote" tag disappeared.

edit2: I might as well respond-->I agree the creation charts are a skeleton. My point however was that the intent for monsters is to plug in play whether you increase their numbers(stats) by adding the advanced template or giving them things not listed in the book you have improved them and thereby increased their CR. When a monster is harder to hit, does more damage, and makes more saves I don't think it matters if it came from equipment or the advanced template. Monster such as the ghale that are listed with equipment have that equipment factored in.

Do not take that as me saying it makes sense for monsters to have access to equipment and not use it from an in-world point of view. We both agree that is nonsense. That is what kills me when players kill a dragon and find "super item" in his hoard, and the dragon did not use it himself. If it is something he can't or would not use such as a small +4 rapier I understand, but the ring of protection that cast heal should be used. I have never seen such a ring. I was just using an example.

edit 3. Last one I promise--> The strategy you came up with for the ghaele was pretty nice. I looked over a few more good outsiders after that and realized they were more potent than their evil counterparts as enemies so occasionally I reflavor one into a unique evil outsider. :)


DinosaursOnIce wrote:

I think Cloakers can really mess with a party not prepared for their shenanigans. I was in a group that ran into one around level 2, my Magus was (unfortunately) the only one who made the Save against its Moan ability (fear was used).

Probably the only time I've ever wished that I had failed the save.

The thing then "cloaked me" and by the time the party came back I was almost dead.

Oh, yeah. My group's level 7 and rather more powerful than average, so the GM sent SEVEN of these horrors after us. I was sure we were all going to die, but thankfully the GM played them with bad teamwork (and worse die-rolls). If they'd spammed their paralyzing moan, they could've gotten a coup-de-grace each round. Even without that, the dwarf spent most of the fight nauseated, and the blur/mirror image combo sent our melee hitters into a frustrated rage.

After the fight, the GM said he'd rolled TWELVE of them. Random encounters SUCK. O_O


I've actually seen golems be fairly troublesome. Many DMs are stingy with adamantine and or magic items, so it isn’t uncommon for the party to have trouble beating the golem’s DR. Golems also tend to have high attack bonuses for their CR. I wouldn't say that they're too tough for their CR, but depending on your party composition and the situation at hand they can present a pretty good challenge.

Cloakers and the various saving throws they force can be a real pain. I think that sending seven of them at a 7th level party sounds excessive, but at least in some groups the random encounter roll is considered kind of sacred somehow, like a message from the gaming gods. Our DM for one AP allowed our 11th level party of 4 PCs to get attacked while in camp by 4 CR11 black dragons. I think that only the fact that the Druid had memorized a Communal Protection or Resist spell and managed to stay conscious just long enough to use it saved us from a TPK.

I think the Druid dropped about halfway through the first non-surprise round. My girlfriend's PC managed to get off a few decent offensive spells before being taken out with Improved Vital Strike plus Power Attack on a bite. I think the Rogue/Ranger archer (this was pre-Slayer) managed to stay up for a while but had trouble hitting draconic AC. Once she fell it was just my Paladin 4 / Bard 7 and an animal companion (which he was riding) against the remaining dragons. Luckily I had Oath of Vengeance and was able to smite all the dragons. The fact we won caused the DM to complain a bit about how overpowered my PC was though I retorted that if we were going to face these sorts of encounters maybe I needed to be overpowered. I also pointed out that killing Evil dragons is part of a Paladin's job description.

Silver Crusade

Devilkiller wrote:

I've actually seen golems be fairly troublesome. Many DMs are stingy with adamantine and or magic items, so it isn’t uncommon for the party to have trouble beating the golem’s DR. Golems also tend to have high attack bonuses for their CR. I wouldn't say that they're too tough for their CR, but depending on your party composition and the situation at hand they can present a pretty good challenge.

Cloakers and the various saving throws they force can be a real pain. I think that sending seven of them at a 7th level party sounds excessive, but at least in some groups the random encounter roll is considered kind of sacred somehow, like a message from the gaming gods. Our DM for one AP allowed our 11th level party of 4 PCs to get attacked while in camp by 4 CR11 black dragons. I think that only the fact that the Druid had memorized a Communal Protection or Resist spell and managed to stay conscious just long enough to use it saved us from a TPK.

I think the Druid dropped about halfway through the first non-surprise round. My girlfriend's PC managed to get off a few decent offensive spells before being taken out with Improved Vital Strike plus Power Attack on a bite. I think the Rogue/Ranger archer (this was pre-Slayer) managed to stay up for a while but had trouble hitting draconic AC. Once she fell it was just my Paladin 4 / Bard 7 and an animal companion (which he was riding) against the remaining dragons. Luckily I had Oath of Vengeance and was able to smite all the dragons. The fact we won caused the DM to complain a bit about how overpowered my PC was though I retorted that if we were going to face these sorts of encounters maybe I needed to be overpowered. I also pointed out that killing Evil dragons is part of a Paladin's job description.

For awhile into your story I was wondering if you played in the same AP game I did!

Also in an AP with 4 PCs, we were attacked by 3 black dragons, which we only beat by my druid encasing them in a wall of thorns. They hilariously weren't strong enough to break out. We commented on the ridiculousness of random encounters, but we also had a party where every character had several star moments. Roster was a superstitious-pounce barbarian, life oracle, wizard, druid, and a twin-shield fighter cohort.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Riuken wrote:
my druid encasing them in a wall of thorns. They hilariously...

Wall of Thorns is so obnoxiously strong.

It has no save or SR and every option the spell lists for being stuck in it is coupled with a horrible drawback.

Magical fire can work, after 10 minutes.

You can slash through with a machete at one square per hour.

If you have good strength, you can power through with full-round actions and still take the damage.

If you do manage to move at this snail's pace, don't worry, it still sucks. The thorn bush itself is almost 100 cubic feet and last for an hour and a half. The Druid might have cast it from anywhere within ~200 feet of you, and his whole party had time to set up an ambush for you.

This is not counting the possibility that the druid turned into a Behemoth Hippopotamus and came in after you because he's immune to it from Woodland Stride.

It's only balanced by being on the spell list of a 9th-level caster who can turn into an elemental.

ohwaitthat'snotbalancedatall


The fact that somebody else got hit with an over the top dragon encounter off an AP random encounter chart makes me wonder if this is a common feature of APs or just a nasty habit of one particular AP.

Info on the AP I randomly encountered 4 adult black dragons in:
We were in the swampy area of Kingmaker, I think it was called the Hooktongue Slough.

For those who looked at the previous spoiler and don't mind having that AP spoiled a little more...:
We also nearly lost our Rogue/Ranger to a bunch of giant dragonflies though my PC's AC was too high for them to be a big threat to him. We also nearly got TPK'd early in the game when we met 7 or 8 shocker lizards in a random encounter at low levels. Luckily somebody identified them with a Knowledge skill and we had the Druid send in summoned Mites to trip off the big lightning blast so we could have a few safe rounds to run in and slaughter the lizards before they recharged. If the encounter distance were shorter it would have been an almost certain TPK.

Later on we encountered a random CR15 or 16 dragon who would have killed our Inquisitor (who joined the group later) if the DM hadn't rolled several d20s below 3 in a row. That fight which caught us unaware was definitely way tougher than the much ballyhooed CR17 dragon encounter which was part of the story. Kingmaker features more random encounters than other APs, so maybe it is natural that some of our toughest fights were random encounters. A lot of the other random encounters were pathetically easy though. It might be nice if random encounters were, well, a little less randon...

Wall of Thorns really does seem very powerful, especially as a combo with Sirocco since very few creatures can easily make DC25 Str checks while exhausted. Wall of Thorns is also subject to a lot of table variation though. Some DMs say it blocks line of sight. Some say creatures can climb straight up out of the area of the Wall. I've even seen it claimed that the creature can squeeze into the top 5' first since squeezing isn't moving, just adjusting how you're positioned within the space you occupy. I think that enforcing a maximum thickness on the Wall and allowing Escape Artist checks might go a long way towards controlling the spell. I guess ruling that the Wall can't form where creatures are present might help too. The spell also might be less powerful in some ways if it blocked line of sight and line of effect, but I seem to recall a post by James Jacobs saying that it doesn't.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Revan wrote:
We know they aren't plus-equivalent abilities, because they are not on the list of plus-equivalent abilities, and do not conform to the price structure of plus-equivalent ability. If they did, Celestial Plate could not cost 25,000 gp, since that is the *base* price of +5 Armor. If the Celestial bonuses were equivalent to a +2 bonus, it would cost 26,650; if it was equivalent to any other plus-bonus, it would cost more or less than 25,000.

That's an error of observation. It might be priced as if the ungodly Dex bonus is a +1 ability, we don't know. Nimble (which gave a +2 to dex limit) was a +1 ability in 3.5, and Celestial was made in 3.5, and is better...+ Flying! So technically, based on precedent, Celestial's dex thing should be a +2 Enhancement bonus.

For another example, look at the Sun Sword. +2, +4 against evil, double damage against Undead.

+4 against Evil is simply a +2/+2 bonus against Evil, which is basically a +1 ability (half as strong as Bane, but broader, but doesn't grant the alignment punch of Holy). Double Damage against Undead is technically equal to Bane.
None of the above are statted. But they are the equivalent of closely tied statted abilities.
Then you add on 'treat as shortsword', which is basically 'd6 weapon does d10 damage + Prof benefits)', which could be a +1 ability, so now you're at a +5 Weapon.

Now, what do you do with the Sunburst ability?

On top of this, how do the costs all interact with the Good Alignment, negative level to Evil restriction?

Nothing's broken down. All of the extras could be just +GP. They could be +Enhancement equivs that simply aren't available to PC's.

YOu don't know, and so if you want to improve them, you have to house rule them. That's why you can't officially improve an item with non-standard abilities.

==Aelryinth


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I don't *need* to break it down. I'm not trying to add discrete parts of a non-standard enhancement to something else, while leaving others. That is impossible. Therefore, all the abilities have to come as a single enhancement--and since their pricing *never* conforms to the structure of plus-equivalents, they must be a flat-GP cost.

We now what the standard enhancements cost. From that we can determine what the non-standard enhancements collectively cost. It's equally an assumption to say any of those non-standard enhancements are plus-equivalents as to say they are a flat price but indivisible. If you assume the former, you are unable to enhance these weapons--but only because a master of magic is unable to determine just *how much* magic is in the magical item he may have created. Schrodinger's Magic Sword? These aren't ancient artifacts that mankind has lost the knowledge of. Anyone with the proper feats can make one--and yet they're physically incapable of making a better one? On the other hand, if you assume the latter, it is trivially easy to determine the price of the standard plus-equivalents, and from that the price of the other abilities.

I know the assumption Occam's Razor tells me to make.

(And incidentally, even if we accept your premise, it would still be factually false to say you can't improve an item with non-standard abilities--'Hidden plus-equivalents might alter the price' doesn't apply to, e.g., Glamered or any other flat-gp enhancement)


Ashiel wrote:


The advanced template is already a joke.

My example shows that the whole pc wealth by level increases a monsters CR by 1 to be pretty funny too.

In my experience the advanced template works pretty well. An advanced frost giant is comparable to a fire giant and a advanced efreeti is comparable to a marid.

Ashiel wrote:


You could at least read my posts before you reply to them.

I have (not all your posts in the thread, just some of them and the ones responding to me), if you feel I have misunderstood sth you could explain it, or not if you are bored/ don't want to spent time.

Ashiel wrote:


Yes.

Ok I find this really hard to believe. So nothing changes? Maybe more monsters at least?

Ashiel wrote:


No. Greater teleport has an infinite range on the same plane of existence. Specifically, on a plane of infinite size, greater teleport can still take you anywhere in it. Thus you can use greater teleport to go to the moon, or Mars, or Pluto, or into a neighboring galaxy.
Interplanetary teleport has some extra tricks (like safety-devices to keep you from murdering yourself by accidentally mistaking a star for a planet or something) but liches needn't worry about that anyway.

I think the official position taking into account adventures like the Moonscar is different. Only by a strict reading of the rules are you correct.

Ashiel wrote:


I agree, it's quite clear that you have no idea how any of it works. I agree with Aratrok.

I actually have a pretty good idea how it works, but never having done it in my games, I admit have no experience about what the results will be.

Ashiel wrote:


I agree with Aelriynth. Fighters are awful in core and Barbarians, Rangers, and Paladins are in a much better place.

I still remember before the advanced player guide everyone was talking about the “fighter advantage” and how the barbarian lags behind.

Paladins are obviously superior, but rangers in core without instant enemy or archetypes like Guide don't seem that impressive to me.

Ashiel wrote:


You would be wrong. Also there is no such thing as a "named item". I think you're thinking of artifacts, because it's true that you cannot create/modify artifacts

I dislike the term specific item, I though you knew what I was talking about.

Ashiel wrote:


You seem to assume that all monsters are dressed up. I promise you will see no tigers in tutus in my games. :)

Even if I did, I would think they are Rakshasa ballerinnas. :P

General stuff:
I feel I have argued clearly, with specific examples and made my point multiple times.
I like being able to use paizo monsters and parts of their adventures with a minimum amount of changes. I find this saves me time and so, I tend to cut stuff from the game that change that. In my experience this works just fine and allows for interesting gameplay.
You obviously have different priorities and that's ok. I understand that you have no problem with pc's being pretty powerful, I just find it hard to understand, even with sometimes using treasure from monsters and making better spell picks, that the pc's are challenged by appropriate cred encounters or that they aren't getting a level per session from overcoming encounters of higher CR.


Aratrok wrote:

@John John

"No, you're wrong and I'm right and I don't need to bother explaining why in detail" is not an effective method of delivering your points.

Its an acceptable response and one that Ashiel has chosen to go with multiple times.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
John John wrote:
Aratrok wrote:

@John John

"No, you're wrong and I'm right and I don't need to bother explaining why in detail" is not an effective method of delivering your points.
Its an acceptable response and one that Ashiel has chosen to go with multiple times.

She's... actually gone into a lot of detail. She tends to skim when it comes down to things like "does Z really work in your games?" and the answer is "yes", just like it was when she was asked if X and Y worked.

"Does giving PCs Wishes for stat boosts at level 11 really not break anything?" "Yes, because it's honestly a really minor boost; +2-3 changes very little"

"Does giving PCs AM BARBARIAN really work in your games?" "Yes, because AM BARBARIAN isn't something I find overpowering in the slightest"

"Does giving PCs full crafting really work in your games?" "Yes, because the crafting rules say they can and I've seen no reason to limit that"

"Does giving AM BARBARIAN full crafting and Wishes really work in your games?" "... Yes"

Not only are these fundamentally opinion-based questions (which don't require logical proofs), they're repetitive in the extreme. If the answers to A, B, and C are yes and not mutually exclusive in the least, why would they change when you ask them all at once?

'Cause... these are things you actually asked.

Contrast the 375-word response to Mathius asking "If using treasure for monsters is standard then why does it not seam to happen in most published material?"

That's actually a question that needs defending to support her argument, so she defends it to a reasonable standard.

Contrast again:

Ashiel wrote:

As Nearyn pointed out, this is what efreeti are for. The potential "abuse" was pointed out during the development of PF. The devs said they would look into it. What we get is an efreeti with a very low CL for wish and a much nerfed wish spell. There are also instances of Paizo published adventures where efreeti are used for exactly this purpose.

And no, it's not unbalanced and it's not gamebreaking.

Here, Ashiel posits two points:

1. Efreeti-Binding for Wishes was brought up during playtests. While the Efreeti was altered because of it, it was not altered in a way that affects Wishes for stats-- it specifically nerfed them for other things.
2. Published adventures have used Wishes for stat boosts at the mid-levels.

Your response:

Quote:
John John]That's not what they are for. And if you are talking about legacy of fire and Nefeshti's wishes you are surely mistaken. In the case of Nefeshti you are against a timer to stop sth very bad from happening and wasting these wishes on inherent bonuses is a tactically very bad idea. In the last part of the Crimson Throne the wishes are used against the players.

Broken down, what we get is:

1. "That's not what Efreetis are for" with no further explanation. For you, this is similar to the case for Ashiel where she delivered a 375-word response-- refuting it is core to your point. What you provide is one opinion-oriented (or at least, not factually supported) sentence rather than any sort of detailed refutation; thus you're providing no real evidence, data, or anything else worth consideration beyond "it's not, because I say it's not".
2. Talking about completely different published material than what Ashiel is, effectively ignoring her point outright.

This is an interesting conversation and I hope it continues, but John John, you really do need to look at what you're actually arguing and why, and work on making your points in a stance that focuses on actual facts and data. You have some strong core points, but you haven't actually stated them clearly, nor supported them with evidence, so it's hard to take you seriously here when compared to Ashiel.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Revan wrote:

I don't *need* to break it down. I'm not trying to add discrete parts of a non-standard enhancement to something else, while leaving others. That is impossible. Therefore, all the abilities have to come as a single enhancement--and since their pricing *never* conforms to the structure of plus-equivalents, they must be a flat-GP cost.

We now what the standard enhancements cost. From that we can determine what the non-standard enhancements collectively cost. It's equally an assumption to say any of those non-standard enhancements are plus-equivalents as to say they are a flat price but indivisible. If you assume the former, you are unable to enhance these weapons--but only because a master of magic is unable to determine just *how much* magic is in the magical item he may have created. Schrodinger's Magic Sword? These aren't ancient artifacts that mankind has lost the knowledge of. Anyone with the proper feats can make one--and yet they're physically incapable of making a better one? On the other hand, if you assume the latter, it is trivially easy to determine the price of the standard plus-equivalents, and from that the price of the other abilities.

I know the assumption Occam's Razor tells me to make.

(And incidentally, even if we accept your premise, it would still be factually false to say you can't improve an item with non-standard abilities--'Hidden plus-equivalents might alter the price' doesn't apply to, e.g., Glamered or any other flat-gp enhancement)

Furthering Revan's point, the actual example in the manual describes placing the effects of a ring of invisibility on a ring of protection, both of which are specific magic items. Neither ring of invisibility nor a ring of protection have +X equivalents like weapons, armors, and shields. They are just as much a "specific named item" (a thing that isn't actually a game mechanic) as a life-drinker or a feather token or a belt of physical perfection.

However the rules are quite clear that you could take a ring of feather falling, ring of sustenance, ring of the ram, ring of protection, ring of evasion, and ring of freedom of movement and squish them all together to go into 1 ring slot...it's just going to cost your arm, your leg, and the soul of your first born. (o_o)

Likewise, the rules are also very clear that when you are upgrading a magic item you do not have to recreate it from scratch. You can upgrade magic items incrementally by using the difference in price. Again, from the core rulebook.

Core Rulebook wrote:
Fortunately, it is possible to enhance or build upon an existing magic item. Only time, gold, and the various prerequisites required of the new ability to be added to the magic item restrict the type of additional powers one can place.

Finding the value of the effect isn't difficult either because the rules tell us all we need to do so. For example, if you have a magic sword that is a masterwork longsword (315gp) with a +2 enhancement bonus (8000 gp) and steals 1d6 HP from someone when you hit them (????) that costs 16,315 gp, we can determine that the HP stealing mechanic is priced at 8,000 gp by itself. So going back and increasing the +2 enhancement to a +3 enhancement (costing a difference of 10,000 gp) increasing the new market value of the item to 26,315 gp.


kestral287 wrote:

She's... actually gone into a lot of detail.

*Wonderful Post*

Thank you very much for this. Your post has made me very happy. (^_^)


kestral287 wrote:

Broken down, what we get is:

1. "That's not what Efreetis are for" with no further explanation. For you, this is similar to the case for Ashiel where she delivered a 375-word response-- refuting it is core to your point. What you provide is one opinion-oriented (or at least, not factually supported) sentence rather than any sort of detailed refutation; thus you're providing no real evidence, data, or anything else worth consideration beyond "it's not, because I say it's not".
2. Talking about completely different published material than what Ashiel is, effectively ignoring her point outright.

There was an explanation, you will be wasting the wishes if you use them for inherent bonuses, since they could be much much more useful in the actual adventure. No one cares if you got +3 to your base stats if everyone dies because you can't request instant hp's for everyone.

Also using planar binding to get wishes is not what has happened in this adventure.
There is no need to write big responses if the point is evident.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
edit2: I might as well respond-->I agree the creation charts are a skeleton. My point however was that the intent for monsters is to plug in play whether you increase their numbers(stats) by adding the advanced template or giving them things not listed in the book you have improved them and thereby increased their CR. When a monster is harder to hit, does more damage, and makes more saves I don't think it matters if it came from equipment or the advanced template. Monster such as the ghale that are listed with equipment have that equipment factored in.

Well the advanced template is as ill conceived as the skeletal champion template (and the young and giant simple templates aren't much better) so that's probably a bad baseline of comparison. I mean realistically simple buffs do more than the advanced template does (divine power grants a +6 to hit and damage, an extra attack, and +20 HP; righteous might gives the exact benefits of the giant simple template and DR 5-10 to boot).

Again, it's just not enough to change the CR of the enemy. You have to remember that going from CR X to CR X+1 means that you must be roughly the equivalent in challenge to a pair of CR X-1 creatures, so a CR 15 monster is supposed to be worth 2 CR 13 creatures. To advance to CR 16, you need to now be worth 2 CR 14 creatures.

The advanced simple template only functions on very low-CR creatures to which its modifiers make them significantly stronger (such as putting the advanced template on a lizardfolk) but does nothing but turn things of even middling CR range into XP / Treasure Pinatas. It was poorly conceived to be certain.

In the example of the ghaele (and a lot of other creatures), the ghaele itself is already shattering the monster creation chart without ever even picking up anything). The chart doesn't take into account anything other than estimated naked averages. It doesn't really account for special abilities, spells, SLAs, types, subtypes, equipment, or buffs.

However, again, you need to really put your hand on the +wealth button and push down hard to get a CR increase out of an NPC (PC wealth).

The system just isn't as fragile as some are implying. :|

Quote:
edit 3. Last one I promise--> The strategy you came up with for the ghaele was pretty nice. I looked over a few more good outsiders after that and realized they were more potent than their evil counterparts as enemies so occasionally I reflavor one into a unique evil outsider. :)

That's brilliant! Reworking outsiders into different kinds of outsiders would vastly improve your creature selection. :D


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John John wrote:

There was an explanation, you will be wasting the wishes if you use them for inherent bonuses, since they could be much much more useful in the actual adventure. No one cares if you got +3 to your base stats if everyone dies because you can't request instant hp's for everyone.

Also using planar binding to get wishes is not what has happened in this adventure.
There is no need to write big responses if the point is evident.

Your point clearly isn't as evident as you think it is. Maybe you should try going into more detail.

Also, consider responding to the rest of that post instead of just carving out a small chunk of it. Because it's important, and they way you responded implies that it makes you uncomfortable and you want to avoid being confronted with what was said.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
John John wrote:
I like being able to use paizo monsters and parts of their adventures with a minimum amount of changes. I find this saves me time and so, I tend to cut stuff from the game that change that. In my experience this works just fine and allows for interesting gameplay.

Generally speaking I don't make a lot of changes to creatures (though I do fix errors in APS like the armored wight with no penalties). So I agree with you.

Quote:
You obviously have different priorities and that's ok. I understand that you have no problem with pc's being pretty powerful, I just find it hard to understand, even with sometimes using treasure from monsters and making better spell picks, that the pc's are challenged by appropriate cred encounters or that they aren't getting a level per session from overcoming encounters of higher CR.

There are no monsters of a higher CR, and changing spell selection on a monster that casts as a sorcerer is no more CR adjusting than picking different spells on a sorcerer. Even still, the non-AM BARBARIANS of the world do just fine in my games as well. If you want, I might be able to get some players that I've GMed for to come here and give their take on my games.

My brother frequently plays off the wall stuff like a dwarf alchemist who uses firearms (not the Paizo firearms, but the ones I wrote during the UC playtest which do not ignore armor and such), or a psychic monk modeled after a freerunning-assassin (like assassin's creed), or a kobold sorcerer, and the most recent character he's played has been a human paladin who fights Sword & Board.

Everyone has fun and generally speaking everyone does pretty well. :)

An Aside: While I message a few of my players and see if they'd be willing to chime in and give their take on things, I'd like to point out something that strikes me as odd.

You openly admitted that you have no experience with anything that I said I've no problem with in my games yet you insist that it's broken, unfair, cheesy, etc. I do have experience with these things. I've had a number of players reach high levels and I've had to learn the ins and outs and get a feel for the waters. I experience few if any problems with the game as-is and haven't made as many changes as you have.

Why are you so insistent that there is a problem when you admit having no experience with the subject you're condemning?

EDIT: That said, limited wish->geas and wish->simulacrum is crazy, yeah. I haven't really had that come up before (never even thought about simulacrum via wish or miracle but that would indeed work). I guess my games aren't so optimized. =P

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Price breakdowns via enhancements don't work like that.

Celestial Mail might be priced as +3 Enhancement, with Celestial Costing a +1, with the flight add on...or it might all be lump sum.

There will be a SUBSTANTIAL difference in pricing if you're supposed to treat it as an enhancement bonus, because everything added on goes up in cost more quickly, as opposed to just taking on 12k. If Celestial is +1, it's also +1 less enhancement you can add to the armor on the way to +10.

Likewise, the Sun Sword. It's priced exactly at the price of a +5 Weapon. Maybe the sunburst is free for the Good aligned thing. Thus, any additions of enhancements starts at +6, i.e. takes the price to 72000 gp. A +5 Sun Sword would be a +8 Equiv weapon and 128k gp.

Or maybe all the Sun Sword add-ons are a straight add-ons, 'because they aren't on the enhancement lists yet'. So, a Sun Sword is an 8k weapon with +42k of add-ons. A +5 Sun sword would thus be only 92k, with +5 of enhancements still to be added. This interpretation of the Sun Sword results in a much more powerful weapon.

In short, on items where the effects are not broken down, you don't KNOW. And that's why any changing of them is a house rule.
=============
Which brings me to the point that I do believe that Celestial is a +1 enhancement, and the armor should be treated as already mithral, and the fly spell is a late add-on. Effectively, Celestial should be +3 Mithral Nimble (+1) armor with a fly spell thrown onto it.

I believe a Sun Sword IS a +5 equiv weapon with the sunburst thrown on and 'bought off' by the good-align.

But those are my personal interpretations, it's explicitly a house rule, and I can't claim them as official Paizo rules.

PFS explicitly does not let you modify special items like these for exactly this reason, in addition to the making of 'custom items' that can easily break power levels.

BUT...it's a perfectly valid assumption to replace the 'silver or gold' in Celestial armor with Mithral,(or treat it as flavor text for color) and stack some of the benefits, as the material in celestial is not called out as being unique to the armor, or necessary.

Kindly note also that Celestial Plate is simply Celestial Armor applied to Plate as the base instead of chain, and so is a perfectly valid PFS option. It is extremely useful, however. A Solar wearing Celestial Plate spends less money and has 2 higher AC then wearing +5 Armor.

==Aelryinth


Aratrok wrote:


Also, consider responding to the rest of that post instead of just carving out a small chunk of it. Because it's important, and they way you responded implies that it makes you uncomfortable and you want to avoid being confronted with what was said.

Not really, maybe I believe that part doesn't merit a response.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

That is a rude, dismissive, and defensive way to handle your opponents' responses, and it damages the context of what's being said.

Cut it out.


Ashiel wrote:


There are no monsters of a higher CR, and changing spell selection on a monster that casts as a sorcerer is no more CR adjusting than picking different spells on a sorcerer. Even still, the non-AM BARBARIANS of the world do just fine in my games as well. If you want, I might be able to get some players that I've GMed for to come here and give their take on my games.

My brother frequently plays off the wall stuff like a dwarf alchemist who uses firearms (not the Paizo firearms, but the ones I wrote during the UC playtest which do not ignore armor and such), or a psychic monk modeled after a freerunning-assassin (like assassin's creed), or a kobold sorcerer, and the most recent character he's played has been a human paladin who fights Sword & Board.

Everyone has fun and generally speaking everyone does pretty well. :)

Sounds fun.

Ashiel wrote:


An Aside: While I message a few of my players and see if they'd be willing to chime in and give their take on things, I'd like to point out something that strikes me as odd.

You openly admitted that you have no experience with anything that I said I've no problem with in my games yet you insist that it's broken, unfair, cheesy, etc. I do have experience with these things. I've had a number of players reach high levels and I've had to learn the ins and outs and get a feel for the waters. I experience few if any problems with the game as-is and haven't made as many changes as you have.

Why are you so insistent that there is a problem when you admit having no experience with the subject you're condemning?

EDIT: That said, limited wish->geas and wish->simulacrum is crazy, yeah. I haven't really had that come up before (never even thought about simulacrum via wish or miracle but that would indeed work). I guess my games aren't so optimized. =P

Well for one you can make intelligent predictions without experiencing sth. For example I don't need to experience a limited wish=> geas situation or wish-> simulacrum in a game to know they will throw things out of wack.

I still have big reservations about gaining access to wishes at level 11, (I assume you do planar bind efreeti and somehow force 3 wishes per day out of them.) and about planar binding in general. Unless the dm really gets behind the "unreasonable commands are never agreed to." and "Note that a clever recipient can subvert some instructions." lines, planar binding can get really out of hand.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
John John wrote:
Unless the dm really gets behind the "unreasonable commands are never agreed to." and "Note that a clever recipient can subvert some instructions." lines, planar binding can get really out of hand.

Not really. You're limited in the power of the creature you can call for a reason. And if you think an efreeti granting wishes seems unreasonable, well, that's a long and arduous cliff to climb. The most obvious method if you're a nice mage is to offer to make wishes on their behalf each time you get a couple of wishes. Given that efreeti must grant wishes to non-djinn, this is a pretty sweet deal for them.

Some monsters exist for these purposes. It's a standard of the genre. Kind of like how imps, quasits, and other low-tier "advisor" type minions can cast commune way before any PC could cast it themselves (so you're expected to use them for such things both as PCs and NPCs).

Quote:
Well for one you can make intelligent predictions without experiencing sth. For example I don't need to experience a limited wish=> geas situation or wish-> simulacrum in a game to know they will throw things out of wack.

That's a fair enough point. But from where I'm sitting it looks like you're telling the astronaut that the moon is made of cheese. In the situation where you have two people and one has an academic knowledge of a thing and is qualified to make an educated guess, and another who has both academic knowledge and experience in the field so that there is no guessing, would it seem anything other than strange for the former to lecture the latter?

I'm not saying that there aren't exploits within the rules that were probably not intended and/or damage the game (geas copying for example), but some things are demonstrably intentional (as noted, the efreeti binding was brought up during the playtests, we get nerfed wish and wish-granting efreeti), and some things that are explicitly spelled out in the rules (like adding upgrading / adding effects to existing items). I'm also saying that I have a lot of hands on experience with those rules and what they are capable of and my feedback is "working as intended".

Quote:
Sounds fun.

It is. ^-^


I'm not sure why any DM would let people just pick off the menu with efreeti wishes anyway (setting aside simul-efreet for the moment). Efreeti already try to corrupt wishes they give people, and that's before you even factor in that planar binding makes it a hostile negotation.

I don't ordinarily screw with characters making wishes, but that's one situation where I'd definitely make them word the wish in character and let the chips fall where they may.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Ash's request:

With some GMs, I get a little nervous when they start talking about using homebrew material or tweaking encounters. It often means they're just going to start boosting CRs (with the attending ridiculous increase in level and wealth gain). They do stuff like maximize the hitpoints creatures have, toss templates on everything, or use solo encounters with extra high CR creatures. When I'm playing with Ash, he's always very careful with constructing encounters and using her own material. Things fall into line, encounters are memorable and challenging while remaining within the reasonable CR range, and it always feels like we have a chance. Never like a GM is just fed up with the players winning and trying to smack them down, or frustratedly grabbing buffs out of a hat in an effort to make the game harder. I can always count on things being tough, but fair, and options that are available on one side of the table are just as available on the other.

As far as specific examples, off the top of my head I can remember three encounters within the last year that were all really fantastic. When we were ambushed on the road and had to deal with low level magic missile spam, use trees for cover, and charm our opponent's troll allies into helping us. When we busted into a vampire lord's mansion after some scouting and sealing passageways and had to fight a running battle trying to close off our target's retreat before he could get to an advantageous position, and we locked him down with Reflex nerfing effects before killing him with a sunburst. And when we were performing our final raid on a slavemaster, and a bunch of psionic warriors were desperately trying to keep our paladin from getting to him (which was awesomely reminiscent of a famous fight scene from Old Boy).


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I actually am a player in Ashiel's games. I've been playing dnd with her almost as long as anyone has. So I've come to set the record straight as to the tone and feel of an Ashiel run game.

First off, I would like to say that I never worry about anything that Ashiel throws at me as a player being too powerful for me to overcome. While near everything that he throws at us, from monster to trap to NPC, is customized to fit a particular theme, she never creates anything that can't be taken down through keeping a cool head and careful planning.

This however is not to say that the challenges that she sends her players way aren't true challenges (ie: possibly lethal). Rather that the challenges are meticulously crafted to be a threat that the party should be wary of meeting without the proper planning that is due something of one's challenge rating.

Often times he, rather than throwing one higher challenge rating monster at the party, will create a cohesive group (in other words a group that synergies well and plays off of one another strengths) of lesser challenge rating creatures or NPC's.

Secondly I would like to say that while Ashiel is indeed one of the best minds for rules mechanics that I have ever seen in my entire life, she couples that with her love of engaging story telling. He facilitates this in many different ways.

She begins often with a single person or place and simply works to create just them, understanding that person or place, creating a back story for it or them. Then he takes theses "points of light" and expands from them. Building the world around them. By creating the world this way she is better able to decide and understand what caused the points of light to develop as they did. Their personalities, goals, interests, character flaws, and sometimes even their underlying madness.

She often plays around with the concept of what is truly good is truly evil. He does this by creating 'villains or heroes' whose back-stories are often laced with tragedy or marked events that caused their transformation. An BBEG was not always a BBEG. People are not wholly evil or good.... Well, not real people anyway. By creating characters this way they feel more realistic and makes the issues of who is right and who is wrong much more flexible given ones view point on the matter. This tests the parties morals, their drive, and their goals. In turn making the PC's more realistic.

But probably one of the best things is that I know that I have near total creative freedom in Ashiel's games. To play what I want, how I want, without incrimination from the GM or the other players. Granted we tend to play with a more open minded and diverse set of people than I was used to in other games. But truly the gambit of diverse play styles is accepted and encouraged in our games.

I don't have to worry about playing a character who is perhaps not the most optimized, and face dejection if our party should fail some task or other. As is want in many of the other more rules oriented groups that I have played in, where PC power is key to acceptance within a group. In Ashiel's games I have complete freedom to play a character that has more emphasis of their back-story than their dice rolls, or spell lists.

On the other hand I don't worry about a character concept being shot out of the air for being, too, good at its given field. I've played wizards in high level games under his GMing scrutiny, that shook the heavens with their power and took on lower tier gods whose ire we had caught for one feat or other.

Mainly though, I think that what I like best is that Ashiel is trying, every session, to create an environment that the players will enjoy. Now, what I mean by this is that he is willing, and often does, go above and beyond the call of duty for players. She often builds plot around his characters, making them the key to an epic adventure, or just tying in what their pre-made back-story into the plot of the main story. Or perhaps you as a player aren't quite reaching the potential for your character build that you wanted to, he often takes time out of his personal off time to help you build your character to better meet the goals that you have for yourself. Also if you wish to be a more vested part of the story she will work with you to incorporate pieces of your character in the story as it's going on.

Now anyone can do these things, but ask any gamer that has been around about how many will do all of these things, any time that you ask them and I think that most people will tell you that many of the GM's of the world aren't willing to go that far. He is the best GM that I have ever played under, and by the way, also one of the most fun players to play with. She has lived and breathed these games since 1999. So when you ask does he overdo anything, I gotta say no. Does she bring her all to the table every time he plays? Heck yeah she does.

Game on, Peace


2 people marked this as a favorite.

By the way. There is currently an ask Ashiel anything thread on the forum right now.

Just thought people up here would like to know.


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Aelryinth wrote:

Price breakdowns via enhancements don't work like that.

Celestial Mail might be priced as +3 Enhancement, with Celestial Costing a +1, with the flight add on...or it might all be lump sum.

There will be a SUBSTANTIAL difference in pricing if you're supposed to treat it as an enhancement bonus, because everything added on goes up in cost more quickly, as opposed to just taking on 12k. If Celestial is +1, it's also +1 less enhancement you can add to the armor on the way to +10.

Likewise, the Sun Sword. It's priced exactly at the price of a +5 Weapon. Maybe the sunburst is free for the Good aligned thing. Thus, any additions of enhancements starts at +6, i.e. takes the price to 72000 gp. A +5 Sun Sword would be a +8 Equiv weapon and 128k gp.

Or maybe all the Sun Sword add-ons are a straight add-ons, 'because they aren't on the enhancement lists yet'. So, a Sun Sword is an 8k weapon with +42k of add-ons. A +5 Sun sword would thus be only 92k, with +5 of enhancements still to be added. This interpretation of the Sun Sword results in a much more powerful weapon.

In short, on items where the effects are not broken down, you don't KNOW. And that's why any changing of them is a house rule.

I know what the price of +3 Full Plate is. I know the difference between that price and the price of Celestial Plate. If "+5 Max Dex, reduce Armor Check Penalty by 3, reduce Armor Check Penalty by 15%, and Fly 1/day at CL 8" is not a plus-equivalent ability, then that is all I need to know to improve the armor. I can't seem to find that anywhere on the list of plus-equivalent abilities.

The rules allow upgrading a magic item by paying the difference between its current cost and what it would cost with the upgrade applied. There is a straightforward way to apply this rule to 'named items'. Seems to me that saying it's impossible is the house rule.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

For those following at home, here's a link to an Older Thread that discussed some of the more heinous monsters in the Bestiaries. I believe that Ashiel was an affluent part of the conversation there as well. Here's another one, more recent.


Revan wrote:
I can't seem to find that anywhere on the list of plus-equivalent abilities.

Can you find it anywhere on the list of fixed-price abilities?

I'm pretty sure named items aren't supposed to be upgraded - if they were they wouldn't be named items, they'd just be costed abilities.

The Exchange

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Revan wrote:
I can't seem to find that anywhere on the list of plus-equivalent abilities.

Can you find it anywhere on the list of fixed-price abilities?

I'm pretty sure named items aren't supposed to be upgraded - if they were they wouldn't be named items, they'd just be costed abilities.

Both Mithril shirts and Adamantine plate are named items and I've seen examples of both of those with + modifiers added to them.


But the difference there is that with mithril shirt and adamantine plate, all they've done is apply a material to a standard type of armour and for some reason (perhaps they're intended to be more common?) called them specific armours. They do not in any way deviate from the special material rules.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Which seems to kind of lend itself to the idea that "named items" are simply items with unusual elements to them that otherwise follows the normal rules.

THAT SAID: the named item conversation is waaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy off topic for "pathfdiner monsters that aren't fun for their CR", so... new thread?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:


Well the advanced template is as ill conceived as the skeletal champion template (and the young and giant simple templates aren't much better) so that's probably a bad baseline of comparison. I mean realistically simple buffs do more than the advanced template does (divine power grants a +6 to hit and damage, an extra attack, and +20 HP; righteous might gives the exact benefits of the giant simple template and DR 5-10 to boot).

That is not the point.

I will put this another way. Whether you get the numbers(pre buff) from X or Y the numbers have changed.

edit: I have a feeling I am going to have to explain in detail...

Quote:
Again, it's just not enough to change the CR of the enemy. You have to remember that going from CR X to CR X+1 means that you must be roughly the equivalent in challenge to a pair of CR X-1 creatures, so a CR 15 monster is supposed to be worth 2 CR 13 creatures. To advance to CR 16, you need to now be worth 2 CR 14 creatures.

Well there are 2 CR's. The "by the book CR", and the actual difficulty of the monster. I am talking about the "by the book CR".

Yes, I am aware that "by the book CR" does not always match up because two CR 13's may or may not equal a CR 15. Sometimes they will not be enough. Sometimes they will be too much in actual play even if they are equal by the book.

The advanced simple template only functions on very low-CR creatures to which its modifiers make them significantly stronger (such as putting the advanced template on a lizardfolk) but does nothing but turn things of even middling CR range into XP / Treasure Pinatas. It was poorly conceived to be certain.

Quote:


The system just isn't as fragile as some are implying. :|.

And as I have said before the monsters are mostly plug and play. Once you give them equipment their difficulty actually changes. Are you really going to tell me a stock monster vs a stock monster with equipment look the same?

+6 AC(the PC's can not reliably hit with power attack or the secondary fighters at least are not power attacking)
+3 to hit(makes power attacking easier to eat)
+X damage(from power attack now hitting reliably) can be a big boost in damage
+3 to saves<---may or may not really happen, just an example
invisibility from dust of disappearing
etc etc.... other options that can't be measured with numbers.

How much you have to add before it becomes a difference depends on your players to a large extent.

I should just take a stock monster and build it. Maybe on my next day off to see if you think the "stock monster" and "stock monster 2.0 with equipment" are really equal in CR. I will use a CR 5(relatively low), and a CR 11(somewhat high level) that can use equipment but are not statted out with it.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Drunken Irishman wrote:

I can't imagine any low lvl party being thrilled to fight a swarm of stirges. They suck

Pun intended

A paladin I partied with, had his con go from a 16 to a 4 from one fight with them.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
John John wrote:
Aratrok wrote:

@John John

"No, you're wrong and I'm right and I don't need to bother explaining why in detail" is not an effective method of delivering your points.
Its an acceptable response and one that Ashiel has chosen to go with multiple times.

Really?

Sometimes I think Ashiel's post are like reading a mini-novel. Maybe you read someone's else post and thought it was Ashiel.

301 to 350 of 661 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / pathfinder monsters that aren't fun for their CR All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.