pathfinder monsters that aren't fun for their CR


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

351 to 400 of 661 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chris Ballard wrote:
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.

They are annoying, but so far have never come close to killing me. Shadows, if they have not been mentioned are something I hate to see.

GM: You just lost 4 strength

PC: What about my save?

GM: Save, what save? <evil laugh>

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Revan wrote:
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.

You're interpreting the rules backwards.

The rules specifically allow you to modify items if the cost of them is clearly delineated.

They do not allow you to modify the item if there is any obfuscation over how the pricing works.

The simple fact that we are disagreeing on how to price a sun sword and celestial mail, and that there is no iron-clad method for pricing them, stands on its own face.

Modifying such IS a house rule, however much you may think otherwise. If you could go to every other GM's table and they agree with you, I'll relent. But as I'm a GM, and I don't agree with you, and more then a few others don't as well (including PFS), I'll leave it at that.

==Aelryinth

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

You're interpreting the rules backwards.

The rules specifically allow you to modify items if the cost of them is clearly delineated.

They do not allow you to modify the item if there is any obfuscation over how the pricing works.

The simple fact that we are disagreeing on how to price a sun sword and celestial mail, and that there is no iron-clad method for pricing them, stands on its own face.

Modifying such IS a house rule, however much you may think otherwise. If you could go to every other GM's table and they agree with you, I'll relent. But as I'm a GM, and I don't agree with you, and more then a few others don't as well (including PFS), I'll leave it at that.

==Aelryinth

Funny, the people who agree with him include the Paizo staff.

Inner Sea Gods wrote:
For higher level characters, remember that these armors can be upgraded like any other magic item by adding “plus equivalent” or “gp value” abilities, then paying the difference between the original item’s price and the price of the item when upgraded with the additional special abilities. Likewise, variants of these armors may exist using different types of armor, such as Deadeye leather, which is made from leather armor instead of studded leather. The full rules for customizing magic armor and shields can be found in Chapter 15 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook.

Emphasis mine.

And believe me, I wish such upgrading was possible in PFS. I've a GM credit baby with a Sidhidron Medalion that I'd love to upgrade.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

It seems like the inability to upgrade specific items in PFS is an extension of the "no crafting" rule there, probably to make sure there are no weird rules interactions with less-common enhancements (since crafting is banned in PFS). While it's possible to upgrade other things, this prevents any sort of confusion and allows a lack of table variation. This does not, by the way, mean it's a house rule - just that it's easier to interpret the PFS rules this way.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

and if it's a simple calculation on what the item is...sure, I'll agree.

But if you can't clearly lay out how an item was generated in the first place, then simply tacking on additional enhancements becomes a wildly varying game of 'what is correct'.

Celestial armor and the sun sword are two iconic examples of how you can break down the price multiple ways. The sun sword is even priced as a +5 weapon already. And it has a price decreaser in its good alignment bias.

It's also like a holy avenger...you can't accurately break down the pricing under the rules, especially with the paladin restriction on it, because its such a unique item. Yet its priced soooo weirdly...

Meh. House rules are what you feel comfortable with. I personally have my own rulings on both, and I'm sure you do, too. It's just claiming that those are the 'default' rules, when you really don't know how to apply an increase, cannot be core.

==Aelryinth


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

The rules of PFS are not the RAW in any shape or form. It has all manner of housw rules designed to facilitate characters drifting in and out of different groups. An inability to upgrade specific items is moot when house rules prevent you from creating at all for one.

No statement in the RAW forbids upgrading named items. Indeed, even your assumptive should allow adding flat cost abilities such as Glamered. The reading of the RAW that assumes the non-standard enhancements are flat-go adds nothing to the text. It simply applies the rules in the only way they can be consistently applied. Seems to me, if there's a way to interpret the rules so that they are consistently applied, versus a way to do so that creates inconsistencies that prevent the rule from being applied, that the former had the stronger claim.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Over all this Discussion has been an awesome and educating Experiance...:) Thank You!

Back to the oddly sorted CR critters, though I think that some, not all might have had a CR rating that was plopped on without much play testing...
that said useing a monster in a way that the players do not expect is the best way to effect a boost how much resourses might have to be used up for the encounter...
the most annoying monsters are those that just refuse to be faced...like a bunch of prankster pixies...who says the pixies have to stay still when glitterdust or dispell magic is used the could hide around the courner or trapdoor and still cause havac with throwing thier voices around... :)

that said I have played a game where we were told to create two characters cause the chance of one dieing was going to be high...that was a mostly a crazy game though with crit hit chart and crit hit fumble chart being used be every one and no fudging of rolls was allowed....nothing so funny as the enamy crit hitting themselves...

Getting back on target: monsters that do ability damage at lower lvl are the worst...also creaturse that are slyly slipped in that attack certain PC weak spots over others are anoying


Tacticslion wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
David Neilson wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
Only CR 5, and regen can't be turned off by any damage type. You gotta knock them down and coup de grace or suffocate them. :D
Doesn't work. Regeneration brings them back from CdG and suffocation too.
You may be right on coup de grace, but I believe suffocation is called out as working on regen.

"Attack forms that don’t deal hit point damage are not healed by regeneration. Regeneration also does not restore hit points lost from starvation, thirst, or suffocation. Regenerating creatures can regrow lost portions of their bodies and can reattach severed limbs or body parts if they are brought together within 1 hour of severing. Severed parts that are not reattached wither and die normally."

I was wrong about coup de grace working... it doesn't, as you have to inflict damage to use it. :D

Considering suffocation is actually mentioned in the description of Regeneration, I would assume it works... that being said, you aren't just holding these guys down and smothering them with pillows, they are "only" CR 5, can fly, and have 15 foot reach. It's pretty much ranged combat or nothing on these things.

Suffocation certainly works (and I'd allow it), but there's a relatively solid argument that it doesn't actually kill the creature in question, merely force it into unconsciousness until it recovers normally - which could be forced "indefinite" duration 'cause, say, you bury it in a rock, but still. This has not been FAQ'd to my knowledge.

I know this is a bit late but paizo did release a book and I cannot think of the name of it that straight out said that trolls died of drowning and starving. It even called out that the runts or the unwanted trolls were thrown into rivers to drown and die or thrown into pits to die of hunger. It stated that trolls had huge appetites and that if they didn't constantly feed that they would lose their regeneration.

So yeah trolls do and will die from starvation, sleep deprived, drowning, suffocation, etc. CDG will not kill it or other physical attacks until the regeneration has been shut off.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

and if it's a simple calculation on what the item is...sure, I'll agree.

But if you can't clearly lay out how an item was generated in the first place, then simply tacking on additional enhancements becomes a wildly varying game of 'what is correct'.

The rules actually use a ring of invisibility in the example which is both a specific item that does not rely on item chart abilities, nor does it use a standard pricing formula.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think one of the issues with CR in general is that it can swing so wildly from one group to another. Remember it is an abstract number associated with how challenging something is for a party and how much they learn from fighting such a thing.

Stirges, for example, never were an issue for our groups up until Carrion Crown. For some reason, the combination of characters we have in that group really struggled with a few stirge encounters.

The same can be said for flying or invisible creatures. Some times our groups have struggled with both of them. In other campagins, at the same level we've walked all over them.

The book really presents a ball park figure for you to play with as DM. However, as with most things in a game of this much complexity and variablity, it needs to be tweaked tosuit your game.

This may not mean increasing the CR of the creature, but it may mean you reward more xp for an encounter that was harder than expected, since the characters actually learnt more from that than they would if they'd roflstomped it in one round.

Here's another that almost killed us in a campaign. We came up against a Shadow demon at around level 5 or 6 I think. Up until that point there was no real creature with abilities like it and we were not in a position to easily get gear to deal with a threat like that. Unfortunately, the DM had to fudge a little so one of our members got something to really hurt it with so we could actually progress the story there.

Yet, I've had players come against shadow demons before and we've absolutely wiped them.

There's an art form to designing and running encoutners that really can't be broken into just numbers. It's why the CR system breask down at higher levels so easily.

Cheers

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Revan wrote:

The rules of PFS are not the RAW in any shape or form. It has all manner of housw rules designed to facilitate characters drifting in and out of different groups. An inability to upgrade specific items is moot when house rules prevent you from creating at all for one.

No statement in the RAW forbids upgrading named items. Indeed, even your assumptive should allow adding flat cost abilities such as Glamered. The reading of the RAW that assumes the non-standard enhancements are flat-go adds nothing to the text. It simply applies the rules in the only way they can be consistently applied. Seems to me, if there's a way to interpret the rules so that they are consistently applied, versus a way to do so that creates inconsistencies that prevent the rule from being applied, that the former had the stronger claim.

You can't consistently apply the rules, however, especially when you get into things that have buy-offs or class restrictions.

hence, you can't upgrade, as you don't KNOW the formula. You're only guessing. It's a houserule. PFS does it because of crafting abuse, and wildly different interpretations of exactly what you are talking about.

As the formula have not been defined, no upgrading. If it was as simple and direct as you say, I doubt PFS would have any problems with just increasing the base enchantment on anything.

==Aelryinth

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Ashiel wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

and if it's a simple calculation on what the item is...sure, I'll agree.

But if you can't clearly lay out how an item was generated in the first place, then simply tacking on additional enhancements becomes a wildly varying game of 'what is correct'.

The rules actually use a ring of invisibility in the example which is both a specific item that does not rely on item chart abilities, nor does it use a standard pricing formula.

And I'm using a Sun Sword and Celestial Armor, which are named items and also subject to price indiscretion.

Notably, Rings of Invisibility don't also have enhancement bonuses to muddy the waters, nor a 'negative level if not good' rule for a price break.

==Aelryinth

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Redneckdevil wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
David Neilson wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
Only CR 5, and regen can't be turned off by any damage type. You gotta knock them down and coup de grace or suffocate them. :D
Doesn't work. Regeneration brings them back from CdG and suffocation too.
You may be right on coup de grace, but I believe suffocation is called out as working on regen.

"Attack forms that don’t deal hit point damage are not healed by regeneration. Regeneration also does not restore hit points lost from starvation, thirst, or suffocation. Regenerating creatures can regrow lost portions of their bodies and can reattach severed limbs or body parts if they are brought together within 1 hour of severing. Severed parts that are not reattached wither and die normally."

I was wrong about coup de grace working... it doesn't, as you have to inflict damage to use it. :D

Considering suffocation is actually mentioned in the description of Regeneration, I would assume it works... that being said, you aren't just holding these guys down and smothering them with pillows, they are "only" CR 5, can fly, and have 15 foot reach. It's pretty much ranged combat or nothing on these things.

Suffocation certainly works (and I'd allow it), but there's a relatively solid argument that it doesn't actually kill the creature in question, merely force it into unconsciousness until it recovers normally - which could be forced "indefinite" duration 'cause, say, you bury it in a rock, but still. This has not been FAQ'd to my knowledge.
I know this is a bit late but paizo did release a book and I cannot think of the name of it that straight out said that trolls died of drowning and starving. It even called out that the runts or the unwanted trolls were thrown into rivers to drown and die or thrown into pits to die of hunger. It stated that trolls had huge appetites and that if they didn't constantly feed that they would lose their...

It happens in Rise of the Runelords.

==Aelryinth


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Aelryinth wrote:
Revan wrote:

The rules of PFS are not the RAW in any shape or form. It has all manner of housw rules designed to facilitate characters drifting in and out of different groups. An inability to upgrade specific items is moot when house rules prevent you from creating at all for one.

No statement in the RAW forbids upgrading named items. Indeed, even your assumptive should allow adding flat cost abilities such as Glamered. The reading of the RAW that assumes the non-standard enhancements are flat-go adds nothing to the text. It simply applies the rules in the only way they can be consistently applied. Seems to me, if there's a way to interpret the rules so that they are consistently applied, versus a way to do so that creates inconsistencies that prevent the rule from being applied, that the former had the stronger claim.

You can't consistently apply the rules, however, especially when you get into things that have buy-offs or class restrictions.

hence, you can't upgrade, as you don't KNOW the formula. You're only guessing. It's a houserule. PFS does it because of crafting abuse, and wildly different interpretations of exactly what you are talking about.

As the formula have not been defined, no upgrading. If it was as simple and direct as you say, I doubt PFS would have any problems with just increasing the base enchantment on anything.

==Aelryinth

What part of 'Price of item-Price of standard enhancements on item=Price of non-standard enhancements' is inconsistent? You can argue whether the non-standard enhancements *should* be treated as plus-equivalent, but absent any proof that they *are*, that formula will never fail to provide an answer for the cost, and breaks no written rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
They are annoying, but so far have never come close to killing me.

I, on the other hand, have been killed by stirges.

The GM was kind and allowed me to live (as the creatures controlling said stirges were explicitly not trying to kill me), but yeah, my character totally hit the 0-CON mark.

In our Carrion Crown game, they nearly caused several deaths, resulting in the only major "pause" in action to recover from.


Redneckdevil wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
Suffocation certainly works (and I'd allow it), but there's a relatively solid argument that it doesn't actually kill the creature in question, merely force it into unconsciousness until it recovers normally - which could be forced "indefinite" duration 'cause, say, you bury it in a rock, but still. This has not been FAQ'd to my knowledge.
I know this is a bit late but paizo did release a book and I cannot think of the name of it that straight out said that trolls died of drowning and starving. It even called out that the runts or the unwanted trolls were thrown into rivers to drown and die or thrown into pits to die of hunger. It stated that trolls had huge appetites and that if they didn't constantly feed that they would lose their...

First: nah, you're good. No worries about "lateness" if it's relevant to the conversation.

Second: cool, I didn't know that about published material! That's really good to know!

Third: there is a definite difference between published material for Golarion and published material in general. As I said, I'd totally accept that the starvation and suffocation (including drowning) works - I'm fine with that. The RAW crunch, however (which is a separate thing from the fluff), holds the key to the opposing argument. The essence of the argument is that while regeneration can't fix starvation or suffocation, as soon as one of those two elements are fixed through other means, the creature is restored as, despite those effects, regeneration does keep the creature alive. It's all about parsing the exact wording of things.

My point wasn't to argue canon (though that's cool), but to explain the RAW idea of regeneration.

Although, given that canon is that starvation and drowning kill a creature with regeneration, the Tarrasque just became a lot easier to kill...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

Notably, Rings of Invisibility don't also have enhancement bonuses to muddy the waters, nor a 'negative level if not good' rule for a price break.

==Aelryinth

Why do you continue to just make up different conditions that don't exist? It doesn't do anyone any good and it sure isn't helping your credibility at all. :|

Tell you what, we've already cited the rules, with quotes. Now you go find the rule that states the exception that you are referencing and we'll jump right on the wagon with you. Until you can produce that rule in the core rulebook, I think we have our answer already.

Monsters That Are Unfun for their CR
The Tarrasque. It just isn't really very fun.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The Olethrodaemon

Supposed to be the daemonic equivalent of a Pit fiend, both in terms of fluff and CR - meant to be an epic challenge for an APL 17 party. Falls utterly short in almost every way.

Its movement types are 40ft on the ground or airwalking, with a sprinkling of burrow tossed in there(it can even burrow through rock thanks to its claws), only it doesn't have tremorsense so it's burrowing blind.

It has good reach and 6 Nattacks, which it plays around with by... *sigh*... by selecting awesome blow, cleave, great cleave and improved bullrush for feats.

It has a massively complicated grab-ability whereby it noms you good and proper, only it forgot it was CR 20 and that therefore, those who come to challenge it are APL 17+ and have freedom of movement, making its grappling doohicky completely useless, and it does not have the SLAs to dispel the freedom of movement... or anything else its enemies may be tossing out for that matter. In general its SLAs are pretty meh, boasting the ability to drop walls of force, quickened disintegrate and a CR 19- daemon summon at 100%, as the only really interesting abilities.

It's really easy to hit, has non-consequential DR, decent SR, but no self-regeneration or healing, and it comes strapped with a breath weapon, that is outdone by dragons at less than the Olethrodaemon's CR.

What it does have is adamantine claws and improved sunder, which I guess means you can throw half a curveball, and try to attack Excalibur, rather than king Arthur. The ability to attack inanimate object may be therapeutic for it, since its attack routine is so low, it will only hit ACs of 48 and above on a nat 20.

Olethrodaemons everyone. Not fun for its CR - rather really disappointing.

-Nearyn


Revan wrote:
What part of 'Price of item-Price of standard enhancements on item=Price of non-standard enhancements' is inconsistent? You can argue whether the non-standard enhancements *should* be treated as plus-equivalent, but absent any proof that they *are*, that formula will never fail to provide an answer for the cost, and breaks no written rules.

So, since there is no rule to say you can't, you can? That really isn't how it works. You are trying to make a rule that says "specific items are upgraded through this formula", but that is not supported anywhere.

In other news, it just struck me that if you want to upgrade a mithral shirt, you can, so long as it's a chain shirt made of mithral and not a mithral shirt (the specific item). Both of these have the same stats, and nothing says you can't upgrade a normal chain shirt that happens to be made from mithral.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

If you choose to read the RAW that way, what you're saying is "You can't upgrade a mithral chain shirt, but you can upgrade a mithral chain shirt." Reasonably certain that's the least intuitive way to read it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think maybe Aelryinth is the Anti-Craft.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Sissyl wrote:
Revan wrote:
What part of 'Price of item-Price of standard enhancements on item=Price of non-standard enhancements' is inconsistent? You can argue whether the non-standard enhancements *should* be treated as plus-equivalent, but absent any proof that they *are*, that formula will never fail to provide an answer for the cost, and breaks no written rules.

So, since there is no rule to say you can't, you can? That really isn't how it works. You are trying to make a rule that says "specific items are upgraded through this formula", but that is not supported anywhere.

In other news, it just struck me that if you want to upgrade a mithral shirt, you can, so long as it's a chain shirt made of mithral and not a mithral shirt (the specific item). Both of these have the same stats, and nothing says you can't upgrade a normal chain shirt that happens to be made from mithral.

It says I can do so:

"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.

The cost to add additional abilities to an item is the same as if the item was not magical, less the value of the original item. "

The general rule is that you *can* upgrade magical items. There is no stated exception for 'specific' magic items.

As well, there's this previously quoted line from Inner Sea Gods:

"The following specific armors and shields are popular among mortal devotees of the deities of the Inner Sea region, as designated in the item entries. This section focuses on relatively inexpensive magic armors and shields that low-level characters can afford. For higherlevel
characters, remember that these armors can be upgraded like any other magic item by adding “plus-equivalent” or “gp value” abilities, then paying the difference between the original item’s price and the price of the item when upgraded with the additional special abilities.

Likewise, variants of these armors may exist using different types of armor, such as Deadeye leather, which is made from leather armor instead of studded leather."

So the specific rule is that you *can* upgrade 'specific' magic items--or at least 'specific' armor and shields, which are really the only items to which the 'specific' terminology applies.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Devilkiller wrote:
I think maybe Aelryinth is the Anti-Craft.

No, he is making a very specific and correct point that several people seem intent on missing.

When you are specifically dealing with armors and weapons, you have 2 parallel pricing structures, enhancement bonuses, and add-ons. Enhancement prices increase on a polynomial while add-ons increase linearly. This means that when you try to break down the cost of special armors and weapons, there are multiple ways to arrive at the desired value.

Example, celestial armor, cost 22400, crafting cost is 11350
+2 armor is 4000 gold
masterwork chainmail is 300
The breakdown of the remaining 17100 is unspecified.

Possibilities are
A. +0 enhancement with 17100 in add-ons
B. +1 enhancement with 12100 in add-ons
C. +2 enhancement with 5100 in add-ons

A, B, and C are all correct by RAW, but depending on the decision, you get different results.

If you want to add a +1 to celestial armor it costs...
A. It costs 5000 gold
B. It costs 7000 gold
C. It costs 9000 gold

Sure, the rules tell you to pay the difference to upgrade items, no one is disputing that. The problem is that when dealing with armor and weapons, by RAW, there are multiple correct ways to calculate what that difference is.

Also, you could argue that the cost of the fly spell is 8100 = 5(caster level) * 3(spell level) * 1800(command activated ability) *1.5(added ability on a slotted item) / 5(once per day). Would you let a player make celestial armor without fly for 14300 gold?

Tacticslion wrote:
If you choose to read the RAW that way, what you're saying is "You can't upgrade a mithral chain shirt, but you can upgrade a mithral chain shirt." Reasonably certain that's the least intuitive way to read it.

You can also make a mithril chain shirt +2 without using the special item rules at all. Show me how the make celestial armor without using the special item rules.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Since none of the special abilities on celestial armor are +X equivalent abilities, you only need to know the difference between the value of the +3 armor and everything else. It's not rocket science.

EDIT Here, I'll make this easy on everyone.
Celestial Armor. It's a +3 chainmail with some extra special magics.

+3 chainmail costs 9300 gp.
+3 celestial armor costs 22,400 gp.
22,400 gp = 13,100 gp of additional powers.

+5 chainmail costs 25,300 gp.
Add in the 13,100 gp of additional powers for 38,400 gp.
+5 celestial armor costs 38,400 gp.

Damn that was easy.


Ashiel wrote:
Since none of the special abilities on celestial armor are +X equivalent abilities, you only need to know the difference between the value of the +3 armor and everything else. It's not rocket science.

And where in the rules does it say that "If a special items specific abilities are not in the general enhancement list, treat them as add-ons"?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charender wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Since none of the special abilities on celestial armor are +X equivalent abilities, you only need to know the difference between the value of the +3 armor and everything else. It's not rocket science.
And where in the rules does it say that "If a special items specific abilities are not in the general enhancement list, treat them as add-ons"?

It doesn't because it doesn't have to.


Ashiel wrote:
Charender wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Since none of the special abilities on celestial armor are +X equivalent abilities, you only need to know the difference between the value of the +3 armor and everything else. It's not rocket science.
And where in the rules does it say that "If a special items specific abilities are not in the general enhancement list, treat them as add-ons"?
It doesn't because it doesn't have to.

Because you made up a rule to fill in the gap...


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I didn't make up anything. I quoted the rules (which is more than either you or Ael can claim). You guys are inventing exceptions that don't exist. I'm not sure why you're even doing this.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't have the time myself, but I reckon If someone went through the AP's, they'd find examples of specific items being upgraded. More than just mithril and adamantine as well.

Wrath of the Righteous might even have examples of Celestial upgraded, for example.

I believe the fact that Paizo put Mithril and Adamantine armours in the "special Items" list in the first place was to show you that these things can indeed be upgraded.

It's also very telling that three people so far have provided specific quotes from Paizo published material that directly states special items can be upgraded, yet some people still won't agree.

Arguing against someone who's already made up their mind doesn't usually change anything. IT does make interesting reading though.


Wrath wrote:

I don't have the time myself, but I reckon If someone went through the AP's, they'd find examples of specific items being upgraded. More than just mithril and adamantine as well.

Wrath of the Righteous might even have examples of Celestial upgraded, for example.

I believe the fact that Paizo put Mithril and Adamantine armours in the "special Items" list in the first place was to show you that these things can indeed be upgraded.

It's also very telling that three people so far have provided specific quotes from Paizo published material that directly states special items can be upgraded, yet some people still won't agree.

Arguing against someone who's already made up their mind doesn't usually change anything. IT does make interesting reading though.

RAW clearly states they can be upgraded. The point of contention is exactly how much should it cost to upgrade them.

The sunblade is the counter example to the celestial armor. The pricing on the sunblade is identical to a +5 bastard sword. Overall, the sunblade is similar in power level to a +2 holy, undead bane bastard sword. All in all you have a very strong argument that the sun blade is actually a +5 weapon, and thus adding a +1 to a sunblade should cost 22,000 instead of 10,000.


Nearyn wrote:

The Olethrodaemon

Supposed to be the daemonic equivalent of a Pit fiend, both in terms of fluff and CR - meant to be an epic challenge for an APL 17 party. Falls utterly short in almost every way.

Olethrodaemons everyone. Not fun for its CR - rather really disappointing.

-Nearyn

negative energy damage breath weapon 20d10 is no joke, death ward being 1 minute/level makes it an expensive buff to keep up. Quickened walls of force are also pretty useful as is burrowing through stone walls (since they collapse behind it).

But in general CRs don't scale too well, especially for groups which optimize.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wrath wrote:
Arguing against someone who's already made up their mind doesn't usually change anything. IT does make interesting reading though.

No, it's actually getting rather boring.

Occasionally something slips through like Ashiel's analysis of why the Shoggoth is a more interesting fight than Cthulhu.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Trimalchio wrote:
negative energy damage breath weapon 20d10 is no joke, death ward being 1 minute/level makes it an expensive buff to keep up. Quickened walls of force are also pretty useful as is burrowing through stone walls (since they collapse behind it).

Eh, not really impressed. 20d10, with a 1d4 rounds delay, up to 3 times per day. So at best, it smacks me for 200 dmg, at worst for 10, but on average around 110 dmg. Standard action well spent? It'll probably get healed next round.

If this thing just jumped out of nowhere, yelled bloody murder and let slip the hounds of war, then I can see it being a threat. But many things can be seen as such, if the GM just plops it down in optimal position in front of the party and goes "a monster happens! roll initiative".

I can see this being terrifying to the commoner populace, a big, nasty force of nature in the shape of a daemonic blender, on a inter-state cruise of destruction through the countryside. But many creatures can be that. It does not justify its CR. The weakest party I've ever GMd for is my present Rise of the Runelords group, and I can see them taking this thing out behind the shed, were they to reach level 17.

I respect that opinion differs, but I still think this dude is weak for his CR.

-Nearyn

EDIT: did I give the impression that it can drop quickened walls of force? because it totally can't. It can throw out standard walls of force 3 times per day, and a quickened disintegrate 3 times per day.


Assuming he is with his CR 19 buddy the Obcisidaemon, anyone caught in the blast that dies has a good chance of just being consumed. This is the sort of monster that can easily kill cohorts, npcs, mounts, animal companions etc.

Nearly all monsters are radically easier if the PCs are aware of them beforehand.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Can I go a different direction with this thread and say the Tarrasque?

Not because he's too hard, but because he's too easy. He's no fun to fight for his CR, because he's a CR 25 creature than many single level 20 characters could defeat on their own (assuming by defeat we mean knock unconscious since the big T has plot armor against death).

A CR 25 creature should be nearly unkillable for a something that is a CR 19 (20th level PC), but he is about as strong as a wet newspaper. His plot armor is the only thing that makes him interesting.


Trimalchio wrote:

Assuming he is with his CR 19 buddy the Obcisidaemon, anyone caught in the blast that dies has a good chance of just being consumed. This is the sort of monster that can easily kill cohorts, npcs, mounts, animal companions etc.

Nearly all monsters are radically easier if the PCs are aware of them beforehand.

That doesn't really tell us much does it? That's like saying monsters are radically harder if you're unaware of them. Yes, of course they are. Any schmuck who stealths up to a sleeping PC with a greataxe can be a major threat, solely based on coup de grace. That is not what we base CR on, although it certainly can influence it. But most high-end evil outsiders can teleport in and wreck face the following round. That does not make this thing the Challenge equal to a Pit Fiend. It simply doesn't.

-Nearyn


Sorry if I upset you Nearyn, taking 20d10 energy damage to the face isn't fun for anyone I guess. Don't understand how you brush that aside as nothing to break a sweat about, especially if anyone dropped is going to have to make a fort save or be consumed as per destruction, true resurrection isn't free in most high levels games I've seen.

Probably not as tough as pit fiends but they are in the same ball park and actually have better synergy with their CR 19 summon then pit fiends. I think most DMs could make an Olethrodaemon a challenging encounter without too much effort.


I strongly believe that the Festrog can potentially be a horrible CR1 Encounter.

First, it can charge up to whoever is in the back, with it's 100 foot charge, then trip them using his Charging trip power, giving him a +8 to the trip roll, on top of the bite from the charge. He then feeds on them, assuming the people hanging in the back are weaker characters, or wearing light armor, he has a +6 to hit, meaning more than likely he does make contact.

After he had fed he now has 14 HP, and it is now time for initative, with his temporary hit points he should be able to survive a couple good jab, which is a very very bad thing, for the more hits he takes, the more chances his Diseased Pustules can take effect, causing 1d4 con damage a day, admittedly only with a 11 Fortitude save, it can still pose a problem for classes with slow fort saves.

On top of that, if he survives to go on his next turn, he can do many things, a first level party has no way of catching him if he runs, unless they have gathered enough money to purchase a horse by now. And if he does not run, he can get a rather nifty full attack, with Bite +4 (1d6+3) And 2 claws +5 (1d4+3) And if his bite does land, he gets more temporary hit points,

And to make matters worse, these things can come in pack, using their Charging Trip power to trip most of the party, forcing them to either bite a -4 or get up provoking and attack.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Quicklings are either

1. Super easy if the GM plays them dumb. (Trying to take the group by himself so that the party just readies actions for when he comes back.)

2. Freakishly tough for its CR if the GM actually plays them smart. (The quickling is one of a group of attackers, and then the group either has to just eat the quickling's spring attacks, or if any ready attacks vs the quickling he merely bides his time.)


Claxon wrote:

Can I go a different direction with this thread and say the Tarrasque?

Not because he's too hard, but because he's too easy. He's no fun to fight for his CR, because he's a CR 25 creature than many single level 20 characters could defeat on their own (assuming by defeat we mean knock unconscious since the big T has plot armor against death).

A CR 25 creature should be nearly unkillable for a something that is a CR 19 (20th level PC), but he is about as strong as a wet newspaper. His plot armor is the only thing that makes him interesting.

Seconded. If you really want to build for firepower he's in easy range to decimate with a martial and his spell defenses have enough gaps that it's easy enough to hammer him with a single kill spell from the casters.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Ian Wilson 67 wrote:
I strongly believe that the Festrog can potentially be a horrible CR1 Encounter.

I feel like you're giving the festrog a LOT of favorable conditions. And I'm not sure where you are getting +8 for the trip attempt, as his CMB is +4 and charging only gives +2. (If it even gets the charge bonus to the trip attempt.) He's not going to be able to run away if the party melee guys surround him and ranged character cut off his straight lines of escape.


Trimalchio wrote:

Sorry if I upset you Nearyn, taking 20d10 energy damage to the face isn't fun for anyone I guess. Don't understand how you brush that aside as nothing to break a sweat about, especially if anyone dropped is going to have to make a fort save or be consumed as per destruction, true resurrection isn't free in most high levels games I've seen.

Probably not as tough as pit fiends but they are in the same ball park and actually have better synergy with their CR 19 summon then pit fiends. I think most DMs could make an Olethrodaemon a challenging encounter without too much effort.

That's very nice of you, but there is really no need to apologize :) First of all we're just playing ball, and secondly I'm not upset - this is me engaged in debate :) Now it is my turn to be sorry, if I somehow gave off an offensive tone :C

I do not object to the idea that you can make a challenge of this critter, nor do I think that everyone is obligated to share my opinion that the thing is weak compared to Big-Daddy Devil, and not worthy of its CR. There is also no denying that the thing is destructive, and while I agree that you can use this monster in a meaningful way in a campaign, you don't measure CR by whether or not the party's mounts are gonna go belly up during the encounter. At least I assume you don't O.o....

I'm not denying potential synergy with the summons either, just that I don't see it elevating the creature to CR 20 on its merry lonesome. Pit fiends stand on their own as an epic challenge to most APL 17 parties. And few things are as devastating as having a Cornugons with class-levels dancing around in your backline, stunning party-members left right and center, while you still have a pit fiend to contend with.

Anyway, enough of me drooling over Pit Fiends, they're awesome and I feel they deserve their CR, I don't think anyone doubts that I hold that position any more.

And you don't have to agree with me, as long as we can stay civil and reasoned, I'm enjoying myself :)

-Nearyn


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ian Wilson 67 wrote:
I strongly believe that the Festrog can potentially be a horrible CR1 Encounter.
I feel like you're giving the festrog a LOT of favorable conditions. And I'm not sure where you are getting +8 for the trip attempt, as his CMB is +4 and charging only gives +2. (If it even gets the charge bonus to the trip attempt.) He's not going to be able to run away if the party melee guys surround him and ranged character cut off his straight lines of escape.

Personally I don't quite see where I am giving him favorable conditions. His +6 Stealth makes him a rather decent ambush critter, And his +8 from tripping is from Charging Trip

Charging Trip (Ex) A festrog that hits with its bite after making a charge attack on all fours can attempt to trip its opponent (+4 bonus). This trip does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

And With a movement speed of 50, a Full Withdraw could get him a decent distance, also allowing him to hide behind a gravestone or tomb building
if he was in a graveyard, as the description text details them as commonly residing in.

And if they are out hunting, they can just hightail it out of there, even if they do risk dying from an AOO


Re: the olethrodaemon, the summons is a 100% chance of success, so I think you have to assume it factors into the CR as written. It isn't like you're talking about a demon with only a 30% chance (the shemhazian I ran yesterday for example) or something that can't summon anything terribly challenging.

I'm pretty sure there's a good chance I'd beat my current level 17 party with one of these, but not guaranteed - but that's why we roll the dice.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Ian Wilson 67 wrote:

Personally I don't quite see where I am giving him favorable conditions. His +6 Stealth makes him a rather decent ambush critter, And his +8 from tripping is from Charging Trip

Charging Trip (Ex) A festrog that hits with its bite after making a charge attack on all fours can attempt to trip its opponent (+4 bonus). This trip does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

And With a movement speed of 50, a Full Withdraw could get him a decent distance, also allowing him to hide behind a gravestone or tomb building
if he was in a graveyard, as the description text details them as commonly residing in.

And if they are out hunting, they can just hightail it out of there, even if they do risk dying from an AOO

I am uncertain if the +4 bonus in Charging Trip is meant to be added to his CMB or is a restating of his CMB. I'm also uncertain it can withdrawal at 50ft movement when not moving in a straight line, as it says 'four-footed run', where the Run action is required to be in a straight line.


Well that is certainly a point of contention, and would be up to the DM

Four-Footed Run (Ex) A festrog can run on all fours at speed of 50 feet if it doesn't hold or carry anything in its hands. When running on all fours, it is treated as if it had the Run feat.

I personally think that this would not be treated as using the Run action. As it is not being described as such, I believe it is merely boosting the speed from a 30 to a 50.


I'm surprised that skeletal champions from bestiary 1 have not come up in this thread once.

Why:

Because a CR9 20th level NPC is sort of OP.

PRD wrote:

“Skeletal Champion” is an acquired template that can be added to any corporeal creature (other than an undead) that has a skeletal system (referred to hereafter as the base creature) and a minimum Intelligence of 3.

CR: A skeletal champion's CR is +1 higher than a normal skeleton with the same HD.

HD CR XP
1/2 1/6 65
1 1/3 135
2–3 1 400
4–5 2 600
6–7 3 800
8–9 4 1,200
10–11 5 1,600
12–14 6 2,400
15–17 7 3,200
18–20 8 4,800

Hit Dice: Change all of the creature's racial HD to d8s, then add 2 racial Hit Dice to this total (creatures without racial HD gain 2). HD from class levels are unchanged.

Defensive Abilities: A skeletal champion gains DR 5/bludgeoning, channel resistance +4, and immunity to cold. It also gains all of the standard undead traits.

...

Abilities: Str +2, Dex +2. As undead, it has no Constitution score.

BAB: Its BAB for racial HD equals 3/4 of its HD.

Skills: Gains skill ranks per racial Hit Die equal to 4 + its Int modifier. Class skills for racial HD are Climb, Disguise, Fly, Intimidate, Knowledge (arcana), Knowledge (religion), Perception, Sense Motive, Spellcraft, and Stealth. Skills gained from class levels remain unchanged.

Feats: A skeletal champion gains Improved Initiative as a bonus feat.

Saves: Base save bonuses for racial Hit Dice are Fort +1/3 HD, Ref +1/3 HD, and Will +1/2 HD + 2.

EDIT: I missed earlier references in this thread.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Ian Wilson 67 wrote:
I personally think that this would not be treated as using the Run action. As it is not being described as such, I believe it is merely boosting the speed from a 30 to a 50.

I will point out that Run in the ability name is linked to the Run feat. That may be a layout error or it may not.


Skeletal Champions were actually mentioned earlier.

Most of them aren't much, but applied to the right thing they're monsters.


Hmm, once again up to DM interpretation. Which also draws attention to the fact that the Festrog is horribly written out. And in looking at this, many DMs would have different stances in the matter, possibly leading to players crying out over it. Whilst I do tend to think of the abilities in a more beneficial way for them. Other DMs may not, and I certainly believe most players also would not.

So, I humbly doff my hat to you, and your expert observation. It is too reliant on DM judgement calls, to truly be a "Pathfinder Monster That Is Not Fun For It's CR"

351 to 400 of 661 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 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.