Rant: Riding dog is second tier!1!1! (Paizo)

[Koumei]

RC: So I hear there are these things called "Monster Manuals", right? They have, get this, hundreds of monsters of varying CRs ready to use straight away! They even have completed stats so that, if a player decides to shrink one or deal ability damage, you know what to do.

Imagine that! A game that used these mythical books would be able to be run straight away, without the DM spending hours on it and - and this is important - without making up bullshit numbers that seriously have a worse chance of being balanced and fair than what WotC themselves make.

Seriously. Check those books out and consider getting one, it may save a whole lot of trouble in the long run.

[RandomCasualty2]

RC: So I hear there are these things called "Monster Manuals", right? They have, get this, hundreds of monsters of varying CRs ready to use straight away! They even have completed stats so that, if a player decides to shrink one or deal ability damage, you know what to do.

Sure, that's pretty much why all of my 3.5 games featured pretty much nothing but monsters and no NPCs, because monsters were pretty easily placed because I had stock stats for them.

But that still doesn't excuse the godawful monster/NPC creation system that is long and tedious for no reason. The bottom line is that it doesn't produce more balanced creatures, it doesn't produce more balanced encounters and it doesn't even make for more interesting encounters. It's just a lot of work for zero gain and I'm really not sure why anyone would defend it.

[Koumei]

As opposed to just making numbers up that are bullshit and that render any numerical aspect of character creation pointless? No thanks, I'll stick with what's apparently convoluted and time consuming and "Math is haaaard."

Yeah, a girl, the typical "Math is haaard" target, and one who failed advanced math in grade 11, is making fun of you, insinuating that you're as math-retarded as WotC.

Which probably explains why they just decided to limit the amount of math that was actually in 4E - their idea is moderately stupid. "Just make it all equal these numbers, by magic!" is not a good idea, it doesn't interact with the rest of the game (and means that you start having monster spells that can affect ability scores, and player spells that just give monsters "a penalty". Oh wait, never mind, you don't get things as complex as ability damage, and the reason is it can't interact with monsters created in a bullshit manner like that), it doesn't let you know how much you can alter them by breaking their shit, nor what you get for stealing their shit (made even worse by the Diablo approach to treasure), and all in all...

it's bullshit.

Still, if that's the way you want to go, I'll laugh at you but that's all. As long as you think CRs should have listed "important numbers" for created challenges, I'll say it's a poor idea and you'll piss your players off, but whatever. If you think the numbers of the players should directly affect it though, then you're no longer playing D&D and I'll tell you to go fuck yourself.

[Cielingcat]

But you have to make the numbers equal anyway, only instead of doing it by waving your hands you do it by a complicated and labor intensive tax code for no reason. It's a waste of literally hours or your time to add up all the bullshit numbers.

Because no matter how easy basic arithmetic is, it takes time. And I don't want to spend all that time with that shit.

[Tequila Sunrise]

Yeah, a girl, the typical "Math is haaard" target, and one who failed advanced math in grade 11, is making fun of you, insinuating that you're as math-retarded as WotC.

Oooooh snap! Way to divert attention from the fact that you've been repeatedly proven wrong by making laughably absurd insults!

This is me, a guy who aced every math test he ever took without even studying, telling you that just because I can do something, doesn't mean that I want to or should do it. I also know tae kwon do, but I don't beat the crap out of every guy who looks at me sideways. Why? Because I don't need to prove my masculinity, just like I don't need to fill out a tax form that nobody but me is ever going to see.

Still, if that's the way you want to go, I'll laugh at you but that's all. As long as you think CRs should have listed "important numbers" for created challenges, I'll say it's a poor idea and you'll piss your players off, but whatever. If you think the numbers of the players should directly affect it though, then you're no longer playing D&D and I'll tell you to go fuck yourself.

Before I jump to conclusions here, did you just say that CRs should not have target numbers, for example "an average monster should have an AC of 13 + CR."?

TS

[SphereOfFeetMan]

Koumei has it pretty much spot on.

If you can't fucking add up AC you can't play D&D or be trusted to GM even within the rules let alone without having to follow them.

I mean seriously we had someone right here present the argument in favour of pure ass pulling by stating the goal of selecting AC for a low level warrior mook then wave around mid to high level cheese armor MAX dex (on an NPC class "melee mook" where the fuck did that extra 16 attribute even come from?) and a shield, then just vaguely ADD several points more and pull out the number TWENTY FIVE.

TWENTY FUCKING FIVE on a low level NPC class fucking mook.

I don't need to find incompetent GMs to point at as untrustable to pick an appropriate number out of their ass, I didn't even need to tell my little D20 WoW story, we have one doing so right here in his very same founding argument in favour of letting them do that.

Seriously PL, do you even play Dungeons and Dragons 3.x? If you think a 25 ac at low level is impressive, you obviously have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

You are also mischaracterizing my position fuckass. I said a low level Npc Fighter, I never once used the word “mook.” See, Fighters have these things called heavy armor and shield proficiencies. This means that they have a higher Ac than most other Npc’s at low levels. Try to keep up.

Since you cannot fathom how this can be done, I will show an example:
Halfling Fighter, level 5: (mounted charger)
Base 10
Dex: +1 (base Dexterity 10+2 racial, 12 (+1))
Full plate +1: +9
Large shield +1: +3
Size: +1
Shield Specialization: +1
Total: 25 Ac at level 5. He can also use his mount for cover for even more Ac.

This is using bog standard shit here. Using bullshit rules, or spells even, can easily push a low level Npc’s Ac higher.

PL, you don’t know how the rules function. Come back to this thread after you have educated yourself on what Dnd 3.x is.

[erik]

Heh, I liked the gnome fighter for ultimate AC at low levels.

Level 1 Fighter gnome, Feats: Dodge, Titan Fighting

size +1
12 dex +1
fullplate +8
tower shield +4
Dodge vs. medium sized or larger opponent +4

AC 28 vs. one medium sized or larger opponent
AC 25 vs. one small sized opponent
AC 24 against non-dodge opponents

Annoying little buggers.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Seriously PL, do you even play Dungeons and Dragons 3.x? If you think a 25 ac at low level is impressive, you obviously have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

...

Total: 25 Ac at level 5. He can also use his mount for cover for even more Ac.

Wow, looks like your max AC low level fighter can just hit AC 25. What about that makes a 25 AC unimpressive for a low-level fighter? That fact that it's actually achievable if you dump abilities on dubious +1 bonuses? Are numbers only impressive if they can't be achieved without cheating?

[SphereOfFeetMan]

Wow, looks like your max AC low level fighter can just hit AC 25. What about that makes a 25 AC unimpressive for a low-level fighter? That fact that it's actually achievable if you dump abilities on dubious +1 bonuses? Are numbers only impressive if they can't be achieved without cheating?

That is not my "max AC low level fighter." PL was astonished by a 25 Ac, so I just showed how simple it is to achieve. A 25 Ac is unimpressive compared to what a low level character can achieve. How the hell is +1 Ac from dex, and +1 Ac from size, and the like a "dubious" bonus?

[PhoneLobster]

I thought your whole argument was to do with making attributes relative to player bonuses. The 25 is impressive because your low level fighter is going to be struggling to hit it, especially after dumping all that bullshit into his own pointless AC.

I mean that same gnome is getting what +5 to hit?

And once again WTF? How the hell is he affording that 1500gp suit of armor? Why wouldn't the level 1 PC with a fraction of the wealth NOT call shenanigans on you? NPCs are supposed to have LESS wealth, not 10x standard.

Indeed similarly your mithril full plate earlier, 10500gp? WTF?

[SphereOfFeetMan]

My argument is making the numbers “relative to player bonuses.” A 25 Ac may or may not be difficult to hit for the party. I just used the number 25 because it could be a reasonable Ac for the party to hit. I might write down a 10 Ac, or a 40 Ac. It is all dependant upon the Pc’s.

And once again WTF? How the hell is he affording that 1500gp suit of armor? Why wouldn't the level 1 PC with a fraction of the wealth NOT call shenanigans on you? NPCs are supposed to have LESS wealth, not 10x standard.

Indeed similarly your mithril full plate earlier, 10500gp? WTF?

clikml's gnome character is the perfect example of the game tax code problem. Yes, he made a minor mistake in forgetting that a suit of full plate is more expensive than what a lvl 1 Npc character can afford. However, that same level 1 Npc could have simply had a less expensive armor with a dexterity modifier higher than +1. He could instead have gotten breastplate and a 16 dex. He could then use bullshit rules to get a flaw and get an extra feat to get that last point of Ac. He still would have gotten a base Ac of 24. The difference is he has to double check all that shit out. It is not worth it.

Similarly, my example fighter got mithril full plate. That 2 Ac from mithril costs 10k gp. Or I could have spent 2k gp on 2 +1's for his armor and shield. That is not worth keeping track of.

If you really want to get anal about it, there are several wealth engines to get free gold by the rules. Does it make it better if I used the rules to give a mid level fighter unlimited wealth? I say that it does not.

[PhoneLobster]

He could instead have gotten breastplate and a 16 dex.

Not unless he was a fucking elite with all that entails. Probably not even then.

Or I could have spent 2k gp on 2 +1's for his armor and shield. That is not worth keeping track of.

Yes it bloody is, its two tiny additions instead of one giant number out of your ass. It allows easy calculation of the effect of a lost shield, a lost shield bonus and touch AC. Meanwhile your out of ass number oddly doesn't!

[SphereOfFeetMan]

Not unless he was a fucking elite with all that entails. Probably not even then.

Are you fucking kidding me? Your argument is one fucking point of dexterity. Goddamn.

It doesn't even matter. Make him a Whisper Gnome. They have a +2 racial bonus to dexterity. So a starting dexterity of 14 points. Do you have a problem with a character having a 14 in an ability score? For fucks sake man.

Yes it bloody is, its two tiny additions instead of one giant number out of your ass. It allows easy calculation of the effect of a lost shield, a lost shield bonus and touch AC. Meanwhile your out of ass number oddly doesn't!

What are you even talking about? 2 points of Ac is obviously not a "giant number." It is easy as fuck to accommodate a changing ac from a lost shield. You just subtract the number his shield bonus would be giving him. At level 1, you just subtract 2 for a large shield. At higher levels, you just subtract 2 plus whatever the level appropriate enhancement bonus is supposed to be. It is not difficult.

[erik]

For the record, it wasn't a mistake that I gave it more expensive equipment than an NPC could afford- I simply didn't care. It was an example of a theoretical high AC with little effort, I wasn't even making a claim that it was a PC or NPC.

I was copying the AC snapshot of a level 2 dwarf I had planned to play in Living Greyhawk someday, I just knocked his +1 full plate down to mundane, and changed him to a level 1 gnome so he could benefit from Titan Fighting more reliably to be a nuisance. To stay accurate I should have bumped down the equipment, but it was just for giggles so I didn't bother.

The dwarf player character was designed starting out level 1 with scale armor, +2 dex, and a tower shield for a 24 AC when dodging large guys (though most large guys at low levels are ogres anyway) and 21 when dodging otherwise. At level 2 he could afford the +1 full plate and then would be sporting numbers as I earlier posted.

I didn't expect anyone to scream bloody murder over a little full plate. Most parties would appreciate the easy treasure since that gnome is only an obstacle, and a minor one at that.

I know that the gnome in question almost certainly would have a negative attack modifier so its only use would be as a blocker in a cave/corridor battle. And even yet, there's countless ways to deal with them, grapple, trip, bull rush, overrun, sleep spell etc.

I have no position on the monster/character creation ease of use argument on going. I probably should have just stayed out of this, I just wanted to offer up a high AC low level gnome because they tickle me.

[Koumei]

Before I jump to conclusions here, did you just say that CRs should not have target numbers, for example "an average monster should have an AC of 13 + CR."?

I think they should have general ranges to work within, but not every CR X should have an AC of X+13. I also think there should be a reason for these numbers - that's more the issue. I'm fine with every CR 10 critter having an AC between 21 and 25 inclusive, as long as you can tell me straight-up how it has that AC.

Likewise, their attack bonus should probably have a general range to work within - with a separate one listed if it uses touch attacks, and that whole thing could have been left out if it weren't for the whole "Wizards use this bonus and this AC, fighters use this other one". And if it's using a weapon, you should be able to tell me how much is coming from that weapon - and it'll be relevant when I pry it from the cold, dead fingers of the NPC. You should also be able to tell how much is BAB and how much is Strength, because they can both become relevant for other things.

I could go on here, but you get the idea. But I'm aware that I did make it sound like "There should be no consistency! Any two creatures of CR X should have vastly different numbers!"

[PhoneLobster]

For the record, it wasn't a mistake that I gave it more expensive equipment than an NPC could afford- I simply didn't care. It was an example of a theoretical high AC with little effort, I wasn't even making a claim that it was a PC or NPC.

You were making the claim you could get that number easily by following the game tax restrictions then you fucked up royal on the totally most basic aspects.

Indeed you continue to be in lala land where you are assigning either the highest or second highest attribute to dex on a sword and board plate armor character and selecting obscure Dex bonus gnomes to try and back your insanity. Sitting back and pretending what you did (if it ever negotiates to a point where it works at all) is perfectly normal, so normal that you should go picking that number out of your ass for unremarkable NPC opponents when people can't hit it except on a roll of a natural 20! And YOU are trying to argue the "relative to player abilities" angle!

[Ice9]

AC is an odd case in 3E though, because it doesn't really scale. By a fairly low level, you can have a massive AC, making you damn hard to hit by anything of your level. But after that, it goes up painfully slowly. So there actually can be a significant difference between 25 and 30 AC.

That said, it only really applies to NPCs, because monsters can just have whatever ridiculous amount of natural armor, deflection bonus, or even holy/unholy bonus you want, fully by the rules.

[Draco_Argentum]

As opposed to just making numbers up that are bullshit and that render any numerical aspect of character creation pointless? No thanks, I'll stick with what's apparently convoluted and time consuming and "Math is haaaard."

Its not that its convoluted, its that its also just making numbers up.

CR11 undead attack bonus = HD*0.5 + Str bonus

Since both the HD ant the strenght score are DM butt plucks this is not an impartial number. Its the DM eyeballing it with a pseudo system added on top to make it look legitimate.

[Koumei]

If you're making the monster from scratch, then sure, but then again neither system pretends to have a good method of generating the numbers for your own new monsters, so you should just avoid it - try finding something else in the 8 million existing ones that can be reflavoured to fit your idea.

If you're altering an existing one? Every CR increase grants +4 HD, so that's +2 BAB, as well as +1 to one ability score. So if you put it all into Strength, then every +2 CR is giving a total of +5 to hit. Which seems like a lot until you remember it's not getting any kind of actual abilities. So, it will hit, but you probably won't care about what happens when it does.

Some things will then grow in size when you give them enough HD, so then you apply the size penalty to hit, but then give them an arse-ton of strength that more than compensates. It holds together loosely at best, but I'd still prefer it to a DM going "Ah, what the fuck, let's call it AC 40 and +7 to hit, shall we?"

[Ice9]

But choosing whether to advance an existing creature, apply a template to an existing creature, add class levels to an existing creature, or just make a new creature that looks similar is up to the DM anyway. Seriously, there are a lot of monsters that could pretty much be described as "<some monster> but tougher", and yet they have entirely different stats. Dracoliches, for instance, get their own special template which is separate from the normal Lich template.

AC 40 and +7 to hit? Not even that improbable. There's a creature called the "Dwarven Ancestor" or something, which has 4 HD, unimpressive attacks, and a +18 natural armor bonus. When it's not serving as fuel for Alter Self, it's a living example of how arbitrary many of the numbers - especially natural armor bonus - are.

[erik]

PhoneLobster, I think you're seeing enemies and shadows where none exist. I had much less sinister reasoning behind giving fullplate to a level 1 character. I was simply converting a level 2 PC into a level 1 PC and couldn't be bothered to reduce one piece of equipment out of laziness. I made no claim implied or explicit that this was an NPC who strictly followed the wealth per level guidelines. I just saw a high AC build tossed on here and couldn't resist offering a high AC gnome for fun's sake.

Since you insist on being antagonized I'll step up and offer an NPC that can have a high AC *and* be a relevant pain in the ass to a party.

It could have been a level 3 warrior gnome NPC and be done with it. But if you want to make it an NPC that was really nasty just make it a Svirfneblin gnome warrior straight from the Monster Manual, swap out the buckler for a tower shield. There you have an AC 26 opponent at CR 1 against all opponents.

This opponent can blind or deafen a player permanently (preferentially target a rogue or arcane caster, 110' range), has SR, decent saves, and if need be it could use blur or disguise self before combat (a la 120' darkvision it will see the party before they see it) and either be buffed or simply appear as something misleading so the players do not realize right away they are fighting something that they will have a hard time hitting or an easier time grappling/tripping/manuevering. La de da.

This of course doesn't prove anything, other than that you can legitimately have high AC on NPCs at low CRs. Svirfneblin level 1 warrior with a minor equipment change- Q.E.D. I have absolutely no investment or interest in the other arguments at hand.

[PhoneLobster]

Oh I SEE to prove your point that you are using bad numbers out your ass to avoid especially esoteric game tax you dig up some of the most esoteric game tax you can find.

But the numbers out the ass are supposed to substitute for regular use, not exceptional use, and are supposed to provide numbers that are a better relative match than regular use, not a match that is actually as bad as the most exceptional use you can spend 40 minutes digging up out of the depths of the MM.

It might also help if you dug harder. The gnome-that-shall-not-be-pronounceable happens to have a pretty uninspiring in all regards other than its dodge bonus, its statline is unremarkable it DOESN'T permanently blind and deafen people (not that we'd care if it did) and it has a +1 CR if you give it anything other than warrior/NPC levels, +3 LA and really needs the elite array for another +1 CR to get some kind of offensive bonus.

AND you give it the BEST shield for your defensive wank job, which unfortunately comes with a -2 to attack that is really going to hurt this negligible attack bonus monkey.

But really WTF crack are you on? "I can find the 1@$#$@blin race therefore 25 AC is perfectly appropriate to casually fling at a level 1 party and no DM ever needs to fucking calculate AC ever again!"

Fuck you, no really, fuck you.

[erik]

ha ha, it's actually worse than a -2 penalty to attack since I forgot in 3.5 tower shields have their own proficiency feat and I don't think that warriors get it. So if I want to actually hit anything I need a hide shield for a mere +3 to AC instead of +4.

The permanent blindness is if the PC's fail the 1/day use of blindness/deafness (DC 13 per the MM, permanent by the spell description). That's about a 50/50 shot for arcane or rogue players usually at level 1.

It's funny that you flip out at a standard MM creature being used though. Perhaps you should step back and calm down a bit.

And I never said it was appropriate, I just said it was legal.

[edit:I had to leave and posted before I was done...] I would also like to say that svirfneblin would be nastier if they were not heavily armored, since they could more easily run away and hide to use guerilla tactics. Their favored class is rogue for a reason.

I'm sorry it blows your mind for me to use one gnome type from a core book instead of another. I wish I could help you with that. I also wish I could help you with your misled assumptions that I am making any further argument than that it is possible to have legal opponents (or players) having strong AC at low levels. I really don't know where this delusionary quote came from "I can find the 1@$#$@blin race therefore 25 AC is perfectly appropriate to casually fling at a level 1 party and no DM ever needs to fucking calculate AC ever again!"

[PhoneLobster]

Are you or are you not using an obscure MM race in a somewhat inappropriate manner as a direct defence of the earlier claim on this thread that 25 AC is a perfectly cool number to pull out of your ass for a low level NPC?

If not then triple fuck you for fucking around.

[Tequila Sunrise]

Before I jump to conclusions here, did you just say that CRs should not have target numbers, for example "an average monster should have an AC of 13 + CR."?

I think they should have general ranges to work within, but not every CR X should have an AC of X+13. I also think there should be a reason for these numbers - that's more the issue. I'm fine with every CR 10 critter having an AC between 21 and 25 inclusive, as long as you can tell me straight-up how it has that AC.

Whew! Those are pretty much my thoughts too. For a moment there I thought I was going to have to throw up my hands and leave you to the men in the white coats.

If you're making the monster from scratch, then sure, but then again neither system pretends to have a good method of generating the numbers for your own new monsters, so you should just avoid it - try finding something else in the 8 million existing ones that can be reflavoured to fit your idea.

While this is a perfectly acceptable way for a DM to get new monsters, I'd like to point out a few assumptions that you seem to be making:

1. The DM in question owns anything more than the core three. I know, a DM without splats is uncommon. I know, there are a lot of monsters just in the MM. But searching takes time, and sometimes you just can't find a set of stats that really feels right.
2. The "real" monsters from all of WotC's books all follow a consistent and balanced CR standard. Yes, all the game designers knew how to fill out the tax forms, but I think we can all agree that they made a few serious lapses in CR assessment. Ice9 gave a perfect example.
3. The MM rules for monster advancement/alteration are balanced. As you demonstrated in your own example, those rules can produce some pretty wacky stats.

Each of these points are debatable, and like I said, your way of adjusting/creating monsters is perfectly acceptable especially for an experienced DM. But just because one flavor of ice cream tastes good doesn't mean that it is better than another flavor. You want to follow WotC's rules for creating monsters? I couldn't care less; but I laugh at anyone telling me that my way is any less acceptable.

TS