De canistro textrinum

[Foxwarrior]

If you go to the 45-year-olds in the park and force them to stop playing football, their skills will atrophy. They might not find some other sport they'd also plateau at and play it instead, so they'll get less exercise and probably be less healthy. If you kick people out of the chess club for not being good at chess, they'll stop getting better at chess, and they won't get as good at being in clubs either.

And I wouldn't dream of educating people at the expense of their fun. The fun and the education should be one and the same thing. Why do you think "fun" exists as an emotional state (or whatever you want to define it as) at all?

[DSMatticus]

If they weren't improving in any way, you should knock over their boards because they could be out doing something fun that also improved their lives in a permanent (or temporary) fashion instead.

There is no moral or practical good in getting better at D&D. It will not make you a better friend, a better employee, a better lover, or a better person. The only thing getting good at D&D will do is make you better at D&D and possibly teach you lessons in game design in that you have gained the mastery necessary to notice D&D's fuck-ups, which you will never actually apply because successful game design isn't about being good at game design, it's about saying dumb things to dumber people. Playing D&D and not improving has the same effect on your life that playing D&D and improving has on your life; you are playing a game with your friends to have fun. And the other 164 hours of your week are exactly the same.

There is nothing valuable about getting better at D&D. Nothing at all. Enjoyment actually is valuable. The actual question you ask to find out if D&D is fulfilling its purpose on your calendar is not, "am I getting better at it?" but "am I enjoying it?" You are not Rocky training for a D&D marathon. You are Rocky taking a break from his montages to relax and play a cooperative storytelling gamie.

[Foxwarrior]

Then we should all be playing Counter-Strike or Call of Duty instead. At least then our reflexes would improve.

[Avoraciopoctules]

Crosspost

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Babau (lesser)
Size/Type: Medium Outsider (Evil) (Demon)
Hit Dice: 2d8+4 (13 hp)
Initiative: +3
Speed: 30 ft.
Armor Class: 16 (+3 Dex, +3 natural), touch 13, flat-footed 13
Base Attack/Grapple: +2/+5
Attack: Masterwork Spear +6 Melee (1d8+4) or claw +5 melee (1d4+3)
Full Attack: Masterwork Spear +6 Melee (1d8+4) and bite +3 melee (1d6+1) or 2 claws +5 melee (1d4+3) and bite +3 melee (1d6+1)
Space/Reach: 5 ft./5 ft.
Special Attacks: Corrosive Slime, Sneak Attack +1d6, Spell-like Abilities
Special Qualities: Damage Reduction 2/Cold Iron or Good, Evasion, Fire Resist 2, Lightning Resist 4, Low-light vision
Saves: Fort +5, Ref +6, Will +4
Abilities: Str 16, Dex 16, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 10
Skills: Bluff +3, Concentration +2, Diplomacy +0, Hide +8, Intimidate +5, Knowledge (any one) +2, Listen +6, Move Silently +8, Search +2, Sense Motive +6, Spellcraft +0, Spot +6, Survival +4 (+6 following tracks)
Feats: Multiattack
Environment: Skull-shaped castles
Organization: Solitary, pair, or squad (2d6 + 1 demonic leader of CR 6 or higher)
Challenge Rating: 2
Treasure: Standard
Alignment: Usually Chaotic Evil
Advancement: by class

Corrosive Slime (Su)
Acidic red jelly coats the babau’s skin. A creature who strikes the babau with an unarmed attack, unarmed strike, touch spell, or natural weapon takes 1d4 acid damage. Creatures grappling a Babau take 2d4 acid damage per round.

Spell-Like Abilities (Sp):
3/day: Darkness, Dispel Magic, Message
1/day: Dimension Door, See Invisibility
Caster Level: 2nd

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[minor changes]
Vrock (lesser)
Size/Type: Large Outsider (Evil) (Demon)
Hit Dice: 4d8+4 (22 hp)
Initiative: +3
Speed: 50 ft., fly 40 ft. (clumsy)
Armor Class: 15 (-1 size, +3 Dex, +3 natural), touch 12, flat-footed 12
Base Attack/Grapple: +4/+12
Attack: Claw +8 melee (1d8+4)
Full Attack: 2 claws +8 melee (1d8+4) and bite +3 melee (1d8+2)
Space/Reach: 10 ft./5 ft.
Special Attacks: Dance of Ruin, Fiendspores, Spell-like Abilities
Special Qualities: Damage Reduction 4//Cold Iron or Good, Evasion, Fire Resist 4, Lightning Resist 8, Low-light vision
Saves: Fort +5, Ref +9, Will +6
Abilities: Str 18, Dex 17, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 10
Skills: Concentration +5, Diplomacy +3, Hide +10, Intimidate +7, Knowledge (any one) +7, Listen +9, Move Silently +10, Search +3, Sense Motive +6, Spellcraft +3, Spot +9, Survival +6 (+8 following tracks)
Feats: Combat Reflexes, Lightning Reflexes
Environment: Skull-shaped castles
Organization: Solitary, pair, or squad (2d6 + 1 demonic leader of CR 6 or higher)
Challenge Rating: 3
Treasure: Standard
Alignment: Usually Chaotic Evil
Advancement: by class

Dance of Ruin (Su)
To use this ability, a group of at least three vrocks must join hands in a circle, dancing wildly and chanting.

At the end of 3 rounds of dancing, a wave of crackling energy flashes outward in a 100-foot radius. All creatures except for demons within the radius take 3d6 points of damage per vrock (Reflex DC 12 half). Stunning, paralyzing, or slaying one of the vrocks stops the dance. The save DC is Charisma-based.

Fiendspores (Su)
As a full-round action, the vrock may fling magical spores at a 5-foot radius area within Short range. Non-demon targets struck by the spores take 1d6 damage as they penetrate the skin. Furthermore, the spores grow, dealing an additional point of damage each round for 10 rounds. At the end of this time, the victim is covered with a tangle of viny growths. (The vines are harmless and wither away in 1d4 days.) While covered in fully-grown Fiendspore vines, Fast Healing and Regeneration work half as quickly, and healing spells are half as effective. A delay poison spell stops the spores’ growth (and allows normal healing if fully-grown) for its duration. Bless, neutralize poison, or remove disease kills the spores, as does sprinkling the victim with a vial of holy water.

Once this ability has been used, the Vrock must wait a minimum of 3 rounds before using it again. Targets already affected by Fiendspores take no additional damage or harm from additional exposure.

Spell-Like Abilities (Sp):
3/day: Mage Hand, Message
1/day: Dimension Door, Mirror Image
Caster Level: 4th

[Fuchs]

Page 42 of the 4e DMG says the DM can make up things too. Does that mean that the actual rules for 4e are not terrible because the DM can change them?

Complete non sequitur. No one's arguing the validity of the rules - we know they're borked - we're arguing about whether or not the DM can Rule Zero certain monsters to a lower power level than they appear in the MM. That has to do with setting, narrative, and possibly table psychology, but not the validity of rules. Both 3.5 and 4e are terrible, and you are now saying that we should not be allowed to fix them if you don't like it.

No, Fuchs is arguing that when he drastically changes the rules under rule zero he doesn't have to tell the players that he is going to do so.

No one has ever said that you cannot rule zero monsters to a lower power level. We have said that when you are rule zeroing monsters to a lower power level, you are rule zeroing, and therefore you should have to do the thing that all sane people do when they rule zero things that effect the setting, which is tell your goddam players ahead of time.

No, I am saying that the manual means not "Hey, I need player permission to homebrew", but "Hey, as the manual states there will be weaker and stronger versions of stock monsters, so don't expect just the stock ones".

Or, in other words - changed monsters is the default assumption. Only because some players like Kaelik can't handle that and we want to avoid drama is a reason why we talk about such things in advance.

But then, there are a lot of things to talk about before starting a game, so it's really just a drop in the bucket - just one of those drops where RAW is on the side of "we can change things" and not "MM stats are the baseline you cannot go weaker".

[Fuchs]

Then we should all be playing Counter-Strike or Call of Duty instead. At least then our reflexes would improve.

You really don't get it. People play games to have fun. Not everyone who likes D&D likes competitive games such as CoD. I started out with BattleTech, but my gaming group quickly moved to RPGs because those simply were more fun for us.

[Foxwarrior]

But why do people want to have fun? Maybe I should move that question to MPSIMS.

[Avoraciopoctules]

Distracts from the fact that existence is meaningless and everyone we know and love will be dust in a few hundred years.

[Foxwarrior]

That's a fair point when getting into philosophical questions of this nature, I suppose.

[shadzar]

No, I am saying that the manual means not "Hey, I need player permission to homebrew", but "Hey, as the manual states there will be weaker and stronger versions of stock monsters, so don't expect just the stock ones".

Or, in other words - changed monsters is the default assumption. Only because some players like Kaelik can't handle that and we want to avoid drama is a reason why we talk about such things in advance.

But then, there are a lot of things to talk about before starting a game, so it's really just a drop in the bucket - just one of those drops where RAW is on the side of "we can change things" and not "MM stats are the baseline you cannot go weaker".

for a book quote to support this..

The DM controls the monsters

not that WotC controls the monsters, or the books you purchased control the monsters, but the DM.

the PHB clearly states on that page for ALL Players, that the DM does what s/he wants to do.

some more interesting quotes from same book...

You don't have to memorize this book to play the game.
~~~
When in doubt, stick to the basics

Your DM may have house rules or campaign standards that vary form these rules.

would anyone really think that ONLY applies to the section of character creation it is in?

3.0 PHB echoes much of the similar on pg 6 but realized, like MANY previous editions things were left out, so they DID put those thing they take for granted from years of play back for 3.5

isnt Kaelik's DM v Player fight had its run for 30+ years now and time for some of the players to grow up and accept it isnt the fight they think it is?

all editions have said the DM is in charge, s/he can create or change things how s/he sees fit. this includes CR3 vrocks or 2HD vrocks, or whatever.

where is all the Bigby's spells and Tensor's etc in recvent editions? they are stil there, jsut name changes to remove greyhawk... WotC houseruled the names of the spells, like ANY DM can do.

lest we also forget that EVERY edition sayd the rules are only guidelines, and the books dont contain everything that the game can support or define how everything works.

no matter how closely people get caught up on treasure parcels, WBL, CR, ECL, tiers, etc. all those things are jokes and changed on the whim of a DM to make HIS game work.

yes the DM has more ownership over the game being played than WotC does, because they arent running the game. the players arent running the game. when you have the conflict such as in the "cheating DM" thread where the DM views his world as a pet and no monsters should die or some such. you just have a bad DM. dont blame the game if you continue to play in such a game, blame yourself for allowing the bad DM to continue with his bad DMing.

since the DM controls everything, you ahve to trust them, if you dont, find another DM, and dont force ALL DMs into the same mold of the crappy one you had.

all the RAW arguments ever look to me is more DM v Player bullshit. get over it, you had a bad DM, now move on and find a good one to play with. RAW doesnt exist. Rule Zero doesnt exist. you can play many a game of D&D without a DM: Cardmaster Adventure Design Deck, BSOLO, BECMI, and some more offer single player, DM-less play.

you want something made for YOU to paly that isnt jsut random and such, then you need a DM. that doesnt create rule zero, it is jsut that there is NO official D&D creator/employee that is there to run a game for you the alleged "official" way, because there is NO "official" way to play D&D.

when i can find the quote about using something similar to "RAW", i will post it, but it refers to conventions and tournaments, which is a wargaming holdover, because you cannot play D&D as a tournament, because their is NO winner to D&D since you really arent competing with the other players. even Gary says the rules are only guidelines, but when playing in a convention type venue you need to paly by the rules to let people get a stable understanding.. but the tournaments lasting an hour or two, didnt advance many levels, so there wasnt much to change as the game played. jsut everyone at a con had the same chance to play the same game in a formal setting. people at home do NOT play in a formal setting, nor require beginner treatment. Gary, Dave, Frank, Jim, Erik, Len, Roger, Tracy, Ed, etc will NOT DM for you at home.

can KAelik little diaper rash rant about vrocks drop now. i was enjoying reading this thread for quite a while before it became a "Kaelik cannot accept the game says you can do things he doesnt like" thread.

[DSMatticus]

Then we should all be playing Counter-Strike or Call of Duty instead. At least then our reflexes would improve.

So... what do I do here? Do I just copy and paste my old post, except I replace "getting better at D&D" with "getting better at the specific reflexes and muscle memory needed to shoot people in the face in videogames?" I'm not sure there is a demonstrable or significant benefit to improved reflexes. And I'm not sure CoD increases those reflexes that would have demonstrable/significant benefit. But I am absolutely sure that the "fun" of CoD (how dare you make me say that) is entirely different from the "fun" of D&D (which Fuchs has already said).

But anyway. People want to have fun because they want to have fun. It's the sort of question that answers itself. Fun is a biological mechanism triggered by stimuli, and it is something people are programmed to want and like in the same way chess-playing AI are programmed to want and like moves that result in winning, just way more complicated. People want to be happy because they want to be happy. Etc, etc.

But to broadly address your incredibly weird line of questions: there is room in life for self improvement (meaningful or otherwise), and there is room in life for other things. There is no reason to have all of one or all of the other.

[icyshadowlord]

If there's something D&D should be able to improve, it's your reading speed and calculating ability.

That's assuming you actually play the game intended instead of turning it into a weird MTP scenario and such.

[Fuchs]

If there's something D&D should be able to improve, it's your reading speed and calculating ability.

That's assuming you actually play the game intended instead of turning it into a weird MTP scenario and such.

You don't need to read much in actual play. Calculating usually is limited to adding and subtracting.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

If there's something D&D should be able to improve, it's your reading speed and calculating ability.

That's assuming you actually play the game intended instead of turning it into a weird MTP scenario and such.

Look, later on if you want, we can get out a doll and you guys can each show everyone where the shitty GM touched you. It's not going to change the fact that shitty GMs are going to run shitty campaigns badly regardless of what the rules say. The amount of MTP in the game has no bearing on that.

The fact of the matter is that what separates D&D from just getting all your friends to join a WoW guild with you is that with a tabletop RPG you can decide to change, ignore or transcend the rules if the situation warrents it and it makes the game more fun. NO, it should not be done lightly, YES it must be done transparently with regards to the party, YES it can be done badly, but you can run the game badly using just the RAW too, the rules will not protect you from a shitty GM. Shitty GMs run shitty games and the way you protect against that is you get someone better in the party to step up and take over the mantel, or you step up and take over the mantel yourself. You don't protect yourself by arbitrarily deciding that everyone other than you is doing it wrong.

[Aryxbez]

I'd still dispute that 70% of the player base is incapable of understanding optimization,

I honestly don't think that learning basic D&D is that hard. I think that the culture surrounding D&D is what causes people not to learn. In experiences have people who genuinely want to learn master the core principles of 3.5 optimization quickly.

I think what Lord Mistborn is saying here, is lot more valid than one might realize. There is heavily so, the mentality that DM = God, and shapes your actions in the world, and thus has the "right" to veto any actions you do, and that should never question it, anathema that ye would know any rules as good/better than he. From what it seems, these 70% are just dumb people too lazy to simply read even a paragraph nor make connections how their abilities interact with other parts of the game (like Fighter's abilities vs. Wizards ability volume and their unbalanced action economy). Also trust anything written in the books to be playable and viable within the game itself, though somewhat understandable, is a deadly mentality for 3rd edition. These people are likely content with you/the-DM just making their character based on concept, and then running them through the rules as you go along, or asking you about the game in off time.

Really just seems the key to having understanding of the game, is to simply just read about it, and not talking the entire book, just key portions and how they interact. Though with games like Shadowrun & D&D, I suppose that's a bit harder of a prospect. Though in regards to optimization, with the age of the Internet, seems be simple enough to go to a forum and look up whatever you'll need.

Now 3.5 has is imperfect and has a lot of trap options. From a game design perspective the solution is not to say "fuck the rules" so people with bad characters can feel like they've won the solution is to have fewer trap options in your game.

Agreed in this case should just have good options at the ready, for classes got stuff like Tome Knight,Barbarian, Monk and Tome of Battle, for all that good non-caster-y goodness. For spells, already got a guide here, for killing foos with them.

As for this Vrock business, I'd imagine a guess to "de-leveling" a creature would be to do the similar when increasing their HD/CR. Which in that case, would make it impossible to have a CR 3 Vrock specifically, as they would've had no HD left (-12HD to 10HD creature). Although I know not necessarily talking about Vrocks, but almost any mid-high level creature, but all the same, there does achieve a certain level of breakdown which the creature may not work as intended for its newly given CR. Since we all know there are enough CR busting creatures (Giant Crab anyone?), one has to be careful to ensure they don't create more of said Giant Crabs.

[Aryxbez]

There is no moral or practical good in getting better at D&D. It will not make you a better friend, a better employee, a better lover, or a better person. The only thing getting good at D&D will do is make you better at D&D and possibly teach you lessons in game design in that you have gained the mastery necessary to notice D&D's fuck-ups,

I disagree, D&D years back, has helped expand my vocabulary, perhaps even bettering my reading ability. Better understanding D&D or any RPG, and its systems, allows you to bypass the traps and junk options, know what you have to avoid or fix. As well what fun options are over on the horizon, getting these out to your fellow players/friends, allows them to better fulfill their concepts, possibly do more in the game world, and therefore have more fun. Enjoyment is valuable sure, but so is knowledge, and as they say, "Knowledge is power".

As for employee, if ye worked on RPG's, video games, or otherwise analyzing things and being introspective it might help. "Lover", could if you're teaching your partner said D&D, or want to get some ideas for"Roleplay" (poor attempt at joke), as a person though...good advice on DMing hopefully?

[Mistborn]

I think what Lord Mistborn is saying here, is lot more valid than one might realize. There is heavily so, the mentality that DM = God, and shapes your actions in the world, and thus has the "right" to veto any actions you do, and that should never question it, anathema that ye would know any rules as good/better than he.

It's always nice to see some people get it. It's not that people can't learn. People either do not want to learn optimization or ever worse view optimizers (or even people who know the rules) as badwrong munchkins. I've allways found that people who actually want to learn. Learning practical optimization 101 isn't any harder than learning to how play 3.5 in the first place.

[Fuchs]

I think what Lord Mistborn is saying here, is lot more valid than one might realize. There is heavily so, the mentality that DM = God, and shapes your actions in the world, and thus has the "right" to veto any actions you do, and that should never question it, anathema that ye would know any rules as good/better than he. From what it seems, these 70% are just dumb people too lazy to simply read even a paragraph nor make connections how their abilities interact with other parts of the game (like Fighter's abilities vs. Wizards ability volume and their unbalanced action economy). Also trust anything written in the books to be playable and viable within the game itself, though somewhat understandable, is a deadly mentality for 3rd edition. These people are likely content with you/the-DM just making their character based on concept, and then running them through the rules as you go along, or asking you about the game in off time.

Well, actually Lord Mistborn and co. defend the books as something to be trusted (as long as it supports their argument), what with the whole "rules vs. MTP" axe to grind.

But the "DM = God" drivel needs to die, on both sides. I shake my head at that since whoever mentions it, no matter if he is for or against it, usually ignores - again - the human factor in each individual gaming group that actually decides what kind of playstyle emerges.

Whether or not a GM can treat the game as his own personal fiefdom depends on a multitude of factors, mainly though on the indivudals making up the gaming group, their social skills, character and ethics, and the availabuility of alternatives within and without the gaming group.

Basically, if there's no one else available that's willing to GM, in or outside the group, the GM has a lot more influence than if there are alternatives. If it's literally the only game in town and there are more players than can play, then it often is "my way or the highway", that's basic supply and demand. Even in such a case though, relationships between the GM and players play a part as well, for good or ill. A GM might be playing favorites for his girlfriend or best friend, or compromise when it comes to campaign and playstyle decisions because he is playing with friends, not strangers. More mundane matters, such as having an easily accessible flat, driving people to and from game locations, paying for pizza, and so on also grant players and GMs some influence.

If there are other GM options available, the influence of any GM is lessened somewhat - but trading favors with another GM is a possibility still, and quality makes a difference as well.

But the actual rules? Unless some ruling is really a game breaker for someone, people will accept a lot as long as the game still is basically fun, and even more if they're also or mostly using game night to socialize.

As much as it may disturb some of the more vocal posters here, many people are absolutely content to be able to simply show up at game night and get a game session served without having to invest much effort themselves, even if that means the GM treats the game as his personal property. Some even prefer it when there's not much time lost with rules discussions and the GM makes any and all calls.

You can also happen to have an "alpha player" dictating what is played and how, and the rest, including the GM, simply go along for a number of the aforementioned reasons.

But the quality of the game mechanics used rarely plays a crucial part, unlike the human factor. Sometimes even clearly superiour game systems or editions are thrown aside because key members of the gaming group do not want to learn a new system, don't have time for it, or simply because the wrong guy proposed it.

[Korwin]

No, I am saying that the manual means not "Hey, I need player permission to homebrew", but "Hey, as the manual states there will be weaker and stronger versions of stock monsters, so don't expect just the stock ones".

Again.
If lowering the CR of monsters is not Rule 0, where are THE FUCKING rules how to Lower an Balor by one CR?

[Fuchs]

Hit it with a level drain or two if you need strict mechanics. Add curse if needed. Ot is not as if anyone sane thinks CR is an exact science.

[DSMatticus]

No, I am saying that the manual means not "Hey, I need player permission to homebrew", but "Hey, as the manual states there will be weaker and stronger versions of stock monsters, so don't expect just the stock ones".

Again.
If lowering the CR of monsters is not Rule 0, where are THE FUCKING rules how to Lower an Balor by one CR?

Why is this still a point of discussion? Fuchs is dropping the ball here, but I'm pretty sure I covered this.

Fuchs, saying "it's in the rules" isn't even an argument. The fact that the MM has a quote saying "the DM can do whatever he wants to the monster" is not justification that the rules support scaling monsters down.

Also, Avorio has a vrock. Could we discuss that?

It really doesn't matter. At all. Even if you think you can disregard that specific quote as an invocation of rule zero and therefore a change of the setting by DM fiat, the original assumption that the CR 3 vrock is out of line with the D&D setting posited by the MM because the weakest vrock is CR 9 is totally bullshit someone made up. This is what the MM actually says about the CR 9 vrock (or rather, stat blocks in general):

The monster entry usually describes only the most commonly encountered version of a creature. The advancement line shows how tough a creature can get, in terms of extra Hit Dice. (This is not an absolute limit, but exceptions are extremely rare.) Often, intelligent creatures advance by gaining a level in a character class instead of just gaining a new Hit Die.

And we're done. That's it. It turns out the CR 9 vrock is not an explicit min that the GM is changing by rule zero. It turns out the CR 9 is an explicit mode and the existence of CR 8 vrocks is already compatible with the MM. It doesn't tell you how to make those CR 8 vrocks, but their existence is compatible with the rules text. Baby minotaurs actually do exist in the setting even if D&D doesn't tell you how to stat them up.

Kaelik and Co are arguing from the standpoint that only actions and entities governed by the rules can possibly exist, therefore since the game doesn't tell you how to make a CR 8 vrock, even if a CR 8 vrock is compatible with the text implicitly or explicitly, it can't actually exist because the rules can't produce it. That falls apart as soon as you point out that the rules are necessarily incomplete. For example: D&D does not cover reproduction. No one's character has ever been born, and if you mention having parents in your background you aren't playing D&D anymore, you have rule zero'd it into the game and are playing something else.

They are ultimately right that "you should tell your players when you introduce weaker versions of things," they are simply wrong about why. They think a CR 3 vrock is incompatible with D&D as written, which means they also throw a fit when you introduce a baby minotaur without telling them babies are something that exist in D&D. That's very dumb. The much more reasonable position is that nobody actually plays D&D by exploring the depths of the lower bound, so when you introduce even a single CR 3 vrock (again, wholly rules text compatible), you are fucking with player expectations in a way that is genuinely disruptive to the game.

There are no stats for baby _____, and D&D doesn't tell you how to make stats for them, but the assertion that the campaign setting contains sexual reproduction and creates baby ____'s is not rule zero.

[Aryxbez]

Well, actually Lord Mistborn and co. defend the books as something to be trusted (as long as it supports their argument), what with the whole "rules vs. MTP" axe to grind.

But the "DM = God" drivel needs to die, on both sides. I shake my head at that since whoever mentions it, no matter if he is for or against it, usually ignores - again - the human factor in each individual gaming group that actually decides what kind of playstyle emerges.

As much as it may disturb some of the more vocal posters here, many people are absolutely content to be able to simply show up at game night and get a game session served without having to invest much effort themselves, even if that means the GM treats the game as his personal property. Some even prefer it when there's not much time lost with rules discussions and the GM makes any and all calls.

But the quality of the game mechanics used rarely plays a crucial part, unlike the human factor. Sometimes even clearly superior game systems or editions are thrown aside because key members of the gaming group do not want to learn a new system, don't have time for it, or simply because the wrong guy proposed it.

Imagine that can depend on the case, obvious can depend on a rulebook for a ruling, when it fails that with a bad one, ideally find or make a better one and use that. When the book is saying how can use fiat, it's a "duh" kind of moment, since ye don't need a rulebook to tell you that. When things get down to fiat, hopefully there is existing rule(s) that can lessen the unreliability of how this Fiat will pan out. Of course "Fiat" or "Magic Tea Party" isn't bad, just we as humans are irrational creatures,and when pressed to come up with a good ruling on the spot out of the blue, unlikely to deliver a quality and consistent result without something to go on. This has obvious effect with Bad DMs, though decent ones suffer by this into looking bad, and good I'm sure are fine.

If this is the Vrock bit, sure the book says you "can" use weaker, or change the CR entirely, doesn't mean its a good idea to, we all know that not everything (especially advice wise from what I hear) is exactly wise information to partake in.

Well head shaking or not, it is "drivel", but it is popular consensus among RPG fans that GM role is basically equated to that of God, and gets a more or less, totalitarian bend of how the game goes. At least, in my experience something that's continued still, and it's got some harmful assumptions that go with that (though true DM's work should be more appreciated than its implied it gives, when deserved of course).

In regards to showing up bit, I've seen where group would get together to hang out, and basically be distracted on electronics to barely pay much heed to the game itself. It's fine to hang out and all, but when all agree to play a game, I'd want to go and PLAY said game. Though funnily enough, haven't really seen situation where simply looking up the rule would take too long, rather than holding off on it.

Though good rules could ensure less bumpy road, in D&D vernacular, having there be better options available in the first place, so less they have to actually learn to be playing properly as game intended. Also that superior ruleset would allow them to have fun, "because" of the game, opposed to having fun in spite of the rules. Fundamental difference in how even badly designed games can still be fun, but doesn't excuse the bad design, and how it can be improved for genuine entertainment value.

As for level Drain, I question if that actually is fundamental enough to equate to an actual level loss. Since I know its fairly generalized, since trying to account for an entire level or more lost, while in play, would be rather insane expectation, however "bestow Curse" might help get close, with the -7 on attacks/saves essentially (not to mention DQ styled "stares blankly into space" sometimes)

[RadiantPhoenix]

Then we should all be playing Counter-Strike or Call of Duty instead. At least then our reflexes would improve.

No, go fuck yourself, I don't want to play FPSs with people, I want to play something with social interactions.

There are no stats for baby _____, and D&D doesn't tell you how to make stats for them, but the assertion that the campaign setting contains sexual reproduction and creates baby ____'s is not rule zero.

It is for creatures that are actually stated or implied to not do so, like golems and demons.

Demons that have been cursed to not be able to teleport or some stuff like that are okay, though, as long as it's not implied that these are the 'baseline' versions of the creature.

[Korwin]

Hit it with a level drain or two if you need strict mechanics. Add curse if needed. Ot is not as if anyone sane thinks CR is an exact science.

First thing, this is the method to reduce the CR?
Page number?

But OK, lets say you did'nt pull this totally out of your ass, lets look at this rules and pretend those are somewhere in the books.
Lets look if they are useable.

Not shure if you are talking about Negative Levels or Level reduced.
I'll quote the SRD:

A creature takes the following penalties for each negative level it has gained:

• -1 on all skill checks and ability checks.
• -1 on attack rolls and saving throws.
• -5 hit points.
• -1 effective level (whenever the creature’s level is used in a die roll or calculation, reduce it by one for each negative level).
• If the victim casts spells, she loses access to one spell as if she had cast her highest-level, currently available spell. (If she has more than one spell at her highest level, she chooses which she loses.) In addition, when she next prepares spells or regains spell slots, she gets one less spell slot at her highest spell level.

Negative levels remain until 24 hours have passed or until they are removed with a spell, such as restoration. If a negative level is not removed before 24 hours have passed, the affected creature must attempt a Fortitude save (DC 10 + ½ draining creature’s racial HD + draining creature’s Cha modifier; the exact DC is given in the creature’s descriptive text). On a success, the negative level goes away with no harm to the creature. On a failure, the negative level goes away, but the creature’s level is also reduced by one. A separate saving throw is required for each negative level.

So negative Levels do nothing to Spell-Like-, Supernatural- and Extraordinary Abilities.
If you are talking about taking an Hit Dice Away from the Balor, that would - I think - additionaly take away a level of his Caster Level for his Spell-Likes.

So the Balor with 10 Negativ Levels, or with 10 fewer Hit-Dices could still summon an unmodified full strenght Balor.

That doesnt sound like an CR 10 Balor for me.

How much does a curse lower the CR?
Looking at the spell, the most usefull in this situation looks like the 50/50 random curse + praying to the dice gods...

Sorry, your solution doesnt look practicable. did'nt deacrease the CR in an meaningfull way. BTW. was'nt this your earlier solution to reduce the EL?
I fear you need some (more?) Houserules (use Rule 0), to make it useable...
(And I dont have high hopes you can provide them, but thats not even a slander against you. I dont really belive K is able to provide those. The negative CR-Templates sound workable, but I have an unproven suspicion that it isnt so easy...)

Avos way with going full homebrew and creating an similiar monster from scratch looks like the best way.
If you have players who are to lazy to level up their characters and an motivated MC who does the work of downgrading creating new the monsters from scratch*.

Luckily for me, I dont have such demanding players.
And luckily for my MC, I'm not such an demanding player.

*Going by the earlier example, why anyone wanted/needed to create an Low-Level Version of an Demon.

[K]

No, I am saying that the manual means not "Hey, I need player permission to homebrew", but "Hey, as the manual states there will be weaker and stronger versions of stock monsters, so don't expect just the stock ones".

Again.
If lowering the CR of monsters is not Rule 0, where are THE FUCKING rules how to Lower an Balor by one CR?

In 3.5, on Page 295-302 in the Monster Manual under Creating a Monster.

The CR calculations basically devolve down to "once you've created a similar monster to one that exists, compare them and eyeball a CR." That's a terrible set of rules, but they fucking exist.