De canistro textrinum

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

DSMatticus
King
Posts: 5271
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 5:32 am

Post by DSMatticus »

Lord Mistborn wrote:When the MM says the printed monsters are average examples of their kind the means something very specific. It means that they have base ability scores of 11 or 10 in everything.
Why even post when you have no fucking idea what you're talking about? No, really, why?
MM, pg 6-7, Abilities wrote:This line lists the creature's ability scores, in the customary order: Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha. Except where noted otherwise, each creature is assumed to have the standard array of ability scores before racial adjustments (all 11s and 10s).
MM, pg 7, Advancement wrote:This book usually describes only the most commonly encountered version of a creature (though some entires for advanced monsters can be found). The advancement line shows how tough a creature can get, in terms of extra Hit Dice.
So, yeah. That thing about what the typical monster looks like? It's in the advancement section, not the abilities section. I'll leave the ramifications of that as an exercise to the reader.
LM wrote:The reason you can't have Vrock substantially weaker than CR 9 is that Vrock is defined as a monster with abilities characteristic of a CR 9 creature. You can make a Vrock substantially weaker without taking away some of those abilities and thereby making it increasingly unvrocklike.
Congratulations. You're arguing against change because it's different. You really don't belong in any discussions about game design, houserules, or homebrew, because those all involve changing things in order to accomplish some goal. In a game world with CR 3 vrocks, CR 3 vrocks are definitionally not unvrocklike. The game world has CR 3 vrocks. Right fucking there. You can (pretend to) poke them with a (pretend) stick.
User avatar
Kaelik
ArchDemon of Rage
Posts: 14830
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Kaelik »

Fuchs wrote:Then there is the "there are totally cr9 vrocks, but also cr3 and cr18 vrocks in this setting" campaign. Kaelik freaks out about that since somehow the baseline is getting changed if there are weaker vrocks cause... dunno... cause it's the baseline I guess, and making weaker versions changes the whole universe and makes it impossible to have "normal" and "stronger monsters".
I'm not sure if you lying about what I have said is an improvement over being confused about the answer to questions I have already answered or not.

I mean, at least I no longer have to wonder if you are an idiot or a liar.
DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.

That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
Fuchs
Duke
Posts: 2446
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 7:29 am
Location: Zürich

Post by Fuchs »

You cannot give any logical argument why having CR3 vrocks would mean that there cannot be CR9 vrocks, other thn "I SAY SO!!!!" That's no answer.

And you still can't wrap your mind about the concept of "One-shot low-level adventure/campaign, no setting to be destroyed for future adventures/campaigns" - something that is very, very easy to understand.
User avatar
Kaelik
ArchDemon of Rage
Posts: 14830
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Kaelik »

Fuchs wrote:You cannot give any logical argument why having CR3 vrocks would mean that there cannot be CR9 vrocks, other thn "I SAY SO!!!!" That's no answer.
No dumb shit. I explained that there could still totally be CR 9 Vrocks. But they would not be the base, they would be tremendously advanced, not baseline.
Fuchs wrote:And you still can't wrap your mind about the concept of "One-shot low-level adventure/campaign, no setting to be destroyed for future adventures/campaigns" - something that is very, very easy to understand.
No dumb shit. The setting destroyed by the change is the one in the low level game you are playing in. If you make everything low level as a base, then you have removed the high level things from the game. The game world, and most PCs characters, are made an act as if high level exists. If you remove that, then you change their characters and and that setting.
DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.

That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
User avatar
Mistborn
Duke
Posts: 1477
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 7:55 pm
Location: Elendel, Scadrial

Post by Mistborn »

DSMatticus wrote: Congratulations. You're arguing against change because it's different. You really don't belong in any discussions about game design, houserules, or homebrew, because those all involve changing things in order to accomplish some goal. In a game world with CR 3 vrocks, CR 3 vrocks are definitionally not unvrocklike. The game world has CR 3 vrocks. Right fucking there. You can (pretend to) poke them with a (pretend) stick.
I think Kaelik has been over this already. Vrocks in D&D 3e are CR 9 monsters with a set of abilities. To have CR 3 Vrocks you have to take away some of the things that define what a Vrock actually is. In order to have Vrocklike Vrocks that run from 3-18 you need to essential make 4e. Which is why Frank is arguing against it. I'm not against 4e because I dislike change. I'm against it because I dislike 4e.

This all sprouted from K saying that the solution to having a party that can't fight monsters of their CR is to stealthy restat those monsters into things they can beat. Which is pants on head retarded for all kinds of reasons. Just like nockers fudge the dice if it interferes with the story is retarded.

So in the interest of getting back to this threads original topic re:basketweaving. K hasn't posted a coherent game philosophy so I'll ignore him for the time being.

The position nocker was advocating before he realized that the Den was laughing at him is that you should start out playing by the book and then screw the rules when you have a storyline. This position is terrible for many reasons but foremost among them are. One, it enables and even encourages the DM to be an asshole. Two, if only the rules and dice are going to be ignored when they don't fit the story then those thing have no reason to be there in the first place other than to deceive the players.

I on the other hand have made three points. One, ignoring the rules because the plot/character/NPC is a special snowflake needs to die in a fire. Two, monsters should be played as though they are intelligent opponents that are actually trying to kill the PCs. If that too much for the PCs to handle they PCs should either die or ask to fight weaker monsters.
Three, player would prefer to fight stronger opponents.

The desire for MTP on the player side is not routed in story concerns but in a desire to beat opponents even without the abilities that would allow them to actually beat those opponents. However this is a faustian bargain for many reasons.
User avatar
hogarth
Prince
Posts: 4582
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 1:00 pm
Location: Toronto

Post by hogarth »

K wrote: I'll admit that you can't de-power a 50' dragon and still have it be a CR 1 monster, but there are still ways to make it a CR 1 fight. Maybe you do a fortress battle where the players shoot ballista from covered positions. Maybe they are the crew of a battle skyship. Maybe they are in battlemech Iron Golems. Basically, any set of circumstances where 1st level guys actually have a shot.

That being said, dismissing those as "a Wizard did it" is the same as dismissing everything in an adventure that gives verisimilitude and variety to encounters.
When I say "a wizard did it", I mean that the DM gives an infodump of backstory that doesn't involve any of the PCs (and that you would probably skip over if this was a video game) in order to explain something unlikely and contrived ("...and that's why Demogorgon happens to be as powerful as a bugbear at the moment and yet coincidentally you're the only people who happen to be able to do anything about it!")

Giving the PCs ballistae or iron golems or a floating warship may or may not be awkwardly contrived, depending on the situation. If they're walking through a forest and they just happen to stumble across some conveniently-placed war-golems, then yeah, "a wizard did it".
Fuchs
Duke
Posts: 2446
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 7:29 am
Location: Zürich

Post by Fuchs »

Kaelik wrote:
Fuchs wrote:You cannot give any logical argument why having CR3 vrocks would mean that there cannot be CR9 vrocks, other thn "I SAY SO!!!!" That's no answer.
No dumb shit. I explained that there could still totally be CR 9 Vrocks. But they would not be the base, they would be tremendously advanced, not baseline.
And that's a bad thing why? Oh, wait, you said so - "Because that changes the world!!!" Without explaining why. Take a step back, and reconsider why you are so hung up on this.
Kaelik wrote:
Fuchs wrote:And you still can't wrap your mind about the concept of "One-shot low-level adventure/campaign, no setting to be destroyed for future adventures/campaigns" - something that is very, very easy to understand.
No dumb shit. The setting destroyed by the change is the one in the low level game you are playing in. If you make everything low level as a base, then you have removed the high level things from the game. The game world, and most PCs characters, are made an act as if high level exists. If you remove that, then you change their characters and and that setting.
Kaelik... first, again, since you simply seem not to be getting it: Not everything is made low-level, just the few high-level enemies you rescale for use in the low-level adventure. No setting is destroyed if you have a one-shot low-level adventure (or limited campaign) where you introduce CR3 vrocks. The impact such a change has is simply minimal. Really, Kaelik, you're the only one who seems to think D&D's existence hinges on Vrocks being CR9 at a miminum.

Second, try to make an effort, and understand that for all purposes and effects, there is no high-level whatever in a low-level one-shot adventure or campaign. When you're agreeing to play a low-level one-shot adventure or campaign you're agreeing to play a game focused on low level characters. Whatever high-level threats are there are not present in a meaningful way, whatever high-level allies exist are not partaking in any important way, unless we're in the realm of DM pet NPCs handling the adventure with the PCs as henchmen or similar outliers.

And again, no one really is affected in any meaningful way by a few high-level enemies being scaled down for use in a low-level adventure. A simple "and those vrocks were cursed to be weaker than usual some time ago" should suffice to handle any rational concern about too far reaching changes to vrocks as a whole.

Only you seem to be stuck on the "if there are CR3 vrocks it changes the entire game" crazy mode.
DSMatticus
King
Posts: 5271
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 5:32 am

Post by DSMatticus »

Lord Mistborn wrote:In order to have Vrocklike Vrocks that run from 3-18 you need to essential make 4e. Which is why Frank is arguing against it. I'm not against 4e because I dislike change. I'm against it because I dislike 4e.
"In order to have wizardlike wizards that run from 1-20 you need to essentially make 4e." Sorry, but no. There are concepts which last through many, many levels. The idea that there exists a low-power X does not mean all X's are low-power and therefore it's 4e. What level 3 wizards are doing does not limit the scope of what level 9 wizards are doing, and what CR 3 vrocks are doing does not limit the scope of CR 9 vrocks unless for some reason you want it to. Yes, you are changing the 'definition' of vrock to be broader than its original definition, but changing the definition of vrock is not inherently bad in the same way that adding weeaboo fightan' magic to fighter is not only not inherently bad, but a badly needed addition to the game.

K and Fuchs occasionally say stupid things (and have in this thread), but the part where they said "CR 3 and CR 9 vrocks can coexist without fucking up the game" is dead on, in the exact same way that CR 9 and CR 15 vrocks can coexist without fucking up the game and infact already do. Largely irrelevant sidenote: it's not even core incompatible, because while D&D specifies the mode and the upperbound of any given type of monster, the lowerbound is actually completely unspecified. You can drop CR 5 vrocks and not be contradicting any statement anywhere in any D&D manual I am aware of.
Kaelik wrote:But they would not be the base, they would be tremendously advanced, not baseline.
If baseline means the typical monster, then the existence of a CR 3 vrock does not imply that the CR 9 vrock isn't the baseline, because mode does not always equal min and that is obvious. If baseline means the weakest possible standard (for whatever definition of standard you prefer, which will be totally arbitrary but whatever) vrock, then if a CR 3 vrock exists then there are more vrocks that are tremendously advanced than ones that aren't, and calling them tremendously advanced is a deceptively weighty way to say boringly ordinary. You seem to be operating on the assumption that the weakest will be the most typical, which is kind of like expecting the average human being to have straight 3's for stats. But beyond that, I don't know why you made that argument in the first place and I don't know why you're bothering to defend it. It is as irrelevant as it is shitty.

Just go with your actual argument, god damnit, which seems to be: changing the concept of a vrock (flying, teleporting, vulture demon with a magic death dance that is largely immune to the attacks of ordinary men and amateur magicians) without telling the players isn't playing unmodified, vanilla D&D anymore, and is unfair because 1) you lied to people when you said you were playing unmodified, vanilla D&D, and 2) players aren't capable of making decisions about the game world if their information about the game world doesn't match the reality of the game world because you fucking changed it without telling them.

#2 is rock fucking solid. When Fuchs suggested you didn't need to tell players you were restatting the vrock, he was being a moron, because when you introduce that CR 3 vrock to a level 3 party, they are going to flip the fuck out at you for being a terrible DM and/or decide to run away because D&D already has vrocks and they are CR 9 and your players have experience with them. If you aren't open about the fact that you are using nonstandard statblocks for common monsters, then that shit will be disruptive and jarring. I will charitably chalk that up to shortsightedness, and neglecting to consider the fact that players have preexisting expectations of what a vrock is.

#1 is less so. Yes, if you stealth houserule things and bring them up in play, you are being an asshole. But introducing nonstandard monsters is wholly different. If you have any actual complaints about DM's introducing a CR 3 vrock that don't actually belong in #2 (defying existing expectations, creating confusion/ambiguity/frustration), I think you're being wildly unrealistic and unfair. DM's make up homebrew monsters all the time, or add weird abilities to existing monsters, or any other shit that moves you from vanilla D&D to no longer vanilla D&D. Why a CR 3 vrock variant is OFF LIMITS FUCK YOU makes no sense to me. But you do need to, bare minimum, tell the players that you have added variant low CR demons so they don't flip out and can act appropriately. Also probably in-game knowledge checks and blah blah blah. To clarify: you ask before the game, "hey, do any of you know what a vrock is?" And everyone says, "no, I have no idea what a vrock." Is there a problem with a DM throwing a CR 3 homebrew vrock at them?
Last edited by DSMatticus on Wed Oct 31, 2012 2:52 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Fuchs
Duke
Posts: 2446
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 7:29 am
Location: Zürich

Post by Fuchs »

DSMatticus wrote:#2 is rock fucking solid. When Fuchs suggested you didn't need to tell players you were restatting the vrock, he was being a moron, because when you introduce that CR 3 vrock to a level 3 party, they are going to flip the fuck out at you for being a terrible DM and/or decide to run away because D&D already has vrocks and they are CR 9 and your players have experience with them. If you aren't open about the fact that you are using nonstandard statblocks for common monsters, then that shit will be disruptive and jarring. I will charitably chalk that up to shortsightedness, and neglecting to consider the fact that players have preexisting expectations of what a vrock is.
I am not stealth house ruling anything if I use the rules to reduce the CR of a vrock. If I introduce a wounded and level drained vrock in a teleport-blocked area as an encounter, that's totally covered by the official rules. At least I am not aware of any rule that would force me to only use creatures that are at full health, full spells, and otherwise fully prepared.

Edit: And as an example for such a CR3 vrock encounter: Imagine the party exploring the laboratory of an absent or dead wizard who kept such a demon captured and drained for experiments.
Last edited by Fuchs on Wed Oct 31, 2012 3:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
nockermensch
Duke
Posts: 1898
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:11 pm
Location: Rio: the Janeiro

Post by nockermensch »

Lord Mistborn wrote:
DSMatticus wrote: Congratulations. You're arguing against change because it's different. You really don't belong in any discussions about game design, houserules, or homebrew, because those all involve changing things in order to accomplish some goal. In a game world with CR 3 vrocks, CR 3 vrocks are definitionally not unvrocklike. The game world has CR 3 vrocks. Right fucking there. You can (pretend to) poke them with a (pretend) stick.
I think Kaelik has been over this already. Vrocks in D&D 3e are CR 9 monsters with a set of abilities. To have CR 3 Vrocks you have to take away some of the things that define what a Vrock actually is. In order to have Vrocklike Vrocks that run from 3-18 you need to essential make 4e. Which is why Frank is arguing against it. I'm not against 4e because I dislike change. I'm against it because I dislike 4e.

This all sprouted from K saying that the solution to having a party that can't fight monsters of their CR is to stealthy restat those monsters into things they can beat. Which is pants on head retarded for all kinds of reasons. Just like nockers fudge the dice if it interferes with the story is retarded.

So in the interest of getting back to this threads original topic re:basketweaving. K hasn't posted a coherent game philosophy so I'll ignore him for the time being.

The position nocker was advocating before he realized that the Den was laughing at him is that you should start out playing by the book and then screw the rules when you have a storyline. This position is terrible for many reasons but foremost among them are. One, it enables and even encourages the DM to be an asshole. Two, if only the rules and dice are going to be ignored when they don't fit the story then those thing have no reason to be there in the first place other than to deceive the players.

I on the other hand have made three points. One, ignoring the rules because the plot/character/NPC is a special snowflake needs to die in a fire. Two, monsters should be played as though they are intelligent opponents that are actually trying to kill the PCs. If that too much for the PCs to handle they PCs should either die or ask to fight weaker monsters.
Three, player would prefer to fight stronger opponents.

The desire for MTP on the player side is not routed in story concerns but in a desire to beat opponents even without the abilities that would allow them to actually beat those opponents. However this is a faustian bargain for many reasons.
The part of your post I bolded has some truth on it, so congratulations on finally identifying a real thing, it's a step up from your usual strawmanning.

It's a fact that stories about the underdog winning are inherently more satisfactory than the ones where the stronger force crushes the weaker. One is heroic, the other is bullying. So yes, enabling the PCs to beat opponents they lack the means to confront directly is one of the things MTP excels. However, this is good for the game. It's more memorable when you defeat Demogorgon because an allied god changed the landscape to restrict the demon's abilities and another ally forged an artifact for you to use than if Demogorgon is simply in your "beatable CR" range and you simply stab him in a straight-up melee.

But seriously, what do you suck Monte Cook, Jonathan Tweet and Skip Williams' cocks so much? Why this childlike acceptance that the Monster Manual is a kind of gospel? From edition to edition those half-baked designers change every fucking thing, and this is somehow alright because it is "official". 3e is not the Received Word from the gods of gaming, it's something you're supposed to adapt to suit your needs.

Everything in a RPG is subject to group consensus, Misty. You have this bizarre and misplaced faith on official assumptions, and this looks very out of place in a forum that constantly points how these very assumptions are broken/boring and come with fixes and homebrews.

Seriously, get over this, it's a very childlike attitude where Living Greyhawk becomes the epitome of "correct D&D". Some people will find the published vrocks ideal for their needs and use them. Others won't, and they'll change the vrocks. The first group isn't playing better D&D than the second one based on just this. As long as both groups are having fun, both are Doing It Right.

Finally, stop playing Internet on easy mode. If you post controversial opinions and nobody calls you an idiot, then you're in your Hugbox, not on a forum where people speak their minds.
@ @ Nockermensch
Koumei wrote:After all, in Firefox you keep tabs in your browser, but in SovietPutin's Russia, browser keeps tabs on you.
Mord wrote:Chromatic Wolves are massively under-CRed. Its "Dood to stone" spell-like is a TPK waiting to happen if you run into it before anyone in the party has Dance of Sack or Shield of Farts.
User avatar
Mistborn
Duke
Posts: 1477
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 7:55 pm
Location: Elendel, Scadrial

Post by Mistborn »

nockermensch wrote:
Lord Mistborn wrote: The desire for MTP on the player side is not routed in story concerns but in a desire to beat opponents even without the abilities that would allow them to actually beat those opponents. However this is a faustian bargain for many reasons.
The part of your post I bolded has some truth on it, so congratulations on finally identifying a real thing, it's a step up from your usual strawmanning.

It's a fact that stories about the underdog winning are inherently more satisfactory than the ones where the stronger force crushes the weaker. One is heroic, the other is bullying. So yes, enabling the PCs to beat opponents they lack the means to confront directly is one of the things MTP excels. However, this is good for the game. It's more memorable when you defeat Demogorgon because an allied god changed the landscape to restrict the demon's abilities and another ally forged an artifact for you to use than if Demogorgon is simply in your "beatable CR" range and you simply stab him in a straight-up melee.
RPGs are not for you then. Go read a book and/or engage in a cooperative storytelling excercise with you friends and stop ruining D&D for people. You know very well why MTP is a faustian bargain stop being frozen fast.
User avatar
nockermensch
Duke
Posts: 1898
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:11 pm
Location: Rio: the Janeiro

Post by nockermensch »

Lord Mistborn wrote:RPGs are not for you then. Go read a book and/or engage in a cooperative storytelling excercise with you friends and stop ruining D&D for people. You know very well why MTP is a faustian bargain stop being frozen fast.
RPGs are not for you then. Go play a MMO or engage in a competitive wargame with your friends and stop ruining D&D for people.
@ @ Nockermensch
Koumei wrote:After all, in Firefox you keep tabs in your browser, but in SovietPutin's Russia, browser keeps tabs on you.
Mord wrote:Chromatic Wolves are massively under-CRed. Its "Dood to stone" spell-like is a TPK waiting to happen if you run into it before anyone in the party has Dance of Sack or Shield of Farts.
violence in the media
Duke
Posts: 1725
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:18 pm

Post by violence in the media »

Fuchs wrote:And again, no one really is affected in any meaningful way by a few high-level enemies being scaled down for use in a low-level adventure. A simple "and those vrocks were cursed to be weaker than usual some time ago" should suffice to handle any rational concern about too far reaching changes to vrocks as a whole.
This right here is all anyone had to say in the first place. Sure, it opens up the possibility that a CR 9 creature can be cursed into CR 3 and players should wonder if that can happen to their characters or if they can harness that power to create some sort of tame menagerie of horrible beasts, but "these specific creatures are in this specific state because this specific reason" is totally fine. It's not ideal because it's fiat and inconsistent*, but I'd give it a pass.

Now, the other thing I think we're all disagreeing about is how much fixation you should have on "you must follow the rules!" We all know that D&D rules are a mess and that you can't follow them without question, but there should be some good faith effort to adhere to existing rules (RAW or houserule, whatever) as much as possible. Because there are few specified ways aside from backstory event occurences (this monster was in a fight earlier/lost an eye long ago/was poisoned by so-and-so) to make a monster weaker with the rules, this is where a lot of the conflict is coming from. You say Baby Vrocks are CR3, so what CR are Baby Balors? What CR are the hordes of despondent souls haunting the Abyss? We have CRs for baby dragons, do you use those or are there now Baby baby dragons? Are there certain monsters that just can't (or shouldn't) be weakened to the point that Level 3 characters can take them on? Newborn rhinos aren't going to weigh much less than around 80 lbs, for instance, whether or not a STR 3 PC exists that wants to pick it up and carry it to safety.

The rules provide guidance on how you can advance monsters. You can give them certain templates, add class levels, increase HD, etc. However, if I arbitrarily add a +50 dodge bonus to a CR 6 monster's AC, my players should rightfully declare bullshit and demand that I show my work, as it were. In this situation, some sort of "this one is blessed by fate" ass-pull explanation isn't going to (or rather, shouldn't) cut it. That's not one of the things that's called out as something that the MC is able to do. The "no weaker monsters" angle is just extending this objection in the direction of making the monsters uncharacteristically (and inconsistently) weaker and then claiming that they are the standard creature.

Contrary to some beliefs expressed around here, the MC should be beholden to following the rules to a certain extent. If all rules exist at the MC's pleasure and vary according to his or her medication, then that's just not a game I'm personally interested in playing. Go write your short story and I'll read it when you're done, because I certainly don't feel like I have even the illusion of agency in this situation.

*edited to add: Unless it's done the way Fuchs outlined in his response above, that I just read. Applying existing game effects in a legal manner to a creature that results in a weakened version is cool, though such things should be discoverable or deductive to the PCs. It would be rather shitty to take an obscure monster, severely weaken it, not allow the party to figure that out, and then ambush them with a full strength version later.
Last edited by violence in the media on Wed Oct 31, 2012 4:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
nockermensch
Duke
Posts: 1898
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:11 pm
Location: Rio: the Janeiro

Post by nockermensch »

violence in the media wrote:Contrary to some beliefs expressed around here, the MC should be beholden to following the rules to a certain extent.
Curiously, I'm in complete agreement to this.
@ @ Nockermensch
Koumei wrote:After all, in Firefox you keep tabs in your browser, but in SovietPutin's Russia, browser keeps tabs on you.
Mord wrote:Chromatic Wolves are massively under-CRed. Its "Dood to stone" spell-like is a TPK waiting to happen if you run into it before anyone in the party has Dance of Sack or Shield of Farts.
Fuchs
Duke
Posts: 2446
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 7:29 am
Location: Zürich

Post by Fuchs »

nockermensch wrote:
violence in the media wrote:Contrary to some beliefs expressed around here, the MC should be beholden to following the rules to a certain extent.
Curiously, I'm in complete agreement to this.
Me too.
quanta
Journeyman
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 12:17 am

Post by quanta »

Contrary to some beliefs expressed around here, the MC should be beholden to following the rules to a certain extent. If all rules exist at the MC's pleasure and vary according to his or her medication, then that's just not a game I'm personally interested in playing. Go write your short story and I'll read it when you're done, because I certainly don't feel like I have even the illusion of agency in this situation.
Nice strawman, when literally everyone is focusing on group consensus (well except Misty who actually does embrace "You should repeatedly kill the party if they can't meet the SGT"), it doesn't make any sense to claim someone is claiming the MC should be able to unilaterally break rules whenever he likes.

There is no rule against using monsters with templates that weaken them, level drained monsters, monsters who have insanity cast on them, or monsters who have been cursed. Bestow curse is practically a rules embraced way of turning magical tea party into an in-game rules penalty. Just have some bullshit reason your monster has a giant stack of curses on it and voila It's like you made a custom scaled down monster.
K
King
Posts: 6487
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by K »

Before I abandon this thread, I just want to add one thing:

Savage Species has rules for actual level 3 Vrocks, no templates or DM-created rules necessary because it's a published monster progression in the book. They just need to be converted with the PC level to CR rules in the Monster Manual.

So yes, following the RAW you can present CR 3 Vrocks to your players as enemies in the same way as you can present CR 3 Orcs. If a PC flips over the battlemat in a nerd-rage, you can indeed "show your work."
Last edited by K on Wed Oct 31, 2012 5:22 pm, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
Kaelik
ArchDemon of Rage
Posts: 14830
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Kaelik »

DSMatticus wrote:If baseline means the typical monster, then the existence of a CR 3 vrock does not imply that the CR 9 vrock isn't the baseline, because mode does not always equal min and that is obvious. If baseline means the weakest possible standard (for whatever definition of standard you prefer, which will be totally arbitrary but whatever) vrock, then if a CR 3 vrock exists then there are more vrocks that are tremendously advanced than ones that aren't, and calling them tremendously advanced is a deceptively weighty way to say boringly ordinary. You seem to be operating on the assumption that the weakest will be the most typical, which is kind of like expecting the average human being to have straight 3's for stats. But beyond that, I don't know why you made that argument in the first place and I don't know why you're bothering to defend it. It is as irrelevant as it is shitty.

Just go with your actual argument, god damnit, which seems to be: changing the concept of a vrock (flying, teleporting, vulture demon with a magic death dance that is largely immune to the attacks of ordinary men and amateur magicians) without telling the players isn't playing unmodified, vanilla D&D anymore, and is unfair because 1) you lied to people when you said you were playing unmodified, vanilla D&D, and 2) players aren't capable of making decisions about the game world if their information about the game world doesn't match the reality of the game world because you fucking changed it without telling them.
And why can't you see that both 1) and 2) are only true if I am right about the baseline? I have defined the baseline already in this thread, the baseline is those characteristics essential to the being. All Vrocks have Greater Teleport, it is impossible to find a Vrock that does not (unless he is summoned, in which case, he is not really a Vrock). Likewise, all Vrocks have spores that do 1d8 damage followed by 1d4 for 10 rounds. Ect. If that isn't true, then you have changed what it means to be a Vrock.

It has absolutely nothing to do with how common they are. It could be that in your setting all Orcs have 30 levels of Fighter except one. And finding any Orc without 30 levels of Fighter is nigh impossible, but that wouldn't mean that Orc with 30 levels of Fighter is the baseline, it would mean that when an Orc is born, it still has no class levels.

Vrocks are a specific kind of fiend that is created by other fiends and souls and shit in fiery birthing pit, and when it comes out, it is not a baby Vrock, it is a full Vrock. And if you want to change the setting, you have to tell your players. But the fact that you have to tell your players only follows if that was the setting in the first place.
Fuchs wrote:Kaelik... first, again, since you simply seem not to be getting it: Not everything is made low-level, just the few high-level enemies you rescale for use in the low-level adventure. No setting is destroyed if you have a one-shot low-level adventure (or limited campaign) where you introduce CR3 vrocks. The impact such a change has is simply minimal. Really, Kaelik, you're the only one who seems to think D&D's existence hinges on Vrocks being CR9 at a miminum.
Again, since you seem not to be getting it: Yes, that is explicitly K's original position that people rebelled against. K said CR 7 Gods. That is in fucking fact, literally everything being scaled down.

Yes, they things that don't show up in the game are not being actively scaled down by the DM, but when you scale down literally every single things that does show up, the obvious inescapable conclusion is that everything is in fact scaled down.
Fuchs wrote:Second, try to make an effort, and understand that for all purposes and effects, there is no high-level whatever in a low-level one-shot adventure or campaign. When you're agreeing to play a low-level one-shot adventure or campaign you're agreeing to play a game focused on low level characters. Whatever high-level threats are there are not present in a meaningful way, whatever high-level allies exist are not partaking in any important way, unless we're in the realm of DM pet NPCs handling the adventure with the PCs as henchmen or similar outliers.
Try to make an effort and understand that you are a lying sack of shit idiot, and you are wrong. It doesn't matter if it wasn't going to show up in that campaign, because it still has an effect on the setting. A setting where Demons are easily callable by mid level Wizards and have Greater Teleport at will is different from one where they don't. And those difference effect other things. If my fucking PC has any aspect at all (like say, ever at any point tried to go from point A that is far away to point B that is nearby prior to the start of the adventure) then it fucking matters how people communicate over long distances and it fucking matters how easy it is to travel those distances.

Which is why if you are going to drastically change the entire fucking setting by making Gods CR 7 and no one have teleport, then you need to fucking goddam tell me ahead of time that you are going to do that, so that my character makes sense in the drastically different setting. Yes, even if it is a low level one shot.
Fuchs wrote:I am not stealth house ruling anything if I use the rules to reduce the CR of a vrock. If I introduce a wounded and level drained vrock in a teleport-blocked area as an encounter, that's totally covered by the official rules. At least I am not aware of any rule that would force me to only use creatures that are at full health, full spells, and otherwise fully prepared.
Except that is not what K contended at fucking all, and that is not what people have objected to. People have already, many times, including me, told you that we don't give a shit if you use the actual rules that people agreed to to change monsters before. I said you can send 1 HP Vrocks at people all day who are profusely bleeding, and no one cares.

But K is contending that you just have CR 3 Vrocks, not that you have CR 9 Vrocks level drained.

Also, you are an idiot, because a level drained Vrock is going to fucking murder a level 3 party. It still has SR 17, DR 10/good, Resistance 10 to everything it is not immune to, Mirror Image at will, and oh fucking yeah, Spores that do an average of 30 damage to everyone that it can use every 3 rounds.

Even if any parties actually prepared bless, it would still be able to infect the entire party and then use up all their blesses and do it again before they could ever kill it, because its defenses against low level attacks are largely not removed by negative levels.
DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.

That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
Fuchs
Duke
Posts: 2446
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 7:29 am
Location: Zürich

Post by Fuchs »

Kaelik wrote:And why can't you see that both 1) and 2) are only true if I am right about the baseline? I have defined the baseline already in this thread, the baseline is those characteristics essential to the being. All Vrocks have Greater Teleport, it is impossible to find a Vrock that does not (unless he is summoned, in which case, he is not really a Vrock). Likewise, all Vrocks have spores that do 1d8 damage followed by 1d4 for 10 rounds. Ect. If that isn't true, then you have changed what it means to be a Vrock.
In YOUR opinion. Others have far less strict vrock requirements
Kaelik wrote: Again, since you seem not to be getting it: Yes, that is explicitly K's original position that people rebelled against. K said CR 7 Gods. That is in fucking fact, literally everything being scaled down.
No, not at all. There have been examples of weakened gods in novels, so you're wrong.
Kaelik wrote: Yes, they things that don't show up in the game are not being actively scaled down by the DM, but when you scale down literally every single things that does show up, the obvious inescapable conclusion is that everything is in fact scaled down.
Not really. If 2 high-level theats scale down, who's to say that all high levle stuff is scaled down? And again, who cares in a low level adventure?
Kaelik wrote: Try to make an effort and understand that you are a lying sack of shit idiot, and you are wrong. It doesn't matter if it wasn't going to show up in that campaign, because it still has an effect on the setting. A setting where Demons are easily callable by mid level Wizards and have Greater Teleport at will is different from one where they don't. And those difference effect other things. If my fucking PC has any aspect at all (like say, ever at any point tried to go from point A that is far away to point B that is nearby prior to the start of the adventure) then it fucking matters how people communicate over long distances and it fucking matters how easy it is to travel those distances.

Which is why if you are going to drastically change the entire fucking setting by making Gods CR 7 and no one have teleport, then you need to fucking goddam tell me ahead of time that you are going to do that, so that my character makes sense in the drastically different setting. Yes, even if it is a low level one shot.
You're one demanding player. Most players won't care as long as they can use their PC's abilities.

Kaelik wrote: But K is contending that you just have CR 3 Vrocks, not that you have CR 9 Vrocks level drained.
Which is also true. Only you seem stuck on the idea that cr9 vrocks are so important that you can't have cr3 vrocks.
User avatar
Foxwarrior
Duke
Posts: 1639
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 8:54 am
Location: RPG City, USA

Post by Foxwarrior »

Aren't most of your arguments there "other people are more intellectually sloppy and apathetic than you, Kaelik", Fuchs?
quanta
Journeyman
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 12:17 am

Post by quanta »

Aren't most of your arguments there "other people are more intellectually sloppy and apathetic than you, Kaelik", Fuchs?
Assigning kaelik's position the tags of intellectually neat and caring is extremely bizarre. Anal-retentive sperging out is a more accurate description of his position. I'd argue K's position is clearly more well though out and better matches the reality of D&D stories and published modules. Sure, if for some strange reason I was DM'ing a game with Kaelik in it, I wouldn't use custom monsters without literally showing him the monster sheet beforehand (now that I know that he deeply hates them regardless of whether or not I offer knowledge checks or description available through in character research), but that wouldn't be because I thought his position made any logical sense.
User avatar
Kaelik
ArchDemon of Rage
Posts: 14830
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Kaelik »

quanta wrote:
Aren't most of your arguments there "other people are more intellectually sloppy and apathetic than you, Kaelik", Fuchs?
Assigning kaelik's position the tags of intellectually neat and caring is extremely bizarre. Anal-retentive sperging out is a more accurate description of his position. I'd argue K's position is clearly more well though out and better matches the reality of D&D stories and published modules. Sure, if for some strange reason I was DM'ing a game with Kaelik in it, I wouldn't use custom monsters without literally showing him the monster sheet beforehand (now that I know that he deeply hates them regardless of whether or not I offer knowledge checks or description available through in character research), but that wouldn't be because I thought his position made any logical sense.
Congratulations, you can't follow a fucking conversation at all and believe all of K's stupid lies which I assume he is still repeating. You are an idiot.
DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.

That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
User avatar
Foxwarrior
Duke
Posts: 1639
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 8:54 am
Location: RPG City, USA

Post by Foxwarrior »

Well, K's latest interesting argument as I understood it is that D&D can be a game about using somewhat incorrect metagame knowledge to identify partial Steves, so adding a Lesser Vrock partial Steve is perfectly within the spirit of the game. If you like monster of the week-style games, that's a valid justification.

Also, Kaelik, is it explicitly stated somewhere that Vrocks are created as adults?

Edit: It's not that I think Kaelik's position is necessarily a superior one, Quanta, but more that Fuchs's arguments were so horrifying I'd be inclined to agree with his opponent almost no matter what they were saying.
Last edited by Foxwarrior on Thu Nov 01, 2012 12:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
quanta
Journeyman
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 12:17 am

Post by quanta »

Also, Kaelik, is it explicitly stated somewhere that Vrocks are created as adults?
I think it's somewhere in one of the fiendish codices. But I may be thinking of how devils form.
User avatar
nockermensch
Duke
Posts: 1898
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:11 pm
Location: Rio: the Janeiro

Post by nockermensch »

I stopped believing kaelik is being serious when he went from "cr 7 gods" to "no teleport" and demanded to be informed of that in a low level one shot.
@ @ Nockermensch
Koumei wrote:After all, in Firefox you keep tabs in your browser, but in SovietPutin's Russia, browser keeps tabs on you.
Mord wrote:Chromatic Wolves are massively under-CRed. Its "Dood to stone" spell-like is a TPK waiting to happen if you run into it before anyone in the party has Dance of Sack or Shield of Farts.
Post Reply