A 30th-level Party needs 50th-level Monsters...

[kenmarable]

More special than Orcus, or the Tarrasque!? Both unique beings!

Are they more special because their name is on the cover?

If we have Dungeon based traps, are those also 'special'.

If they make a Demonomicon do demons suddenly become special?

Do WotC not trust DMs to understand the system?

Surely its better for one rule to...rule them all.

My understanding of their reasoning (not that I agree with it, but it was their stated reasoning) wasn't that "dragons are special so CR is handled different with them" but instead it was that dragons wouldn't be typically used as a random encounter and therefore PCs would typically be prepared for them (I recall seeing Sean Reynolds stating this - and disagreeing with it - in the earlier days of 3.0?). It is much as they CRs of undead are based on the assumption that there is a cleric capable of turning undead. If that assumption is wrong, then the CR must be adjusted (I think Sean Reynolds suggested roughly +2 CR for dragons).

If they were consistent with these assumptions, I would figure the tarrasque CR would similiarly be adjusted. So it isn't "dragons are special because they are in the title" it was an assumption on standard games.

I certainly don't agree with that in the least. I think assuming there is a cleric capable of turning undead is a safer assumption than a party always facing a dragon at least moderately prepared, but it was the 1.0 version of the CR system, so I don't fault them for having excessive assumptions. Dunno about the 3.5 revision though and whether they kept similar assumptions. Also, don't know how many other ones are buried in the books and haven't been stated. If they had just added a couple sentences to the dragon entry clearly stating this, I don't think it would be nearly the debate and complaining about 3.x dragon CRs.

 

[funkysnunkulator]

Hot-damn I'd like to see a 20th level Tarrasque Bard.

vote tarrasque in 08!!!!

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey there Thanee,

apologies for missing you post first time around.

If they make it right, 20th-level will be 20th-level regardless whether it's a PC, an NPC, or a monster.

Totally agree.

Now, if there is still a power doubling every two levels, as it is now (more or less),

Unfortunately there isn't a power doubling every two levels or anything like it, at least not over the full 20-level spread, and certainly not over a 30-level spread.

WotC just about got away with that mistake in 3/3.5E because the twenty level spread meant things never really got too far out of whack one way or the other. However, with a 30-level spread they'll have to give a bit more care and attention.

The doubling (where doubling means two characters are equal to one of the higher level) of power is something like +33%.

Which means that 3rd Editions 'sweet spot' (6th-14th) is basically the only place where WotC's EL +2 = doubling of power is accurate.

then the obvious answer to your question is (under that assumption):

One 35th-level monster.

True, but its a false assumption to begin with.

If every level means the same boost, then the jump from 29th to 30th (3.5%) is less important than the jump from 9th to 10th (10%).

What you could do is boost each level to give greater and greater power (+33% every 2 levels), but I don't see that happening for a variety of reasons. Firstly its very complicated. Secondly 30th-level in 4th Edition would be akin to 53rd-level in 3rd Edition. Also the first few levels would be very little difference.

Now, of course, that's not an 'appropriate challenge' as defined in 3E, but rather an even fight, where both sides have about the same chance to win.

Which seems to be roughly what an appropriate challenge 'is' or rather 'should be', as defined for 4th Edition.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Glad you agree...given I invented it.

Still ranking up there, in my opinion, as one of the most important 3rd party inventions!

I believe the new model will have to be (properly, openly) quadratic.

Instead of the semi-quadratic kludge.

 

[Logan_Bonner]

So the first question is: Are there any monsters in the Monster Manual that would be individual encounters for a 30th-level PC Party?

The second question is: What level would they be?

1. Yes.

2. A qualified "30." Keep in mind that some might be above 30 and are intended to be really tough even for 30th-level characters.

 

[A'koss]

1. Yes.

2. A qualified "30." Keep in mind that some might be above 30 and are intended to be really tough even for 30th-level characters.

It's be pretty easy to guess who might fall into the latter category...

I have one concern though I touched upon in another thread and that is I hope the Fiend Lords are sufficiently ahead of the generic monster crowd on the power scale so we don't wonder how they could have held their positions for so long. I'm worried that some monsters (particularly dragons, but also other fiends and celestials) may be given too big a push in the game to the point where any cave-dwelling ancient red/gold dragon would be a match (or very close) for a demon lord who rules entire planes...

Singular dragons like Tiamat or Bahamut or even the Tarrasque (as it's also unique) - no problem, but generic dragons, fiends, celestials, etc. creates a verisimilitude problem IMO.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hiya Wulf mate!

long time no see, hope life has been treating you well?

Still ranking up there, in my opinion, as one of the most important 3rd party inventions!

Certainly for high/epic level play it should be compulsory.

I believe the new model will have to be (properly, openly) quadratic.

Instead of the semi-quadratic kludge.

Well I am sure whatever the outcome, someone will be able to fix it if necessary.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey there Logan!

1. Yes.

Great news!

2. A qualified "30."

Well I won't press you on the matter even though I am sure we all have a hundred questions we would like to ask. I imagine not all the monster levels have been decided at this juncture anyway.

Keep in mind that some might be above 30 and are intended to be really tough even for 30th-level characters.

As it should be!

 

[psionotic]

I'm wondering then, based on Logan's reply, if the monster role, as much as their level, signifies the level of challenge.


Mooks: (including bashers, artillery, etc) 1/4 - 1/2 as strong as a PC of given level, usually showing up in packs of 6-8, controlled by one mastermind.
Mastermind: 1/2 - 1x as strong as a PC, usually showing up with 6-8 mooks.
Dreadnought: 2-4x as strong as a PC, usually showing up singly or doubly
Boss/Campaign Ending fight: 4-8x as strong as a PC, generally alone.

This is all total guesswork on role names and strengths, but it might work something like this...

 

[Upper_Krust]

Howdy A'koss!

It's be pretty easy to guess who might fall into the latter category...

I have one concern though I touched upon in another thread and that is I hope the Fiend Lords are sufficiently ahead of the generic monster crowd on the power scale so we don't wonder how they could have held their positions for so long. I'm worried that some monsters (particularly dragons, but also other fiends and celestials) may be given too big a push in the game to the point where any cave-dwelling ancient red/gold dragon would be a match (or very close) for a demon lord who rules entire planes...

Singular dragons like Tiamat or Bahamut or even the Tarrasque (as it's also unique) - no problem, but generic dragons, fiends, celestials, etc. creates a verisimilitude problem IMO.

I second that.

Thats why things like the Fiendish Codexes take a bit of criticism (loved that book, except for the low CRs). The stats just don't make sense within the greater context of the beings inferred power.

I mean you can see why WotC did it like this, the weaker the stats, the more people get to use them, but there comes a point when you dumb them down too much and it makes a mockery of what the character is supposed to represent.

Part of the problem has been the inflation of the other demons/devils over the years, without giving similar boosts to the Fiend Lords.