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

[Upper_Krust]

Howdy 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...

That could perhaps be the missing link. Although one man's BBEG is the next man's Mook.

...I eat Balors for breakfast.

So if you throw in that level of abstraction, won't it serve more to confuse rather than enlighten.

Also if XP is based on Monster Level, do you get more for a Level 30 Dreadnought or a Level 30 Boss...again, its another area where just giving 'proper' levels rather than dancing around 'roles' (not that roles don't have their place).

Still they may not want to transcend the Level 30 limit.

 

[A'koss]

Howdy A'koss!

Been a while UK!

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.

Well, this is precisely it. I distinctly remember cringing when I first saw Graz'zt at CR 24 and wondered why the Lower Planes weren't simply run by dragons. :\

 

[Zander]

Hello, Krusty!

Hope all is well.

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'm going to try to meet Bruce Cordell this Friday. If I manage it and if you want, I can ask him about monster levels. Just say the word.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello, Krusty!

Hey Zander mate!

In about a week you will get something from me through the mail.

Hope all is well.

Not too bad, although had to take a second job to support my first job, the upside being I now have money, the downside being I now have no time.

Not sure I'll be able to manage Dragonmeet this year but I could probably manage Easter and/or UK Gencon 2008, and Dragonmeet 2008. So I am sure we'll get a chance to meet up at least once or twice in 08.

I'm going to try to meet Bruce Cordell this Friday.

Just don't wear 'that' hat.

If I manage it and if you want, I can ask him about monster levels. Just say the word.

I'll email you.

 

[Zurai]

Hello again!



Well if they establish that five creatures of Level x = 5 PCs of Level x, why would they then break that formula just for dragons?

I know this sort of silliness was applied to 3/3.5, but it shouldn't have been.

You have it completely wrong.

They've stated multiple times now that, in order to plan an encounter, you take how much XP you want the encounter to be worth, then add in monsters until you meet that XP threshold. This has been explicitly stated at least twice to my knowledge. The rule of thumb is that 5 monsters of equal "level" to the PCs will meet the recommended XP threshold for an even fight. That doesn't exclude a single monster also meeting that same threshold.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello Zurai!

You have it completely wrong.

Inconceivable.

It appears to me that you have taken my post out of context.

I inferred that to make two monsters both Level 10 (for example) but where one (the dragon) was clearly superior (to level 10 in this instance) would be illogical.

They've stated multiple times now that, in order to plan an encounter, you take how much XP you want the encounter to be worth, then add in monsters until you meet that XP threshold. This has been explicitly stated at least twice to my knowledge.

The method is irrelevant as long as the balance is right.

Their idea sounds good in theory, but then the real meat of the argument becomes what XP level every monster is worth.

If a good encounter for five 8th-level characters is five 8000 XP monsters, then 40,000 XP is the XP total you are looking for.

Now clearly that 40,000 XP cannot be a Level 40 monster (if such a thing even exists?).

Under my auspices a 13th-level monster would be worth 40,000 XP (in a system where a Level 8 monster was 8000 XP). 16th-level monster would be 80,000 XP and a 30th-level monster would be (approx.) 750,000 XP.

The rule of thumb is that 5 monsters of equal "level" to the PCs will meet the recommended XP threshold for an even fight. That doesn't exclude a single monster also meeting that same threshold.

Never said it did, never argued that it didn't.

What I have argued is exactly what Level of singular monster is equal to these five weaker monsters (or the PC Party). Hence the title of this thread 30th-level characters need 50th-level monsters. Representing the fact that a 50th-level monster could be equal to a group of five 30th-level monsters.

 

[Shemeska]

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.

Except those were stats for their avatars/aspects, not the actual beings themselves. The criticism tends to evaporate given that fact.

 

[Shemeska]

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.

Which brings up a question about some of those beings that conceivably fit that classification: are they being presented as avatars of the beings in question who represent fundamental aspects of reality, or are they being presented as big monsters?

Are we going to get Orcus as the ruler of an infinite layer of the Abyss, older than most worlds, older than most gods, with a half dozen slain divinities to his credit, for whom a splinter of his essence could pose a challenge to the most powerful mortals? Or are we getting Orcus as the boss-monster at the end of H4?

 

[funkysnunkulator]

Are we going to get Orcus as the ruler of an infinite layer of the Abyss, older than most worlds, older than most gods, with a half dozen slain divinities to his credit, for whom a splinter of his essence could pose a challenge to the most powerful mortals? Or are we getting Orcus as the boss-monster at the end of H4?

or are we getting the Orcus as that is just trying to relive the glory days when he/it was a pop star in a boy band (n'trpy) and is trading on his name in a cosmos that frequently won't even answer his phone calls?

personally, the demon princes are mighty, but in our game, anything and anyone can be destroyed. of course, the likelyhood is teeny teeny tiny really really really small.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Shemeska mate!

Did you like what they did to the Ice Devil? Reminded me of my idea for the Daemons (over in that FC III thread at Andy Collins website) we discussed a few months ago.

Except those were stats for their avatars/aspects, not the actual beings themselves. The criticism tends to evaporate given that fact.

Then resurfaces immediately when you realise they totally designed the fiend lord's realms and their inhabitants/encounters around those so called aspects/avatars being the defacto fiend lord.