Challenging Challenge Ratings...again

[Kerrick]

Has anyone thought about applying EAB/EAS to monsters? Right now, their stuff isn't capped, which means they quickly exceed any AC the PCs can achieve and make saves against most effects/spells the PCs can throw at them. Let's take the tarrasque, for instance. It's listed as CR 59 (UK, not MM), or ECL 38 (I think that's right). It has a +48 base attack bonus, which alone will rip through almost any PC's AC, and its +57 total attack bonus (not counting the average +10 from the d20 roll) is well over the top.

OTOH, if we give it EAB, it would have a +34 BAB, and a +43 attack bonus - much more reasonable, IMO.

 

[Kerrick]

Has anyone thought about applying EAB/EAS to monsters? Right now, their stuff isn't capped, which means they quickly exceed any AC the PCs can achieve and make saves against most effects/spells the PCs can throw at them. Let's take the tarrasque, for instance. It's listed as CR 59 (UK, not MM), or ECL 38 (I think that's right). It has a +48 base attack bonus, which alone will rip through almost any PC's AC, and its +57 total attack bonus (not counting the average +10 from the d20 roll) is well over the top.

OTOH, if we give it EAB, it would have a +34 BAB, and a +43 attack bonus - much more reasonable, IMO.

Granted, this is an extreme example - I only picked it because I happened to be starting the T-Z section of conversion - but I think it illustrates the point well.

 

[Kerrick]

As I was working through the monsters, something hit me: I realized that the natural armor ratings for "carapace/plated" and constructs are too high. I have no actual math to back this up - it's more of a feeling, so take it FWIW.

Carapace/plated is 5-8 + HD. Creatures like the gorgon, the bulette, the tojanida, and the tarrasque fall into this category (it was actually after doing the tarrasque that I saw the glaring flaw). So, what we have:

Gorgon: 13-16 + 2 (or +3 if you go with my fix). That's 4 points higher than the MM's +11.

Bulette: 14-17 + 5. That's 7 points higher.

Tojanida: 8-11 - 1 (Small); 12-19 (Med); 20-23 + 2 (Large). The Small one's the same; average is +12 (so almost the same); and Large is +14 (well below).

And the tarrasque: 53-56 + 12 (13). That's a +65 minimum natural armor bonus.

So I thought, why not drop it to 5-8 + 2/3 HD? Then we get...

Gorgon: 10-13 + 3 (MM is +11)

Bulette: 11-14 + 5 (MM is +12)

Tojanida: 7-10 - 1 (Small); 9-12 (Med); 14-17 + 3 (Large)

Tarrasque: 36-39 + 13

As you can see, the bonuses are much more reasonable, especially at the larger sizes.


As for constructs... I posit a natural armor bonus of size + 3/4 HD. Again, the bonuses didn't seem too bad at the low end (HD-wise), but when I did the advanced stone golem... whoo. It's +47. Sure, it's big and tough, but come on.. who's going to hit AC 43?

Under the new rule, the golems' ACs would be:

Clay: +11 (vs. +14)

Flesh: +9 (vs. +12)

Iron: +16 (vs. +21)

Stone: +13 (vs. 17)

Sure, they're a bit lower than before, but the advanced stone golem is now only +34 (AC 30 - much better!), and an advanced iron golem (max HD) is +45, instead of +59.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Kerrick mate!

I just wanted to chime in and say I'll get back to you on this tomorrow. A few things came up and I didn't want to reply to everyone else and leave you hanging. Sorry.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Kerrick mate!

Has anyone thought about applying EAB/EAS to monsters? Right now, their stuff isn't capped, which means they quickly exceed any AC the PCs can achieve and make saves against most effects/spells the PCs can throw at them. Let's take the tarrasque, for instance. It's listed as CR 59 (UK, not MM), or ECL 38 (I think that's right). It has a +48 base attack bonus, which alone will rip through almost any PC's AC, and its +57 total attack bonus (not counting the average +10 from the d20 roll) is well over the top.

OTOH, if we give it EAB, it would have a +34 BAB, and a +43 attack bonus - much more reasonable, IMO.

Granted, this is an extreme example - I only picked it because I happened to be starting the T-Z section of conversion - but I think it illustrates the point well.

Well, for one, you have the task of redoing the EAB. Which is okay for DMs, but probably not designers.

However, the reason I wouldn't is twofold.

1) I don't use EAB for PCs/NPCs.

2) You can always use surplus BAB when power attacking. This is especially useful for 'brick' monsters with little or no special abilities...such as the aforementioned Tarrasque.

Of course 4E does away with all this, but in doing so, shows us that using the EAB across the board (for 3.5E) would probably be a good idea.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello again dude!

As I was working through the monsters, something hit me: I realized that the natural armor ratings for "carapace/plated" and constructs are too high. I have no actual math to back this up - it's more of a feeling, so take it FWIW.

Carapace/plated is 5-8 + HD. Creatures like the gorgon, the bulette, the tojanida, and the tarrasque fall into this category (it was actually after doing the tarrasque that I saw the glaring flaw). So, what we have:

I thought Carapace/plated was Natural Armour equal to Hit Dice, not 5-8 + Hit Dice.

Gorgon: 13-16 + 2 (or +3 if you go with my fix). That's 4 points higher than the MM's +11.

Bulette: 14-17 + 5. That's 7 points higher.

Tojanida: 8-11 - 1 (Small); 12-19 (Med); 20-23 + 2 (Large). The Small one's the same; average is +12 (so almost the same); and Large is +14 (well below).

And the tarrasque: 53-56 + 12 (13). That's a +65 minimum natural armor bonus.

So I thought, why not drop it to 5-8 + 2/3 HD? Then we get...

Gorgon: 10-13 + 3 (MM is +11)

Bulette: 11-14 + 5 (MM is +12)

Tojanida: 7-10 - 1 (Small); 9-12 (Med); 14-17 + 3 (Large)

Tarrasque: 36-39 + 13

As you can see, the bonuses are much more reasonable, especially at the larger sizes.

I fail to see what the real problem is here. Incidently, in my revised Tarrasque I used the 3/4 HD principle. While the Tarrasque has a Carapace, its fairly easy to circumnavigate.

Immortality

As for constructs... I posit a natural armor bonus of size + 3/4 HD. Again, the bonuses didn't seem too bad at the low end (HD-wise), but when I did the advanced stone golem... whoo. It's +47. Sure, it's big and tough, but come on.. who's going to hit AC 43?

Under the new rule, the golems' ACs would be:

Clay: +11 (vs. +14)

Flesh: +9 (vs. +12)

Iron: +16 (vs. +21)

Stone: +13 (vs. 17)

Sure, they're a bit lower than before, but the advanced stone golem is now only +34 (AC 30 - much better!), and an advanced iron golem (max HD) is +45, instead of +59.

I am not really a big fan of advancing golems unless its under the same methods I describe in the book Guardian - Golem - Sentinel - Gargant - Colossus - Leviathan.

 

[Kerrick]

Hey Kerrick mate!

Hey UK,

I knew you were busy, so I wasn't in a hurry for a reply.

Well, for one, you have the task of redoing the EAB. Which is okay for DMs, but probably not designers.

However, the reason I wouldn't is twofold.

1) I don't use EAB for PCs/NPCs.

2) You can always use surplus BAB when power attacking. This is especially useful for 'brick' monsters with little or no special abilities...such as the aforementioned Tarrasque.

Of course 4E does away with all this, but in doing so, shows us that using the EAB across the board (for 3.5E) would probably be a good idea.

Why would I have to "redo" EAB? It's already in place, just not for monsters. I'm going through everything anyway, so all the SRD monsters' BABs will be correct.

I've fixed Power Attack so that it's capped at +5, and added the Improved Power Attack (epic) for +10. Having it with no cap was just Broken (with a capital B).

I thought Carapace/plated was Natural Armour equal to Hit Dice, not 5-8 + Hit Dice.

Not according to v5. If you've changed it since, I didn't know about it.

I fail to see what the real problem is here. Incidently, in my revised Tarrasque I used the 3/4 HD principle. While the Tarrasque has a Carapace, its fairly easy to circumnavigate.

I just think the AC is really high. I'm wondering why you didn't include the NA size modifier too, though; that would make its NA +53, and its total AC 55.

I am not really a big fan of advancing golems unless its under the same methods I describe in the book Guardian - Golem - Sentinel - Gargant - Colossus - Leviathan.

Oh yeah, forgot about those. A stone sentinel would have 28 HD and a natural armor bonus of 5 (Huge) + 28 (HD) = 33 (I'm using the size + HD formula, because you said you'd gone back to that one). The total AC would be around 29 - reasonable for its ECL (somewhere around 15, I'm guessing).

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey UK,

I knew you were busy, so I wasn't in a hurry for a reply.

Hi Kerrick mate. Thanks for understanding.

Why would I have to "redo" EAB? It's already in place, just not for monsters. I'm going through everything anyway, so all the SRD monsters' BABs will be correct.

Thats what I meant - you have to redo the monster BAB.

I've fixed Power Attack so that it's capped at +5, and added the Improved Power Attack (epic) for +10. Having it with no cap was just Broken (with a capital B).

It complicated things. Not sure I would necessarily say it was broken though.

Not according to v5. If you've changed it since, I didn't know about it.

The Epic Bestiary has this outlined. I think it has changed.

I just think the AC is really high. I'm wondering why you didn't include the NA size modifier too, though; that would make its NA +53, and its total AC 55.

I think when you base size on Hit Dice and then Natural armour on Hit Dice it makes it redundant to add the NA size modifier as well.

Oh yeah, forgot about those. A stone sentinel would have 28 HD and a natural armor bonus of 5 (Huge) + 28 (HD) = 33 (I'm using the size + HD formula, because you said you'd gone back to that one). The total AC would be around 29 - reasonable for its ECL (somewhere around 15, I'm guessing).

The sentinel's HD is not size derived though, hence it gets the NA AC bonus for size.

 

[Kerrick]

The Epic Bestiary has this outlined. I think it has changed.

Aha.

I think when you base size on Hit Dice and then Natural armour on Hit Dice it makes it redundant to add the NA size modifier as well.

Good point. None of the monsters in the MM are designed based on size, though. Or should I just assume they are and drop the NA size modifiers?

The sentinel's HD is not size derived though, hence it gets the NA AC bonus for size.

Ah.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Kerrick mate!

Good point. None of the monsters in the MM are designed based on size, though. Or should I just assume they are and drop the NA size modifiers?

I think some of them are indirectly based on size, such as Dragons.

I wouldn't bother about it unless you were making your own new monsters.