Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="NotAYakk" data-source="post: 9388951" data-attributes="member: 72555">Emulate 1, 3, 8, 14 and 20 (&quot;middle&quot; of each tier) rather than just 1 and 20.&nbsp; To ensure that things don't get too wonkey....The argument against BM isn't &quot;this is your favourite subclass&quot; - it just you should aim for ballparks, and including complex PC builds is a waste, as once you are done monsters shouldn't act like PCs.&nbsp; With a complex build, you'll focus on false detail (what maneuvers should you use?) that shouldn't matter.I built my &quot;Soldier&quot; prototype using a basic Champion fighter who burned a few feats to keep the damage curve going up, and burned Sentinel in order to reflect &quot;Soldiers should have some kind of lockdown abilities&quot;.&nbsp; Mine had no offensive magic items; using the equivalent of basic +X items would tweak it only a bit.I built the &quot;Brute&quot; with a pared-down set of features, aimed at boosting damage and HP while sacrificing AC and accuracy.&nbsp; The goal is a monster that is in the realm of what a PC could do (literally, as you can emulate it), so that we know how much soak a Level X PC could pull off and how heavy they could hit.&nbsp; So seeing it in a monster won't be too far off.If I did a cleric, accounting for healing is hard.&nbsp; Doing it only at level 20 is going to cause some problems, as high level healing is insanely more action-efficient than lower level healing.For a Mage, I'd probably work out how fragile a PC wizard is in order to calculate how fragile an NPC Mage should be, so it feels similar.&nbsp; Its damage output is going to be really strange; mages mostly help by taking foes out of the battle and changing battle geometry on the PC side.Doing some kind of average between different PC builds seems wrong?&nbsp; Unless you intend one stats to cover Lurkers, Soldiers, Brutes, Mages, Artillery and Skirmishers, which is going to be awkward: a Brute is dangerous for different reasons than Artillery.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="NotAYakk, post: 9388951, member: 72555"] Emulate 1, 3, 8, 14 and 20 ("middle" of each tier) rather than just 1 and 20. To ensure that things don't get too wonkey. ... The argument against BM isn't "this is your favourite subclass" - it just you should aim for [b]ballparks[/b], and including complex PC builds is a waste, as once you are done [b]monsters shouldn't act like PCs[/b]. With a complex build, you'll focus on false detail (what maneuvers should you use?) that shouldn't matter. I built my "Soldier" prototype using a basic Champion fighter who burned a few feats to keep the damage curve going up, and burned Sentinel in order to reflect "Soldiers should have some kind of lockdown abilities". Mine had no offensive magic items; using the equivalent of basic +X items would tweak it only a bit. I built the "Brute" with a pared-down set of features, aimed at boosting damage and HP while sacrificing AC and accuracy. The goal is a monster that is [b]in the realm[/b] of what a PC could do (literally, as you can emulate it), so that we know how much soak a Level X PC could pull off and how heavy they could hit. So seeing it in a monster won't be too far off. If I did a cleric, accounting for healing is hard. Doing it only at level 20 is going to [B]cause some problems[/B], as high level healing is insanely more action-efficient than lower level healing. For a Mage, I'd probably work out how fragile a PC wizard is in order to calculate how fragile an NPC Mage should be, so it feels similar. Its damage output is going to be really strange; mages mostly help by taking foes out of the battle and changing battle geometry on the PC side. Doing some kind of average between different PC builds seems wrong? Unless you intend one stats to cover Lurkers, Soldiers, Brutes, Mages, Artillery and Skirmishers, which is going to be awkward: a Brute is dangerous for different reasons than Artillery. [/QUOTE]

Verification