Challenging Challenge Ratings...again

[Upper_Krust]

Hi dante mate!

Making 4E monsters and converting them to 3.5 is not possible without completely rewriting the monsters.

How do you work that out? In 4E you have the XP amount, simply convert that to level and you have the monsters 3.5 ECL.

4E Pit Fiend = L26 Elite = Level 30. So a conversion would be an ECL 30 Pit Fiend (CR 20).

Use the CR as a Hit Dice guide.

Then all you have to do is work out all the skills, feats and (mostly pointless) spell-like abilities and it becomes 3.5 compliant.

4E is NOTHING like 3.5 at all.

...I would argue thats a good thing.

It's not even D&D.

I'd be right in thinking that you started playing with 3rd Edition correct? Thus you are under the mistaken impression that 3rd Edition is somehow more D&D than any other.

Rolemaster is more D&D than 4E is, and that's incredibly sick.

Not familiar with that game, but if its anything like 4E maybe I should check it out.

4E lacks ALL the nuances of D&D, except, the names of the monsters, and completely sickens me in it's LAZY approach to creation.

You mean it cuts out all the stupid nuances sacred cows.

It's not D&D it's MINIATURES. They definitely have that right.

How is it notably more minature-centric than 3rd Edition?

Converting monsters from 4E not only taints them with bad rules and even worse abilities, but completely strips them of any of the abilities they would have gotten had they been 3.5.

You mean it cuts out the superfluous rubbish and retains the core concepts of what makes a monster unique.

Converting from 4E to 3.5 is like trying to turn a Power Rangers Zord (4E) into Voltron (3.5). Please don't corrupt 3.5 by rendering severely watered down monsters (i.e. The wimpy limp-wristed 4E Phane being a prime example of suckage) into 3.5.

Well if the latest word on the street is anything to go by a technicality of the Phanes design (which is presmuably mentioned in its tactics?) allows it to make an opportunity attack on every opponent each round. Which means its much tougher than it initially looks.

Massive Hit Dice do not equate to tough in ROLEPLAYING. All those nuance abilities that 3.5'rs love...they do NOT exist in 4E.

List these nuances.

The prime reason...4E is all about ROLLPLAYING, not ROLEPLAYING.

If anything its the other way around. 4E makes players think.

Incidentally, I've been keeping tabs on their new line and I am even less impressed than I was before.

New line? I presume you mean miniatures?

Now that I've had a chance to dismantle their little system I've come to this conclusion.

All opinions are welcome.

4E might make for a wonderful MINIATURES game. But it is NOT a roleplaying game no matter what they want to call it. It's WAY too hack'n'slash.

How exactly is it more hack n' slash than 3E?

I have a problem with fiends being..."Evil" and just "Evil",

Chaos and Law still exist (case in point the difference between 4E Demons and devils), they just don't exist as metagaming constraints.

I have a problem with Actions Points (lame), ect.

I always loved "force points" in the Star Wars game, now we have a cinematic equivalent in D&D - to me thats cool. Its also another tactical aspect to the game.

I could honestly go on for days and days about why it isn't D&D. But I just don't have the time for it.

Feel free to list those nuances that make 3E so great.

Anyway...remember...you asked.

Always happy to have some feedback.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Howdy Kerrick mate!

Well yeah.. nothing's perfect - that goes without saying.

Exactly, but that doesn't mean we cannot strive to be better.

Pfft. The designers are touting the "new" tactical aspects of the game like they invented them, but all they're doing is making mechanics that bring them into the light more and encourage players to use them more often. You can do the same thing right now, and you could do it in 2E and 1E too - it's just that the rules to handle it have gotten more concrete through time.

...and again, how is encouraging players to think 'a bad thing'?

Probably. See, the problem here is that you're working with the existing flaws of the system, which start at low levels and extend into high levels - all you're doing is fixing the high-level flaws, which isn't enough.

I can't rewrite the entire game.

Bah, it'll still be closer to 3.5 than 4E is - it will actually be backwards compatible. I won't ever claim it's still 3.5; I'm aiming for something closer to 3.6 or 3.7.

...and it will still carry with it more 3.5 (unnecessary) baggage than 4E.

Because a creature at the high end of the spread, while the same CR on paper, could actually be much higher in actuality? I'm not too worried about anything beyond L40-50, really; I mean, I'm scaling stuff so that it can work beyond that point, but I won't lay bets on it.

You can min/max low epic characters to take on monsters 2 or 3 times their level in CR, I've seen it done on the WotC boards.

I've got zero experience playing ultra-high-level D&D (the highest I've gone was 30ish), so I honestly don't know what effect the changes I'm making will have. I think at some point the power level would just get really silly, no matter how well the system is designed, and things would cease to work in any meaningful manner. If I can make it work at the levels where the vast majority plays, I'll be happy.

You start running into problems in 3E as soon as the d20 becomes next to irrelevant (when differences are more than 19).

 

[Kerrick]

...and again, how is encouraging players to think 'a bad thing'?

I never said it was. d20 certainly requires thought and planning - I've seen monsters and PCs both use incredible tactics.

I can't rewrite the entire game.

Oh, I know... but you're complaining about the flaws in the high-level systems, which are mostly carried over from low levels.

...and it will still carry with it more 3.5 (unnecessary) baggage than 4E.

Such as?

You can min/max low epic characters to take on monsters 2 or 3 times their level in CR, I've seen it done on the WotC boards.

You can min-max PCs of ANY level to do that. Designers can't account for it, and since it's such a small percentage of PCs anyway, there's no real point.

You start running into problems in 3E as soon as the d20 becomes next to irrelevant (when differences are more than 19).

Yeah, I know that. The Rule of 10s helps here, as do telescoping die rolls, but neither one is really perfect. 4E doesn't fix that problem either - it just ends progression at L30 (the point around which the spreads become too wide) and starts over. You might be able to take things further with the standardized saves/BAB, but eventually you're going to run into the same problem - skill checks, saves, ACs, whatever will be too high to achieve with a simple d20 roll.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Kerrick dude!

I never said it was. d20 certainly requires thought and planning - I've seen monsters and PCs both use incredible tactics.

Absolutely. I'm not saying 3.5 is devoid of tactics, but, firstly, there is a tendency to use min/maxing to overcome a situation, rather than tactically overcoming it. Secondly, 3.5 doesn't promote tactical play to the same degree as 4E (and I am looking primarily at the martial classes herein) where often "I full attack" is the only worthwhile tactic.

Oh, I know... but you're complaining about the flaws in the high-level systems, which are mostly carried over from low levels.

Correct. But to play 'high-level' means there has to be a low-level.

Such as?

Some of the 4E flaws are so integrated into the system that you sort of need to start again to solve them. A case in point would be Base Attack Bonus.

You can min-max PCs of ANY level to do that. Designers can't account for it, and since it's such a small percentage of PCs anyway, there's no real point.

Incorrect. You can min/max PCs of any level in 3/3.5. I think 4E will not allow itself to be abused to anywhere near the same degree.

Yeah, I know that. The Rule of 10s helps here, as do telescoping die rolls, but neither one is really perfect. 4E doesn't fix that problem either - it just ends progression at L30 (the point around which the spreads become too wide) and starts over. You might be able to take things further with the standardized saves/BAB, but eventually you're going to run into the same problem - skill checks, saves, ACs, whatever will be too high to achieve with a simple d20 roll.

4E alleviates the problem in a number of ways.

1. Lower Numbers (with BAB only being 1/2 level for everyone now)
2. Lower Bonuses (such as from Magic Items)
3. Less Stacking Bonuses*
4. Less Magic Item Slots
5. Lower Ability Scores (due primarily to no Magic Item Ability Score Boosters)

*Which should cut down on buffing.

Obviously, at some point the game will still escape the d20, but if I work it right, that will be at the point where you will be looking to 'Always Hit'...and Transcendental stuff like that (Round about 60th-level).

 

[dante58701]

Marilith Errata (House Rules): Snake Traits (Change: A marilith gains a climb speed and a swim speed, Poison, Scent, and Skills (see Snake, Large Viper (3.5 Monster Manual); Exception: +4 racial bonus on Listen an Spot checks (a Marilith has a +8 racial bonus on Listen and Spot checks (see Marilith (3.5 Monster Manual))))), Immortal's Handbook:Ascension, Immortal's Handbook:Epic Bestiary

These are the house rules Marilith errata we use. We decided that the Marilith was cool but in need of a makeover.

We have the Marilith lick their blades to envenom their weapons (1d6 Con, 1d6 Con, Fort neg.)

We also came to the conclusion that to be 20 ft long and fit the pictures they make of Mariliths, it's upper torso must be equivalent to that of a 4 ft. tall human's upper torso.

Which would make sense since they could rear up to 8 ft. or more in height and would equate to Size Large, even if coiled.

Newborn Marilith (18 HD) would be princesses (rather than queens) and more advanced ones would be the ones they display fighting planetars and such.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Marilith Errata (House Rules): Snake Traits (Change: A marilith gains a climb speed and a swim speed, Poison, Scent, and Skills (see Snake, Large Viper (3.5 Monster Manual); Exception: +4 racial bonus on Listen an Spot checks (a Marilith has a +8 racial bonus on Listen and Spot checks (see Marilith (3.5 Monster Manual))))), Immortal's Handbook:Ascension, Immortal's Handbook:Epic Bestiary

These are the house rules Marilith errata we use. We decided that the Marilith was cool but in need of a makeover.

We have the Marilith lick their blades to envenom their weapons (1d6 Con, 1d6 Con, Fort neg.)

We also came to the conclusion that to be 20 ft long and fit the pictures they make of Mariliths, it's upper torso must be equivalent to that of a 4 ft. tall human's upper torso.

Which would make sense since they could rear up to 8 ft. or more in height and would equate to Size Large, even if coiled.

Newborn Marilith (18 HD) would be princesses (rather than queens) and more advanced ones would be the ones they display fighting planetars and such.

The Marilith (3.5) is really badly designed. Its got (or should have) the upper body of a beautiful woman of normal size. But for some reason they have given it base 2d6 damage with all of its one-handed melee weapons. In effect treating its humanoid torso as if Large size...and again this translated to strength. I would give them 1d8 base damage and drop their strength down to 19 or thereabouts. But raise its Dexterity to 29 and let it use that to hit (but not damage).

Of course the chances are good that the Marilith would have six magical weapons rather than the six non-magical weapons they give it. So the drop evens out, but makes so much more sense.

I like the poison idea.

 

[dante58701]

Moved

 

[Kerrick]

Absolutely. I'm not saying 3.5 is devoid of tactics, but, firstly, there is a tendency to use min/maxing to overcome a situation, rather than tactically overcoming it. Secondly, 3.5 doesn't promote tactical play to the same degree as 4E (and I am looking primarily at the martial classes herein) where often "I full attack" is the only worthwhile tactic.

I think at this point I must admit that I have never really played with a min-maxer group. I have played with a couple individual players (we had a guy who, during the days of 2E, had a half-orc barbarian with 250 hp), but never a group. The group I've played with for the last 6-7 years is heavy on thinking and tactics and funky combat maneuvers, both from the DM and the players - not just "I full attack" - so my perceptions are most likely skewed.

Emphasizing the tactical aspects (saying, "Hey, you can do this - it's really easy") isn't such a bad thing, all things being equal. I think the problem with 3.5's combat maneuvers is, mostly, that they're too complicated. I borrowed Paizo's stuff, because it's very elegant and (for me, at least) makes me want to more combat maneuvers.

Some of the 4E flaws are so integrated into the system that you sort of need to start again to solve them. A case in point would be Base Attack Bonus.

You mean 3E. If you mean the fact that BAB must change to half-level after a certain point, then yeah, I suppose it is a problem. I solved the fault stemming from this, though, so it's not that big a problem. I'm still working on saves, though.

Correct. But to play 'high-level' means there has to be a low-level.

Well yeah. But that's what I'm saying - in order to fix the flaws at high-level play, you have to start at the bottom.

Incorrect. You can min/max PCs of any level in 3/3.5. I think 4E will not allow itself to be abused to anywhere near the same degree.

Umm... that's what I said.

4E alleviates the problem in a number of ways.

1. Lower Numbers (with BAB only being 1/2 level for everyone now)
2. Lower Bonuses (such as from Magic Items)
3. Less Stacking Bonuses*
4. Less Magic Item Slots
5. Lower Ability Scores (due primarily to no Magic Item Ability Score Boosters)

It solves the problem by increasing power in very small increments, along an unchanging power curve, and keeping it fairly low for almost the entire way. I'm not too partial to the "everyone has the same BAB/save progression" thing - it enhances the cookie-cutter character vibe I've been getting from 4E.

Some of the problems 3E has can be alleviated by reducing starting wealth to a standard linear progression instead of what it is now (linear until about 10th level, then it goes almost straight up) - by using the 1/4 wealth rule, you can make basic assumptions about what the PCs will have (using yours and Ltheb's formulae) and design accordingly (and you could probably even factor in min-maxed or low-magic PCs, too). Reducing the number of bonuses would also help (obviously), as would fewer slots - I think 4E just dropped/combined a few, like wrist/arm and neck/throat.

The Marilith (3.5) is really badly designed. Its got (or should have) the upper body of a beautiful woman of normal size. But for some reason they have given it base 2d6 damage with all of its one-handed melee weapons. In effect treating its humanoid torso as if Large size...and again this translated to strength.

If you think about it, the torso would have to be larger than normal to accommodate all those arms. A normal-sized torso could fit 4 arms, but you'd have to go up a size to find space for 2 more, along with the musculature to support them.

I agree, though, that 2d6 is too much - if it's size Large, it should be 1d8. It would be stronger than normal (19 base sounds about right) owing to its larger size, but manipulating all those arms would require a fair bit of Dexterity, and it would be relying on that far more than its Strength to hit opponents (and let's face it, snakes are more noted for their speed than their strength).

I like the poison idea, too.

 

[dante58701]

I calculate them as being size Large, but I calculate the torso damage (punches, ect.) as for size Medium. Then I keep their strength at 22, but drop the arm Strength by 10 points for the simple fact that they have 2 extra pairs of arms. There arms of course being smaller than normal arms...so no increase in torso size.

This evens it all out. Especially after retrofitting it ala'Ascension. This bumps up their statistics enough to be a more than considerable threat. Especially with the enchanted weapons and poison figured in.

Yeah...about the poison. I never quite understood why they didn't have more snake-related abilities when their physical form was basically a snake with a humanoid torso.

 

[Kerrick]

There arms of course being smaller than normal arms...so no increase in torso size.

You're forgetting the Golden Ratio. A 4-foot-tall human would have an upper body roughly 2 feet tall, which is nowhere near long enough for six arms. Unless you meant the torso is 4 ft. tall?

Having Medium arms makes more sense all around, but having two different Strength ratings (one overall and one for the arms) is just odd. Give it an overall Strength of 18-20; it's at the upper range for Medium creatures, but the marilith has a lot of mass behind those arms, despite the fact they're smaller than normal for its size.