Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Complete Disagreement With Mike on Monsters (see post #205)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Kerrick" data-source="post: 3733948" data-attributes="member: 4722"><p>Mouse is right. HD=CR is great for creatures with few or no SLA or Su abilities, but once you start stacking those on, its CR is going to exceed its HD by quite a bit.</p><p></p><p></p><p>That's why turn undead should've been based on CR, not HD. The designers failed to realize that undead's HD are generally WAY higher than their CR (especially skeletons and zombies), and they were lazy - instead of looking at whether or not the system worked, they just ported the old one over, made it work with the new mechanics, and let it go at that. So we ended up with a system that requires you to look up your result on a chart, is totally different than the normal resolution mechanic (making a roll vs. a DC), and is horribly unbalanced.</p><p></p><p></p><p>But would if be balanced? Would it be fun for the other players? I mean, come on - look at the above list, and tell us exactly how many of those are balanced.</p><p></p><p></p><p>While I agree that unifying mechanics are the way to go, the examples you use above DON'T work, precisely <em>because</em> they're HD-based checks. This goes back to my argument that HD != CR (take note here, Klaus - this is another reason why it can't be done).</p><p></p><p></p><p>Finally! Thank you - I'm glad someone is willing to point out the DM's role as arbiter of "What's good in the campaign". The designers can't cover every single loophole - all they can do is design it the best they can, close the most obvious ones, make sure their mechanics work with the core and with any other systems they're including in that book (like if you're using PrC X from book Y), and ship it. If JoeBob the player find some loophole that he can exploit by combining PrC X from a WotC book and PrC Y from some third-party book, it's not the designer's fault - he couldn't possibly have foreseen it. OTOH, the designers DO let badly designed crap through; but it's still the DM's job as arbiter to say "Sure, this is okay," or "Oh HELL no."</p><p></p><p></p><p>Why not just do LA like NWN does - it ignores racial HD (I, personally, assumed their were already factored into the LA calculation) and adds the LA to your character level. So, a mind flayer Sor 9 would be ECL 16 (though technically, it should be at least 17, since LA, IMO, should never be less than CR).</p><p></p><p></p><p>You can do that already - Toughness feats (which I hope they're going to make worthwhile, BTW...). Or, like Klaus said, just boost the Con score (which is a more elegant solution.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Kerrick, post: 3733948, member: 4722"] Mouse is right. HD=CR is great for creatures with few or no SLA or Su abilities, but once you start stacking those on, its CR is going to exceed its HD by quite a bit. That's why turn undead should've been based on CR, not HD. The designers failed to realize that undead's HD are generally WAY higher than their CR (especially skeletons and zombies), and they were lazy - instead of looking at whether or not the system worked, they just ported the old one over, made it work with the new mechanics, and let it go at that. So we ended up with a system that requires you to look up your result on a chart, is totally different than the normal resolution mechanic (making a roll vs. a DC), and is horribly unbalanced. But would if be balanced? Would it be fun for the other players? I mean, come on - look at the above list, and tell us exactly how many of those are balanced. While I agree that unifying mechanics are the way to go, the examples you use above DON'T work, precisely [i]because[/i] they're HD-based checks. This goes back to my argument that HD != CR (take note here, Klaus - this is another reason why it can't be done). Finally! Thank you - I'm glad someone is willing to point out the DM's role as arbiter of "What's good in the campaign". The designers can't cover every single loophole - all they can do is design it the best they can, close the most obvious ones, make sure their mechanics work with the core and with any other systems they're including in that book (like if you're using PrC X from book Y), and ship it. If JoeBob the player find some loophole that he can exploit by combining PrC X from a WotC book and PrC Y from some third-party book, it's not the designer's fault - he couldn't possibly have foreseen it. OTOH, the designers DO let badly designed crap through; but it's still the DM's job as arbiter to say "Sure, this is okay," or "Oh HELL no." Why not just do LA like NWN does - it ignores racial HD (I, personally, assumed their were already factored into the LA calculation) and adds the LA to your character level. So, a mind flayer Sor 9 would be ECL 16 (though technically, it should be at least 17, since LA, IMO, should never be less than CR). You can do that already - Toughness feats (which I hope they're going to make worthwhile, BTW...). Or, like Klaus said, just boost the Con score (which is a more elegant solution. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Complete Disagreement With Mike on Monsters (see post #205)
Top