Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Theo R Cwithin" data-source="post: 5471629" data-attributes="member: 75712">That's a good suggestion on the non-SRD feats, and one of those organizational&nbsp; things I've been pondering last week or so.&nbsp; We'll take a whack at separating the core feats and the others into their own subsections, though I think they'll stay in the same file.On the practically useless feats like +3 metamagics (and a few others),&nbsp; we've kept them in for two reasons.&nbsp; First is that they are strictly&nbsp; RAW, even if they're of limited utility in strict E6.&nbsp; Second is that&nbsp; there are a handful of monsters of CL7th that could use them to slightly better&nbsp; effect.&nbsp; That said, it might be more appropriate to shift them over to&nbsp; Monster Feats, as we've done for most other non-E6 feats.Regarding monsters, it's an understatement to say the &quot;straight way is&nbsp; not a viable choice&quot;!&nbsp; Monsters have proven to be something of a headache. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp;&nbsp; I think we've considered most of your concerns in some way or another.&nbsp; When we were trimming the monsters, we first decided to cap at CR12 (not completely arbitrarily, but nearly so).&nbsp; Then we removed everything that referenced spells of 4th+ level (SLAs, Su's, even a few Ex's)).&nbsp; Then we re-added things we felt were appropriate, iconic, mythic, or that we just had a preference for.&nbsp; In retrospect, it looks like this actually came down to weeding out creatures with many SLAs, or SLAs referring to complex spells.&nbsp; For the most part, we just in-lined (and in few cases simplified) the relevant spell info into the monsters' stat-blocks as another (Sp) ability.&nbsp; In a few cases (where an ability is shared by several monsters) we put the reference spell into a &quot;Monstrous Spells&quot; section in the &quot;Types, Subtypes and Abilities&quot; file, minus its casting class and components info.&nbsp; This seemed like a good idea at first, as it required almost no adjustments to the text at all; however in practice, it's been unsatisfying, i think because we never defined a clear distinction between which SLAs to in-line and which to add as &quot;Monstrous Spells&quot;.&nbsp; As we finish up this round of proofreading, we'll decide whether to keep this or not.Creatures with actual caster levels were chopped down to those with caster&nbsp; levels of 7 or less. (There are 4 of CL7th, iirc: a couple nagas, nymph and lammasu.)&nbsp; For sorc levels,&nbsp; 7th level has little impact as this just gives the creature more spells&nbsp; than PCs.&nbsp; For Clr/Drd levels, we've inserted a sentence in the monster&nbsp; description that limits their 4th level slot to metamagicked spells (or,&nbsp; simply lower level spells, of course), and I changed one of their&nbsp; typical feats to Heighten Spell to illustrate this.Anyway, that's how we've decided to handle monsters.&nbsp; The proofreading on them will be truly vicious on account of all the in-lining-- but as you pointed out, there's not a lot of other choice with the bestiary, short of simply cutting practically everything interesting.&nbsp; In any event, we'll be moving on to proofreading monsters &quot;officially&quot; probably next week, but feel free to take a look at them.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Theo R Cwithin, post: 5471629, member: 75712"] That's a good suggestion on the non-SRD feats, and one of those organizational things I've been pondering last week or so. We'll take a whack at separating the core feats and the others into their own subsections, though I think they'll stay in the same file. On the practically useless feats like +3 metamagics (and a few others), we've kept them in for two reasons. First is that they are strictly RAW, even if they're of limited utility in strict E6. Second is that there are a handful of monsters of CL7th that could use them to slightly better effect. That said, it might be more appropriate to shift them over to Monster Feats, as we've done for most other non-E6 feats. Regarding monsters, it's an understatement to say the "straight way is not a viable choice"! Monsters have proven to be something of a headache. ;) I think we've considered most of your concerns in some way or another. When we were trimming the monsters, we first decided to cap at CR12 (not [I]completely[/I] arbitrarily, but nearly so). Then we removed everything that referenced spells of 4th+ level (SLAs, Su's, even a few Ex's)). Then we re-added things we felt were appropriate, iconic, mythic, or that we just had a preference for. In retrospect, it looks like this actually came down to weeding out creatures with many SLAs, or SLAs referring to complex spells. For the most part, we just in-lined (and in few cases simplified) the relevant spell info into the monsters' stat-blocks as another (Sp) ability. In a few cases (where an ability is shared by several monsters) we put the reference spell into a "Monstrous Spells" section in the "Types, Subtypes and Abilities" file, minus its casting class and components info. This seemed like a good idea at first, as it required almost no adjustments to the text at all; however in practice, it's been unsatisfying, i think because we never defined a clear distinction between which SLAs to in-line and which to add as "Monstrous Spells". As we finish up this round of proofreading, we'll decide whether to keep this or not. Creatures with actual caster levels were chopped down to those with caster levels of 7 or less. (There are 4 of CL7th, iirc: a couple nagas, nymph and lammasu.) For sorc levels, 7th level has little impact as this just gives the creature more spells than PCs. For Clr/Drd levels, we've inserted a sentence in the monster description that limits their 4th level slot to metamagicked spells (or, simply lower level spells, of course), and I changed one of their typical feats to Heighten Spell to illustrate this. Anyway, that's how we've decided to handle monsters. The proofreading on them will be truly vicious on account of all the in-lining-- but as you pointed out, there's not a lot of other choice with the bestiary, short of simply cutting practically everything interesting. In any event, we'll be moving on to proofreading monsters "officially" probably next week, but feel free to take a look at them. [/QUOTE]

Verification