Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AngryPurpleCyclops" data-source="post: 4716965" data-attributes="member: 82732">is there a point here?  are you saying it's "illegal or broken" to change a monster to a different type?  can I make an aquatic ghoul?  So?  I could have and would have substituted other fire creatures if someone suggested that this was not a viable alternative.  You're fabricating an argument out of air.  If the MM2 had a fireair ravager with exactly the same effects but relying on fire would it be broken?   I'm pointing out that you broke the encounter with your terrain and by gimping the most important monster to not have any synergy with the rest of the encounter.  You're making a really obtuse argument that making a new monster with exactly the same effects and powers but changing it to be a different "type" is broken.  How is this so?  If i wanted to make a grey dragon and I took one of the other dragons and changed it's effects to be of some other type possibly "necrotic" instead of "poison" for the green dragon would this be wrong? broken? I don't understand how you can possibly make this argument.  Page 175 of the DMG covers this explicitly.  Under the heading cosmetic changes.  [code]Use the statistics of a given monster but completely alter its appearance when you describe it to the players. You can make minor changes to its powers as well, altering damage types or changing details of weapons (lashing tentacles become a whipping tail, for example).[/code]This is exactly what I discussed doing.No, I designed the encounter to be challenging, I made suitable changes to a creature that exists rather than make one from scratch to make it fit as "the fire lord".  You're grasping at straws trying to make an argument that this was unfair but that's simply not the case.  The "firelord" could be released in a future monster supplement and it would be PERFECTLY balanced with the existing monster. Then your tactics are terrible because there's really no way for them to kill it in 6 rounds unless it's allowing itself to be ganged up on and or letting the melee pc's hit it with encounter and daily powers.  Did the cleric and wizard kill it in 6 rounds?  Cleric wizard and rogue?  It should have moved further away if it was getting pelted that hard.  The firelord and archons should have ganged up on the wizard at melee range so he couldn't even make ranged attacks without giving up OA.    I don't consider playing the monsters effectively to be "superior tactics" nor do I consider an outside battle in an open space a particularly challenging piece of terrain.  I never once suggested adding abilities.  You're twisting the equation but unwilling to admit it.  A good dm doesn't equate changing an earth elemental to a fire elemental as "changing" the monster with regard to exp point value.  The designers clearly stated this was fine.  I didn't see it, can you be more specific?  take a look at page 175 while you're at it.You're making bad analogies.  Giving the monsters reasonable terrain to fight in is not making the encounter more challenging.  Changing the monsters to all be of one type is NOT MAKING THE ENCOUNTER MORE DIFFICULT it's making the encounter as expected.  The encounter makes no sense with one undead and fire creatures who get some of their value from synergies.  Would you give full value for a fire archon who was not with other fire creatures? I can remake the encounter with other monsters that are already built without making any changes as you seem to think this is unfair in some way (even though it's clearly not and it's expected as per the DMG).  You seem intent on some anal rules lawyering perspective that assumes the monsters will be in an encounter completely randomly with no regard for synergies. This is simply bad encounter design.  Are you seriously arguing that using monsters with synergies increases the encounter value?  I haven't seen a single encounter where that is factored in.  Do you know why?  Because the synergies are assumed to be of value in the monsters exp total.  Trying to make the encounter not have synergies would decrease it's value but using the monsters abilities to effect is EXPECTED.Who cares?  The ravager could have been an efreet.  If the monster as written was a fire creature would it be broken?  NO.  You're simply arguing to argue because you're incapable of accepting facts that don't fit the result you're seeking.  The DMG clearly says that my changes were fine.  If we had 50 monsters at each level it would have been easier to make a synergistic encounter, I tried to use tiny creative license that is 100% inline with RAW and now you're harping on the design as being unfair?  Want to bet $100 if we sent an email to CS asking if the EXP value changes when the damage types change you'll not get an answer that fits your logic?</blockquote>

Verification