[KoK] Two free monster previews!

[Felon]

Its not rocket science. It doesn't take much to work out what an easy roll is. :rolleyes

No, it's not rocket science, but in determining probabilies, there is some basic math involved, not just simple, subjective descriptors like "too hard", "hard", "average", "easy", and "too easy". In D20, characters have somewhere between a 5-95% chance of success at a saving throw. How small does the chance of failure have to become for a character before it qualifies as easy? Straight-up, just give me a percentile divisible by 5.

If you agree with my figures--that the best GoodWill in the group has a 50/50 chance of succeeding, and most of the other characters significantly less--then it is not reasonable to call that easy. You cannot call something easy until the likelyhood of success exceeds the likelyhood of failure by a significant margin.

If you don't agree with my figures, then where are they wrong? What don't they take into account? Do you think most PC's take Iron Will? Am I wrong for not factoring that in? Is there some common magic item besides a cloak of resistance that I should be factoring in? Do you think better cloaks should be common at that level? Keep in mind that only passive Will save bonuses should apply. Bonuses that have to be activated--like those from a prayer spell or barbarian rage--aren't likely to come into effect before the players get nailed by that 60ft. continual range.

How is that vague? It makes sense to me. I will admit that I'm not great at communicating over a messageboard, but perhaps I should have said typical character... made with the standard dice method and made with the 3rd edition rules with nothing added. I agree that different characters have different saves, thats not in dispute here.

What's in dispute is what kind of Will saving throw a typical character that's facing an Eaten One will have, and if it's high enough to consider a DC 16 save to be "too easy". If you say a 70% chance of success constitutes a "too easy" save, then you should demonstrate how that hypothetical typical character will have a 70% chance of making that DC 16 save. My math (which isn't perfect by any means) shows that the character would need a +9 total Will save bonus.

Now, assuming that the typical character that fights an Eaten One is 5th-level (which its CR indicates), then I definitely can't take what you're saying on face value. If you insist on saying I'm wrong, then I have to ask you to back that up by demonstrating how the typical character's going to have a +9 by 5th level. If he's a GoodWill, then his character level only gives him a +4, and if he's a BadWill he only gets a paltry +1.

Assuming we've got an equal mix of both GoodWills and BadWills (let's say one wizard, one cleric, one figther, and one rogue), then two +4's and two +1's averages out to +2.5, which rounds down to +2. So it looks like the average 5th-level guy needs to cough up another +7 in Will save bonuses. Now, I granted that an average 5th-level character has a +1 from a cloak of resistance, so now you only need to account for +6 in extra bonuses. Where are they coming from? 5th-level characters don't have really great magic items or a lot of feats, and Wisdom is a secondary ability score at best for a wizard, fighter, and rogue.

I tend to doubt that you can pony up another +6 in bonuses. In fact, I daresay that I think most 5th-level characters would be fortunate to have +6 in total Will save bonuses. Foregoing that, you can try to define "too easy" as a lower chance of success than 70%. Otherwise you should concede that a 16 DC Will save is a demonstrably difficult challenge for 5th-level characters.

50/50 is fine, and some characters won't make it easily. Why do you think that a 50/50 save is too high?

I think it is safe to say that a task which you fail at half the time isn't easy for you. Moreover, if you are the best qualified person in the group to be undertaking that task which you are failing at half the time, then everyone else in the group is definitely not going to have an easy time. In fact, they are probably going to fail many times before they succeed (which is not a luxury that you have with the aura).

This is why I asked you to define "too easy". It sounds like you define "too easy" as "most of the characters don't fail", which probably doesn't click with most people's definition of "too easy", which is "everyone succeeds almost automatically". If the DC is low enough that only one out of those four characters is likely to fail the save, is that "too easy"? Considering that hopelessness is pretty debilitating for the entire battle, and its effects cannot be removed by any spell at a 5th-level characters disposal (that I can think of), I don't think so. So there's another question for you: how many characters have to be sidelined by the aura in order for it to be effective? If you say "all but one", then you don't really don't mean a 16 is too easyl what you really mean is it's not over-the-top enough to be an insanely outrageous smackdown attack.

As a player I don't want to face encounters that arn't challenging.

Most players don't feel challenged by warming a bench every other round. As it stands, the Eaten One is not a challenging monster, it's an annoyance. It's only good use is to free up some players to go make a run to Popeye's and pick up a Family Pack with two sides of red beans and rice.

 

[Enceladus]

Popeye's and pick up a Family Pack with two sides of red beans and rice.

hey thats good stuff!

 

[DragonLancer]

Most players don't feel challenged by warming a bench. As it stands, the Eaten One is not a challenging monster, it's an annoyance. It's only good use is to free up some players to go make a run to Popeye's and pick up a Family Pack with two sides of red beans and rice.

:lol

 

[Felon]

Popeye's is the shiznit!

 

[Mark Plemmons]

HEY MARK,
When you say it approaches 'slowly'; what do you mean? Is it moving slower than possible? When does it speed up?

Well, what do YOU think it means? It's really a DM call, more than anything else. Approaching 'slowly' means less than normal speed, but it's up to the DM to determine if he or she wants the creature to move 10 ft, 15 ft, 20 ft, etc.

In my opinion, there's a limit to what needs to be defined by numbers and stats. Granted, not everyone will agree with me.

 

[Felon]

Felon - Maybe Grazzt can help them out on monster rules

The question is do they want the help?

 

[Stalker0]

Just wanted to remind the guys who are arguing about the save DC that failing at the save does NOT necessarily take you out of the combat. The eaten one doesn't talk, so the suggestion aspect of the spell doesn't work. Then, there's only a 25% chance of actually just doing nothing.

So given the cleric example, the cleric would in fact only have a 12.5% chance of being knocked out of combat, fighter types (assuming chance to succeed of 30% would have 17.5%. Not too bad to me.

However, what can really make this worse is if theres an intelligent creature with the eaten one. Then that creature can start making suggestions on the players who fail their saves. So in mixed groups, the creature can be nasty.

 

[Felon]

Hmm. Says that if nobody is around to make a suggestion, the character has a 25% chance of doing nothing, and a 25% chance of trying to leave the fight. So, a hopeles character does indeed get to act normally about every other round if nobody is evil enough to have someone around to make suggestions. That should keep characters awake at the table and interested in what transpires from round to round.

Of course, the save DC is still too high, but that is a separate issue.

 

[kenjib]

Technically, the save DC might be incorrect, but in terms of game balance the save DC isn't too high if the end effect still works out fine. To counter half the party being taken out of combat temporarily, this creature only has 18 AC and 32 hp, which means it will probably go down in 2 rounds. On top of that it can be nullified with both turning and cure disease.

It can't really do much to hurt you in 2 rounds (it only has one simple attack per round), and it probably won't destroy your weapon with one hit. It probably only takes two or three hits to take it down, spread out among several characters, not including spell damage. At worst, one weapon might get ruined but the weapon's owner won't really be in much danger. What's the big deal?

I really don't see the problem, but then I'm not the type to overly worry about carefully adhering to a given rule (expected DC of monster abilities in this case) just for the sake of adhering to the rule. If the end result works, it's no big deal. Have you tried it several times in play to confirm that it's too tough?

 

[Felon]

Technically, the save DC might be incorrect, but in terms of game balance the save DC isn't too high if the end effect still works out fine. To counter half the party being taken out of combat temporarily, this creature only has 18 AC and 32 hp, which means it will probably go down in 2 rounds. On top of that it can be nullified with both turning and cure disease.

The AC is pretty average for its level (not that monster AC's ever get terribly high anyway). True, the hit dice are low for its CR (undead typically have a few more hit dice than their CR). That could help one or two characters hold their own against it, though it can be something of a fallacy to think that an overwhelming attack is balanced by a glass jaw.

I really don't see the problem, but then I'm not the type to overly worry about carefully adhering to a given rule (expected DC of monster abilities in this case) just for the sake of adhering to the rule. If the end result works, it's no big deal. Have you tried it several times in play to confirm that it's too tough? [/B]

The point of using a consistent game mechanic is that it creates a degree of consistency in how the end result works. It reduces guesswork and keeps everyone from having to playtest everything several times just to have any idea of whether or not it "works". Just as I don't expect everyone to utilize perfect grammar in casual speech, I don't expect every homebrew monster to pay utmost attention to game mechanics. Then again, I can live with homebrew monsters being half-baked. On the other hand, I do have a higher expectation from a professional product though, and I don't think there's anything unreasonable or dogmatic about that.