Mearls redesigns the Ogre Mage

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

somethings are easy CR8s, some are hard CR2s

Why do you want to have monsters give inappropriate XP for their difficulty? Proper CRs don't prevent you from throwing a weaker monster or a harder one at your party, it just means they get rewarded appropriately.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

That's just a bad decision, IMO. Sure, a single cannon fodder monster won't get to use them all, but using that mentality hamstrings the gamers who are doing more than a string of combats. Recurring villains, or even multiple occurances of the same lieutenant fodder, get a chance to display a broader range of abilities and to differentiate themselves from others of like kind.

I guess you can just add "more special abilities" to my wishlist for 4E.

There are technologies in 3e for dealing with this. The simplest for magical creatures is to add Sorceror levels and pick thematically appropriate spells from the arcane/divine spell lists. Musclebound monsters are even easier to customize, just add BAB, Str, HPs, and an odd feat or two (which might enhance existing spell-like abilities).

IMHO the general approach of simplifying monsters in the Core MM as a means to make the CRs more solid and reliable is sound. It is not completely without cost, however.

 

[MarkB]

You're right, that didn't come across well. Let me try again

If the underlying assumptions are that any party capable of facing a CR 'X' opponent has access to magic weapons, then adding DR5/magic to many/most critters at that CR isn't a big deal. The party can deal with it, right? However, someone running a low magic or low magic item campaign will have to tweak those monsters, adjust its CR, maybe beef it up in other ways, to accomodate the fact that his players won't be able to bypass it's DR.

There's nothing wrong with this. But the more of those assumptions there are and the more you tighten the variation of any given CR (eg, somethings are easy CR8s, some are hard CR2s, etc), the more tweaking needs to be done. The more the published material zeros in on that ideal target (for those base assumptions), the less appealing the product is to those who prefer to vary from those assumptions.

I think the reverse is true. If challenge rating is based upon a known baseline, then a DM who wants to use a different baseline quickly gets to know the things he needs to look out for and adjust for his game. Things like DR/magic, for a low-magic campaign, as you mentioned.

If there are a variety of critters designed armound challenging a whole range of different parties, then you've got one of two things - either no baseline to refer to, so that a particular creature might be much tougher or easier for your particular campaign style with no obvious clues to let you know that, or else a whole slew of vanilla monsters which have had all traces of individuality and special abilities weeded out because such abilities might unbalance them for one playing style or another.

Basically, if there's a baseline then you have somewhere to start from. If there isn't, then CR (or any alternative balancing measure) isn't worth a damn.

 

[Mercule]

There are technologies in 3e for dealing with this. The simplest for magical creatures is to add Sorceror levels and pick thematically appropriate spells from the arcane/divine spell lists.

And that gets them more innate, spell-like abilities, how?

 

[MarkB]

And that gets them more innate, spell-like abilities, how?

Spells are very spell-like indeed.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I concur. It also hamstrings DMs who want to mix things up a little with their party. The fewer special abilities a critters has, the more likely they are to become one-trick ponies that either the party has the proper counter for and walks over, or don't have the needed spell/magic item/class ability and get whacked.

Either the abilities are significant ones (e.g. Fly or Invisibility for the O-M), or they are minor abilities that are more a distraction than useful (e.g. Charm Person). Now I concede there is a flavor cost in stripping off minor abilities but on the balance lots of weird kruft makes it more likely the monster will be played poorly by a DM who lacks the time to carefully study the MM entry. There are a dozen simple ways of giving a monster access to minor magicks.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

And that gets them more innate, spell-like abilities, how?

No disrespect intended, but you are overthinking the issue.

As a matter of balance it hardly matters whether that monster is casting a spell or using a spell-like ability. If those "Sorceror" levels give spell-like abilities instead of "real" spells they may be slightly more potent, but it also means the O-M is not going to be pulling out scrolls and wands either.

Six of one, half-dozen of the other.

 

[Bobitron]

The only time I've used it in 3e was in "The Speaker in Dreams" and he got killed quite quickly; he didn't have the fearsome staying power that the 1e version did comparitively.

I remember that as a player! Our entire group gasped when he was revealed and the DM grinned that nasty grin of his. We wiped the floor with it in no time flat, though.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Why do you want to have monsters give inappropriate XP for their difficulty? Proper CRs don't prevent you from throwing a weaker monster or a harder one at your party, it just means they get rewarded appropriately.

Who cares whether it's the "right" amount of XP. That's an arbitrary decision anyway, since so much of an encounters difficulty is situational. Should a critter at a given CR award less XP for an experienced group of players because they find it easier?

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

There are technologies in 3e for dealing with this. The simplest for magical creatures is to add Sorceror levels and pick thematically appropriate spells from the arcane/divine spell lists. Musclebound monsters are even easier to customize, just add BAB, Str, HPs, and an odd feat or two (which might enhance existing spell-like abilities).

IMHO the general approach of simplifying monsters in the Core MM as a means to make the CRs more solid and reliable is sound. It is not completely without cost, however.

Adding a couple sorceror levels is easier than adding a couple hand-picked abilities?