Mindflayer clerics -- associated?

[Nyaricus]

Who?

You're not serious, are you?

If so, meet H.P. Lovecraft.

If not, you're just a big meanie

 

[moritheil]

Their favored class is wizard, so wizard has to be associated. As they have a +6 to both charisma and wisdom, and the sample NPC treats sorcerer as associated, I think cleric would have to be considered associated as well.

I could have sworn the sample advanced mindflayer had sorc levels because sorc was their favored class. Oh well, that was from memory after all. Also, IIRC there are some errors in that sample illithid, so it isn't really a good basis for argument either way.

Where in the RAW does it say cleric is definitely nonassociated, moritheil?

It doesn't. But where does it say that cleric is definitely associated? It doesn't say that either. So we're left with opinions.

ADDING CLASS LEVELS
If you are advancing a monster by adding player character class levels, decide if the class levels directly improve the monster’s existing capabilities.


It also says

A spellcasting class is an associated class for a creature that already has the ability to cast spells as a character of the class in question, since the monster’s levels in the spellcasting class stack with its innate spellcasting ability.

An illithid has no divine casting ability. It does not heal itself or others, and does not melee well. It cannot turn or rebuke undead. I view that as indicating that it is not a cleric at all.

To me, the simplest way of settling "associated" is, rather than making a lot of wishy-washy arguments over whether or not something is or isn't adding to its combat role, simply checking to see if the thing is a cleric or not. Here, it isn't.

In short, if you're dead-set on arguing for association because of your own opinion, nothing I can say is likely to sway you. But there's no good rules basis for it. The only rules that do exist seem to lean towards not making cleric associated.

but to think that implied classes that don't directly add are all nonassociated would be a logical fallacy (illicit major).

Only if we're talking about absolutes. Are you? I'm not stating that it MUST NOT be associated; I'm stating that I simply wouldn't associate it, as there's no proof that it must be associated.

 

[pawsplay]

An illithid has no divine casting ability. It does not heal itself or others, and does not melee well. It cannot turn or rebuke undead. I view that as indicating that it is not a cleric at all.

Thus, ranger is not an associated class for front giants, since they don't track, have no favored enemies, and don't have two weapon fighting. Barbarian is non-associated for ogre since they don't have fast movement and can't rage. This argument is a non sequitur.

Considering they can kill someone in two rounds, I'd say they melee pretty well. They do have +6 Wisdom, which is, you know, kind of nice for a cleric. Given the precedent set by the mind flayer sorcerer, I'd say that's "proof" enough.

 

[moritheil]

Thus, ranger is not an associated class for front giants, since they don't track, have no favored enemies, and don't have two weapon fighting. Barbarian is non-associated for ogre since they don't have fast movement and can't rage. This argument is a non sequitur.

Considering they can kill someone in two rounds, I'd say they melee pretty well. They do have +6 Wisdom, which is, you know, kind of nice for a cleric. Given the precedent set by the mind flayer sorcerer, I'd say that's "proof" enough.

Congratulations. Your logic demonstrates that by an absolute, high standard of proof, I have not proven that cleric must not be associated for illithid. Which is essentially what I said in my last post. I still don't accept the sample mindflayer sorc as proof of anything either way, because IIRC it has errors in SR and CL (it increased them incorrectly.) I guess you ignored that, though.

Meanwhile, back at what I'm actually trying to talk about . . . my assumption in a discussion where optimization enters is that the OP will do what is most optional or efficient. That is, in a discussion of how how high one wants saves, one might try to run numbers on the odds of making or failing a save. In such a situation, one would assume that one is not voluntarily failing saves. Would such an assumption need to be stated?

My assertion here is that barring strict proof that a class must be associated, the DM is free to consider it nonassociated if doing so would be better or more efficient. I am assuming that the OP is trying to make an efficient build; otherwise, why bother agonizing over the issue?

So you're right in that I should have said that RAW cleric is "not necessarily associated," but my assumption is that if some suboptimal choice is not mandatory, it will not be chosen.

 

[pawsplay]

Congratulations. Your logic demonstrates that by an absolute, high standard of proof, I have not proven that cleric must not be associated for illithid. Which is essentially what I said in my last post.

Are you always this sarcastic?

I still don't accept the sample mindflayer sorc as proof of anything either way, because IIRC it has errors in SR and CL (it increased them incorrectly.) I guess you ignored that, though.

I wasn't ignoring it. I just do not consider it all that significant what you do or do not accept. As for that stat block, stat block errors are a little different than, "Oops, I picked an inappropriately oddball class for an advanced mind flayer, then accidentally counted it as associated anyway."

Meanwhile, back at what I'm actually trying to talk about . . . my assumption in a discussion where optimization enters is that the OP will do what is most optional or efficient. That is, in a discussion of how how high one wants saves, one might try to run numbers on the odds of making or failing a save. In such a situation, one would assume that one is not voluntarily failing saves. Would such an assumption need to be stated?

My assertion here is that barring strict proof that a class must be associated, the DM is free to consider it nonassociated if doing so would be better or more efficient. I am assuming that the OP is trying to make an efficient build; otherwise, why bother agonizing over the issue?

So you're right in that I should have said that RAW cleric is "not necessarily associated," but my assumption is that if some suboptimal choice is not mandatory, it will not be chosen.

You seem to view CR calculation as some kind of game, in which the DM tries to cram as many abilities as possible into a creature without causing the XP bar to move. I do not. I view CR calculation as a fair-minded process.

Whether or not I could choose one way or the other, I will choose the method I believe is fair. Considering the +6 Wis bonus, the nice synergies between self-buffs and tentacle grabs, and the example of the sorcerer, in my view, it is reasonable and probably demanded that cleric be treated as a favored class, under the assumption its ability scores are arranged appropriately.

I would not consider cleric a weak choice at all; I ended up discarding a mind flayer/cleric 2 NPC I made a few months ago, because I was concerned about its strength versus the party. If nothing else you have a mind flayer with +1 BAB, +2d8+(2xCon bonus) hit points, +3 on two saves, and proficiency in heavy armor, and probably a stronger mind blast than your typical mind flayer (assuming Cha gets a bump). Oh, and who can use clerical magic items. I also came to the conclusion that divine favor is a nasty buff for a brain extracting creature.

+6 Wisdom translates to +3 DC for all spells, which is roughly equivalent to casting spells of three levels higher, or six caster levels. With one dose of practiced caster and Spell penetration, a mind flayer catches up in the SR department.

An evil cleric can also command its level in HD, and undead are immune to mind blast, making them perfect speed bumps. So then you have a fighter standing there, drooling, while ghouls or shadows attack.

 

[moritheil]

Are you always this sarcastic?

I don't think so - it's probably only when people ignore what I'm saying and then later try to claim credit for it as though they were the ones to come up with it on their own.

I don't accept the mindflayer example because of numerous errors in it, and those errors are in fact fundamental errors. Perhaps you don't think so, and we disagree.

You seem to view CR calculation as some kind of game, in which the DM tries to cram as many abilities as possible into a creature without causing the XP bar to move. I do not. I view CR calculation as a fair-minded process.

You state that I view DnD as a game as though it is some sort of strike against me. I will be rather worried if any of us do not happen to think it is just a game. Anyhow, you seem to have a very strange idea of "fair." The players do their best to make the most optimized characters possible, constrained only by ECL. Why wouldn't a DM do the same, constrained by CR? A DM who does not put any effort into optimizing encounters is being disrespectful of the preparation put in by his or her players.

Do you enjoy fighting encounters straight out of the box, wherein you pretty much know what the enemy will do, and that it will most assuredly be inefficient? You don't need a competent DM at all for that sort of game - any warm body will do.

I don't pretend to dictate what your tastes should be, but I do make certain assumptions regarding the DM's purpose when it becomes important to determine whether or not the CR of an encounter should increase. Or would you go to an optimization thread and tell someone to buy for a higher price what they can effectively get at a lower price?

 

[Drowbane]

Is cleric an associated class for mindflayers, or nonassociated?

Quasqueton

I would just like to go on record as saying...

"Associated / non-associated classes is 100% BS. WotC had obviously been overworking its designers the week that PoS rule was added into the mix." ~Brew, 2006

Thank you, that is all.

Seriously.

 

[pawsplay]

You state that I view DnD as a game as though it is some sort of strike against me. I will be rather worried if any of us do not happen to think it is just a game. Anyhow, you seem to have a very strange idea of "fair." The players do their best to make the most optimized characters possible, constrained only by ECL. Why wouldn't a DM do the same, constrained by CR? A DM who does not put any effort into optimizing encounters is being disrespectful of the preparation put in by his or her players.

But we're not talking about optimization, we're talking about CR estimation. CR estimaton is supposed to be based on challenge. It's not a statistic to optimize. Basically, manipulating CR is just cheesing the players. Putting the players up against advanced monsters is already a rough game for the players, if the DM knows what they are doing.

 

[Sejs]

I would just like to go on record as saying...

"Associated / non-associated classes is 100% BS. WotC had obviously been overworking its designers the week that PoS rule was added into the mix." ~Brew, 2006

Thank you, that is all.

Seriously.

Yeah, you're right. A frost giant with two levels in Bard is totally just as effective as one with two levels in Fighter or Barbarian.