Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9727556" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Certainly not, since the claim isn't true. It's often repeated though.Keep in mind, Lanefan is of the opinion that a creature cannot ever have more than one, singular, statblock. Unless it's a PC, then it can have a statblock that changes over time as a result of context.I mean, I would say that the actual thing going on is that statblocks are inherently contextual.Because that's the inherent problem of the concept of "CR". There is no such thing as a singular threat-level that is universally true for a specific entity. Its threat level actually is relative to the context in which it appears. The idea that we can capture this through an abstraction that never changes is, simply, a mistaken belief. It's a beautiful belief! But it's inherently incorrect in the vast majority of cases. We can define levels, at which certain power can be expected--but any singular monster is not inherently level 15 or level 5 or level 2358234804. The monster is what it is. The gameplay abstractions change in order to correctly represent how threatening a particular creature is.So we take a singular ogre; let's say it's Corrupted Ogre, empowered by demon blood, so it's even a bit tougher than a typical ogre. If we consider its threat from a 1st-level perspective? Nearly impossible to survive. Don't represent it as a monster. Represent it some other way--such as a skill challenge or an environmental hazard the players need to flee from, because they simply don't have meaningful ability to kill it, or if they do, it's not because of their battle prowess, it's because they've found One Neat Trick (Overlords Hate Them!). Now, consider the exact same organism, how should it be viewed from a level 5 perspective? Probably a Solo. It's now just within range of 5th level characters to take down in a straight fight, but it's tough, and taking it on without separating it from other monsters is decidedly unwise.Repeat this process at higher levels. Perhaps at level 8, the correct mechanical abstraction is an Elite: strong, but you could take on two or even three of them without really being concerned. Perhaps at level 11, it's a Standard: the party could take on a pack of these things without really worrying much. And then at (say) level 17, this particular organism is no longer a meaningful threat unless it arrives en masse. (There are proposals floating around for a "mook" or something like that, a step between Standard and Minion, something that doesn't fall in a single hit, but doesn't have a ton of staying power either; generally, they're two-hit wonders, but a single crit will kill them.)This isn't changing the inherent characteristics of the creature. It is, instead, recognizing that the mechanical abstraction is our servant, not our master. We can--and should--change the mechanical abstraction if that more accurately represents the experience that a given character should have.And that's where Lanefan's argument breaks down. It depends on the assertion that a single mechanical expression of a creature must be the one and only expression it ever gets. Its mechanical expression is more important than the actual impact of the creature in context and the experience of a character of different strength fighting that enemy. Or, the rather rosy belief that it's possible to design a singular mechanical expression which definitely always produces the correct kind of experience, no matter what level the character is.</blockquote>

Verification