SKR's problem with certain high level encounters

[Enkhidu]

The CR system is one of those things in 3rd Ed that I, personally, have had the most trouble adjusting to, I guess.

I'd love to be able to find out from designers why they went to the present XP system.

Maybe it's just the old schooler in me, but it just made more sense for all creatures/challenges/traps/ what have you to have a non-adjustable XP reward and have the XP per level rates go up almost geometrically. It certainly made XP tallies easier to deal with...

 

[Blacksad]

Re: The problem isn't the monster, it's the CR system

Example: A 20th level Commonor, a 20th level Wizard and the Terrasque are all the same CR. Which would you rather fight?

The commoner is supposed to be CR 19, and some people tend to think that the Tarrasque CR is too low.

IMO it is a problem of assigning CR to NPC, the monster CR is supposed to be playtested when it is assigned.

and the EL adjustement system works for me, I think it was meant to do what you ask for.

 

[Pielorinho]

I think this critter is probably a reasonable CR. Mass haste and mass fly allow characters to take it out pretty easily -- shoot it once, run back. These two spells are very likely to be in the arsenal of a 17th-level party.

Magic missiles cast by a 17th-level PC will hit 50% of the time; each spell will do an average of 8.75 points of damage, therefore. Of course, these could be heightened heightened MMs, doing 17.5 points of damage on average; or they could be quickened; or they could be cast with spell penetration. In any case, they'll do a good job of whittling away at the poor thing.

Gating in a solar is always a possibility.

Magic circle against evil will completely negate the infusion ability.

Making it retreat will be easy. The major problem will be cornering it.

Daniel

 

[Monte At Home]

Maybe I misread Sean's article, but I didn't think he was complaining that the monster was too tough. I think he was complaining that it took away all the PC's cool abilities. Basically, that it wasn't a very fun monster to have in your game.

I think that's a valid point.

On the topic of CRs, though, remember that the whole point of a CR is to provide a baseline, so that you can then have someplace to start. Your own group of, say, level 4 characters might be approapriate for CR 5 encounters. Or CR 3. The goal is to be consistent.

The goal does indeed break down when mixing and matching with NPCs or monsters with classes. I don't, however, think that makes the whole system flawed.

 

[Pielorinho]

I guess I don't see it as such a problem that rogues nor clerics will be especially effective against this baddie:

-Rogues are always nigh-useless against undead.
-The cleric has lots of other cool toys besides turning undead that can work against this (magic circle vs. evil, gate, etc.)

Although I've not played a game at higher levels, I've watched games like Piratecat's, and seen how incredibly difficult it is to challenge high-level PCs. A lovingly-created unique enemy with all sorts of nasty powers can easily find itself taken out in a single round by 17th-level PCs.

The way I see it, the effigy has decent defenses against some of the more basic dweep that you get at high levels: no sneak-attacks, no turning, no crits. That doesn't mean it's unkillable: it just means that you have to use other tools in your kit.

-Use one of several spells to fight it on the ethereal plane (I think this'll work)
-Pull out all the force-based spells you can think of
-When it's possessed someone, open a gate to the plane of positive energy and bull-rush the possessed victim through the gate.
-Use spells like holy aura on its possessed victims.

These are all things that a cleric can do. As usual, the rogue should put that Hide skill to good use until the nasty ghostthing goes away.

Because of the huge number of save-or-die tricks at the disposal of high-level characters, I think it's appropriate to have the occasional critter that negates some of the options.

This creature is vulnerable to any spellcaster and to any fighter with a magical weapon (although it's extremely nasty against an unprotected fighter, whose low Will save will doom her to burning from the inside out). The fact that it's not vulnerable to three particular tricks, two of which are invulnerabilities shared by your average zombie, doesn't make it poor design, IMHO.

However, I agree that "Effigy" is a fairly stupid name. Get it? "Burned in effigy"? A-hurk. A-hurk. A-hurk.

Daniel

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I'm running Lord of the Iron Fortress and so many of the creatures have SR and cold, fire and electricity resistance and immunity (and even sonic and acid resistance and immunity) and some outright spell immunity, the party wizard is having a hard time of it when trying to use offensive spells. This is partially a result of the fact that no one in my group has ever played in a high level game, but it also appears to simply be a general problem.

D&D has always had that problem once you start squaring off against magical creatures. For some reason D&D creatures tend to stack up defenses willy-nilly, while vulnerabilities somehow get forgotten about. I guess a non-immunity counts for a vulnerability in this game system. It is common for combat to devolve into a fighter chipping away with a +n weapon, all other means of attack having failed.

IMO, creatures should have natures that give both strengths and weaknesses. It is the norm in mythology, but rarely shows up in D&D.

 

[TiQuinn]

This seems like it's only a problem if you plan on having the party face off against an army of effigies. I have no idea if that's a reasonable assumption or not. From the description, the creature sounds like a one-shot type creature.

If that's the case, so what? As pointed out earlier, rogues don't get their sneak attacks against any undead (not to mention oozes and constructs). So the cleric can't turn it.....all that means is that the party will actually have to fight it instead of having a single die roll end to the encounter. The cleric is far from helpless: He turns to his comrades and begins to cast protective spells to counter the effigies abilities and give them a better chance at hitting, or doing damage, or avoiding damage, etc.

The problem isn't the monster. It's how the monster is going to be used in the module. As a single encounter, it could be perfectly fine. Overused, and it becomes a drag. But then again, any monster has this same problem.

 

[Kugar]

I agree with SKR on this one.

Most of the best DMs I have ever talked to always come back to the point: Let the characters play!
A lot of focus seems to be with challenge by stripping off PC abilities. Then you get to monsters like the effigy that reduce combat to "I swing", "I hit", ... by taking out all the cool stuff. The guy is immune to the turning attempts by the cleric. A fully tweaked mage has a 12/20 shot of affecting him. The rouge can't sneak attack, but its HPs are low. Is the creature balanced, probably. Is he fun to fight? No, probably not. Challenging monsters should also be hard because of abilities, tactics, and skill - not because they only present one way to defeat them and force the combat in one direction.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Re: The problem isn't the monster, it's the CR system

(*) Actually, it reveals something that DMs with higher level PCs already know - D&D's stock XP award system breaks down and stops being useful at about 10th level, and from that point onward requires constant hand-adjustment by the DM to keep the game running smoothly.

That is to be expected. As the power level goes up a given party is more and more likely to deviate from a theorectical standard power level. And party make up makes a bigger and bigger difference in how they will handle specific challenges.

In a weird way, this unpredictability is the whole point of levelling up. Why level at all if you are only graduating from kobolds to orcs to gnolls to ogres? Boring. That is just running faster and faster to stay in the same place. The fun of levelling to face qualitatively different challenges and solve them with qualitatively different tactics. It is the unknowns that make this fun. It is the unknowns that make it impossible to have a perfect CR system.

 

[Pielorinho]

I agree with SKR on this one.

Most of the best DMs I have ever talked to always come back to the point: Let the characters play!
A lot of focus seems to be with challenge by stripping off PC abilities. Then you get to monsters like the effigy that reduce combat to "I swing", "I hit", ... by taking out all the cool stuff.

?? As I posted above, there are several tactics that wizards and clerics can use against this thing. The fighter is gonna be in serious trouble if she goes against it without backup: most fighters aren't gonna make the will save necessary to prevent possession, and once they're possessed, they'll start attacking their allies. "I swing, I hit" is a very bad tactical approach to this critter.

I think it could lead to a cinematic fight and would force the PCs to use some tactics they've not given much thought to.

In fact, my major problem with it is a problem it shares with many critters: flying archers will have a very easy time against it, considering its relatively slow speed and its lack of any ranged attack. Its best bet against flying archers is to sink into the ground and come back later in an ambush.

I'll also point out that if this thing were a construct or a plant, it would have exactly the same invulnerablities as it currently has. Does SKR have the same problems with Iron Golems as he has with this critter?

Daniel