SKR's problem with certain high level encounters

[Dextra]

Oh Bela... undead undead undead

Hmm... There aren't any (epic?) feats yet that allow one's Sneak Attacks to affect undead, eh?

ASIDE:
Don't know about feats, but I wrote up a prestige class in one of our books that has a psion-roguesque class that strikes at the very anima and/or negative energy that keeps constructs and undead and the like going and allows sneak attack damage. And my partner wrote up a monk version thereof.

 

[Galfridus]

While fixing the CR system, it might be a good idea to take into account a couple of related problems:

-- Hit Die based rules in 3E should be related to CR instead. (Why create a zombie when you can make multiple skeletons?)

-- Monster Summoning should be related to CR/ECL/something, so the lists have some chance of being expanded by individual DMs

My campaign is just reaching 9th level, so I guess I'll be seeing how the CR system works or breaks down in the next few months.

 

[JadeLyon]

I generally agree that the rules don't really do the trick at higher levels. The generalized CR system just doesn't take into account the extreme variations you can get under the general blanket label of "party level X".

I haven't read all the posts, but I'm thinking the idea of a multi-category CR rating would be the best. I'd be happy to know off hand how powerful a creature is vs. various types of party strengths/weaknesses.

In the end, the only way I can challenge my higher level PCs is with NPCs. Monsters.... well, they just aren't fun. These guys can play video games if they want to hack-n-slash with monsters all day. So, mostly I don't care about how the monsters stack up.

Its when the plot can really benefit from a really cool, really difficult monster that I get frustrated. PCs inevitably end up hacking and slashing it, because I try to make sure to get a creature that won't die in a round. And that IS BORING.

-Jakob the Cat

 

[d20Dwarf]

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

It's a fallacy that systems are inherently better than design judgement. In fact, I think CRs (and, for what it's worth, magic item pricing) serve as proof that design judgement is often superior to systems.

It is a system, for example, which says that adding 3 levels of druid to a troll and adding 3 levels of fighter to a troll accomplish the same thing (which, I believe, is the biggest problem with the CR system). If we relied more on design judgement, we'd get better accuracy.

I'm really glad to hear Monte say this.

I've long criticized the "systemization" of D&D, which is as I see it the trend of official products adhering to systems when obvious flaws exist. It disheartens me even more to see designers (presumably either because they don't see it or can't admit it) defending something that is obviously incorrect. Although crafting systems is in itself a creative endeavor, I think too often it makes for stale design on the front end of things.

I wish there were more design decisions being made at WotC on the front end, rather than trying to mold everything into a backend design system that outputs boring, uncreative content.

 

[Junkheap]

Maybe i am wrong here, but isnt the cr or a creature based entirely on how the iconics(mialee, tordek)do against them? I thought they were. So the break down is

Jozan - Cleric
Lidda - Rogue
Mialee - Wizard
Tordek - Fighter

So.....the CR's correspond to these 4 characters, who do not multiclass. So we should compare our party makeup to these guys to see what sort of chance we have? Ugh, the more i read what i typed the less sense it makes.

 

[der_kluge]

Personally, I think I speak for a lot of people when I say :

Our group threw out XP a LONG time ago.

Really, it makes no sense. For as long as I can remember, at the end of a game, the DM (be it me, or someone else) would just look up at the group and say "You each get 500 XP". Period.

Lately, we use XP even LESS. And after 3 games or so, whenever the DM feels appropriate, at the end of the game, he looks up and says "You're all 4th level now." Simple. Easy.

I can't remember the last time my character had XP that wasn't easily divisible by 100 or even 1000.

Of course, this complicates things that cost XP, but that's a whole other rant, and one that we've managed to side-step as well.

 

[drnuncheon]

Re: Re: Up the ante...

IMC, the PC's have one option available to them that makes defeating an epic creature possible. I changed the Sure Strike enhancement from making the weapon an auto +5 for penetrating DR, to increasing the weapon's enhancement bonus by +2 for the purposes of penetrating DR. That means a +5 (effective +7 for DR) weapon would cost 72kgp. Well within the reach of a high, but not epic, level character.

Erm...in any campaign using the ELH as written, the PCs have the option of picking up the 'Penetrate Damage Reduction' feat - which does the same thing.

The DR thing in the ELH seems to be a big sticking point for people, but remember:

1) Just because the PCs are epic level doesn't mean they can only fight the things in the ELH. There are monsters in the MM who have CRs > 20, and there's always the option of adding templates or classes - or even just more monsters. So you're not "doomed" if you don't instantly get a +6 sword.

2) If your DM goes crazy and starts throwing stuff with DR X/+7 at you immediately, you can take Penetrate Damage Reduction at 21st level. (It's on the Fighter bonus feat list, too.) Combined with a +5 weapon (which you're likely to have by then) you're OK until around 30th level (by which time you should have a better weapon...)

Damage Reduction would be worthless if every party member at that level could bypass it.

J

 

[Orco42]

Re: Re: Re: Up the ante...

Erm...in any campaign using the ELH as written, the PCs have the option of picking up the 'Penetrate Damage Reduction' feat - which does the same thing.

J

Edit- Never mind I am a retard.

But if you do use Sure Strike the way Mortaneus does it would stack with Penetrate DR. Which would help quite a bit.

Sure Strike as it is written is almost useless at epic levels.

 

[Al]

I found Sean K Reynolds’ rant on high-level play both inaccurate and fatuous.

Inaccurate because he continues to make assertions without backing them up with anything than vague allusions. He repeatedly cites that the fighter is the only one who can make a significant impact on the effigy. However, it is quite clear from a more objective standpoint that it would not be as difficult to defeat as he makes out, even without a party of hackers. A 17th level wizard could easily use a Quickened Haste, followed by Ghostform (to negate the benefits of the effigy’s Incorporeality) and then a Time Stop followed by a barrage of metamagicked Cones of Cold. Taking double damage from cold on a failed save, it is perfectly possible to dispatch the creature in one round with, say, three Maximised Cones of Cold. Similarly, he assumes that the cleric is useless simply because he is unable to turn it. Surely by this logic the cleric is useless in any battle against non-undead creatures? Quite incorrect: a Holy Aura provides more than ample defence against it (short-circuiting its most powerful ability) and a simple Heal spell which all but slay it. The only character archetype that really is substantially damaged is the rogue, but this hardly makes ample fare for a rant.

More significantly, though, it is utterly fatuous. Although it professes to be a criticism of high-level play, it is none such. It is a criticism of one (admittedly poorly-designed) creature, and even his generic points are not characteristic of, or even specific to, high-level play. His points about circumventing character abilities is tiresome: the simplest skeleton is immune to critical hits and sneak attacks. His point about SR he himself concedes is a criticism of the way SR is designed (and hence not specific to high level play) and is thus too generic to be a substantial point. His only salient point, that of DMs being careful to avoid creatures which short-circuit characters’ abilities (though the extent to which this does so he grossly exaggerates) is not a feature of high-level play, but is a wise word to DMs at any campaign level. Ironically, his concluding sentence he brackets for fear that it is too specific to this creature, whilst failing to realise that his entire rant is based around one (inaccurate) encounter with one specific creature.

I was disappointed to have had to read such a poor analysis from such a lofty source. My image of Sean Reynolds’ is forever tarnished: for what he professes as a critique of high-level play is a badly worded, ill-conceived, half-baked and factually inaccurate dig at one creature in one supplementary book.

 

[TiQuinn]

I was disappointed to have had to read such a poor analysis from such a lofty source. My image of Sean Reynolds’ is forever tarnished: for what he professes as a critique of high-level play is a badly worded, ill-conceived, half-baked and factually inaccurate dig at one creature in one supplementary book.

You tarnish a tad too easily.