Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="D'karr" data-source="post: 6084175" data-attributes="member: 336">Thanks for the math sanity check.&nbsp; One thing to &quot;remember&quot; is that the possibility of variance in the &quot;math&quot; should always be there.&nbsp; I did look at the math for defenses for example.&nbsp; By following the &quot;baseline math&quot; all defenses would have been 20.&nbsp; I didn't like that for this creature, so I increased AC by one, and lowered Reflex by 3.I based that decision on the way that I &quot;see&quot; this creature.&nbsp; I wanted it to be tougher to hit, tough to affect its physiology, and tough to attack mentally, but easier to catch off-balance.&nbsp; I like that none of this is &quot;hardcoded&quot;.&nbsp; My &quot;vision&quot; of the creature is based on what I want to portray, and not a rigid formula that should not be deviated from.&nbsp; The formula gives me a very good baseline.I absolutely hated when people online would &quot;brutalize&quot; a publisher when the publisher put out a monster, or an NPC that even slightly deviated from the math in 3.x.&nbsp; This phenomenon was mostly because the rules forced NPCs, and Monsters to be built off the same baseline as PCs.&nbsp; I'm really glad 4e got away from that mentality.&nbsp; We can create rather unique creatures without going through the mental gyrations of &quot;do I actually have the resources to put those 2 skill points there?&quot;The baseline number is only that, a baseline.&nbsp;&nbsp; Deviation is not necessarily &quot;math that is off&quot;.&nbsp; However your check did point out certain things that I will look closely at.&nbsp; I still have to come up with a good possession power.Thanks</blockquote>

[QUOTE="D'karr, post: 6084175, member: 336"] Thanks for the math sanity check. One thing to "remember" is that the possibility of variance in the "math" should always be there. I did look at the math for defenses for example. By following the "baseline math" all defenses would have been 20. I didn't like that for this creature, so I increased AC by one, and lowered Reflex by 3. I based that decision on the way that I "see" this creature. I wanted it to be tougher to hit, tough to affect its physiology, and tough to attack mentally, but easier to catch off-balance. I like that none of this is "hardcoded". My "vision" of the creature is based on what I want to portray, and not a rigid formula that should not be deviated from. The formula gives me a very good baseline. I absolutely hated when people online would "brutalize" a publisher when the publisher put out a monster, or an NPC that even slightly deviated from the math in 3.x. This phenomenon was mostly because the rules forced NPCs, and Monsters to be built off the same baseline as PCs. I'm really glad 4e got away from that mentality. We can create rather unique creatures without going through the mental gyrations of "do I actually have the resources to put those 2 skill points there?" The baseline number is only that, a baseline. Deviation is not necessarily "math that is off". However your check did point out certain things that I will look closely at. I still have to come up with a good possession power. Thanks [/QUOTE]

Verification