Post/Author/DateTime	Post
BennyKenobi 09-04-03, 04:42 PM	In 3.0 how do you increase a creature's Challenge Rating in accordance with an increase in Hit Dice? I couldn't find any ruling in the book so I used the following formula (ready math wizes?): X = n + (n / y) X = New Challenge Rating n = Old Challenge Rating y = Number of Hit Dice This would give you the the new Challenge Rating for each increase in Hit Die. Is this correct? For instance, take a chimera. It's Hit Dice (y) are 9 and it's old Challenge Rating is 7 (n). Plug in the numbers to the formula: X = 7 + (7/9) X = 7.8 for a single increase in Hit Dice (10 HD). X = 7.8 + (7.8/10) X = 8.6 for two increases in Hit Dice (11 HD). I'm REALLY bad at math so I might be kidding myself here. Could I get some help with this? :( Thanks Kiwi
The Abominable Darkling 09-04-03, 05:22 PM	In 3.5, you calculate the change in the creature's CR based on the absolute number of hit dice you add and the creature's type. See table 4-4 on page 294 of the Monster Manual. Sorry, I just noticed that you were asking about 3.0... :embarrass Oh well, I'll leave the above in since it's handy. In 3.0, you increase a creature's CR by 1 for every 50% increase to its hit dice. In the case of the chimera, it's CR would be as follows: 9 HD: CR 7 10-13 HD: CR 8 14-18 HD: CR 9 19-22 HD: CR 10 23-27 HD: CR 11 (I'm assuming you can triple it's hit dice). This was not printed in the original Monster Manual. You can find it on page 2 of the Monster Manual errata. Edit: I do suggest you switch to the 3.5 system. It tends to produce much more reasonable results. You can find it here: http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/v35/Improving_Monsters.rtf You can find the entire SRD here: http://www.wizards.com/d20/article.asp?x=srd35
BennyKenobi 09-04-03, 06:08 PM	I do suggest you switch to the 3.5 system No thanks. ;) In 3.0, you increase a creature's CR by 1 for every 50% increase to its hit dice Okay. I suppose that sounds reasonable, but my way sounded smarter. :D Thank you very much. I'll check out that erratta!! Thanks for your help!!
d_nychus 09-04-03, 07:07 PM	Your loss. 3.5 is utterly superior in its handling of monster. CR with advanced creatures actually WORKS. In 3.0, you can have a Gargantuan scorpion with Epic leve HD that still is only in the CR teens. The 50% hp = +1 CR rule has repeatedly been proven unreliable countless times. I, for one, am really happy to see it go.
BennyKenobi 09-04-03, 08:23 PM	I, for one, am really happy to see it go. Um...okay. Don't worry. I've been educated on the changes. Its a well informed, concious choice to stick with 3.0. Thanks anyway. ;)
d_nychus 09-05-03, 12:38 AM	Honestly, if you know the changes and are still using 3.0, especially with the much needed and well thoughtout revamping of monsters, I would question the information. Simply put, monsters work 10,000 times better in 3.5 than in 3.0.
BennyKenobi 09-05-03, 01:32 AM	I would question the information. As I said... Its a well informed, concious choice to stick with 3.0. Seriously. I appreciate your enthusiasm for the new system. I just don't have any need for it. Some people still use 2nd edition, for crying out loud. Believe me, its not the system, its the stories we tell. We're use to things the way they are and there really is no point to us shifting gears. It would only create bumps in an otherwise smooth ride. ;) Thanks anyway.
The Abominable Darkling 09-05-03, 03:17 PM	It's worth pointing out that monster advancement in 3.5 works exactly the same way as in 3.0. They only difference is in how you calculate the CR of an advanced monster. The 3.0 system fails to provide reasonable results in many cases. The 3.5 system really is better.
BennyKenobi 09-05-03, 04:11 PM	:bored: You know what I would like to do? I would like to make one post, just ONE, where someone doesn't try to sell me on 3.5.
The Abominable Darkling 09-05-03, 06:22 PM	I'm not try to sell you on 3.5. I'm trying to sell you on one specific change in 3.5. Frankly, I don't understand why you'd be so attached to the 3.0 method for calculating advanced monster CRs.
BennyKenobi 09-06-03, 01:49 AM	I don't understand why you'd be so attached to the 3.0 method for calculating advanced monster CRs. Quite simply, it would change things. Whatever CRs I've been using so far have been based on the 3.0 method of doing things. Granted I have done very little adjustments of said CRs, but the existing ones are, as I said, created using 3.0 methods. If I were to alter that point of view the pace at which the characters advance might change. They may suddenly face monsters of a completely different level than what they're used to. I would start a process of endless patching, nipping and tucking that would never end (well, if we use this new rule, why not THAT new rule). Whatever! The point is, I've been playing this game for a while now and I haven't had any complaints. I SEE NO PROBLEM WITH THE GAME I'M USING. I DO NOT THINK 3.0 IS BROKEN!! ANY STATEMENTS TO THE CONTRARY ARE OPINION!! So I ask you...why should I fix it? What motivation do I (not YOU) have for switching rules halfway through my campaign? NONE! And I can think of 83 reasons why NOT to change. So please!!!!! Stop trying to educate me on the 'wonders' of 3.5. I know the score. I know what has changed. I DO NOT WANT TO USE 3.5. Is that okay with you? I apologize for my aggresiveness. I do not wish to insult or anger you. It's just that on these boards, and others like it, my friends and I have posted messages that have only received an endless assault of reasons why we're primitive morons for not switching to 3.5. I stated clearly in the subject of the post that this was a 3.0 issue. I appreciate your help. The answer you gave me the first time was exactly what I needed. Thank you for that. But again, as far as 3.5 goes, no thank you. I harbor no hard feelings (despite the way my post may have come across) and I hope you hold no hard feelings either. If so, I apologize.:)
The Abominable Darkling 09-06-03, 02:38 AM	:) I would not be so presumptuous as to try and eductate you, but I do ask that you keep an open mind. Reading the 3.5 advancement rules would cost you nothing, and who knows? You might even like them.
Tenzhi 09-06-03, 03:23 AM	Of course, if you don't want people to bring up the current rules whenever you have a question, you could try posting your questions on the Out of Print message board.
Dalaeck 09-06-03, 06:29 PM	Originally posted by d_nychus Your loss. 3.5 is utterly superior in its handling of monster. CR with advanced creatures actually WORKS. In 3.0, you can have a Gargantuan scorpion with Epic leve HD that still is only in the CR teens. The 50% hp = +1 CR rule has repeatedly been proven unreliable countless times. I, for one, am really happy to see it go. This is a totally ridiculous statement. 3.5 has done an equally if not sloppier job in terms of monster CR. In my opinion sloppier. Let the old wizard point something out to you: Gargantuan scorpions have NO intelligence. Sure if you play your monsters without consideration for basic statistics in tactics then you have a problem. :bored: Let's now take a look at the 3.5 beholder. How afraid are you of "hold person" now that it's a save a round? Charm that can be blocked by lv.1 protection vs. evil? What about disintegrate? Gimme a break. Just bloody sad.
Dalaeck 09-06-03, 06:40 PM	Also Benny, the rule has always been in the DMG. p. 102 under "Tougher monsters". Take note that a tougher monster offers more XP, above and beyond CR. The logic behind 3.0 monster improvement is simple. Making the creature tougher changes none of the DC associated with special abilities, it only improves physical attributes (size, str, bab, etc...) and so in effect is not a "huge" gain in ability. This rule of thumb has worked flawlessly for me in the past and I see no reason to downgrade to 3.5 in any of it's colors.
d_nychus 09-06-03, 07:14 PM	Originally posted by Dalaeck This is a totally ridiculous statement. 3.5 has done an equally if not sloppier job in terms of monster CR. In my opinion sloppier. Let the old wizard point something out to you: Gargantuan scorpions have NO intelligence. Sure if you play your monsters without consideration for basic statistics in tactics then you have a problem. :bored: Let's now take a look at the 3.5 beholder. How afraid are you of "hold person" now that it's a save a round? Charm that can be blocked by lv.1 protection vs. evil? What about disintegrate? Gimme a break. Just bloody sad. Ummm, what the heck are you talking about? First, scorpions shouldn't have intelligence, they should act like *gasp* SCROPIONS regardless of size. That is an idiotic criticism. Second, Hold person was extremely overpowered in 3.0, and I'm glad it's the way it is now. Charm monster could ALWAYS be blocked by protection from evil, open up 3.0 PHB to page 240 and try READING. And disintigrate works BETTER in 3.5, because it no longer bypassses hit points. Give me a break, your arguments (if those whines and tantrums can be called that) are just bloody sad.
d_nychus 09-06-03, 07:24 PM	What makes 3.5 superior to 3.0 regarding monsters. -Better and more standardized feats and skill points. -Better used and defined subtypes -Eliminated long facing and all the errors that occured with it. -Fixed most CRs -Templates much easier to use -Level adjustment listings -Demons and devils are actually powerful -A working advancement system -Good advice on how to make monsters -Swarms -Listed grappling and BAB -Much needed glossary -More intelligently done DR system I could go on, but I got better things to do. For monsters, 3.5 rules, hands down.
Dalaeck 09-06-03, 08:18 PM	Originally posted by d_nychus [B]Ummm, what the heck are you talking about? First, scorpions shouldn't have intelligence, they should act like *gasp* SCROPIONS regardless of size. That is an idiotic criticism. You do NOT need "epic" level characters to challenge creatures with "epic" HD. Your comment about how the scorpion has "epic level HD" is what I pointed out as garbage. HD is one aspect of the creature and in the case of the afore mentioned gargantuan scorpion it's CR is FINE because it's so bloody dumb. If it had a keen intellect it would be a much more challenging foe. Period. Second, Hold person was extremely overpowered in 3.0, and I'm glad it's the way it is now. Charm monster could ALWAYS be blocked by protection from evil, open up 3.0 PHB to page 240 and try READING. And disintigrate works BETTER in 3.5, because it no longer bypassses hit points. Hold person was FINE. It has been FINE for damn near 30 years. I'm glad to see "someone" is happy. How about you read p.240 my friend? Charm is not "mental control". You need to wake up and smell the paradigm shifts here. Can you tell me then why disintegrate is "way" better than all the other "save-or-dies"? Maybe we should get rid of "slay living" or "plane-shift" or ... Gimme a break. Your "argument" is so ridiculous I can't but laugh.
d_nychus 09-06-03, 08:57 PM	No, a scorpion with a Poison DC 54 dealing 2d8 Strength, 3 attacks in the +40's, over 400 hp, and Improved grab at CR 11 is just plain WRONG. There is no way an 11th level party can take out a Colossal (I meant to state Colossal in the first post, but I erred. Still, the Gargantuan Scorpion is just as bad.) Scorpion without suffer significant casualties. If you can't realize this, then you know nothing about actual game play (which might be the case considering most of your arguments). Hold Person has been repeatedly proven time and time again to be overpowered. A Will save save or die as a 2nd level spell (with coupe de grace, yes it was ALWAYS a save or die spell). That is utterly unreasonable, and just does not work with current game mechanics. And who cares about 30 years ago? Things change, deal with it. I'm sure you still use your 386, your slide rule, and your pet rock with equal enthusiasm. From the 3.0 FAQ The second function of the protection from evil spell blocks any attempt to possess the warded creature or to exercise mental control over the creature. What, exactly, counts as mental control? “Mental control” includes all spells of the school of Enchantment that have the Charm subschool, such as animal friendship, charm person, and charm monster. It also includes some Enchantment spells of the Compulsion subschool if those spells grant the caster ongoing control over the subject; such spells include dominate person and dominate monster. Compulsions that merely dictate the subject’s action at the time the spell takes effect are not blocked. Such spells include command, hold person, geas/quest, hypnotism, insanity, Otto’s irresistible dance, random action, suggestion, and zone of truth. So we've established that you're wrong on the Charm Person aspect. Next. Disintegrate has the substancial issue of being able to affect both objects and creatures. It was clearly better than any other save or die at that level. It was better than the next higher level up save or die spell, Finger of Death. Spells like that, ones that bypass hp, need to have some mitigating factors in order to be balanced. Disintegrate only had the ranged touch attack,but could do much more than even spells 2 levels higher. That is just not right. Besides, an Empowered Disinegrate is actually viable, making the spell that much cooler. My argument is based off knowledge of the game, while yours is based off delusion.
Dalaeck 09-06-03, 09:02 PM	And hold on there D. I didn't say "the 3.5 MM is a peice of garbage". In fact I can be quoted as saying it's the only peice of 3.5 that is a marked "improvement" (I think there's a "what 3.5 did right" thread). However there are many things it did poorly, CR in particular, facing as well (let's not go there). There seems to have been little communication between the MM team and the PHB team. The 3.5 MM seems to be built out of an understanding of 3.0 spells and PC abilities, while the 3.5 PHB turned half of these on their head! As an example in 3.5 anything that uses charms (dryads, devils, etc...) are much weaker and that hasn't been factored into the CR.
Dalaeck 09-06-03, 10:27 PM	Originally posted by d_nychus No, a scorpion with a Poison DC 54 dealing 2d8 Strength, 3 attacks in the +40's, over 400 hp, and Improved grab at CR 11 is just plain WRONG. There is no way an 11th level party can take out a Colossal (I meant to state Colossal in the first post, but I erred. Still, the Gargantuan Scorpion is just as bad.) Scorpion without suffer significant casualties. If you can't realize this, then you know nothing about actual game play (which might be the case considering most of your arguments). It can't fly. It can't hit you from a distance. It can't hide. It can't cast spells. It can't sneak up on you. It can't think to manipulate objects or terrain (i.e doors, boulders...). It can't coup-de-grace. It can't ... Okay so it's a giant physical monster with no intelligence. How about I run down the quick list of ways to kill something like this: 1- (all important) stay out of reach and hit it from a distance. I presume at some point in the 11th level character's careers they have learned about the space-age invention of "the thrown rock" or the 3rd industrial revolution's "non-magical arrow". 2- (if you happen to have them) here are the following spells that can massively aid you in your giant scorpion killing: Any illusion spell. Silent image, etc... At this level you could easily have access to such nice spells as "Programmed image" or "persistent image" to confuse the hell out of an Int - monster. Invisibility sphere is quite good to get away from it then apply 1. Anti-life shell. Clerics and Druids are not frightened in the least by the beast, even in close quarters. This can be used to block the creature's access to other party members in close quarters. Wall-type spells: A wall of force, or sculpted wall of stone can protect your party easily. Even a leomund's secure shelter might be enough. Even 3.0 Darkness might dissuade the un-intelligent monster to look elswhere. Levitate, fly, polymorph, expeditious retreat, spider climb (they do climb however), any of these "positional" spells can aid your party enormously. Many magic items and feats, class abilities can help your party down the beast. The druid is immune to poison at 11th level as is the monk. Boots of levitation, etc... Conclusion: An 11th level party of only warriors who didn't see/hear the thing, ended up just outside the reach of the creature might lose a party member. Likely with them all getting off full attacks, a few potions, and yeah, they might lose a guy. Maybe. Hold Person has been repeatedly proven time and time again to be overpowered. A Will save save or die as a 2nd level spell (with coupe de grace, yes it was ALWAYS a save or die spell). That is utterly unreasonable, and just does not work with current game mechanics. And who cares about 30 years ago? Things change, deal with it. I'm sure you still use your 386, your slide rule, and your pet rock with equal enthusiasm. Uh-huh. :rolleyes: Lemme see. It holds you in place for rounds. It affects only a very small portion of all monsters in the game. It has a save. You can be pulled/dragged to relative safety by allies. You can be coup-de-graced another save (likely a hard one). Two (or one vs. clerical) levels lower and you have "sleep" and one level higher and you have polymorph and phantasmal killer. Yep, real over-powered. So we've established that you're wrong on the Charm Person aspect. Next. You know, I've read through my entire 3.0 FAQ and I can't find this. And no, the core books don't include the FAQ anymore than they include the web-updates or other crap. If you want to judge 3.0 to 3.5 arbitrarily I can use the FAQ to "clear up" many "problems" people have with 3.0. Be fair. Disintegrate has the substancial issue of being able to affect both objects and creatures. It was clearly better than any other save or die at that level. It was better than the next higher level up save or die spell, Finger of Death. Spells like that, ones that bypass hp, need to have some mitigating factors in order to be balanced. Disintegrate only had the ranged touch attack,but could do much more than even spells 2 levels higher. That is just not right. No, one level up is "destruction" which requires a 9th level spell to "repair". Disintegrate requires an attack and stone-to-flesh doesn't. One affects a slightly broader range of creatures than the other. These spells were FINE. Besides, an Empowered Disinegrate is actually viable, making the spell that much cooler. Oh lord. Do you think "polar ray" is "good" D? How about metamagic rods? My argument is based off knowledge of the game, while yours is based off delusion. It looks like I'm not going to convince you. Oh well. Not the first rabid-foaming-at-the-mouth 3.5 zealot to cross swords with me. So long as the corpses of your "arguments" lie bloody for everyone to see in the intellectual arena that's fine by me...
d_nychus 09-06-03, 10:41 PM	If anything, They got CR's more correct in 3.5 than in 3.0. While I can flip through the 3.0 MM and find at least a dozen monsters whose CR does not match up with their abilities (especially in the Demon/Devil sections), I feel the CR's are more appropriate in the 3.5. True, I have not had exstensive playtesting with 3.5 monsters (yet), what I have seen is a marked change. The Vrock, for instance, has dropped to the CR that I had worked it out to be after the first year of using 3.0 (something of a bit of pride to me, actually). Advancement in 3.5 makes much more sense, and I feel the results of advancement is both easier to assertain and is much more reliable. I honestly hardly ever used the CR "guesstimate" rule in 3.0 because I found far too many flaws when using it (like the Huge Gorgon I made thinking it was about CR 10, and found it easily wiping out a group of 6 12th level PC's. That was NOT a CR 10.). True, I have noticed some slight discrepancy between the core books, but that is mostly between the PHB and the DMG. The discrepancies between the MM and the other core books have been almost negliable. I have not seen any major CR conflicts based upon spells and abilities; in fact, I honestly have noticed more congrueties than anything else. Honestly, so far I have noticed nothing more than what is to be expected with a project this big. Errors and miscommunications occur. Tis the way of life. And if you are claiming Devils and Demons are WEAKER in 3.5, you are beyond sorely mistaken. They were ALL extremely weak in 3.0, their HD simply was not appropriate for both their CR and the needed DC's for their spell-like abilities. 3.5 corrects that issue. And just for the record, if you had the experience I had with long creatures regarding facing (A party of PC's managing to "pin" a dragon against a wall.), you would be as happy as I am to see it go. The whole long creatures concpet does not work in an abstract game with no definate front and back. The long creatures became an exception to this BY DEFINITION, and thus were harshly penalized as a result.
BennyKenobi 09-07-03, 02:36 AM	you could try posting your questions on the Out of Print message board. I'd like to put my input back into the frey, here. Let me first point out that the previous is a useless statment. Let's let the Wizo's decide if I (and MANY others who still play 3.0) should start behaving like shamed dwarves and hide in the shadows of the "out of print" forums. I can't exactly find any kind words to express the insult from such a statement. Therefore I will end my conversation with you, Tenzhi. This is a totally ridiculous statement. 3.5 has done an equally if not sloppier job in terms of monster CR. In my opinion sloppier. Let me thank this person for making me realize that I'm not alone, here. Oh, and thanks for that page reference to the DMG. I don't know how I missed that. ;) And now to the rest of you... What makes 3.5 superior to 3.0 regarding monsters. Any and all statements regarding the superiority of 3.5 are strictly opinion. Any adherance to these being statements of hard fact simply show your arrogance. I DO NOT share your opinion of 3.5 being superior. I would also like to state that this will be the last time I pay any attention to this thread since you have apparently read NOTHING that I have posted. People who get into debates then not read the other person's side of the story, simply prove, again, their arrogance. I will say this one more time in answer to the following statement. Pay attention!!!! Reading the 3.5 advancement rules would cost you nothing, and who knows? You might even like them. I HAVE READ THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :behold: You seem to not want to pay attention to that fact. I KNOW about the changes. I know what they are. I know it shocks you that anyone could read these rules and not want to upgrade, but I have told you in several ways why I still choose not to. Let me put it another way. In my OPINION, D&D is flawed anyway. It is an abstract system that doesn't even come close to reflecting reality, or being all that balanced. If I wanted these things I would go back to playing other games. I chose D&D to relax back into a simple game that we don't have to put much thought into the rules. All we have to do is sit back and relax, and concentrate on good story telling. So, I choose to leave it the way it is. I'm sorry if you have trouble wrapping your brain around it, but if you can't adjust, don't post to any questions geared toward 3.0 again. It will save you the grief of realizing there are people out there just not as smart and sophisticated as you. :rolleyes: I will not be replying to any further posts you may have in reply. I'm sure you will want to get in the last word, so type all you want. I'm tired of arguing with you. I started out trying to tell you politely that I wasn't interested, but apparently YOU are the one who can't keep an open mind. Let me say it one more time. You cannot educate me on 3.5, because I've read the changes. I do not like the changes. I will not make the changes in my group. If you have made them, that's great. More power to you. Let me remain in my little world and I'll not presume to approach your more civilized version of the game. Deal? Thanks for your time.
The Abominable Darkling 09-07-03, 03:00 AM	Poor Benny... If you really have read over the 3.5 advancement section, then, though I do not understand it, I accept your decision.I chose D&D to relax back into a simple game that we don't have to put much thought into the rules. All we have to do is sit back and relax, and concentrate on good story telling.If this is your attitude, then why do you even care about CRs in the first place?
Tenzhi 09-07-03, 03:23 AM	Originally posted by BennyKenobi I can't exactly find any kind words to express the insult from such a statement. Therefore I will end my conversation with you, Tenzhi. I'm sorry you felt insulted by what I said. But you seem rather exasperated by people pointing out "improvements" in the current rules. As they are the current rules, it follows that they will inevitably be referenced in the current sections of the message boards. It follows that if their reference is going to bother you, you should avoid the current sections - unless you are purposely seeking to be annoyed.
Walter Russ 09-07-03, 04:05 AM	3.0 CR increase is a +1 CR per 50% increase. The formula would be New CR = Old CR + 2 X (New Hit Dice - Old Hit Dice) / Old Hit Dice If you're bad at math like you say, remember that you do the subtraction inside the parenthesis before anything else, divide it by the Old Hit Dice, multiply by two, and finally add the original CR. Hope that helps.
d_nychus 09-07-03, 03:17 PM	Originally posted by Dalaeck It can't fly. It can't hit you from a distance. It can't hide. It can't cast spells. It can't sneak up on you. It can't think to manipulate objects or terrain (i.e doors, boulders...). It can't coup-de-grace. It can't ... Okay so it's a giant physical monster with no intelligence. How about I run down the quick list of ways to kill something like this: 1- (all important) stay out of reach and hit it from a distance. I presume at some point in the 11th level character's careers they have learned about the space-age invention of "the thrown rock" or the 3rd industrial revolution's "non-magical arrow". 2- (if you happen to have them) here are the following spells that can massively aid you in your giant scorpion killing: Any illusion spell. Silent image, etc... At this level you could easily have access to such nice spells as "Programmed image" or "persistent image" to confuse the hell out of an Int - monster. Invisibility sphere is quite good to get away from it then apply 1. Anti-life shell. Clerics and Druids are not frightened in the least by the beast, even in close quarters. This can be used to block the creature's access to other party members in close quarters. Wall-type spells: A wall of force, or sculpted wall of stone can protect your party easily. Even a leomund's secure shelter might be enough. Even 3.0 Darkness might dissuade the un-intelligent monster to look elswhere. Levitate, fly, polymorph, expeditious retreat, spider climb (they do climb however), any of these "positional" spells can aid your party enormously. Many magic items and feats, class abilities can help your party down the beast. The druid is immune to poison at 11th level as is the monk. Boots of levitation, etc... Conclusion: An 11th level party of only warriors who didn't see/hear the thing, ended up just outside the reach of the creature might lose a party member. Likely with them all getting off full attacks, a few potions, and yeah, they might lose a guy. Maybe. 1) 50 foot speed. 15' reach. Improved grab. Staying out of reach is NOT always viable, especially in ares where the scorpion is most likely to be found. Ranged attacks will take longer to damage it. Simply put, you can't normally get away from it, nor can you really damage it if you CAN stay away from it. 2)Illusions and other spells will only distract, not defeat. Antilife shell and the wall spells will again only do avoidance, but not defeat. Darkness dissuading a vermin....yeah...right. And the positional spells will only help you in certain envirmonmnets, typically the ones that you would NOT encounter the Scorpion in anyways. Running away is NOT overcoming or defeating. Conclusion: A party of 11th level characters will suffer heavy casualties in directly facing this creatutre, mostly likely a couple of fatalities, because of the 9 points of Strength damage every round. 3.5 places this creature at around CR 17, which is much more reasonable. Originally posted by Dalaeck Uh-huh. :rolleyes: Lemme see. It holds you in place for rounds. It affects only a very small portion of all monsters in the game. It has a save. You can be pulled/dragged to relative safety by allies. You can be coup-de-graced another save (likely a hard one). Two (or one vs. clerical) levels lower and you have "sleep" and one level higher and you have polymorph and phantasmal killer. Yep, real over-powered. Yeah, very overpowered, as proven by your post. Sleep is limited by HD and a simple standard action by anotehr character eliminates the effect. Phantasmal killer requires two saves and is two levels higher, Polymorph is levels higher and requires one save. But look at the simple fact that you have to compare this 2nd level spell to 4th level effects in order to find something comperable. That, by definition, is broken. Originally posted by Dalaeck You know, I've read through my entire 3.0 FAQ and I can't find this. And no, the core books don't include the FAQ anymore than they include the web-updates or other crap. If you want to judge 3.0 to 3.5 arbitrarily I can use the FAQ to "clear up" many "problems" people have with 3.0. Be fair. Page 59 of the last 3.0 FAQ, last entry on the bottom lefhand column, continuing on to the top of the righthand. And the FAQ is tehre to clarify such issues like this. The point remains that Protection from Evil has ALWAYS had that effect, period. Originally posted by Dalaeck No, one level up is "destruction" which requires a 9th level spell to "repair". Disintegrate requires an attack and stone-to-flesh doesn't. One affects a slightly broader range of creatures than the other. These spells were FINE. Destruction is also a Cleric spell, and also a death effect, nullifying its useage against MANY characters. Disintegrate works on virtually ANYTHING. Flesh to stone is limited to only living targets, and can be undone with readily accessable spells. Simply put, disintegrate had too much utility with too good of an effect. It could affect ANYTHING, creature or object, and could bypass hp with its main effect. Originally posted by Dalaeck Oh lord. Do you think "polar ray" is "good" D? How about metamagic rods? A saveless direct damage spell with potential for critical effects? Hell, yes, I think that's good. Metamagic rods I'm rather "eh" on. I see nothing wrong with them, but I'm not screaming for more either. Originally posted by Dalaeck It looks like I'm not going to convince you. Oh well. Not the first rabid-foaming-at-the-mouth 3.5 zealot to cross swords with me. So long as the corpses of your "arguments" lie bloody for everyone to see in the intellectual arena that's fine by me... First off, if you'll rreread your posts, you will see you're the one who is rabid-foaming-at-the-mouth. Your tenacity to resist change and correction of errors in a simple game is uncanny. And you might see my arguments as "corpses," which again leads me to question your mental stability, but I have presented fact while you have presented incorrect and emotionally biased "information." I think that stands by itself.
Scorpion_Shugenja 09-07-03, 03:48 PM	first off, polar ray is useless. it does 1die per level of damage to one target, with an attack roll, of an energy type moderately frequently resisted. you are never EVER going to see me use Polar Ray rather then Horrid wilting, an 8th level spell that does a bigger die of damage per level to multiple target's without an attack roll, of non-elemental damage. regarding the original question, i have not read the faq. the mm3.0 said that the xp award scaled with the creature's HD i.e. HDx2= XPx2 clearly ridiculous if you ask me. now, do not get mad benny, because i am about to push 3.5. I think that on the whole it's hard to say which edition is better. I play a 3.0 campaign that has been going since before 3.5. I am teaching some new people to play 3.5., since they're newbies and 3.5 is the current rules. given a choice though, i would play 3.25. IMO the 3.5 ranger, monk, and bard are better than before, but i dislike some of the spell nerfs. for instance, I like the 3.0 stat buffs, and use a homebrew 3.0 haste that allow an extra move or attack, but not cast. but, the MM 3.5 is way, WAY better than the 3.0 one. in fact, i am using MM3.5 in my 3.0 campaign. the monster advancement is cleaned up, there are more new monsters, the orcs have actual stats, and all the goblinoids have warrior levels. plus, they got rid of the whole stupid "1 feat per 4EHD" thing, where you had to subtract HD based on size, and the skill calculation like "3x Intelligence score skillpoints, plus 1 per EHD" nonsense. i strongly recommend that you use it. but anyway, even if you don't convert at all, think about this: there is no one, clear adequate rule for calculating CR for advanced monsters in 3.0. you will have to find something outside the books. why watse time making up your own algorithm, when you could just BORROW from 3.5?
Dalaeck 09-07-03, 09:47 PM	Originally posted by d_nychus [B]1) 50 foot speed. 15' reach. Improved grab. Staying out of reach is NOT always viable, especially in ares where the scorpion is most likely to be found. Ranged attacks will take longer to damage it. Simply put, you can't normally get away from it, nor can you really damage it if you CAN stay away from it. Let me reiterate something you obviously have great difficulty grasping: It's a collosal 40 ft. wide by 80 ft wide scorpion!!!! The bloody spot check on seeing the thing is at -16!!! It requires at MINIMUM a 40 foot wide chamber to move in!!! You're not going to "round the bend and oh, look, a collosal 40 foot by 80 foot scorpion, and incidentally, we have nowhere to move around in the vast emptiness of this cavern".... D, all things aside, do you really think before you type? You're talking about characters which have access to any number of things like "fly", "dimension door", "boots of striding and springing", "boots of spider climbing", you bloody name it. "Getting away" would rarely be a problem. Lord forbid they do any scouting or use divinations... What the hell is that statement "you can't really damage it once you get away"? It has AC 18. A near-sighted moronic half toad could fire arrows into the damn thing. Can you tell me why "taking longer to kill it" is "a bad thing"? Please? Does it have to die a few rounds to be considered appropriate challenge rating? Funny I never saw that clause... maybe because I actually understand CR and I have PCs with half a wit that would easily take this thing down with 11th level characters... 2)Illusions and other spells will only distract, not defeat. Antilife shell and the wall spells will again only do avoidance, but not defeat. Darkness dissuading a vermin....yeah...right. And the positional spells will only help you in certain envirmonmnets, typically the ones that you would NOT encounter the Scorpion in anyways. Running away is NOT overcoming or defeating. No. Distracting something while you kill it or get into position to kill it = defeating. Sorry D. And out of curiosity which "environments" do you encounter collosal scorpions in your world? I happen to encounter them in "temperate and warm land", you know, like out in the open desert, where they're usually not threatened by anything because they can squish just about anything. Anything that is except maybe an 11th level party... I also tend to encounter them in "underground" areas, collosal cavern systems so that the thing can, you know, actually move about or even turn... So... Um... D... Do your collosal vermin hide behind doors in nifty dungeon rooms specifically designed to offer no escape in a forbiddence spell area so people can't teleport or maybe at the bottom of pits greased with universal solvent... I just want to make sure we're on the same "wavelength" here... Conclusion: A party of 11th level characters will suffer heavy casualties in directly facing this creatutre, mostly likely a couple of fatalities, because of the 9 points of Strength damage every round. 3.5 places this creature at around CR 17, which is much more reasonable. OMG... CR 17. How damn bloody stupidly powerful do you have to be to defeat this thing? I've got my "3.5 CR is on crack" example right here. OMG. Are you serious? I have to check the 3.5 SRD. I don't think any designer could be that dumb, there must be a mistake. That's ridiculous. That's akin to saying that you need the potential to be able to cast 1st through 9th level magic and have 340 000 GP of gear to take it on easily. I would be tempted to say that I've never heard anything quite so ridiculous but that's not true, 3.5 has many other changes on par with the same level of idiocy, so I shouldn't be surprised. Yeah, very overpowered, as proven by your post. Sleep is limited by HD and a simple standard action by anotehr character eliminates the effect. Phantasmal killer requires two saves and is two levels higher, Polymorph is levels higher and requires one save. But look at the simple fact that you have to compare this 2nd level spell to 4th level effects in order to find something comperable. That, by definition, is broken. Oh lord... a HD limitation is much much better than the restrictive "one humanoid of medium size or smaller". Do you really want to argue this one? Do you want a list of the monsters you can effect with a sleep spell compared to hold person? You do realise you can't even hold an ogre? Or a harpy? Can I make a guess at what bothers you? What bothers you is that a character (a fighter for instance) of any level can be "held". Did I hit the hammer on the nail? My comparison was specifically to outline how this spell "fits" in it's place and is in no way contradictory. Re-read. Hold person is very significantly worse than polymorph and phatasmal killer. And btw phantasmal killer and polymorph other are the same level. They've been like this for 30+ years until a power-trip druid-maniac got in charge. Page 59 of the last 3.0 FAQ, last entry on the bottom lefhand column, continuing on to the top of the righthand. And the FAQ is tehre to clarify such issues like this. The point remains that Protection from Evil has ALWAYS had that effect, period. I must not have the same FAQ as you, likely older. This spell was copied near-verbatim from 2E and no, it has never ever had the ability to negate charm. Going right back to the red-books, no protection vs evil never had the ability to negate charm (though back then it negated charmed creature's attacks as well as extraplanar). Sorry D, this looks like idiotic house-rules seeping in. 3.0 did not have this written into it, PERIOD. I'm not going to justify the FAQ and other moronic rules tacked on. I'm going to compare 3.0 to 3.5. Destruction is also a Cleric spell, and also a death effect, nullifying its useage against MANY characters. Disintegrate works on virtually ANYTHING. Flesh to stone is limited to only living targets, and can be undone with readily accessable spells. Simply put, disintegrate had too much utility with too good of an effect. It could affect ANYTHING, creature or object, and could bypass hp with its main effect. Well isn't it conveniant for you to complain how "hold person" is a 2nd level spell and then say "destruction" is clerical. That's only slightly hypocritical so I'll let it pass. Tell me D, why should a clerical spell be better than a wizardly one? What the hell exactly are the "many characters"? Constructs and Undead? So the same 4% of the MM that flesh to stone? Disintegrate is ressurectable, touch attack and save 5d6. Destruction does 10d6 damage on a failed save, no touch attack, and is not ressurectable AND is clerical to boot (should be weaker than arcane finger of death). If you ask me it looks like disintegrate was fine. Clearly "destruction" was the offender and needed toning down but the bias bunch didn't do it. Sorry 3.5 has failed in so many ways it's unbeleivable. A saveless direct damage spell with potential for critical effects? Hell, yes, I think that's good. Metamagic rods I'm rather "eh" on. I see nothing wrong with them, but I'm not screaming for more either. Mayhap you should read "otiluke's freezing sphere" from 3.0. You'll be "sad" to learn that "polar ray" is nothing but the poor bastard child of this once impressive spell. I'm tempted to break off discussion with you. I really don't feel you have a grip on what spell level means. An 8th level elemental direct damage spell against one target that does d6's, requires a touch attack is NOT a good spell. Looks much more like a 6th level one, but hey someone else has already chimed in and they appear to have more than half a node. First off, if you'll rreread your posts, you will see you're the one who is rabid-foaming-at-the-mouth. Your tenacity to resist change and correction of errors in a simple game is uncanny. "change" is a term without qualifier. "good change" I dont' resist. "bad change" I do. That indeed is why so few people bat an eyelash towards 3.5. It's a pile of "bad changes" mixed with a few "good changes" and a lot of "arbitrary changes" that average out to 3.5 << 3.0. Deal with it. And please, the mental stability issue is getting old, older than I am... Give it a rest.
d_nychus 09-08-03, 02:56 AM	You obviously have no idea what CR is if your measure of appropriateness for it si how easily the PC's can get away from it. CR has NOTHING to do with that. CR has EVERYTHING with being directly confronted and defeating the said monster. There is simply NO POSSIBLE WAY for an 11th level party to kill this thing without taking significant causualties, barring unsusual cricumstances. This is FACT. Taking longer to kill it means more opportunity for it to use its unavoidable poison damage. To an average 11th level party, a Colossal scorpion means death. Don't beleive me? Try it yourself. If you cannot grasp that, you reallly have a poor understanding of the game (which is most likely the case, anyways). You keep on touting "keeping your distance" as the key to defeating the Colossal Scorpion, but that just further proves my point. An appropriate CR should be a relatively easy encounter in most occurances. The way you are stating this, the Colossal Scorpion CANNOT BE DEFEATED ANY OTHER WAY. Simply put, that means except in unusual circumstances, the Colossal Scorpoin is a TPK at close range. That, again, means that the CR for the Colossal Scorpoin is WAY too low. If it is an encounter that takes more than 20% of the parties resources in a normal encounter, then it is innappropriately rated. Can you say OMG a few more times? I haven't seen it enough. A CR 17 for a 60 HD monster with a poison DC in the 40'sis more reasonable than CR 11. Anyone with half a brain can tell you that. You keep missing the nail by about a foot or ten. Yes, a HD restriction is much more limiting than a VERY COMMON and OFTEN USED creature type. Yes, it bothers me that a single spell can take a PLAYER of the game out of an entire combat, but what bothers me more is the abilty to use a 2nd level spell for a coup de grace WITHOUT ANY OTHER MEANS OF ELIMINATING IT. Hold person in 3.0 is about as powerful as either polymorph and phantasmal killer, since it really is a save or die spell when you get to the heart of it. Sleep is just the same, but it at least has multiple factors which may allow for its effects to be ended. The FAQ is just as valid, and PfE has ALWAYS blocked charm. How can you POSSIBLY be thick headed enough not to realize charm is an "exercise of mental control over a creature?" Seriously, just admit you're wrong. The evidence is 100% incontravertible. Covering your ears and closing your eyes screaming "LA LA LA LA!!!" does not change utter truth. Am I a hypocrit? How about the hypocrit who brought up the spells in question? The same hypocrit who USES said spells in examples then criticizes another for using the very same spells in his? Destruction, 7th level clerical spell. Disintegrate, 6th level sor/wiz spell. Disintegrate affects both creatures AND objects, That covers EVERYTHING. Destruction can only target living creatures. That makes Disintigrate BETTER. Much much better. Even in 3.5, its still better, just not as insanely much so. Works good with teh current spell balance. Your bias for wizards having broken spells is unbeleiveable. Wizards were insanely too powerful in 3.0, period. I'm glad they were toned down to be a close match with other classes. Yeah, no duh OFS is where polar ray originated from. It was broken as a 6th level spell. It could beat out chain lighting simply because it didn't have a save, and cold is not a common element to be resisted. Delayed blast fireball deals a lot more damage overall, but polar ray deals more consistant damage, and it is more controllable. At higher end levels, saveless spells start taking on more and more worth. I see it as working rather well. Oh, and if you read all that "that guy" chimed in on, even he says 3.5 treats monsters better than 3.0. You are not as discriminating as you seem to claim in your post. It's an outright lie that you accept "good change" because of the way you discount ALL OF 3.5 because of disagreement with a FEW of its changes. Are you this whiney and fanatic about EVERYTHING in your life? And I will keep bringing up the sanity issue as long as you persist in your campaign of misinformation and emotionally biased rants and raves. The way you post and react, you clearly are at least mildly mentally disturbed in just by your fanaicism and overreaction. Throwing tantrums over a GAME like this is not a sign of mental health.
The Abominable Darkling 09-08-03, 05:55 AM	Well, this thread has certainly gotten off track! Anyway, the 3.5 colossal monstrous scorpion is certainly much more reasonable than the 3.0. It's CR 12 (not 17!) and has 40 hit dice instead of 64. Dalaeck, I don' think d_nychus is arguing that you can't cheese your way to victory against the colossal scorpion (3.0). I think his point is just that you pretty much have to if you want to win. After all, it has no intelligence and no ranged attacks. There quite a variety of tactics it can do absolutely nothing about. That being said, I do think it's possible to beat the thing without trying to hard. It does a lot of damage to be sure, but it doesn't have much in the way of defenses (and it's trivial to be immune to its poison if you want to be). Anyway, I think the most likely outcome of an encounter with a colossal monstrous scorpion is the party either calmly walking the other way or waiting for it to leave. I seriously doubt such a creature would view a bunch of human-sized creatures as food. It really has no reason to attack.
Dalaeck 09-08-03, 01:27 PM	The old wizard grows weary Originally posted by d_nychus CR has EVERYTHING with being directly confronted and defeating the said monster. There is simply NO POSSIBLE WAY for an 11th level party to kill this thing without taking significant causualties, barring unsusual cricumstances. This is FACT. Perhaps "directly encountering" means something totally different to you and me. That's what I was alluding to in my previous rather inflamatory statements. My group laughs at monstrous vermin at 11th level. I happen to run my encounters, again, using the encounter distance table, a plausible backdrop (collosal scorpion tracks are likely) and the relevant terrain (a collosal cavern system or wide open desert for instance). I am, again, quite convinced that if you teleport the PCs into a sealed tight room with no escape and always within reach of the critter, yeah, you'll likely see a casualty or two. Particularly if you put the mage in the front row. You can organise any number of "particular" situations and likely more importantly roleplay the monster as it having more intelligence than what it actually has AND THEN make your collosal scorpion much more challenging. ( But not CR 17, that's simply ridiculous). In the mean situation, the scorpion will be a rather easy kill for the average party. The average party does: A- not rush into things headlong, do "some" scouting/information gathering/divinations. B- not consider themselves "above" using tactics beyond the toe-to-toe I don't know "how" you play D&D but the above goes without saying in my campaigns. My PCs have fought collosal vermin before and only once did they have a real problem and it wasn't with the scorpion, it was with the collosal spider. Even then they admit is was their own bloody fault someone died because someone killed the thing while his ally was directly under it's legs. For my own personal entertainment, ignoring all the PC spells, abilities (venom immunity), magic items that can help you along in your vermin busting quest, let's do some math: It does an average 46 damage a round full attack ( including 5% miss chance of rolling a 1) and it's poison does 9 Str damage a round. 49 damage if it uses it's "squeeze" ability. The average front-lines fighter will have: 10 + 10d10 = 65 + con bonus. A "reasonable" estimate of Con modifier bonus would be +3 at this level, so 98 HP on average. He can thus soak the damage from the thing for about 2 rounds, after which he will likely fall limp. The "reasonable" damage output from the average wizard without metamagic would be otiluke's freezing sphere ray version (no save), for 38 damage a round. The "reasonable" damage output for a cleric at this level would be harm, which would end the fight rather quickly, or blade-barrier with 38 damage as well, though save negates so on average less than 38, let's say an average of half that, 19. The "reasonable" damage output for a rogue would be 1.5 hits of 1d4 (dagger) + 6d6 (sneak attack) damage = 35 damage. The "reasonable" damage output for a fighter would be 2 hits of 1d10 (bastard sword) + 4 (str, not unreasonable) x1.5 (two-handed)+ 2 (specialisation) = 27 damage. So for the "standard" 4 person party you're looking at an average damage output of around 27+35+19+38 = 119 damage per round. No let me make a comment: this party is a very very average largely un-equipped 11th level party. I have given them no advantages and no gear and no real oomph and given both sides full-attacks and no attacks of opportunity. In the very first round the scorpion would lose 1/4 of it's HP. Let's do some "minor" adjustments to this scenario. Let's start by saying that only an idiot would go toe-to-toe with the beast and suffer it's full attack. So we have likely one round where it only does (as the text indicates) a charge and gets only one natural attack, it's claw. The 3 non-fighters would likely push the fighter forward, he may or may not get off his attack (initiative), but likely the other 3 will get off their spells and attacks. In this case, with the assumption of the fighter out of the picture, it will take 3 rounds for the fighter to drop and the "very average" party will do only 35+19+38 damage to the critter with the rogue getting in only 1 attack in the first round. An average damage of 258 in 3 rounds. You know what I'm tempted to do? I'm tempted to give my guys gear and half a brain. So let's add in a "greater magic weapon spell". +3 weapons at this level. Let's give the rogue a short-sword and a strength bonus of +2. Let's give the wizard a maximized (or empowered, you pick) lightning bolt and "gasp" a haste spell. Let's give the fighter boots of speed and "gasp" a power-attack (a la reasonable 3.0) of say +5 because it's the proverbial broad-side of a barn so 3 attacks. And well, we couldn't have the cleric actually have a "harm" spell, because that wouldn't "fair" for an 11th level party. :rolleyes: Let's give the cleric nice heavy mace and some divine power in the charging round. Rough damage output from "slightly more intelligent" average party: Fighter: 69 Rogue: 59 Wizard: 90 (assuming it saves 1/2 the time) Cleric: 42 Or an average 260 damage a round. Let's give them a surprise rond now! Aye ya ya... I don't know what you're complaining about. My logged statistics for my 11th level party fighting a collosal scorpion is that it took 4 rounds. No one pulled full-attacks except the scorpion with it's snatch ability and the scorpion was simply blasted/stabbed to bits by the rest of the party. No one died but the warrior and rogue were both very low on HP. I play a very tightly regulated game, by the rules as written in the PHB and DMG and my party has carefully tabulated average wealth for their level. Taking longer to kill it means more opportunity for it to use its unavoidable poison damage. This factors in mostly for the people that are in the grips of the scorpion, and not at all for the rest. It stings once a round. Period. It's bad, but not "killer" at 11th level by a long shot. You might want to consider that there are classes with venom immunity and spells and even potions which neutralise poison, something I strongly suggest you take on your next adventuring journey... A CR 17 for a 60 HD monster with a poison DC in the 40'sis more reasonable than CR 11. Anyone with half a brain can tell you that. I think you need a brain cell to look beyond the "60 HD" and "poison". Yes, a HD restriction is much more limiting than a VERY COMMON and OFTEN USED creature type. Common for whome? They account for exactly 3% of all monsters in the MM? Kind of restrictive isn't it? things with HD < 8 are about 60% of the monsters. Even the average roll of HD = 5 is 45% of the monsters in the MM. Do you catch my drift? You're not judging the spells arbitrarily. One has a much much broader range of applicability (that can be empowered to boot) and potential multi-target, the other has a much more restricted range but can potentially effect a single tough target. You're not judging things arbitrarily here. Yes, it bothers me that a single spell can take a PLAYER of the game out of an entire combat, but what bothers me more is the abilty to use a 2nd level spell for a coup de grace WITHOUT ANY OTHER MEANS OF ELIMINATING IT. Aside from dispel magic, freedom of movement, remove paralysis, or just waiting the rounds it lasts. Yep, I see what you're saying. Tell me D, do you play fighters? Do you remember 2nd edition hold person? It affected 1d4 targets back then... Hold person in 3.0 is about as powerful as either polymorph and phantasmal killer, since it really is a save or die spell when you get to the heart of it. Sleep is just the same, but it at least has multiple factors which may allow for its effects to be ended. Well let's see. I can polymorph you into a slug and carry you around in a jar feeding you rotten cabbage occasionally. It can be reversed only by a 5th level break enchantment or similar 4th level polymorph or by simply killing you and then 5th level raise dead (or 4th level reincarnate-then-polymorph to return). The only protection you have against it is beeing a natural shape-shifter (druid) or having previously cast polymorph self. Polymorph affects a huge range of creatures and is instantaneous. Phatasmal killer deals damage if you fail the will save regardless. It effects a slightly larger range of creatures than polymorph. It can be countered only by a specific magic item, a helm of telepathy and hindered, not countered, by fear-based spells and abilities like a paladin's aura of courage. Once failed you're dead, no one can pick you up like the slug in the above example and maybe bring you to safety. Hold person has a duration, a very small range of creatures it can effect, can be reversed (en mass) by remouve paralysis, dispel magic and countered completely before-hand by freedom of mouvement. It does "nothing" to the creature but the creature can be coup-de-graced, another save (though hard), requiring a full-round-action within 5ft step of the creature. After beeing killed it requires a 5th level raise dead spell (or 4th level reincarnate-then-polymorph). Yep. I must admit, hold person is as powerful as 4th level polymorph and phatasmal killer. :rolleyes: The FAQ is just as valid, and PfE has ALWAYS blocked charm. How can you POSSIBLY be thick headed enough not to realize charm is an "exercise of mental control over a creature?" Seriously, just admit you're wrong. The evidence is 100% incontravertible. Covering your ears and closing your eyes screaming "LA LA LA LA!!!" does not change utter truth. Well first of all it's YOUR FAQ not mine, second of all I'm not in the least going to accept the FAQ or even the archmage or other extraneous material when comparing 3.0 to any other system. I can and will compare the book for the book, no "web-enhancments" or "splat books" or other crap. This spell is perfectly well worded as it stands and it does NOT negate charm. The 3.5 spell DOES. It is a paradigm shift, I don't care "when" some idiot decided it would, it has changed from 3.0 to 3.5. Am I a hypocrit? How about the hypocrit who brought up the spells in question? The same hypocrit who USES said spells in examples then criticizes another for using the very same spells in his? Well... I'm not going to answer that one directly. It would get me in trouble... :D Destruction, 7th level clerical spell. Disintegrate, 6th level sor/wiz spell. Disintegrate affects both creatures AND objects, That covers EVERYTHING. Destruction can only target living creatures. That makes Disintigrate BETTER. Much much better. Even in 3.5, its still better, just not as insanely much so. Works good with teh current spell balance. No, you can't disintegrate a golem. Or a rakshasha, or a nightshade. Really all it affects more are a handful of constructs and undead, does less damage on failed save and requires a touch attack to boot. AND it's effects are much more easily reversed than destruction, which requires 9th level magic. Seems to me that "disintegrate" was fine and appropriate. "destruction" needs the toning down. Your bias for wizards having broken spells is unbeleiveable. Wizards were insanely too powerful in 3.0, period. I'm glad they were toned down to be a close match with other classes. Oh that's laughable. The biggest offenders have always been clerics and druids. People look at the wizard spell lists and ogle. They say "oh they're so powerful" but reality sinks in that you're the most statistically dissadvantaged class in the game, you have few spells and they better damn well be powerful. Seriously, you're nuts if you think wizards were "toned down to match the other classes". I could buy that if the druid and cleric didn't get such a huge power boost but to be honest, 3.5 is just a bunch of guys out there implementing their twisted bias house-rules to what used to be called D&D. Nothing more. Yeah, no duh OFS is where polar ray originated from. It was broken as a 6th level spell. It could beat out chain lighting simply because it didn't have a save, and cold is not a common element to be resisted. Delayed blast fireball deals a lot more damage overall, but polar ray deals more consistant damage, and it is more controllable. At higher end levels, saveless spells start taking on more and more worth. Tell me D, do you play the silly levels also called "epic" games? Also how is a save for half vs. multiple opponents "worse" than no save versus one opponent in terms of direct damage? You are not as discriminating as you seem to claim in your post. It's an outright lie that you accept "good change" because of the way you discount ALL OF 3.5 because of disagreement with a FEW of its changes. Are you this whiney and fanatic about EVERYTHING in your life? Sorry D, I'm not any more fanatic than you are. Judging from your behavior simply in this thread. Are you so whiney that people can't find any overall improvement in 3.5 that you have to join 3.0 specific threads and preach to them? Even after beeing very politely told to back off? Give me a break. The childish 3.5 tantrum is what I've seen thrown all over these boards. Someone asks for 3.0 "help" and some 3.5 foaming-at-the-mouth-zealot joins in with a borg-ish "you must convert" banner. I dare you to find me doing anything even remotely similar to your childish behavior in these forums. I reply to threads like "What did they do to the erinyes?" and "3.0 questions" and "3.0 to 3.5 comparison". I do NOT join the "help my group convert to 3.5" threads and speal. That simple. Take a hard look and try and find one. You won't.
Dalaeck 09-08-03, 01:49 PM	Originally posted by The Abominable Darkling It's CR 12 (not 17!) and has 40 hit dice instead of 64. That seems much more reasonable that CR 17 (!). Particularly considering the nerfed spells of 3.5. I still think when you couple 3.0 spells, improved critical stacking with keen, boots of striding and springing actually doubling your movement rate, etc... into the equation it's more like CR11 even with hit-dice difference. What do you think? Appropriate CR for 3.0? Dalaeck, I don' think d_nychus is arguing that you can't cheese your way to victory against the colossal scorpion (3.0). Do you really consider "cheese" staying out of reach? Just curious, no offense intended, myself and my PCs consider it tactics and integral to the CR of a monster. A gelugon that can teleport away and regenerate is much much tougher than it's HP indicate. Anyway, I think the most likely outcome of an encounter with a colossal monstrous scorpion is the party either calmly walking the other way or waiting for it to leave. I seriously doubt such a creature would view a bunch of human-sized creatures as food. It really has no reason to attack. That IS true and has even happened in my game, not with a scorpion but with a centipede. The smaller variety are generally more dangerous in my world, fighting 5 huge scorpions is usually a tough encounter for it's CR. It's not impossible for a collosal one to think a mount as appropriately sized food though. A mounted paladin with his king's flag on his lance tip "could" look like a good snack. Thankfully collosal vermin are solitary... LOL
The Abominable Darkling 09-08-03, 02:01 PM	Originally posted by Dalaeck Do you really consider "cheese" staying out of reach? Just curious, no offense intended, myself and my PCs consider it tactics and integral to the CR of a monster. A gelugon that can teleport away and regenerate is much much tougher than it's HP indicate. I'm not saying that's its wrong for the PCs to do so. If they can, they certainly should stay out of reach. I just think a flying party is a little unfair to the poor scorpion. ;)What do you think? Appropriate CR for 3.0?I really don't know. I've only ever used one once in my games, and the players (wisely) refused to fight it. Judging by my experience with the purple worm, I think it would most likely take about 3 rounds to kill the beasty, which definately puts its CR in the right ballpark, though its offensive abilities might require the players to use more defensive spells (stoneskin, displacement, etc.) than they normally would.
d_nychus 09-08-03, 02:57 PM	Notice for your example you have to have the rogue somehow sneak attacking (how I am still guessing), the wizard using a broken spell (almost the same with the cleric), the cleric and wizard using their HIGHEST LEVEL SLOTS, the fighter somehow ignoring AoO, and the scorpion somehow forgoing grappling. So at a VERY unlikely optimum, the party can deal around 1/4 its hp a round, using a good portion of spell resources with one character (the highest hp character in the party, too) taking 50% damage PER ROUND. Again, I rest my case the Colossal Scorpion is Under CRed in 3.0. Your most spell abusive party, err, your more "intelligent party" can deal 1/2 the damage they need at the cost fo some of their best broken spells for the day. Sounds like your "intelligent party" just used over 20% of their resources just in spell preperation, more than what a CR of their level should cost them OVERLALL. That doesn't mean anything to you? Come on, even trying to cheese your way through it, you make my point. It's funny. And I took the CR 12 40 HD version of the Colossal Scorpion in the 3.5 MM, and advanced it to 60 HD just to bring some relation to the 64 HD monstrosity that was in 3.0. CR 16 was my guess in 3.0, and CR 17 is close. Three spell effects, 2 of them higher level than the original spell, does NOT stop hold person from being abusive. Those spells are exceptions, and are not common until higher levels, obviously. Humaniods are 3% of the book, but 90% of the NPCS. AND IT IS THE INSTANT DEATH FACTOR OF THE SPELL THAT IS MAINLY ABUSIVE!! Free coup de grace as a 2nd level spell, anytime within the next 3-20 rounds. If I ever played in one of your games, I would show you just how overpowered it really is. You're 100% right that the 3.0 hold person is as powerful as polymorph, and is actually a little more powerful than phantasmal killer, which has two saves. The Charm monster/PFE argument is already mine. I'm dropping it. You again miss the point of disintegrate. Disintegrate affects 100% of all objects and 95% of all monsters and characters. Destruction, a higher level spell, affects 70% or so of all characters, ONLY. THAT is what is unbalancing. 3.0 wizards and sorcerers mopped the floor with all other character classes. The number abuseable and broken spells in 3.0 were rampant. It was not Dungeons & Dragons, but Haste Harm. There are reasons that threads like "How can you kill a high level wizard?" and "does the fighter have a chance against a wizard?" exist. While balance is alway a rough guess at best, they are certainly less abusive and powerful than they were, and more in line with other classes. That is a GOOD thing for the game. Druids and clerics got a slight powerboost, but the druid sorely needed it, and the cleric lost a lot from domains. Somehow, I cannot possibly see them overshadowing the game like the 3.0 wizard did. 3.5 IS D&D right now. Nothing less. Yes, I've played an epic game. The ELH needs some serious revision, but it was a good basis. And considering the saves of higher end characters and monsters, a saveless damage spell is worth its spell slot any day of the week. In higher levels, Polar Ray is REALLY going to be effective, much better than any other similar level direct damage spell. Consistant damage ALWAYS ends up being better than possible. Dare taken. You posted repeatedly in the 3.5 forum, constantly being childish and unintelligible. Your comments were mostly along the lines of "GASP!! They changed something!!! GASP!!! THey changed something else that everyone had been complainging about !!! 3.5 SUCKS!!!" At least In those threads I offered dialogue while you just offered "oh, woe is me!! D&D s0x0rs now!!"
The Abominable Darkling 09-08-03, 03:20 PM	Perhaps this is simply one of those monsters with no appropriate CR. There's simply too great a difference between its offensive and defensive capabilities.
d_nychus 09-08-03, 03:27 PM	Originally posted by The Abominable Darkling I'm not saying that's its wrong for the PCs to do so. If they can, they certainly should stay out of reach. I just think a flying party is a little unfair to the poor scorpion. ;)I really don't know. I've only ever used one once in my games, and the players (wisely) refused to fight it. Judging by my experience with the purple worm, I think it would most likely take about 3 rounds to kill the beasty, which definately puts its CR in the right ballpark, though its offensive abilities might require the players to use more defensive spells (stoneskin, displacement, etc.) than they normally would. Well, considering the thing technically should be able to reach almost 100' into the air, flying won't always save you. The save DC of 54 for poison is ridiculous, and is my primary reason for saying it is under CRed. I mean, it is bad enough with just 416 hp, insane saving throws, and 15 foot reach. Getting into melee with this thing WILL kill a party under 15th level, and the grappling attack just means that once a character IS in melee, it STAYS in melee, more than likely dying on the third round, regardless of hp. When you consider CR, you need to thing in terms of how much can it dish out in relation to the abilities party, not what tactics are optimal to kill it. There is no way a party could ALWAYS use those tactics when fighting a Colossal Scorpion. If they somehow are able to use superior tactics, then it SHOULD be an easy win. But if they are harshly penalized for NOT using that one type of tactic, then there is something wrong with the CR, period. A 12 headed hydra is a pushover if you can fight it from range. Even a 5th level party could take out a 12 headed hydra at long range. But if that same party fights the same hydra a little closer, they are going to suffer casualties. If they fight it in direct melee, they won't last a round. A party under 7th level would be sorely pressed in killng a 12 headed hydra in melee, and it is only past level 10 or so that it becomes a relatively easy, though challenging, task. Hence, the CR 11 is appropriate. Which brings up another question for debate. A 12 headed hydra is a CR 11. It has 12 HD, 126 hp, 20' move, 10' reach, 12 attacks at +13 for 1d10+6 each. A 3.0 Colossal Scorpion has 64 HD, 416 hp, 50' move, 15' reach, 3 attack in the +40 for 2d8+9 +2d8 Strength damage and 2d8+4, and improved grapple. Somehow these two are supposed to be equal in challenging an 11th level party?
d_nychus 09-08-03, 03:32 PM	Originally posted by The Abominable Darkling Perhaps this is simply one of those monsters with no appropriate CR. There's simply too great a difference between its offensive and defensive capabilities. Well, there is an appropriate CR for everything, it's the EL that changes. Fighting a Colossal scorpion from the air should be a lower EL, not an average EL. Fighting it on the ground in melee should be average. There are quite a few monster in 3.0 (especially in the D section of the MM) that did not match up with their CR, regardless of tactics and encounters, though I will state that the bulk of the book worked well enough. One of the reasons 3.5 is so much better is that they went back and altered monsters to either fit the CR they were supposed to be, or changed the CR to what it should be. They fixed the main offenders I noticed in 3.0 (though I still hate the Grick getting a CR 3 just because of DR...AGAIN!!). The 3.5 MM is just a more effecient and accurate relisting of the same old monsters. I no longer flip open a book and stare in puzzlement going "Now, how is that a CR X?"
Dackad 09-08-03, 04:43 PM	Originally posted by The Abominable Darkling Perhaps this is simply one of those monsters with no appropriate CR. There's simply too great a difference between its offensive and defensive capabilities. Agreed. It's utterly, totally dangerous in melee situations, but completely useless in other ways. Assuming everyone in the party can fly (which either requires lots of prep time or multiple winged boots), this thing is cake. But, no matter how anyone denies it, an 11th level character WILL die if it gets into melee with it.
d_nychus 09-08-03, 04:55 PM	Damn quote button....why does it have to be right beside the edit button?
The Abominable Darkling 09-08-03, 05:21 PM	I really don't think the poison is such a big deal. The second level spell delay poison completely protects you from poison for an hour per level. After the fight, the players will have plenty of time to deal with the poison. All my previous groups cast this on every party member before venturing forth at this level. Once they've gotten a little higher in level, they consume a heroes' feast every morning and never worry about poison again. Also note that in 3.0, the scorpion's poison can't kill you.Getting into melee with this thing WILL kill a party under 15th level, and the grappling attack just means that once a character IS in melee, it STAYS in melee, more than likely dying on the third round, regardless of hp.I don't quite agree. If the party has nothing but melee abilities, this is certainly true. But there are numerous spells that can get you out of it. Also, I do believe that the designers assumed you would have forewarning of a fight with one of these creatures. Just two spells (stoneskin and delay poison) on the front-line fighters will be enough to win the fight.Well, there is an appropriate CR for everything...That is absolutely false. I challenge you to find an appropriate CR for the following creature: The Thumper This spherical creature has puffy purple fur, oversized, watery eyes, and a single spindly arm with an enormous fist attached. Though it appears friendly, it has an extremely bad temper and will attack any living thing it sees. The Thumper: CR ?; Small Magical Beast; HD 1d10-5; hp 1; Init -5; Spd 5 ft.; AC 6, touch 6, flat-footed 6; Base Atk +1; Grp +247; Atk +252 melee (1d4+375, slam); Space/Reach 5 ft./20 ft. (with fist); AL CE; SV Fort -3, Ref -3, Will -5; Str 510, Dex 1, Con 1, Int 3, Wis 1, Cha 17. Skills: Bluff +7. Feats: Weapon Focus (slam). As you can see, this creature is problematic. It has no reasonable chance to survive any attack by any character, but if it gets a turn, it can squish even a 20th-level character like a bug.
d_nychus 09-09-03, 07:42 AM	Umm, considering that is an unrealistic and impossible creature by game mechanics, I hardly take that as proof. A creature that size should have a drastically lower Strength score. by the book, somewhere in the 4-11 range. I still stand by my statement that any REASONABLY DESIGNED AND CCONCEPTUALLY SOUND creature has an appropriate CR.
Dalaeck 09-09-03, 12:25 PM	What is the problem with the rogue sneak attacking D? A medium sized or smaller creature can readily move trough the area occupied by a creature 3 size categories larger than itself. There is NO problem getting into position. Oh boy D do you have a problem with spells. You should consider playing a different game 3.5 has just as many spell problems as 3.0 if not more (death ward, blasphemy, etc...). But for the record let me get this straight D: The CR of the creature is "wrong" because I'm using PHB material specifically designed for the game and wining within the bounds of the loose description of CR? My my my... I think you have a problem with objectivity. The 3.0 system is "working" fine here. As for "highest level slots" I could use less damaging spells (fireball-lightningbolt-flamestrike), or spells like otiluke's freezing sphere without save can easily go into scroll form. It's not a big deal D. I even put blade-barrier in for kicks, flame-strike would be more appropriate. Your case is showing itself rather thin as you grasp at straws like this when I specifically didn't tailor anything. As for loosing 50% of your HP in one round I'm really starting to think A- you don't read what I write B- you're just a 3.5 fanboy who hasn't played D&D by the rules. I lean towards A because you're guaranteed mad at me by now and likely not thinking straight. I'm going to open the MM to CR 11 monsters and we're going to talk damage if all attacks connect. Elder earth elemental: 108 Cloud Giant: 96 Hydra 12 heads: 138 Stone Golem: 40 Now you might argue that all the attacks of the giant scorpion are "at an insane bonus" but I'm simply going to tell you that the average 50 damage is about reasonable for it's CR. The stone golem is usually more challenging in fact because it slows melee warriors and the spellcasters are almost powerless (not to mention it's a construct and usually well positioned by an evil wizard in an anethma environment... I digress). Really D, lets stop it here, I don't want to heap more evidence. You've been proven categorically wrong, just admit you've made a mistake and we'll call it quits. I don't want to humiliate you, that's not the point. The point was CR is reasonable and appropriate by and large in 3.0 and my "feel" for 3.5 CR is that it's "not necessarily as good" because of a percieved lack of communication between the designers. The 3.5 beholder is a bloody joke compared to the 3.0 beholder because of the spell nerfs and yet it's CR remains the same. That's wrong, plain and simple. Three spell effects, 2 of them higher level than the original spell, does NOT stop hold person from being abusive. Those spells are exceptions, and are not common until higher levels, obviously. Humaniods are 3% of the book, but 90% of the NPCS. AND IT IS THE INSTANT DEATH FACTOR OF THE SPELL THAT IS MAINLY ABUSIVE!! Free coup de grace as a 2nd level spell, anytime within the next 3-20 rounds. If I ever played in one of your games, I would show you just how overpowered it really is. I'm sorry my definition of abusive is different than yours. Even the game I play is different than yours despite coming from the same book. While 90% of your NPCs are humanoids so are 90% of mine. However 95% of all combats are not with NPCs but with monsters. I can sympathise if you have problems with the spell in a campaign designed specifically for humanoid-versus-humanoid encounters 90% of the time but really that's not a problem with the game. That's a campaign specific issue you need to address and the core rules should not bend themselves to cater to everyone's whim. As it stands the spell fits right in with the other spells in the system is fair and balanced. You're 100% right that the 3.0 hold person is as powerful as polymorph, and is actually a little more powerful than phantasmal killer, which has two saves. That was sarcasm. Phatasmal killer is a great spell and 2 saves is not a bad thing because quite simply it does damage and the first save targets will. I.E if you meet a large monster with high fortitude phatasmal killer is a BETTER spell than polymorph. It will likely do damage because of a weak will save and has the possibility of killing the creature as well. The Charm monster/PFE argument is already mine. I'm dropping it. Drop it all you like, you're being silly. You again miss the point of disintegrate. Disintegrate affects 100% of all objects and 95% of all monsters and characters. Destruction, a higher level spell, affects 70% or so of all characters, ONLY. THAT is what is unbalancing. I don't beleive your stats. Last I checked there are 16 undead (excluding nightshades) and 4 constructs (excluding golems) in the MM different between the two. Out of 500+ monsters that's 4% difference between the two spells. Again, I don't think you're looking at them objectively. You may encounter a lot of constructs and undead in your campaign but seriously it's a no brainer. Destruction is far too powerful for it's level to be a clerical spell. Finger of death should be as powerful or more. Disintegrate with the added touch attack, lower damage if saved, and needing only a 7th level spell over a 9th to repair is all around a worse spell. 3.0 wizards and sorcerers mopped the floor with all other character classes. The number abuseable and broken spells in 3.0 were rampant. It was not Dungeons & Dragons, but Haste Harm. There are reasons that threads like "How can you kill a high level wizard?" and "does the fighter have a chance against a wizard?" exist. While balance is alway a rough guess at best, they are certainly less abusive and powerful than they were, and more in line with other classes. That is a GOOD thing for the game. I have no idea why you think that they're weaker in 3.0 than the 3.0 cleric or druid. I would like to point out to you that "harm" is clerical. "haste" was perhaps too good a deal for a 3rd level spell, but 3.5 has caused more harm to the warriors than good by their nerf. In 3.0 a haste spell allowed a warrior to get into position and then pull a full attack. To be honest, the warrior has suffered more than the wizard in the 3.5 "mess". It's a sad day for D&D and hopefully a time that will be forgot like so much "skills and powers". You know I tour the 3.5 boards and guess what I see: Clerics overpowered Druids overpowered It's plain as day, these were overpowered classes to begin with in 3.0, there were plenty posts, and now they've gone and made them stronger. Bias, sickening bias. Maybe when the democrats get back in charge.... LOL. 3.5 IS D&D right now. Nothing less. Only in label. Nothing more. We've seen "revisions" before. They come and go along with the egomaniacal fools who think they know best. I'm just bidding my time crossing my fingers for some firings and plummeting sales. Dare taken. You posted repeatedly in the 3.5 forum, constantly being childish and unintelligible. Your comments were mostly along the lines of "GASP!! They changed something!!! GASP!!! THey changed something else that everyone had been complainging about !!! 3.5 SUCKS!!!" I think the context of those posts were clearly a 3.5 to 3.0 comparison. What you've done here is categorically different, and wrong. Benny asked you specifically many times politely to "shut up" and you didn't. My dare goes out to you again.
The Abominable Darkling 09-09-03, 12:56 PM	Originally posted by d_nychus Umm, considering that is an unrealistic and impossible creature by game mechanics, I hardly take that as proof. A creature that size should have a drastically lower Strength score. by the book, somewhere in the 4-11 range.The thumper my be unrealistic, but it is certainly not illegal. The guidelines in the monster manual are just that&mdash;guide lines. You can find plenty of monsters in the manual that violate them. In any case, if the thumper's Strength score is a problem for you, change it to 1 and give it the ability to cast a maximized meteror swarm once per day. The point is simply that it is quite possible to design a creature for which no appropriate CR exists. There are some creatures like the thumper in D&D too. Take the 3.0 fiends, for example. Their powerful spell-like abilities force their CR upwards, but they lack the defenses to last long enough to use them. That is why they all got such dramatic hit dice increases in 3.5.I still stand by my statement that any REASONABLY DESIGNED AND CCONCEPTUALLY SOUND creature has an appropriate CR.You never made this statement. If by "conceptually sound" you mean that it has an appropriate CR, then this really isn't saying anything at all. And going back to the original point, what makes you think the colossal monstrous scorpion is "conceptually sound?"
d_nychus 09-09-03, 02:56 PM	There is a HUGE difference between a demon with too low of HD to use its abilities and a monster that has a greater than godlike score to one ability. The thumper is unreasonable because it works outside of the parameters for making and even using monsters. If I wanted to, I could make a magic item that had a CL of 576, with an effect of "Destroy the multiverse" How would I price that? Even by epic rules, that is something that is too radically different from the rules as is to make it not fit well within the game. The Thumper is just like that. And the Colossal Scorpion is BUILT well within the game, as in reasonably designed, and is just a continuation of an existing creature in size, thus the concept of such a creature in the game is sound. It just displays an utter failing of the 3.0 CR advancment system. A 50% increase in hp is much more of a bonus when the base creature has a huge hp to begin with. This leads to almost an exponetial HD growth for CR increases, while the reality is that power scales almost linearly with HD increase. A monster that added 32 HD to itself should not only gain a +2 to CR. That is ridiculous. That monster may not quite be equal to +1 CR /4 HD as used in the MM3.5, but that is surely a much closer guess. My point is that the Colossal Scorpion works in the game, and can be tested in the game, so finding an appropriate CR should not prove any harder than any other physically based high level monster. There is nothing about the Colossal Scorpion that make it an exception to the rules of the game.
Luin Istar 09-09-03, 04:43 PM	Hello. Well met. This is my very first post. In a war zone, it seems. Look, y'all, I did this whole new version vs. old versin thing back in the late 80's with Advanced vs. 2nd Edition, and earlier with Advanced vs. Basic, and later with 2nd Edition vs. 3.0....on and on it wil go. Realize it now, or later, Wizards is going to make everything 3.5, you're not going to be able to buy anything new that's not 3.5, and in a few years, 4.0 will come out, and then D&D XP, etc. What it comes down to: you use the rules you like, and ignore the rest; and you can't change the rules in the middle of a four year long ongoing campaign without significantly altering the characters themselves, and the setting as well. The original point of this thread was monster advancement and CR for determining experience. We typically allow for a +1 CR for every two HD higher you advance the creature. But we also take into account the combat arena, and the abilities of the characters against said creature. A party that's made up of numerous clerics are more effective against undead, a party of mostly fighters infinitely more effective against golems, etc. Being an abstract game system to begin with, we tend to use abstract experience awards. I don't care what the creatures CR is, if the party took it out in two rounds, it's not worth it's weight in XP. If the party all but dies, it's worth relatively more. If they all die because the fighters heroically charged the 60HD Collosal Scorpion head on....or if they all stood on their magic carpet, and slew the beast with arrows from a distance without taking any damage whatsoever...it's all relative.
d_nychus 09-09-03, 05:13 PM	Wizard-wannabe: Those spells are not always going to be a part of the game. If you can use those spells at the time you encounter said monster, then, sure, you can beat it. The point I am trying to make is that at that level, THERE IS SIMPLY NO OTHER WAY FOR THE PARTY TO WIN!! If it takes specific spells just to escape or survive an encounter, then a party is PENALIZED for not having those spell instead of being REWARDED for having foresight or preparation. Having the POTENTIAL for superior spell power is not a judgement of CR. Determining an average unprepared party likely cost for overcoming the said creature is. There is NO WAY you can compare a 416 hp monster that does unavoidable Strength damage each round to ANY of those CR 11 creatures. The simple fact is that while the CR 11's that you list MIGHT dish out that much damage, the Colossal Scorpion's attacks are more than sufficient to ALWAYS hit and ALWAY do damage. The chance for damage pales in the face of consistant damage, especially if that damage is ABILITY damage. The stone golem may SLOW a party, but a Colossal scorpion WILL KILL IT. Really, I do not see any point in you arguing this any more, I think it's time for you to face reality and admit you're utterly wrong. Heck, even just stopoing posting about it would be decent. I totally agree that by and large CR's were mostly right in 3.0, barring a large number of glaring exceptions in the D section, but the rules for advancement were horrible. They simply did not work, and the Colossal Scorpion is a testament to that. Byt the rules for advancment in 3.0 the Colossal Scorpion should be a CR 11. There is simply no way that is concieveable. And you are right that you do not have a good feel for 3.5, because no way is the 3.5 beholder a "joke." The changes to the spells are negliable, especially compared to the combined powers. I see the cup as still full, while you're crying over a single drop that fell over the side. NPC's are a major part of the game. I can't help you if your game is biased against them. You're the one playing against the core, however, if you look at the actual books. NPC's make up a goodly number of encounters. And the spell is too powerful for it's level both as a cleric and as a wiz/sor spell. It hurts too many types of major characters, using what is usually the most common weakest save in the game. And against ANY NPC, hold person works better than both phantasmal killer and polymorph. Much better. That does not strike you as odd? Since you seem to repeatedly miss the point with the disintegrate spell, I will repeat it, without using statistics. Destruction: 1 level higher and should be comperable affects the bulk of list characters. Disintegrate: affect all of those character and then some AND STILL HAS A HEAVY UTILITY FUNCTION!! That is overpowered anyway you look at it. Haste/Harm was just an example that popped into my mind. There are tons of broken combos in 3.0, all of them relating to the wizard (mostly revolving around haste). Having the potential to pull off 7 spells a round in 3.0 really is overpowering, considering how potent wizard spells are. And you really know nothing about the changes in the revision, do you? The change to haste really HELPED warriors, without giving them access to what amounts to Dire Charge. Haste is a BETTER spell for warrio classes in 3.5. In fact, it's almost dead on with it's 2e/1e origin. A much better spell. Clerics have a slight power advantage, but lose it in being the party healer. Druids are by no means overpowered, but they got such a radical make over that people still haven't gotten over the "flash" effect yet. Druids were a weak class in 3.0, and they slightly improved, but there's really very little to scream about. "Oh, I can wildshape into a tendriculos!! I'm gonna own now!!" is rapidly becoming "Oh wait, by the time I can change into it, it's not worth it." Funny, but I thought the makers of the game determined what the game is, not someone who thinks he's a character from in it. And I personally hope you get fired from your job, just because of your irrational and unwarranted hope that sales start to plummet. That is just rude, self-centered, and ignorant reacting on your part. I've already won your dare. Trying to change the rules afterwards is not going to make it untrue.
Dalaeck 09-10-03, 11:48 AM	Originally posted by d_nychus If it takes specific spells just to escape or survive an encounter, then a party is PENALIZED for not having those spell instead of being REWARDED for having foresight or preparation. Having the POTENTIAL for superior spell power is not a judgement of CR. Determining an average unprepared party likely cost for overcoming the said creature is. You have provided NOTHING to back up your vacuous statements of "they just can't win". I've provided you with a list of spells: Any illusion spell. Invisibility sphere is quite good to get away from it then apply 1. Anti-life shell. Wall-type spells. Levitate, fly, polymorph, expeditious retreat, spider climb (they do climb however), any of these "positional" spells can aid your party enormously. Harm Haste Direct damage spells like flamestrike and Otiluke's freezing sphere That IS NOT restricted to any particular class, any particular spell selection for the day. We are not talking about a one-spell wonder here. The very best spell for this situation, harm, makes the encounter nearly trivial if it goes off. That does mean anything more than "you had the right spell for the right job". I have provided you with reasonable statistics for a party and shown specifically that the party can and will kill the creature in a few rounds. I have given you comparable CR 11 monsters and shown the scorpion to do in no ways "more damage" than the other monsters or is "more threatening". ALL YOU HAVE DONE is blitheringly repeat "it does 9 Str damage has 400 hp" as though that will in any way convince anyone besides your own in reality denial self. Let me tear apart AGAIN, some more of your statements: The "unavoidable strength damage" myth: Of the 11 core classes 9 of them can be affected by poison at this level. Of the 11 core classes 4 of them have "delay poison" (cleric, druid, paladin, ranger) as a spell which lasts 11 hours at this level (can be readily "extended" to 22 hours). 2 have neutralise poison. Potions of delay poison cost 300 GP, average character wealth is 66 000 GP or 0.4% of their total wealth. Regardless of DC a roll of 20 is a successful save. (small effect, 5%) The "it does too much damage myth": Let's put some money where the mouth is: What is a "very good AC" for a warrior? The top of the line is arguably dwarven plate +5 with a +5 large shield. (I don't want to discuss tower shields but I would go with one) What AC is that? +8 (armor) + 5 (enhancement) + 3 (dex) + 2 (shield) + 5 (enhancement) -> AC = 33. This can get even higher if we include rings of protection, dodge feat, etc... Price tag for just the plate and shield: 60 000 GP, leaving 6000 GP for remaining gear (like a weapon). So that's out of the question. Let's say that the warrior will spend a lot on improving his AC. Let's put it at about 50% of his cash. That's roughly 33 000 GP. What's the best AC I can cook up for 33 000 GP? Full plate +3, Shield +3, ring of protection +2, amulet of natural armor +2. Price Tag: 35,820 GP. AC: 8 (armor) + 1 (dex) + 3 (enchancement) + 2 (shield) + 3 (enhancement) + 2 (ring-deflection) + 2 (amulet-natural armor) -> AC 31. This is about as heavily armored a fighter I can reasonably see at this level, don't forget there are classes that have much lower AC, that cannot wear full plate for instance. Now the stats: Charging 12 headed hydra has + 15 to hit. Will hit heavily armored fighter an average 25% of the time for 34 damage a round. Cloud giant will hit 60% of the time first attack, 35% second, 10% with the last. Giving a total of 35% of average damage over 3 attacks or 33 damage a round. Elder earth elemental will hit 85% first attack, 60%, 35%, 10% respectively for other attacks. Total average damage: 51 damage a round. Stone golem: 40% chance to hit, average damage 16. Again, for comparison, Collosal scorpion: Average damage: 49. You know D, the more I look at the numbers the more things look really quite right. You switch the heavily armored fighter for an average fighter or a barbarian or lord forbid a ranger in light armor and well... 3.0 was a masterfully crafted game. They put a lot of effort into it and I applaud WOTC and the 3.0 design team. I simply don't see the same level of quality and care in 3.5. Do you want to discuss the wimp 3.5 beholder next? And the spell is too powerful for it's level both as a cleric and as a wiz/sor spell. It hurts too many types of major characters, using what is usually the most common weakest save in the game. Again, this is your campaign, your problem. Overall the numbers are correct and you need to make adjustments if more than the average is being harmed by the spell. In a campaign based on the elemental plane of fire cold spells are overpowering. In a politcal game charm spells. In a ... The power level is right for the average D&D game, it has been tested for 30+ years and that's that. And against ANY NPC, hold person works better than both phantasmal killer and polymorph. Much better. That does not strike you as odd? What about a lich? What about a friendly giant, or a giant eagle or a harpy queen or a ... No, sorry, I have no problem with limited scope spells, in fact they enhance the game ten fold in flavor. Do you remember "charm man"? Can be cast only by a human enchantress and only on human males? Affects 1d4 of them, level 1. Great spell. Since you seem to repeatedly miss the point with the disintegrate spell, I will repeat it, without using statistics. Okay, bear with me now. How is the "object" disintegrate "overpowering"? I need to know. Explain. The change to haste really HELPED warriors, without giving them access to what amounts to Dire Charge. Haste is a BETTER spell for warrio classes in 3.5. In fact, it's almost dead on with it's 2e/1e origin. A much better spell. It is actually back to it's 2E roots, and I actually don't mind the change. The 2E system had no concept of 5-foot full attack and 30-foot move then 1 attack. You always got off your full attack. Warriors have been severely hurt by this mis-match. I'm sorry, my barbarian player says screw 3.5 because he's watching his damage output literally drop like a rock. "Oh, I can wildshape into a tendriculos!! I'm gonna own now!!" is rapidly becoming "Oh wait, by the time I can change into it, it's not worth it." I don't want to argue more with you D. The changes are so ridiculous there are plenty of threads already. Might I point out that you now aquire the sub-type of the creature? It means everything from immunity to power-words to critical hits and regeneration to boot. I don't know how anyone could not argue that 3.5 is on crack and the designer heavily divine biased. Funny, but I thought the makers of the game determined what the game is, not someone who thinks he's a character from in it. Actually I thought the players make the game what it is by buying it and if 3.5 drops like a rock (and it hopefully is) then we get a change of the guard and lo, maybe a better game (quite hard to make a worst one in fact working off of the great 3.0 framework - but they did manage that). I actually enjoy seeing heads roll when incompetence is the fault. And the dare is still up D, I didn't change the rules, you need to learn how to integrate information to extract meaning from the words. I.E learn how to read. And please D, when you've lost by the numbers all that's left is to criticise the numbers. Do try and come up with some sort of a counterargument that relies on actual fact and not your emotional and distorted "it has 400 hp and does unavoidable strength damage!". I tire of this.
d_nychus 09-10-03, 04:52 PM	They literally just can't win, ULESS they have those spells you listed. Mark the word, UNLESS. THere is no gaurantee that they will have access to those spells, and if they do not, this supposedly easy encounter is extremely lethal. Only 5 PC classes have access to some form of poison immunity or delaying spell. However, that means one more round of casting said spell instead of dishing out damage, and one more round of the scorpion dealing another automatic dose of poison damage to someone else. What your "the PC's dish out X damage per round" fails to realize is that each round, the PC's will dish out markedly LESS damage, due to strength and dropped allies. So, initially, it might take 2-3 rounds to kill it at optimum. The reality is that after the first round, that 2-3 rounds will have shifted to 3-4 rounds, and efter the second, most likely 5-6 rounds, since at least one PC will have most likely succumbed to the poison. The longer you fight this thing, the more deadly it become. And it is the Strength damage that concerns me, not the hp damage, though that is substancial. And your example says it all. An average CR 11 deals around 34 points of damage a round, by your examples, but all have a miss chance. The Colossal scorpion deals 49 points of damage per round AUTOMATICALLY, AND 2d8 poison damage. The 49 points of would not be a big deal to an 11th level party if it had some miss chance, did not do Strength damage, and did not have such incredible hit points and saves. Stastically, it deals better damage than ALL of those damages combined. 3.0 was a well designed game, I agree, but it had some severe flaws. I think 3.5 fixed the bulk of them, though I have not playtested it enough to be fully certain. And the beholder is virtually untouched in 3.5. Was the 3.0 beholder as much a wimp? 3e came out 3 years ago. It is a wholely different game from 1e/2e (which were almost identical save in "flavor"). Hold person has not worked substancially well in the game in 3 years now. Still a 27 year record isn't too horrible. I like limited scope, too, but this spell is too powerful against its 'scope,' and the 'scope' is too much of a common one. Humaniod NPC's are too common and the effects of this 2nd level spell are too powerful not to view this spell as abusive. I remember charm man. I remember why I don't play 2e anymore either. The game WAS juvenile. Disintigrate has both high utilty and high offensive purposes. It can kill most anything AND bypass multiple obstacles. It is too good for its level. Your barbarian player is a munchkin then. He's demanding an Epic level feat (better than that, actually, if you know how to use it) for a third level spell. If he is reliant upon that spell to deal damage, you know something is wrong. Compare the damage a character without the spell can dish out to what the crack fiend barbarian can dish out. All that extra for a simple 3rd level spell? The spell was more abusive with spellcasters, but that did not stop warrior classes from abusing it either. Yeah, having an animal type for an animal form is highly abusive...:rolleyes: And by the time plant form comes into play, the plant type is virtually negliable. Seriously, if you look at WHEN these aspects come into play, they are hardly overpowered. You're just still in the "OMG!! I can do X!! This is so broken!!" while most of the rest of us are at the "Oh, I can do X at Y LEVEL....hmmm, that MIGHT be useful..." The game designers are not on crack. They were fixing a number of issues that many players had commented upon in the last 3 years. And I still don't see a divine bias, just no longer an arcane bias. From the sales on Amazon, the NYT Bestseller's list, and B&N, your "hopes" are pointless now. No heads will roll. 3.5 is here to stay. I've won your dare, even if you do not want to admit it, and I've won by the numbers, even if you're not intelligent enough to admit or understand it. Believe me, I write this with a certain lack of emotion, the same I feel when dealing with an unintelligent customer at work. Edit: suddenly realized 4.5 + 4.5 =9 and not 8 like I was thinking for a bit.
cwslyclgh 09-10-03, 05:13 PM	They literally just can't win, ULESS they have those spells you listed. Mark the word, UNLESS. THere is no gaurantee that they will have access to those spells, and if they do not, this supposedly easy encounter is extremely lethal. not true... my FR party beat a collosal scorpion in 1 round at 9th level (of course it rolled a 1 on its save against the clerics slay living spells, and was a fluke... but it shows that the party didn't LITERALY need the spells mentioned above.
d_nychus 09-10-03, 07:26 PM	... Okay, barring exceedlingly good/bad luck then. Chance always plays an element, but in most cases, the scorpion WILL save against effects like slay living.
Dackad 09-10-03, 09:15 PM	Originally posted by Dalaeck You have provided NOTHING to back up your vacuous statements of "they just can't win". I've provided you with a list of spells: Any illusion spell. Invisibility sphere is quite good to get away from it then apply 1. Anti-life shell. Wall-type spells. Levitate, fly, polymorph, expeditious retreat, spider climb (they do climb however), any of these "positional" spells can aid your party enormously. Harm Haste Direct damage spells like flamestrike and Otiluke's freezing sphere You could also modify your list to include 'All spells, except for mind affecting spells' because every spell is going to help you against the Scorpion, most won't let you beat it in 2 rounds, but nearly ALL spells will help in the combat. That IS NOT restricted to any particular class, any particular spell selection for the day. We are not talking about a one-spell wonder here. The very best spell for this situation, harm, makes the encounter nearly trivial if it goes off. That does mean anything more than "you had the right spell for the right job". Which was why Hamr was fixed. I have provided you with reasonable statistics for a party and shown specifically that the party can and will kill the creature in a few rounds. I have given you comparable CR 11 monsters and shown the scorpion to do in no ways "more damage" than the other monsters or is "more threatening". ALL YOU HAVE DONE is blitheringly repeat "it does 9 Str damage has 400 hp" as though that will in any way convince anyone besides your own in reality denial self. If everyone can fly, the things dead meat, however you can say that about EVERY creature that can't fly, so your point is moot. Cloud Giant? That's a CR 5, it can't fly so it's toast. Frost Worm? Cr 6, it can't fly Black Pudding? CR 5, can't fly Let me tear apart AGAIN, some more of your statements: The "unavoidable strength damage" myth: Of the 11 core classes 9 of them can be affected by poison at this level. Of the 11 core classes 4 of them have "delay poison" (cleric, druid, paladin, ranger) as a spell which lasts 11 hours at this level (can be readily "extended" to 22 hours). 2 have neutralise poison. Potions of delay poison cost 300 GP, average character wealth is 66 000 GP or 0.4% of their total wealth. Regardless of DC a roll of 20 is a successful save. (small effect, 5%) Assuming that the party is preparing for this thing, the poison is no problem. However The "it does too much damage myth": Let's put some money where the mouth is: What is a "very good AC" for a warrior? The top of the line is arguably dwarven plate +5 with a +5 large shield. (I don't want to discuss tower shields but I would go with one) What AC is that? +8 (armor) + 5 (enhancement) + 3 (dex) + 2 (shield) + 5 (enhancement) -> AC = 33. This can get even higher if we include rings of protection, dodge feat, etc... Price tag for just the plate and shield: 60 000 GP, leaving 6000 GP for remaining gear (like a weapon). So that's out of the question. Let's say that the warrior will spend a lot on improving his AC. Let's put it at about 50% of his cash. That's roughly 33 000 GP. What's the best AC I can cook up for 33 000 GP? Full plate +3, Shield +3, ring of protection +2, amulet of natural armor +2. Price Tag: 35,820 GP. AC: 8 (armor) + 1 (dex) + 3 (enchancement) + 2 (shield) + 3 (enhancement) + 2 (ring-deflection) + 2 (amulet-natural armor) -> AC 31. [B] This is about as heavily armored a fighter I can reasonably see at this level, don't forget there are classes that have much lower AC, that cannot wear full plate for instance. The Scorpion will hit him, all the time Now the stats: Charging 12 headed hydra has + 15 to hit. Will hit heavily armored fighter an average 25% of the time for 34 damage a round. However, if it charges, it can only make one attack, making it's average damage 15 Plus it had one-quarter the HP of the scorpion and it hits less. Cloud giant will hit 60% of the time first attack, 35% second, 10% with the last. Giving a total of 35% of average damage over 3 attacks or 33 damage a round. Elder earth elemental will hit 85% first attack, 60%, 35%, 10% respectively for other attacks. Total average damage: 51 damage a round. Stone golem: 40% chance to hit, average damage 16. Again, for comparison, Collosal scorpion: Average damage: 49. You forget to mention that the Scorp hits nearly 100% of the time You know D, the more I look at the numbers the more things look really quite right. You switch the heavily armored fighter for an average fighter or a barbarian or lord forbid a ranger in light armor and well... It has a frelling +49 to hit! It will hit an 11th level party, barring critical misses. No doubts, it will hit. 3.0 was a masterfully crafted game. They put a lot of effort into it and I applaud WOTC and the 3.0 design team. I simply don't see the same level of quality and care in 3.5. That's what opinions are for. Do you want to discuss the wimp 3.5 beholder next? Yes. What's wimpy about it? What about a lich? What about a friendly giant, or a giant eagle or a harpy queen or a ... No, sorry, I have no problem with limited scope spells, in fact they enhance the game ten fold in flavor. Do you remember "charm man"? Can be cast only by a human enchantress and only on human males? Affects 1d4 of them, level 1. Great spell. I don't mind limited scope spells, but I will say that Hold Person is now fairly useless, so I do agree. I don't know what a better change would be, but it was fairly powerful for a 2nd level Cleric spell. Okay, bear with me now. How is the "object" disintegrate "overpowering"? I need to know. Explain. It affects undead, objects, and constructs. It was significantly better than Finger of Death, because if the party comes up against a Dracolich, Finger of Death is useless, however Disintegrate is not AND it has a good chance of working, what with Undead having crud for Fortitude saves. It is actually back to it's 2E roots, and I actually don't mind the change. The 2E system had no concept of 5-foot full attack and 30-foot move then 1 attack. You always got off your full attack. Warriors have been severely hurt by this mis-match. I'm sorry, my barbarian player says screw 3.5 because he's watching his damage output literally drop like a rock. At least spellcasters no longer make melee characters useless now. And I'm sorry that a character concept is ruined by one spell change. I'm sure that MB folks will be so sad to hear that my Cleric built entirely around the Harm spell now is totally worthless. :rolleyes: I don't want to argue more with you D. The changes are so ridiculous there are plenty of threads already. Might I point out that you now aquire the sub-type of the creature? It means everything from immunity to power-words to critical hits and regeneration to boot. I don't know how anyone could not argue that 3.5 is on crack and the designer heavily divine biased. One thing, neither plants nor Elementals are immune to death effects, thus Power Word, Death is still viable along with Finger of Death or Destruction. If you actually knew the rules, you'd know that a Druid doesn't get the Ex abilities of the thing it Wildshapes into. So no critical hit immunity or plant traits. Sorry, NEXT And the dare is still up D, I didn't change the rules, you need to learn how to integrate information to extract meaning from the words. I.E learn how to read. You need to learn 3.5 before you condemn it.
d_nychus 09-10-03, 09:27 PM	First off, thanks for reinforcing my arguements. However... Originally posted by Dackad However, if it charges, it can only make one attack, making it's average damage 15 Plus it had one-quarter the HP of the scorpion and it hits less. Hydra's are the only listed creature I know who actually bypass the "one attack and move" stipulation. A hydra gets all of its attacks when it charges, its listed attack and full attack are the same. Its the one thing the hydra has going for it. Otherwise, your arguements are correct.
Dackad 09-10-03, 09:38 PM	Originally posted by d_nychus Hydra's are the only listed creature I know who actually bypass the "one attack and move" stipulation. A hydra gets all of its attacks when it charges, its listed attack and full attack are the same. Its the one thing the hydra has going for it. Otherwise, your arguements are correct. Hm, first line right under Combat. Figures. :rolleyes: I really need to take my own advice
Scorpion_Shugenja 09-10-03, 09:48 PM	Yeah, no duh OFS is where polar ray originated from. It was broken as a 6th level spell. It could beat out chain lighting simply because it didn't have a save, and cold is not a common element to be resisted. Delayed blast fireball deals a lot more damage overall, but polar ray deals more consistant damage, and it is more controllable. At higher end levels, saveless spells start taking on more and more worth. I see it as working rather well. Oh, and if you read all that "that guy" chimed in on, even he says 3.5 treats monsters better than 3.0. I have not yet looked at the scorpion so, you don't necessarily have my support there. however, i think it's rather stupid of dalaeck to take one monster and claim that it in and of itself spell the dowfall of 3.5 personally, i would probably say that the scorp should be CR 15 or so. true staying out of range is good and players need to play smart, but something is not a challenge at all if you can avoid it totally. dropping rocks on zombies from on top of a cliff where they cannot hurt is worth 0XP IMO. the scorp needs to be in a place where it can hurt players, such as invisible or whatever to let it get at least a few melee attacks for it to fulfill it CR.
The Abominable Darkling 09-10-03, 09:52 PM	Originally posted by d_nychus They literally just can't win, ULESS they have those spells you listed. Mark the word, UNLESS. THere is no gaurantee that they will have access to those spells, and if they do not, this supposedly easy encounter is extremely lethal. Only 5 PC classes have access to some form of poison immunity or delaying spell. However, that means one more round of casting said spell instead of dishing out damage, and one more round of the scorpion dealing another automatic dose of poison damage to someone else. What your "the PC's dish out X damage per round" fails to realize is that each round, the PC's will dish out markedly LESS damage, due to strength and dropped allies. So, initially, it might take 2-3 rounds to kill it at optimum. The reality is that after the first round, that 2-3 rounds will have shifted to 3-4 rounds, and efter the second, most likely 5-6 rounds, since at least one PC will have most likely succumbed to the poison. The longer you fight this thing, the more deadly it become.Haven't you been paying attention? Delay poison lasts an hour per level. Unless you plan to have this thing burst from the sand beneath the PCs' feet, they will have plenty of time to prepare.
d_nychus 09-10-03, 10:03 PM	Encounter coming against the party while they are unprepared (and it similarly) = normal encounter. Encounter where the party used buff spells to prevent the main damage of teh encounter beforehand = 1/2 as difficult, thus 1/2 the CR. Again, you are begging the question, how can these spells help to balance out the encounter if they are unavailible? If they have these spells, the encounter might go their way. If they do NOT have these spells, the encounter will NOT go their way. That is a sure sign of a improperly matched CR. A well matched CR should expend about 20% of a matching parties resources without major chances for fatilities. The 64 HD Scorpion will cause fatilities without the listed prepations for an 11th level party. Hence, an encounter on equal footing will highly favor the scorpion to not only win the encounter, but cause massive casualties.
d_nychus 09-10-03, 10:04 PM	Originally posted by Dackad Hm, first line right under Combat. Figures. :rolleyes: I really need to take my own advice Hey, you want to read some real confusion, see what I typed on the wyvern thread recently. I misread an entire passage for a bit.
The Abominable Darkling 09-10-03, 10:12 PM	Originally posted by d_nychus Encounter coming against the party while they are unprepared (and it similarly) = normal encounter. Encounter where the party used buff spells to prevent the main damage of teh encounter beforehand = 1/2 as difficult, thus 1/2 the CR.Both of these are false premises.
d_nychus 09-10-03, 10:41 PM	How? Seriously, those are both guidelines for how CR's are constructed.
Dackad 09-10-03, 11:06 PM	Originally posted by The Abominable Darkling Haven't you been paying attention? Delay poison lasts an hour per level. Unless you plan to have this thing burst from the sand beneath the PCs' feet, they will have plenty of time to prepare. Only several ways this can work: 1) They go in prepared, thus casting the spells ahead of time. Anything is going to be easier if the PC's prepare against it. 2) The scorpion rolls really low on initiative and one or maybe two characters get protected 3) The PC's always go around with Delay Poison cast But if for some reason, the PC's get surprised or don't cast Delay Poison, then this thing's Poison will hurt because it will hit
The Abominable Darkling 09-11-03, 12:30 AM	Originally posted by d_nychus How? Seriously, those are both guidelines for how CR's are constructed. They simply aren't. The only assumption made when assigning a creature's CR is that the party is at full strength (i.e. full hit points, all spells, etc.). Any other assumptions about the setup of the fight depend on the monster in question. For example, ambush monsters generally do rather poorly if the party encounters them standing in the middle of a well lit room. In other words, their CRs were assigned under the assumption that they would use their stealth abilities to ambush the party. You need only examine the various ambush monsters and compare them to other critters of the same CR to see that this is true. This is a very sensible way to go about it. The challenge posed by a monster depends on all its abilities&mdash;not just those used during the combat. Spellcaster monsters are not only tough because they can toss around fireballs and what not, but also because they can buff themselves up prior to combat. An ambush monster's ability to Hide and surprise the PCs gives it a real advantage in combat against them. Highly intelligent monsters can gather information about the PCs and prepare for their fight with them. They won't just be encountered in a random fashion. All of these things are factored into the monster's CR. The designers talk about this sort of thing frequently. A search through the various internet forums will turn up reams of additional information on this subject. Now, as to your final premise, it is ludicrous on its face. Firstly, half as difficult equates to -2 CR, not 1/2 CR. Secondly, there is nothing anywhere in the books that says you should modify the CR of a monster (or even an encounter level or the XP award) if the PCs are well prepared for the fight.
The Abominable Darkling 09-11-03, 12:41 AM	Originally posted by Dackad Only several ways this can work: 1) They go in prepared, thus casting the spells ahead of time. Anything is going to be easier if the PC's prepare against it. 2) The scorpion rolls really low on initiative and one or maybe two characters get protected 3) The PC's always go around with Delay Poison cast But if for some reason, the PC's get surprised or don't cast Delay Poison, then this thing's Poison will hurt because it will hit Well, I really don't see the PCs getting surprised by a colossal monstrous scorpion, but you're right, if the PCs do nothing to protect themselves from poison and they do nothing to make the scorpion miss (like casting blur, displacement, invisibility, or mirror image) and they do nothing to put themselves out of reach (like casting dimension door, fly, or teleport) and they do nothing to protect themselves from its damage (like casting stone skin), then yes, they'll take some serious damage. So what? The core rules assume that your typical party will contain both a cleric and a wizard. I don't have a problem with creatures that the PCs might need a spell or two to beat. While all-fighter parties can do well at low levels (in fact, they dominate most fights at low levels), they invariably run into trouble at mid to high levels. There are a ton of things that fighters can't deal with on their own. They need magical support. That's just how this game is played.
d_nychus 09-11-03, 02:01 AM	Sheesh, so I typed CR instead of XP. And, yes there is, right in the DMG, RIGHT NEXT TO THE XP CHART, a section called Modifying XP Awards and Encounter Levels. A party that makes it through an encounter that is half as difficult gets half the XP. Spells that are set up to make the encounter less dangerous than normal, make the encounter, get this now, less difficult. Thus half the XP. The actual point still stands. A party should not go into an encounter using spells that invalidate the combat for determining CR. They should not be PREPARED for the encounter, so much as generally ready for any type of conflict. Poison is not a standard part of combat, and thus is not usually prepared for. Simply put, delay poison is a factor that is OUTSIDE the realm of normal preparation. Your entire point is invalidated with this case on the simple fact that the scorpion is not an ambusher, nor is it a spellcaster with buff spells. Similarly, most parties do not go around with delayed poison cast upon all of their members (even with it, I am certain an 11th level party would die just from the improved grab and constant damage.).
The Abominable Darkling 09-11-03, 02:20 AM	First of all, I do not accept that most parties go around without delay poison cast on each member. I have no idea if they do or don't (and neither do you). I do know that my players always did. My point is simply that the designers consider each creature individually when deciding what the "typical" set-up for a fight with that creature will be. This is in no way invalidated by anything you said. Now, given that the colossal scorpion needs a lot of room to maneuver and that it can be seen from miles away, I assume that the designers assumed that the party would have time to prepare for the fight. This is supposition on my part, but I think it's a pretty safe bet. Given that you're going into a fight with an enormous scorpion, what more appropriate spell to cast on yourself than delay poison? Finally, the XP chart you refer to is talking about situations in which the players have an unusual advantage. For example, if the players are defending a five-foot wide bridge from a bunch of axe-wielding orcs, the encounter would be much easier than normal because the orcs can only attack one at a time and can't take advantage of their numbers. Buffing up before combat is a normal and expected thing for players to do. It would be grossly unfair to penalize them for it.
d_nychus 09-11-03, 03:19 AM	And a party having 4 delay poisons is really common? Unlikely. One, maybe. MAYBE. That leaves teh rest of the party highly vulnerable, and the lone PC can hardly take out such a beast on their own, even at the upper teen levels. The "seen miles away" argument is a joke. A Colossal Scorpion in an open plain is unlikely. One in a canyon or in mountains and hills is much more likely. A Colossal Scorpion can also be underground, and in fact, is much better suied for it. Wouldn't that be more of an average encounter anyways? 3.5 even has them listed as warm deserts, so hiding under the sand does not seem too unreasonable, either. And having all of the party with buff spells that neutralize the threat DOES give the party an unusual advantage. Thus, less XP.
The Abominable Darkling 09-11-03, 03:33 AM	To my mind, buffing yourself up with long duration spells is just smart playing. I would never reduce my players XP awards for doing it, and I'm sure the designers didn't intend you to. If you don't believe me, why not ask Monte Cook or Andy Collins? One of those two would be the one who created that table. The scorpion doesn't have a burrow speed, and nothing in its description suggests that it likes to bury itself, so I do think starting it off buried is unreasonable. You certainly could contrive a situation in which this creature surprises the party, but I truly don't believe that's what the designers envisioned as a "typical" encounter.
d_nychus 09-11-03, 05:37 AM	All right, so all we have resolved is that we have differing views of what an average encounter with a Colossal Scorpion should be. This is getting us to Nowhereland, making all our Nowhere plans, for Nobody (sorry, roommate's playing the Beatles). Let's just look at this dilema without arguing the specifics. Let's try looking at this as the books show. Let's take the old 3.0 Colossal scorpion and try usng the playtesting CR test in 3.5. This would take a party of level 13 (CR 11 +2) and pit them against two of the Scorpions. Allow them to have spells and effects that last longer than 10 minutes per level, including delay poison. However, I don't see it as reasonable for a party to have more than one of those spells memorized at any given time. Let's just assume something like that would be cast on the party tank. Let's also assume that spells such as fly and some standard buffs are in play on the other spellcasters. Now, the encounter starts off, probably with the scorpions starting last. If the party is smart, they will buff up on defensives while the fighter and rogue try to position themselves better. The scorpions charge up, and more than likely make a single claw attack, and use improved grapple with their insane grapple bonus, while still keeping in 15 feet from the party. If the characters are hit, there is simply no way for the grappled PC's to escape at that level (barring something like freedom of movement and the like). Just for fun, let's just say the fighter has a freedom of movement spell on him, and escapes, costing him his turn or he moves up a bittaking an AoO and only getting one attack in. Let's say the rogue also escapes, too, or has to tumble up to get a hit in. The wizard and cleric both do some sort of nuke, which the scorpions WILL save against, considering their saves, and thus do minimum damage. Let's just say about 1/10 combined to both Scoprion's hp. The end of the second round, the scorpions do their full attacks, no longer grappling, dishing out around 50 points of damage per round. This really hurts the rogue (not to mention the poison damage that I am skimming over), no matter how you look at it, and the fighter is probably between 75% to 50% of hp. Now the fighter dishes out his damage, possibly dealing 1/5 or so of the scorpion's hp. The wizard and cleric both nuke, probably dealing another 1/10. The rogue, however, has just reached his most important position to flank the scorpion with the fighter, and deals another 1/10 damage. So, as it stands, one scorpion is at 8/10ths, while the other is at around 5/10ths. End of the thrid round, the rogue probably is dead with the next full attack, and the fighter loses another good portion of hp, probably down to 25% to 50%. The fighter counters with his own full attack, another 1/5. Wizard and cleric nuke, about 1/10 each. That's 7/10ths, and 2/10ths left. Scorpions combine attacks to finish off the fighter. Wizard and cleric nuke, ad absurdum. Eventually, the buffed wizard and clerics will most likely kill the two scorpions, but they suffered two causualties, and expending a good portion of their spells, I would hazard a guess at about 30-40% of their spells just for that one "easy" encounter. I don't know about you, but that seems like a really good best case scenario for a normal encounter, and it just does not seem like a good match for CR no matter how I look at it. A party will need to spend more than 20% of their resources, more like 50-60% by my estimate. That is why the Colossal Scorpion is just too powerful to be just a CR 11, and further shows why the advancement rules in 3.0 were poor at best.
Dalaeck 09-11-03, 04:54 PM	THANK YOU DARKLING. We may dissagree on other topics, which is fair and reasonable, however your understanding of CR is precisely mine. D, You tacitly ignore my math and my reasoning providing at best handwaiving statements like "yeah but there's a miss chance on all those attacks". I bloody calculated ALL miss chances and the bloody earth elemental does more damage, can walk through wall has DR/+3 and is elemental. But you ignore that as well, fixated on your "poison" and "automatic hits". You're not being fair and objective. You're not accepting that the party has: A- spell ressources (any from that 20+ spell list) that could help them deal with the monster B- class abilities C- magical items that could help them deal with the creature (winged helms, potions, etc...) D- that the creature will be seen/heard/known of (tracks, corpses, moulted shells, conversations, etc...) Your problem stated simply is as follows, correct me if I'm wrong: "If the party is within 50 feet or less, does not have any of the 20+ spells that could very much aid them, does not have any particularly usefull gear from the 66 000 GP they own that could aid them, has no warning, in unfavorable terrain then they have no chance." Despite this being a gross misinterpretation of what CR is, something absolutely none of the monsters in the MM are based on, I'll bite. Here we go: The Four Warriors of the West Towns of Alwen Res. An archer fighter, Aldernon of Greymist. A mounted fighter, Cearan of Ten Wells. A longspear weilding fighter, Tumyr of Halesworth. A bastard sword fighter, Sar of Daventry. I will give them half of their actual money, roughly 33 000 GP to equip themselves and nothing that would give them a particular edge. Their gear is restricted to what a 10th level wizard could create, presumably they have met at least one along their travels. Having spent the other 30 000 or so GP on things that will not help them survive the encounter with the collosal scorpion, lands and holdings in the kingdom of Alwen Res, women and wine. Their stats are 4d6 drop one average stats as prescribed by the PHB and described in the DMG as: 15,14,13,12,10,8. This is the pseudo- gaussian "normal" distribution of scores. They are level 11, they have +2 to assign where they wish. They are all human, because we can't have them being a race you might criticise as "broken" or "advantageous". They all have 11 feats - 6 from class, 1 from race and 4 from levels. Aldernon of Greymist Gear: +1 arrows x 100 (4000 GP - 40 GP per arrow) +3 mighty composite longbow of might +4 strength (18 800 GP) Bracers of Archery (5 100 GP) Gloves of dexterity +2 (4 000 GP) +1 buckler (1 165 GP) +1 chain shirt ( 1 250 GP) Total: 34,315 GP. Initial stats: Str 14, Dex 15, Con 13, Int 8, Wiz 10, Cha 12 Level and gear adjusted: Str 14, Dex 18, Con 14 Feats: Point blank Shot, Far Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Shot on the Run, Weapon Focus (c.longbow), Weapon Specialisation (c.longbow), Improved Critical (c.longbow), Dodge, Mounted combat, Mounted Archery. HP: 87 = 10 + 10x5.5 (average) + 22 (con) AC: 21 = 10 + 4 (dex) + 2 (buckler) + 5 (armor) Attacks (within 30 ft): +23 = +11 (base) + 4 (dex) + 1 (w.focus) + 3 (bow) + 1 (arrow) + 1 (point blank) + 2 (bracers). With rapid shot: +22/+22/+17/+12 Damage: 14.5 (average) = 1d8 (4.5 average) + 2 (strength) + 3 (bow) + 1 (arrow) + 1 (bracers) + 1 (point blank) + 2 (specialisation) Cearan of Ten Wells Gear: +3 heavy lance (18 310 GP) +1 tower shield (1 180 GP) +1 full plate (2, 170 GP) +1 plate barding for his horse (7 600) Gauntlets of ogre power +2 (4 000 GP) Bracers of Health +2 (4 000 GP) Total: 35 260 GP Initial stats: Str 15, Dex 13, Con 14, Int 10, Wiz 8, Cha 12 Level and gear adjusted: Str 18, Dex 13, Con 17 Feats: Mounted Combat, Trample, Ride by Attack, Spirited Charge, Improved Initative, Power Attack, Weapon Focus (h.lance), Weapon Specialisation (h.lance), Dodge, Mobility, Improved Critical (h.lance). HP: 98 = 10 + 10x5.5 (average) + 33 (con) AC: = 20 + cover = 10 + 1 (dex) + (9 armor) + cover from shield (3-10) Charge Attack: +21 = +11 (base) + 4 (str) + 1 (w.focus) + 3 (lance) + 2 (charge) Damage with spirited charge: 40.5 = ( 1d8 (4.5 average) + 4 (str) + 3 (lance) + 2 (specialisation) ) x 3 Tumyr of Halesworth Gear: +1 longspear of shock and flame (18 310 GP) full plate (1 650 GP) Belt of giant strength +4 (16 000 GP) Total: 35 960 Initial stats: Str 15, Dex 13, Con 14, Int 8, Wiz 12, Cha 8 Level and gear adjusted: Str 20, Dex 14, Con 14 Feats: Improved Initiative, Weapon focus (l.spear), Weapon Specialisation (l.spear), Improved Critical (l.spear), Power attack, Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, Toughness x 3. HP: 96 = 10 + 10x5.5 (average) + 22 (con) + 9 (feats) AC: 19 = 10 + 8 (armor) + 1 (dex) Attacks (within 30 ft): +18 = +11 (base) + 5 (str) + 1 (w.focus) + 1 (spear). Full attack of: +18/+13/+8 Damage: 21.5 = 1d8 (4.5 average) + 7 (str x 1.5) + 2 (specialisation) + 1d6 (3.5 average shock) + 1d6 (3.5 average flame) +1 (weapon) Damage with spear set to receive charge : 36 Sar of Daventry Gear: +2 keen bastard sword (18 335 GP) +2 chainmail (medium armor) (4 300 GP) +2 large steel shield (4 180 GP) Gauntlets of ogre power (+2) (4 000 GP) Total: 33 015 GP Initial stats: Str 14, Dex 13, Con 15, Int 12, Wiz 10, Cha 8 Level and gear adjusted: Str 16, Con 16, Int 13 Feats: Exotic Weapon Proficiency (b.sword), Improved Critical (b.sword), Weapon Focus (b.sword), Weapon Specialisation (b.sword), Expertise, Improved Disarm, Dodge, Mobility, Spring attack, Whirlwind Attack, Power Attack. HP: 98 = 10 + 10x5.5 (average) + 33 (con) AC: 18 = 10 + 7 (armor) + 1 (dex) Attacks (within 30 ft): +17 = +11 (base) + 3 (str) + 1 (w.focus) + 2 (sword). Full attack of: +17/+12/+7 Damage: 12.5 = 1d10 (5.5 average) + 3 (str) + 2 (specialisation) + 2 (weapon) The AC of the beast is 20, it's as large as a city block. The rather onerous task is now to determine the critical hits, because there will be critical hits, and average damage goes up from them. For the monster, that's simple. It does double damage 5% of the time and no damage 5% of the time (rolls a 1). Each part cancels itself out. It does always an average 49 damage a round with a full attack. For the characters I've just used Unda-Havrum's power-attack calculator: http://www.heliumserver.com/undaharvum/powerattackcalculator.asp Aldernon's: 62.5 average damage rapid shot - 16.5 for one attack Ceoran's: 42.5 average damage with charge - 42.5 for one attack Tumyr's: 57.69 average damage full attack - 23.5 for one attack Sar's: 35.75 average damage full attack - 15.5 for one attack So now let's look at the average combat between the four warriors of the west towns versus the collosal scorpion Tumyr: Holy hell I didn't see that thing comming! Sar: That's because you're so dumb. Tumyr: I'm supposed to be wise?!? Sar: Yeah but if I had been leading the group we would never have been led into this pit with no escapes and no room to move in Aldernon: Don't forget I'm the leader Sar: Yeah and it was your suggestion that we leave half our gear back at our castles Tumyr: That makes perfect sense, you wouldn't want all our gear in one spot. What if someone fell down a bottomless pit and was never recovered? Sar: .... Sar: Good thing we do an average 198 damage per round as a group. Tumyr: We should feed the horses to it and run, I don't think we can take this thing. Ceoran: NO! NEVER! BY MY HONOR IT WILL PERISH! Sar: We could never do that... remember we're in a pit with no escape and no room to maneuver in and we're all dumb except for me. Do you think you can ride-by attack Ceoran, what about it's reach? Ceoran: Er... Sure. Under it's legs! Aldernon: Oh shut up we can take it idiot... *twith* (arrow flies by) Tumyr: Look who's talking... One of possible worst cases: the beast loses initiative over everyone and no one uses any ounce of tactics. Sar and Tumyr will charge with spring attack provoking no attacks of opportunity, average 39 damage. Ceoran will charge and either him or his horse will get nailed by an attack of opportunity claw doing 18 damage. Aldernon will rapid shot doing 62.5 damage. C.Scorpion will attack Ceoran doing 49 damage to a total of 67 damage. Ceoran is now pretty weak. No one in the party says "play dead" or "fall limp" because again, we're dealing with a bunch of idiots. Sar Tumyr and Aldernon full attack for 155 damage for a total of 256 damage up to now. C.Scorpion chooses to either run like hell or sting the guys at it's feet or keep stinging the limp bastard in it's clutches. For you D, let's say it just attacks the guy in it's clutches. Then cearan has been dealt on average 116 damage, and could likely be dead. 155 damage next round and the thing drops. One of many best case: The warriors of the western towns are crack 11th level fighters, having actually fought big things before and decide to let the thing move first. Aldernon takes a full attack 62.5 damage. Sar being the whirlwind rather low-damage guy takes point 10 feet ahead of Tumyr, attracts it's attention by flailing his arms, and Tumyr readies his spear against a charge with power attack +5. Cearan rides up beside Sar and hopes it'll hit Sar first. C. Scorpion takes the bait grabs Sar for 18 damage. Cearan spirited charges the thing with power attack +5 or +10 and deals between 57-72 damage to the thing. Tumyr get's the thing on it's charge dealing an average 57 damage to it. Collosal scorpion now has taken 177 damage. Aldernon does again 62 damage, Tumyr full attacks for 57 and Cearan (presumably under it now) charges for 42. C. Scorpion (largely overwhelmed) hits Sar for 49 and he grows weak but has taken 338 damage on average. Aldernon does 62.5 next round and someone finishes the thing off, hopefully not crushing Ceoran under it. Tumyr: Man Sar, I'm impressed. I saw your arm make a bubble with the sheer volume of venom injected in you... Sar: Shut up you damn.... (falls unconscious). Aldernon: Damn... Cearan: Eh.. he'll be fine. Aldernon: No, you don't understand, I lost 3 arrows in that thing...
bitnine 09-11-03, 05:17 PM	One method of CR evaluation that I've seen is to see if an appropriate level party could face 4 of the creatures in 4 seperate encounters, spaced out during the day. The idea being, of course, that a party should be able to face 4 encounters of their own level before needing to rest. (With a slight eye towards seeing how sustainable such a day is if repeated again.) (And... erm... I don't know about y'all, but large scorpions had a nasty habit of rushing things and grappling them while stinging them repeatedly. A very simple-minded tactic, but that 50% chance to hit the wrong target in grapples can be annoying.)
WizO_Pony 09-11-03, 06:41 PM	To answer the original question: In 3.0 you add +2 to the CR of a monster for every doubling of HD. This rule can be found in the errata to the footnote of page 14 of the 3.0 MM, and the relevant errata is available for download here (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/er/er20020331a) Otherwise I think this thread has run its course. Please feel free to restart debates about the various other issues of contention raised here in new threads, but if you do, please refrain from all this flaming.