Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Wyrd Bearer 04-26-05, 08:27 PM	Flipping though the 3.5 MM, I was checking out monsters, looking for something under-used that I might incorperate in the campain I'm working on. That was when I noticed that the bodaks no longer suffer from player-induced flashbacks. What happened to make the designers get rid of that ability? It was so flavourful! Has anyone else noticed this change and been stumped over it as well?
Shemeska the Marauder 04-27-05, 12:10 AM	It was probably an oversight on their part. Or if you want to be cynical, it happened for the same reason that Rakshasa were changed from natives of Acheron to native outsiders and their blessed crossbow bolt weakness removed. Or for the Slaadi mutation tables being removed. Because they could apparently. Certain members of the design team for the 3e MM weren't involved with the 3.5 MM and so blame the changes on the new members. No reasons for the changes that I've seen. But again, it was probably an oversight on their part, or they trimmed it to save page space. *sigh*
d_nychus 04-27-05, 12:44 AM	Or if you want to be cynical, it happened for the same reason that Rakshasa were changed from natives of Acheron to native outsiders and their blessed crossbow bolt weakness removed. Or for the Slaadi mutation tables being removed. Because they could apparently. Or, if you want to be correct about things, changed for the sake of appropriate balance. There is nothing stupider than a CR 9 creature that can be instantly killed by a common 1st level spell and a good shot, or a group of creatures who could have variable game-impacting stat changes at random with NO CR adjustment. Personally, I think they removed the bodak flashbacks because it's kind of dumb having a CR 8 creature that effectively gives its opponents a free round and effectively casts doom on itself at random, especially if the creatures is as offensive-centered as the bodak. Seriously, if the only thing you have going for you is a heavy offense (for a CR 8, the Bodak has seriously pathetic defense and hp), and you can randomly lose your first action in an encounter, you are just not worth your listed CR whenever you DO lose your actions.
Greater_Lammasu 04-27-05, 12:48 AM	They Spent all their money on therapy so thats not a problem anymore. Thats why they don't have any treasure.
Shemeska the Marauder 04-27-05, 01:29 AM	Or, if you want to be correct about things, changed for the sake of appropriate balance. There is nothing stupider than a CR 9 creature that can be instantly killed by a common 1st level spell and a good shot, or a group of creatures who could have variable game-impacting stat changes at random with NO CR adjustment. Personally, I think they removed the bodak flashbacks because it's kind of dumb having a CR 8 creature that effectively gives its opponents a free round and effectively casts doom on itself at random, especially if the creatures is as offensive-centered as the bodak. Seriously, if the only thing you have going for you is a heavy offense (for a CR 8, the Bodak has seriously pathetic defense and hp), and you can randomly lose your first action in an encounter, you are just not worth your listed CR whenever you DO lose your actions. *switches on sarcasm mode* ... way to be uncreative there. Why do we even name creatures, give them types, or anything beyond just having creatures named CR 1, CR 2, etc? All that dumb flavor and depth to a creature isn't worth anything right? I mean, really who cares about all that waste of space since all we care about is killing monsters so we can gain the power up and win the game. *switches sarcasm off* They're not just walking stat blocks waiting to be killed by a PC, they're creatures with a backhistory, ecology and a reason for existing wherever you place them in a campaign. Robbing something of flavor and detail in the name of so-called balance is misguided at best and moronic at worse. It's not like you can't just alter the listed CR, or that WotC hasn't ever put really warped CR values for monsters.
Wyrd Bearer 04-27-05, 01:35 AM	... Or if you want to be cynical, it happened for the same reason that Rakshasa were changed from natives of Acheron to native outsiders and their blessed crossbow bolt weakness removed. Or for the Slaadi mutation tables being removed. Because they could apparently. ...Well, I am a cynical git, so I'll take cynacism for 1000. I don't know that them having it was a stupid idea, d_nychus, I think it made them more interesting. Its not like thier gaze attack wouldn't still work if the PC's were starting at it to figure out what in the Abyss the bodak is doing. Personally, I like quirky little things like odd weaknesses. I'll just play them as still having it, just like I would rakshasa's weakness to blessed bolts. And you know what? I still have my 3.0 corebooks sitting around because why throw something out that's not obsolete, eh? Which means my slaadi will have those random traits that make them the most random of species.
Callahan 04-27-05, 04:32 AM	I think that the change came around in a general attempt to make the creature easier to use, and since the chances of the flashback were so low AND since the creature is so under used they just assumed that no one will even notice the change and those that did can just as easily look at the 3.0 version and add the effect without having to alter any of the creature's other stats. Frankly I wish they'd have taken care of more pressing issues like making the dragons easier to assemble.
d_nychus 04-27-05, 10:45 AM	*switches on sarcasm mode* ... way to be uncreative there. Why do we even name creatures, give them types, or anything beyond just having creatures named CR 1, CR 2, etc? All that dumb flavor and depth to a creature isn't worth anything right? I mean, really who cares about all that waste of space since all we care about is killing monsters so we can gain the power up and win the game. *switches sarcasm off* They're not just walking stat blocks waiting to be killed by a PC, they're creatures with a backhistory, ecology and a reason for existing wherever you place them in a campaign. Robbing something of flavor and detail in the name of so-called balance is misguided at best and moronic at worse. It's not like you can't just alter the listed CR, or that WotC hasn't ever put really warped CR values for monsters. Having backstory is good. Having backstory that screws with game balance is poor, poor design. That was one of the seriously failings of 3.0, letting some of 2e backstory affect serious game mechanics, like demons and devils being seriously put at too high of a CR to artificially create better rewards for killing them, and dragons being put at too low of CR to make them artificially tough. Even 3.5 has not totally eliminated the problem, but has less overall incidents of flavor directly affecting gameplay. This is a GAME, after all, and the best games are balanced, or at least close to it. If you let the story interfere with the game to the point that the rules general rules do not matter, and you are no longer playing a game. This is not "Story time, but let's roll dice occasionally and let the DM arbitrarily decide what they mean," this is a well-crafted, rules specific game. What if there was an herb that could instantly kill dragons? That's an interesting flavor item, but makes running a dragon difficult at best. As soon as PCs got whiff of a dragon, they would instantly go hunting for that herb, and try to turn a CR X into a CR 0 challenge. They would get all the benefits of having directly faced the dragon, but without the actual cost. And that could be seriously unbalancing, especially when players start to directly take advantage of the rules like that, hunting down every dragon they can find with their overpowered weapon. In a game, the rules need to come first, and the flavor/backstory needs to be applied after the rules are set, especially in a way to avoid unbalancing the overall rules Otherwise, the rules simply don't matter, and there is no game. Well, I am a cynical git, so I'll take cynacism for 1000. I don't know that them having it was a stupid idea, d_nychus, I think it made them more interesting. Its not like thier gaze attack wouldn't still work if the PC's were starting at it to figure out what in the Abyss the bodak is doing. No, here is EXACTLY what will happen. You: Roll a 04 on percentile dice. The bodak sits there for his action. PCs: Roll a Knowledge (religion) check and identify the monster as a free action, identify it, blast it with their best stuff in the first round and kill it, and gain the CR 8 xp without taking a hit, but without spending the appropriate resources for a CR 8. Personally, I like quirky little things like odd weaknesses. I'll just play them as still having it, just like I would rakshasa's weakness to blessed bolts. Then expect any rakshasas you run to be horribly weak once identified. One spell and a halfway decent shot is all it takes to kill it, regardless of level. And you know what? I still have my 3.0 corebooks sitting around because why throw something out that's not obsolete, eh? Which means my slaadi will have those random traits that make them the most random of species. Hmm, so you like to subject your PCs to threats that are possibly 1 or 2 CR higher than listed without giving them any additional rewards for a tougher fight? Why not just roll randomly for their CR as well? If you want to be fair, at least adjust the CR for any modifications you make to the slaad. Otherwise, you are just screwing your players for the sake of flavor.
Shemeska the Marauder 04-27-05, 11:31 AM	In a game, the rules need to come first, and the flavor/backstory needs to be applied after the rules are set, especially in a way to avoid unbalancing the overall rules Otherwise, the rules simply don't matter, and there is no game. You're playing a totally different game than I am then. I'm willing to sacrifice everything but player enjoyment up on the altar of flavor and story. The rules are just a framework to set everything on and if they need to be altered, even altered ad hoc than they are altered so long as it's in a regular and fair to the players way. A decent use of a Rakshasa won't have your PCs knowing it's a Rakshasa till they're in a room with it. Who say's that they'll have a crossbow, or have a blessed bolt to use. And frankly trying to bless a crossbow bolt to use in the middle of a combat is a waste of time once you're already engaged. And any Rakshasa is a fool if they don't have protections against their weakness. The last time I used a 'Rakshasa' in a campaign, that particular plot arc took around 4 months to run its course and in the end a blessed crossbow bolt (and a nat 20 by the cleric with that crossbow) did nothing because it wasn't actually a Rakshasa, but a polymorphed Ultroloth. *chuckle* Player metagame knowledge can come back to bit you sometimes. I don't even bother with the listed CR of creatures, nor do I even give a numerical XP total to players unless they're using it to create items.
d_nychus 04-27-05, 01:05 PM	You're playing a totally different game than I am then. That sums it up nicely. You're forgoing the rules, while I use the rules. I play the game as written, and you play something else. You're taking YOUR OWN CHANGES in YOUR OWN GAME, and then trying to apply them to the core game in general. That is not a good way to judge balance issues. If I had a game where I eliminated magic, and then found the wizard class to be insanely weak because of that, should I blame the designers for making the wizard poorly? The fact of the matter is that the rules get utterly out of whack with a CR 9 creature that can be easily and even routinely killed by a 3rd level party, or a CR 8 creature that just stands there for a full round 1 time out od 20, or has randomly chosen combat modifiers without CR adjustments. Those are some serious gameplay problems, both for DM and players. It makes running the game as written that much more difficult, not to mention annoying, and weakens the game overall. Fixes to any game system to correct issues like these are a priority over game flavor. With any system, I can put in as much or as little flavor as I want. D&D can be as bland as a dungeon crawl hack-n-slash, or have indepth flavor and background with entire cultures and histories that could span hundreds of novels in conception. But if the rules themselves are not well done, or if the flavor somehow supercedes the rules in an overbearing fashion, the gameplay, the actual core of D&D, will have some serious problems.
Shemeska the Marauder 04-27-05, 01:38 PM	That sums it up nicely. You're forgoing the rules, while I use the rules. I play the game as written, and you play something else. You're taking YOUR OWN CHANGES in YOUR OWN GAME, and then trying to apply them to the core game in general. That is not a good way to judge balance issues. Rule 0, 'nuff said. Don't be so bound by a strict rules interpretation.
Feathercircle 04-27-05, 01:59 PM	Feh, even if you ARE playing by a strict interpretation of the rules, you're still not running your monsters the way they were meant to be run. See the little bit in the stat block where it says Int? A monster's intelligence, especially if it's high, influences the way it works in combat just as much as its hit point total or special abilities do. Smart monsters, like rakshasas, dragons, liches, mind flayers, and greater yugoloths fight smart- they are aware of their weaknesses and cover for them, they use intelligent tactics in and out of combat, and they use terrain and magic items to their advantage. If you ignore a highly intelligent monster's mental capabilities when running them, you're nerfing them just as badly as if you were running a combat with a beholder and forgot about its magic-negating central eye. (For example, intelligence, along with political complications, is basically all that's keeping our newly-epic party from killing off a certain love-to-hate arcanaloth who's been a thorn in our side throughout the entire Planescape campaign. I for one know that my character would be overjoyed to have her head on a pike.) That being said, I DO agree with you on the subject of slaadi- a random mutation which has significant effects on how it functions in combat should increase or decrease the CR accordingly- just like giving it a template or an elite stat array would change its CR.
Wyrd Bearer 04-27-05, 04:51 PM	That being said, I DO agree with you on the subject of slaadi- a random mutation which has significant effects on how it functions in combat should increase or decrease the CR accordingly- just like giving it a template or an elite stat array would change its CR. Indeed, its not like I wouldn't reward the PC's for tackling a larger challenge appropriately. But I know for a fact, the people I play with get great satisfaction out of defeating an enemy that is much tougher than they are. It encourages teamwork, creative strategies and in the end, is simply more rewarding. As for a rakshasa's weakness to blessed bolts, that only becomes a major problem when your PC's are constantly metagaming (like knowing the weakness even though they've never faced one before) or if suddenly rakshasas have become as numerous as regular humans. Like Shemeska and Feathercircle has made clear, they are intelligent creatures and will guard against their weaknesses, or use illusions and trickery to keep the PC's off guard and to force them to expend their advantage without use against illusionary figures or glamoured targets. As for the bodak and the one round death of it, that will only happen 5% of the time. For your example of identifying it and blasting it with their best stuff, wouldn't the PC's do that anyway? They see a strange figure walking clamly towards them, filling them with abject terror as its gaze flashes over them. That wizard is going to be throwing his biggest spell at whatever it is and the fighter will be sure to try to take it out as fast as possible. They may not even take time to bother identifying it and just try to kill it as fast as possible. And if that rare chance does come up when the bodak does stop in its tracks for a round AND everything the PC's throw at it work 100% effectively, and the bodak is killed in one round with no fight, then the PC's won't get as much experience for that CR8. You are right, it was no challenge for them and they will be rewarded appropriately. This is where rule 0 comes in to play, that was the DM can make an ad hoc adjustment to what the rules say. The DM is supposed to be creative and on their toes for situations such as this. Suppose that same CR 8 creature doesn't stop in its tracks, kills a party member and as DM, I am rolling nothing but criticals for its melee attacks. The party on the other hand, is having nothing but unluck. The fighter can't seem to roll above a 3 and the mage keeps rolling 1s for fireball damage and the cleric is failing at turning. Yet somehow they overcome the bodak in the end. Would you not say that they deserve a little extra for overcoming such adversity and misfortune? I'm not saying that PC's should be rewarded for being unlucky, but maybe get a little extra for triumphing over the odds.
urial angel of death 04-28-05, 06:27 AM	Stop whining just because the bodaks took a nice long talk with doctor Phil isn't bad after all at the end when they could lift therir head to thank Dr. Phil they looked him in the eyes and he proptly dyed poor doctor Phil he was only trying to help
d_nychus 04-28-05, 10:03 AM	First off, 'rules 0' as it is called is not an excuse for a DM to change the rules on a whim, but is meant to aid in aspects that the rules can cannot cover, or covers badly. If the rules of the game come to a situation that simply does not make sense or is bad for overall play, that is when rule 0 should be used. Rule 0 is a DM tool, not a cop out to change anything you want whenever you want. If you decide to run your campaign a certain way overall, that is not using rule 0, that using houserules. Feh, even if you ARE playing by a strict interpretation of the rules, you're still not running your monsters the way they were meant to be run. See the little bit in the stat block where it says Int? A monster's intelligence, especially if it's high, influences the way it works in combat just as much as its hit point total or special abilities do. Smart monsters, like rakshasas, Rakshasas have an Intelligence of 13. If a PC party does not have one or two members with an Int higher than that (at least) by 10th level, the players are doing something wrong. Dead wrong. dragons, liches, mind flayers, and greater yugoloths fight smart- they are aware of their weaknesses and cover for them, they use intelligent tactics in and out of combat, and they use terrain and magic items to their advantage. And PCs still cannot fight smarter than the monster, even though they will have higher Intelligence scores? Oh, no, wait, all PCs are only as intelligent as the players, aren't they. A DM should never let a player's stats determine how much his PC knows in the game, like, say, with a check or something to counter the enemy's tactics or know something about the weaknesses of the opponent, even though the PC is smarter and more knowledgeable than the opponents. Kidding aside, it's a two way street, and the PCs will ALWAYS have the upper hand in this sort of contest. If you ignore a highly intelligent monster's mental capabilities when running them, you're nerfing them just as badly as if you were running a combat with a beholder and forgot about its magic-negating central eye. *sighs* What on EARTH gave you the idea that I just drop a rakshasa in a 10'x10' room with a pie in and have the party roll initiative? The last rakshasa I ran had the party attacking innocent prisoners he had disguised himself as, hid perfectly among its minions while casting support and blast spells, and managed to actually join up with the party amid a group of rescuees for a while, but was eventually found out and destroyed by clever PCs. When the 'encounter' with the rakshasa was over (really, a series of about 5 or 6 smaller encounters), they really hated the backwards-handed ones, but also a new respect, and said they loved the session. However, tactics can work both ways. A PC only needs a high enough Knowledge roll to know what vulnerabilities any given creature has, and how to exploit it. Even if the rakshasa has some way of making up for his deadly vulnerability, it would not stop a party from finding some way around it. At the best, a 3.0 rakshasa who specifically was prepared could be killed by any 5th level party with a dispel magic. Again, that is just too easy. As for a rakshasa's weakness to blessed bolts, that only becomes a major problem when your PC's are constantly metagaming (like knowing the weakness even though they've never faced one before) or if suddenly rakshasas have become as numerous as regular humans. It's not metagaming as long as the players make the appropriate Knowledge checks. That shows that the PC would know certain information. For instance, you probably know the best way to fend off an attacking shark is to hit it in the nose or eyes, even though I'm pretty sure you've never met a shark. It's only metagaming the players try to exploit the weakness without the checks or after failing the checks. Like Shemeska and Feathercircle has made clear, they are intelligent creatures and will guard against their weaknesses, or use illusions and trickery to keep the PC's off guard and to force them to expend their advantage without use against illusionary figures or glamoured targets. Yes, because we all know that once a PC fails with one attempt, he can never, ever try it again in that encounter. As for the bodak and the one round death of it, that will only happen 5% of the time. For your example of identifying it and blasting it with their best stuff, wouldn't the PC's do that anyway? Yes, but at least it would be able to ACT in that round in 3.5, and actually have a chance of killing off a party member, as appropriate for its CR. If the PCs are not at risk at all during the first round (which would not happen unless the bodak always shows up within 30 ft. of the party before they notice each other), there is no challenge, and, thus, should have no Challenge RATING. And if that rare chance does come up when the bodak does stop in its tracks for a round AND everything the PC's throw at it work 100% effectively, and the bodak is killed in one round with no fight, then the PC's won't get as much experience for that CR8. You are right, it was no challenge for them and they will be rewarded appropriately. This is where rule 0 comes in to play, that was the DM can make an ad hoc adjustment to what the rules say. The DM is supposed to be creative and on their toes for situations such as this. That's a fallacy right there. Just because you can change the rules does not make them any more balanced or appropriate. The rules should work without too many changes by the DM, or else the rules are broken. You are having to personally correct for a game designer's mistake. Wouldn't it be better if, say, the game designers FIXED their mistake in the first place? Suppose that same CR 8 creature doesn't stop in its tracks, kills a party member and as DM, I am rolling nothing but criticals for its melee attacks. The party on the other hand, is having nothing but unluck. The fighter can't seem to roll above a 3 and the mage keeps rolling 1s for fireball damage and the cleric is failing at turning. Yet somehow they overcome the bodak in the end. Would you not say that they deserve a little extra for overcoming such adversity and misfortune? I'm not saying that PC's should be rewarded for being unlucky, but maybe get a little extra for triumphing over the odds. Uh, no. No way. That is what the CR is meant to represent, the average of the 'luck' the PCs have in a given encounter. If the PCs have bad or good luck, they have bad or good luck. Their luck should not affect their rewards for the fight. However, they should always have the POTENTIAL to be threatened by their opponent. That just does not always happen with the 3.0 bodak. If there is no challenge, there is no challenge rating, luck notwithstanding.
Shemeska the Marauder 04-28-05, 10:30 AM	First off, 'rules 0' as it is called is not an excuse for a DM to change the rules on a whim, but is meant to aid in aspects that the rules can cannot cover, or covers badly. If the rules of the game come to a situation that simply does not make sense or is bad for overall play, that is when rule 0 should be used. Rule 0 is a DM tool, not a cop out to change anything you want whenever you want. If you decide to run your campaign a certain way overall, that is not using rule 0, that using houserules. And with blazing irony here... wow is that elitism in its most base form. :) Bah. And everyone who doesn't adhere so stringently to your interpretation is playing it wrong. That's fine for your home game and all, but geez. God forbid anyone deviates from any rule as written.
lugnut71 04-28-05, 11:38 AM	And with blazing irony here... wow is that elitism in its most base form. :) Bah. And everyone who doesn't adhere so stringently to your interpretation is playing it wrong. That's fine for your home game and all, but geez. God forbid anyone deviates from any rule as written. Intresting but your missing his point. Actually it looks like you took the part of what he wrote that supported your theory and quoted that and ignored the rest. Now for what he acutally said in different words "You can change the game any way you want. That is not rule zero that is house ruling. Just don't complain when things do not work."
Wyrd Bearer 04-28-05, 04:26 PM	That's a fallacy right there. Just because you can change the rules does not make them any more balanced or appropriate. The rules should work without too many changes by the DM, or else the rules are broken. You are having to personally correct for a game designer's mistake. Wouldn't it be better if, say, the game designers FIXED their mistake in the first place? It is not a mistake to have a monster that has a trait or a weakness that makes it unique from other monsters. Anyway, the PCs that defeated a bodak because it just stood there and took a beating learned nothing from that encounter. Sure, the mage may have became a little more confident of his ability to cast spells or the fighter may have refined his technique, but in the end, they learned very little. That is what experience is supposed to represent, correct? Its a numerical attempt to rationalize an abstract concept, the process of learning that is. The PCs defeated a foe that took very little effort and time. Their strategy was not tested and found to be lacking, they were not forced to adjust for a new foe. That encounter was hardly a challenge, and would not warrent the PCs improving by as much as a normal encounter may have. So I would adjust the amount of experience they would recieve to be a bit lower than would be normal for that encounter, however, that would be assuming that I normally award xp in the first place! See, in the years that I've been playing and DMing, I've never been in a game where people were awarded actual experience. Like Shemeska mentioned before, xp is only used for crafting items. When I DM, I plan out several sessions in advance and make sure that after those sequence of sessions was over, the PCs did enough to warrent leveling up, using the system presented in the books as a guide, but not as the end all to be all. It is a system that works fine for us and the people I play with tend to agree.
scwolf 04-28-05, 05:00 PM	Anyway, the PCs that defeated a bodak because it just stood there and took a beating learned nothing from that encounter. And guess what? the DMG already has a guideline in place that essentially says if the PCs skate through what was supposed to be a challenging encounter, then the awarded XP should be adjusted downwards accordingly. Anyway, if the flashbacks were making bodaks less of a challenge than other creatures listed at that CR, wouldn't it have been just as good of a solution to adjust the CR downwards than to remove the flashbacks?
R.M.G.C.L.F. 04-28-05, 06:37 PM	the flashback isn't violently debiliating. Daze is a level 0 spell. One round without actions isn't a fatal loss, the creature doesn't get any penalty to AC or such.
Weenie 04-28-05, 06:47 PM	One round without actions isn't a fatal loss, the creature doesn't get any penalty to AC or such. Ah, the voice of reason. You're not welcome here. This discussion is all about whether or not and how much the core rules should (not) be changed. Closely related to crunch vs. fluff.
lugnut71 04-29-05, 11:09 AM	Always a valid point. Depends on the camp. I come from the very little fluff camp because I want to make my own. Some people come from the lots of fluff camp. Others have a 50/50 fluff to crunch camp. Thus it becomes hard to agree on an idea.
Shemeska the Marauder 04-29-05, 11:25 AM	Always a valid point. Depends on the camp. I come from the very little fluff camp because I want to make my own. Some people come from the lots of fluff camp. Others have a 50/50 fluff to crunch camp. Thus it becomes hard to agree on an idea. I've always found it bizarre that some people seem to think that just because you want fluff printed up in the books that you don't make your own/lack creativity to make your own etc. Far from it. I just don't want books full of nothing but numbers and crunch. I want books that will inspire me, and all the more flavor that the monsters have then all the more better for that purpose.
d_nychus 04-29-05, 08:57 PM	And with blazing irony here... wow is that elitism in its most base form. :) Bah. And everyone who doesn't adhere so stringently to your interpretation is playing it wrong. That's fine for your home game and all, but geez. God forbid anyone deviates from any rule as written. Where did I say that you are playing wrong? I just said you playing differently from the way as written, so, therefore, some things will act differently, and, in some cases, be worse off. The bodak having flashbacks might be a good addition to your game, but to the main way the game is written, it was a design flaw, something that lessened the monster to those who play the rules as written. There were a number of design flaws in 3.0, and there still are many in 3.5. However, his happens to be a decent fix of a 3.0 design flaw, and the creature works better in 3.5 than in 3.0. Your statement is incredibly ironic in the fact you apparently do exactly what you claim I do in this post. You stated the changes were made 'because they could' rather than even consider they were very good changes for many of those who play differently than you, specifically, those who follow the core rules more closely than you. I guess WotC is wrong in everything they do unless they cater specifically to your own game variant. Now, do you seriously want to put words in my mouth? How about if I make it easier, and say your game is being played wrong and the RPGA Gestapo will be to your house shortly to confiscate your books and burn your campaign notes to make sure you only ever play a specifically sanctioned version of D&D, specifically Greyhawk dungeon-crawls, for the rest of your life. Better? It is not a mistake to have a monster that has a trait or a weakness that makes it unique from other monsters. No, but it CAN be a mistake if done poorly, like the flashback quality was. This is a free round for the PCs to easily kill the bodak, without anything 'learned' from the battle, as you put it. By the rules as written, a party facing a bodak in generic circumstances should get the rewards for facing a CR 8 creature. With flashback, one time out of 20, the PCs are not facing the full potential of a CR 8 creature, and yet still qualify for the rewards for it. And guess what? the DMG already has a guideline in place that essentially says if the PCs skate through what was supposed to be a challenging encounter, then the awarded XP should be adjusted downwards accordingly. Unfortunately, that is an incorrect interpretation of those rules. There would have to be something external modifiying the fight between the PCs and the bodak to qualify for modifying xp awards. Facing a monster in its normal form without any other modifiers should not merit a change in xp rewards. A CR 8 is a CR 8. Anyway, if the flashbacks were making bodaks less of a challenge than other creatures listed at that CR, wouldn't it have been just as good of a solution to adjust the CR downwards than to remove the flashbacks? That would have been a valid option, but they probably wanted to keep the bodak as a CR 8 creature. Note that they not only took away the flashback weakness, but upped its AC as well. I seriously think they were trying bring the overall weak bodak up to par rather than set a new one. the flashback isn't violently debiliating. Daze is a level 0 spell. One round without actions isn't a fatal loss, the creature doesn't get any penalty to AC or such. Well, I guess you have me there. I mean, losing a round of actions is really not too harmful to a creature, unless it has signifcantly low AC and hp for a CR 8 creature and only the weakest form of 3.0's ineffective DR and a few energy resistances and immunities to protect it. I mean, if that were the case, the party would kill the thing before it even had a chance to potentially threaten the party. But I'm sure the bodak has all the appropriate defenses for a CR 8 creatures. Oh, wait a second... Always a valid point. Depends on the camp. I come from the very little fluff camp because I want to make my own. Some people come from the lots of fluff camp. Others have a 50/50 fluff to crunch camp. Thus it becomes hard to agree on an idea. I'm from the very little fluff party myself. Personally, I have not seen anything of fluff from WotC in years that has been even remotely satisfactory, save for the Eberron setting, and I don't even use in its pure form. But one thing I HATE in any gaming system is when flavor disrupts mechanics. How can you successfully pull off playing the game part of a roleplaying game if the rules are repeatedly being overruled or bypassed by the background? What is the point in playing if knowledge of flavor (whether metagamed or not) allows a player to ignore the rules to begin with?
Shemeska the Marauder 04-29-05, 09:10 PM	Where did I say that you are playing wrong? I just said you playing differently from the way as written, so, therefore, some things will act differently, and, in some cases, be worse off. The bodak having flashbacks might be a good addition to your game, but to the main way the game is written, it was a design flaw, something that lessened the monster to those who play the rules as written. There were a number of design flaws in 3.0, and there still are many in 3.5. However, his happens to be a decent fix of a 3.0 design flaw, and the creature works better in 3.5 than in 3.0. You say it was a good change and that's your opinion. Many of us here feel otherwise. Now, do you seriously want to put words in my mouth? How about if I make it easier, and say your game is being played wrong and the RPGA Gestapo will be to your house shortly to confiscate your books and burn your campaign notes to make sure you only ever play a specifically sanctioned version of D&D, specifically Greyhawk dungeon-crawls, for the rest of your life. Better? *bemused* But one thing I HATE in any gaming system is when flavor disrupts mechanics. How can you successfully pull off playing the game part of a roleplaying game if the rules are repeatedly being overruled or bypassed by the background? What is the point in playing if knowledge of flavor (whether metagamed or not) allows a player to ignore the rules to begin with? The point? Having fun and making it more than a 1 dimensional experience with strict adherence to letter of the rules. The flavor is what makes it fun and have depth, the rules are just a framework to hang that flavor upon. When I look at a painting I don't look at the canvas, I look at the pattern of colors on top of that canvas.
Wyrd Bearer 04-30-05, 01:16 AM	The point? Having fun and making it more than a 1 dimensional experience with strict adherence to letter of the rules. The flavor is what makes it fun and have depth, the rules are just a framework to hang that flavor upon. When I look at a painting I don't look at the canvas, I look at the pattern of colors on top of that canvas. Ooooooh! You make the English major within me jump with glee at your use of metaphor.
lugnut71 04-30-05, 12:12 PM	I've always found it bizarre that some people seem to think that just because you want fluff printed up in the books that you don't make your own/lack creativity to make your own etc. Far from it. I just don't want books full of nothing but numbers and crunch. I want books that will inspire me, and all the more flavor that the monsters have then all the more better for that purpose. Why do you assume that I think you have a lack of creativity? My post just indicates that you want fluff over crunch.
Shemeska the Marauder 04-30-05, 01:43 PM	Why do you assume that I think you have a lack of creativity? My post just indicates that you want fluff over crunch. I was speaking in general terms, not to suggest that you had said I lacked creativity. Sorry for that being a little vague in its direction. Didn't mean to put words in your mouth. :embarrass
R.M.G.C.L.F. 04-30-05, 03:27 PM	I try to avoid any distinction between the two when possible. Every little thing is fluff and crunch. A racial bonus to listen means large or pointy ears, an extra eye grants a bonus to spot and search, etc. No soulless pure stat, no impotent fluff. It's like a shintoist world. Every statistical presence is in place to embody some flavor concept, and every flavor concept gives meaning to a statistical entity.
Wyrd Bearer 04-30-05, 04:28 PM	I try to avoid any distinction between the two when possible. Every little thing is fluff and crunch. A racial bonus to listen means large or pointy ears, an extra eye grants a bonus to spot and search, etc. No soulless pure stat, no impotent fluff. It's like a shintoist world. Every statistical presence is in place to embody some flavor concept, and every flavor concept gives meaning to a statistical entity. Indeed, that is much the same way I look at stats. Like for a race that has +4 to hide and move silently, they are naturally quiet, as in the race on a whole is softspoken and careful in their movements. Children of that race would have games with themselves or with their friends constantly to see who could make the least amount of sound in normal life. They'd also have a disposition to wearing darker, less flashy clothing. Or, interacting in a more cosmopolitan setting, they may favour wearing clothing that has lots of bells and jingling chains so other races notice them. (The funny thing here is I'm also talking about myself and not just the way I run a race such as the whisper gnomes. I play that game myself constantly to see if I can go about making as little noise as possible in everyday life and often I resort to wearing jingly clothing to make sure that people are suddenly surprised to see me there when they thought no one was.)
lugnut71 05-01-05, 11:29 AM	I was speaking in general terms, not to suggest that you had said I lacked creativity. Sorry for that being a little vague in its direction. Didn't mean to put words in your mouth. :embarrass No problem.
d_nychus 05-01-05, 04:21 PM	You say it was a good change and that's your opinion. Many of us here feel otherwise. My opinion is also more based on the way the game was initially designed to play. It certainly made the mechanics easier in general, and have less questionable balance when it interacts with the rest of the rules. The point? Having fun and making it more than a 1 dimensional experience with strict adherence to letter of the rules. The flavor is what makes it fun and have depth, the rules are just a framework to hang that flavor upon. When I look at a painting I don't look at the canvas, I look at the pattern of colors on top of that canvas. Even if the colors are acidic and burn holes in the canvas, slowly eroding its support?
Shemeska the Marauder 05-01-05, 04:50 PM	Even if the colors are acidic and burn holes in the canvas, slowly eroding its support? Then it's performance art ;)
Patrick Draken-Korin 05-01-05, 05:58 PM	hmm. if the topic is still the loss of the bodak's ability (and similar changes), then i've got a point: encounter level. is the bodak's recognition effect that much different from walking into an ambush? if it's on the same page, then wouldn't it be reasonable to lower the encounter level (not the CR)? the 3.5 DM's guide mentions difficulty factors (p. 50) and modifying difficulty (same page). IMC if the PC's EVER kill/defeat an enemy before it acts then the only get AT MOST 25% of the Xp it is worth (and only that much, if the creature is one of those kill ya every attack types). an easy fight shouldn't grant full Xp, especially if a random factor is the cause of said easy fight. ah, well that my opinion. on the subject of crunch Vs. fluff, when game balance is on the line- i go for fluff. more things (that i've seen) are overpower, rather than underpower (for the players side), and this means i can generally play a monster intelligently and let them deal with it. if they get lucky, (a fight they should have had more trouble on) then the get less Xp. a notably hard fight is worth more Xp (but not more treasure- that is CR related). hmm. i'm babblin'. i stop here.
d_nychus 05-01-05, 06:33 PM	hmm. if the topic is still the loss of the bodak's ability (and similar changes), then i've got a point: encounter level. is the bodak's recognition effect that much different from walking into an ambush? Yes. Ambush gives the PCs a surprise round, aka, free standard action. The flashback ability gives the PCs a FULL ROUND. That is a huge difference, and the effects can stack, i.e., the PCs could ambush the bodak and get a free standard action, then the bodak could have a flashback and lose a full round. Of course, this is not even considering the fact that the bodak then penalizes itself against a certain PC. if it's on the same page, then wouldn't it be reasonable to lower the encounter level (not the CR)? No. You change the EL only if there are external factors to alter the EL. Factors like difficult terrain, or equipment above that of a normal NPC, or anything else that is not inherent with the creature's abilities. If something in the creature's makeup alters the toughness of the creature, it alters the CR. the 3.5 DM's guide mentions difficulty factors (p. 50) and modifying difficulty (same page). IMC if the PC's EVER kill/defeat an enemy before it acts then the only get AT MOST 25% of the Xp it is worth (and only that much, if the creature is one of those kill ya every attack types). Then you are penalizing PCs for having good luck. Do you give more XP if the PC's have bad luck? CR is based off of averages. The rewards one should get should not be based off the luck of the rolls, but on what would have happened in an average encounter. The problem with the bodak is the potential to 'increase' that luck in the PCs' favor. It makes the bodak overall weaker. That means that the CR should either be lowered, or the abilities need to be changed to make the bodak worth its CR. WotC chose the later. an easy fight shouldn't grant full Xp, especially if a random factor is the cause of said easy fight. ah, well that my opinion. But an easy fight that could have just as easily gone other way should be worth the same amount because it was simple luck that changed it. If it was just a few rolls that separated easy victory from tragic defeat, then the challenge was real. If the rolls were somehow modified in the favor of one party or another somehow, that is when you modify the XP.
R.M.G.C.L.F. 05-02-05, 06:40 AM	I really don't think losing a round of actions and a -1 penalty is worth an entire increase or decrease of CR.
d_nychus 05-02-05, 09:09 AM	I really don't think losing a round of actions and a -1 penalty is worth an entire increase or decrease of CR. Why not? In 3.0, it only has 58 hp, an AC 15, DR 15/silver (aka, irrelevent DR by 5th level), some energy resistances and electrical immunity, and even afterwards, it still has a -2 to attack the person who gave it the flashback if it does actually get a chance to act. Frankly, by 6th level, I can easily see an average party easily taking down a bodak in one round with the right tactics, not to mention 8th level, for which it is meant to be a challenge. At 8th level, a flashback encounter with a bodak will not be any more troublesome than your average ogre or bugbear. How can it NOT be worth a decrease in CR?
R.M.G.C.L.F. 05-02-05, 04:02 PM	Now that I look at it, the bodak seems like a fairly problematic creature in general. It's main weapon is a save-or-die ability, which in each use will either be ineffective or kill a party member, something that same-CR encounter's generally aren't supposed to do to my knowledge.
Keenath 05-02-05, 05:14 PM	I agree, RMGCLF... I've always thought Bodaks were strange, and the 'flashbacks' were the least of your worries about balance when you have a CR 8 with a deadly gaze attack! I've always thought gaze attacks should be less devistating, at least until the party has easy access to their own save-or-dies (and to ressurection magic, for that matter!) The Bodak has always been a bit of a mess; removing the flashbacks is just the latest iteration in the list of attempts to "get it right". That's the risk you take, of course, when you base a monster on a piece of local folklore. Monsters of local legend are SUPPOSED to be scary monsters, so they tend to have overpowered, twinkish abilities like petrifying with a look or killing by touch. In many cases, you're building a creature based on a single story, and the creature's weaknesses and abilities are based entirely on what it did in the story and how the hero beat it. The Rakshasa, for example. The Rakshasa were a class of Hindu demon or spirit. The whole weakness-to-blessed-crossbows comes from the tale "Ramayama", the story of Rama (7th Avatar of Vishnu). In the story, I don't think it's a crossbow at all, but an arrow. Rama doesn't want to kill the demon, but she turns invisible and starts telekinetically throwing rocks, so he blesses his bow, closes his eyes, and aims by sound, shooting her dead through the heart. The Rakshasa had no special weakness to arrows, blessed or otherwise -- that was just part of the story! She died of getting shot through the heart, just like anyone else would.
d_nychus 05-03-05, 05:49 PM	Now that I look at it, the bodak seems like a fairly problematic creature in general. It's main weapon is a save-or-die ability, which in each use will either be ineffective or kill a party member, something that same-CR encounter's generally aren't supposed to do to my knowledge. A party member dying can be a part of the expected 20% resources lost for an encounter. I think the DMG makes a specific reference to a PC dying being par for the course after a certain point. At 8th level, most PCs have some way of reviving the dead, even if not fully in spell form. A scroll, a paid NPC, other mystical resources; odds are that someone will just spend a little gold or abilities and bring that dead PC back without too much trouble. There are many creatures with save-or-die abilities, and very few are monsters that most people consider broken. The way the bodak is set up, I would expect one potential casualty per encounter. The bodak's save DC is not all that great and its defenses just are so limited, even in 3.5, that I doubt most PCs would even need to save more than a couple of times before the bodak is dead. I would expect only one person to fail such a weak save, maybe two if the party is particularly unlucky.
R.M.G.C.L.F. 05-04-05, 06:51 AM	Well, I could have sworn I heard somebody say that an encounter should not lead to a PC's death if it's an appropriate CR level and if the DM is playing it right.
Wyrd Bearer 05-04-05, 12:10 PM	Well, to be the devil's advocate of neutrality, and thus be ignored in the end, I have heard it go both ways. I cannot remember where, but I have both heard that the death of a PC certainly counts as an expenditure of the party's resources, but I have also heard that PC death should be the result of lucky rolling on the BBEG's part (or poor DMing through improper use of a monster, something which I sadly have done with a homebrew).
Kesuk2k5 05-04-05, 12:32 PM	"No, here is EXACTLY what will happen. You: Roll a 04 on percentile dice. The bodak sits there for his action. PCs: Roll a Knowledge (religion) check and identify the monster as a free action, identify it, blast it with their best stuff in the first round and kill it, and gain the CR 8 xp without taking a hit, but without spending the appropriate resources for a CR 8. If you want to be fair, at least adjust the CR for any modifications you make to the slaad. Otherwise, you are just screwing your players for the sake of flavor." z-o-m-g. What the snot is wrong with you people? It seems you fail to grasp the concept that this is not NWN. There is no automatic engine that awards the players the experience. And another thing, this is kind of cute the way you worded your post. "Blast it with their best stuff" "but without spending appropriate resources for a CR 8". So I guess their best stuff doesn't count as proper resources for a fight! Wow. You totally win. But at any rate, I'm not arguing that point. Right now what I wanna get out in the open is that the DM has the responsibility to make sure fights go smoothly. And if it's basically meant to be a one-hit wonder monster with an extremely potent power, there's by LAW OF GAMING a weakness that you'd be wise to take advantage of to win. Even if not, if the cleric would take some initiative and stop being the heal dog, stand up for his rights, and prepare something BESIDES a cure spell (which I don't see the point in any cleric doing anyway, powergamer or no, sense you can spontaneously cast cure spells if you choose to), it makes sense that either if you ARE using that whole big scary Knowledge (religion) skill to identify what an undead is (and what the heck would you need to do that for anyway? If it doesn't have a pulse, is gray and rotting, and it's still got the power to keep it's legs moving, dang it Jim, it's not likely to be a natural creature!), you'd most likely have the guts to know you're dealing with the night of the living dead reject crew and might have the wisdom (key word there, that cool number thing that makes your spells really awesome!) to prepare a Death Ward spell. That does something along the lines of making it so when mister ugly does stare down at you like a side of liver and onions your insides don't go splat and leak out. What I'm still trying to say here is that if you people actually consider giving the mechanics a break and look at the considerations and sensibility that all proper DMs have or at least try to learn, or at worst fake, along with their screaming drunk Irish dwarf accents, no offense to the Irish (and not implying that Irish are drunks, merely stating that apparently a lot of 'roleplayers' feel the need to have their armor-clad axe-swinging orc-hating elf-pushing dwarf's blood alcohol level in the thousands). The DM is there to provide a sensible reward for what you accomplish and SOLVE. There's obviously some reason that you guys can only think for the moment about what the books say you should get and not what you DESERVE to get. Try thinking about the overall scene and not what's staring you down up ahead in the dark hall with that twisted ugly mouth and the black skin. Hey, wait, I know what that is! I got a natural 20 on my Knowledge (religion) check. ZOMG!
Kesuk2k5 05-04-05, 12:51 PM	Originally Posted by Patrick Draken-Korin an easy fight shouldn't grant full Xp, especially if a random factor is the cause of said easy fight. ah, well that my opinion. Then you are penalizing PCs for having good luck. Do you give more XP if the PC's have bad luck? CR is based off of averages. The rewards one should get should not be based off the luck of the rolls, but on what would have happened in an average encounter. The problem with the bodak is the potential to 'increase' that luck in the PCs' favor. It makes the bodak overall weaker. That means that the CR should either be lowered, or the abilities need to be changed to make the bodak worth its CR. WotC chose the later. I guess I need another post on this thread! Wheee! Lesson 101: Schmucks and the DMG. Turn off your Feminem and Kelly Clarkson and do some reading, boys. This is going to blow your minds! 3.0 DMG, speak the magic words. What's the rule on luck? "Bad rolls or poor choices on the PCs' part should not modify ELs or XP. If the encounter is hard because the players were unlucky or careless, they don't get more experience." Page 167. If you can make inferences (try it sometime), good luck similarly does not reduce XP. Tactical advantages and their modifiers can be found on a table on that SAME page (if you can't remember, it's 167, and here's a cookie.) Don't try calling a natural one a tactical failure. I will be very sad. Anyway. Them's the breaks. And if you're nitpicking at me for my references of the DMG, then go home and smack your head in the wall, cause just about anyone else in this thread has already done so, probably hoping that it'd prove them right and they'd get to dance the DM dance of Tir'Na'Nog. That's also my hope I guess. Maybe I could wear a frilly dress and get some morracas. It'd be a blast.
Patrick Draken-Korin 05-10-05, 01:16 AM	hmm. hmm. ok, i've been convinced. (mostly because i realized that most of my Xp penalties and bonus related to me fudging dice roll to either prevent a TPK or loss of a story character for a campaign. dang, i hate being wrong. ah, well. 1) the bodak is more reasonable with the 3.5 change. for those that want the flavor of the old 3.0 version, add a counter ability that activates with a 5% chance that makes the bodak go beserk and attempt to slay a target without pause (or something along that effect). 2) slaadi: add a mutation chart if you wish, but list specific LA and CR changes, and make sure most mutations have no effects on gameplay (maybe steal some mutation info from the D20 future book if it helps). 3) yaaah!, maraccas! partaay!!
R.M.G.C.L.F. 05-10-05, 04:14 PM	Why the beserk thing? That's the exact opposite of the flashback effect. Why not just cut it down to a -1 penalty to attack rolls against the target in question if you're worried about balance?
IceFractal 05-11-05, 02:35 PM	Sure, if you're talking about someone playing as a Slaad or Bodak then they shouldn't have strange weaknesses/strengths with an unpredictable impact. So fine, if anyone plays as one remove those features. However, if they're simply being used by the DM, as foes, then they don't need to be perfectly balanced! If they're too strong, you can use less of them. If they're too weak, you can use more. If an unexpected circumstance totally changes a battle, then either toss in some mitigating factor or just figure that this will be an unusually easy or tough battle, but there's plenty more down the road. Monster toughness varies immensely based on the party make-up as well. Something that the caster-heavy party barely bats an eye at might devastate the all-melee party, or vice versa. Therefore, it's not like having a few strange monster weaknesses "ruins" the balance.
d_nychus 05-12-05, 10:15 AM	Right, Party composition makes CR impossible to determine, so instead of finding a close approximation as to the monster's combat potential with an average party, D&D should have a random or totally arbitrary way of assigning CR. That's why kobolds should be CR 1d10.
d_nychus 05-12-05, 10:45 AM	Why the beserk thing? That's the exact opposite of the flashback effect. Why not just cut it down to a -1 penalty to attack rolls against the target in question if you're worried about balance? Because that's not what unbalances it. It's the sitting around and doing nothing for a full round at the start of the encounter. You're looking at a car with with a flat tire, and claiming all it needs is a new windshield wiper to drive safely. The berserk is a much better idea than standing there motionless. At least as a berserk creature, it can actually act and potentially harm the party. Without acting, the bodak is a big bull's eye target that will probably not make it to the next round of combat against an average party. Just as an aside, a group that I play with (not DM) ran into a bodak in the Eberron adventure Grasp of the Emerald Claw. We were an EL 6 party, and we managed to drop the 3.5 bodak in four rounds (It really should have been 2 or 3 rounds, but the barbarian rolled a 1 on his first attack). Only one character failed his save for the death effect (of course it was the shifter ranger with the highest Fort save in the party who just rolled really bad). It cost us quite a bit of money afterwards to get him revived, but overall, it was a good encounter as two people gained a level from it. It was a tough fight, as we were two levels lower than the CR, but I felt it was mostly appropriate for its CR (Though I still dislike any adventure that puts a save-or-die monster as a boss fight before even raise dead is available, but that's a fault of the adventure, not the bodak.) If we had faced the 3.0 bodak, there would have been a 5% chance that it would have just stood there at the start, meaning no initial gaze attack, and the weak DR and AC would have meant that we would have taken the bodak down in probably one round. It would have been free XP without a hint of challege.