Fiends summoning fiends and cr... [Archive] - Wizards Community

Fiends summoning fiends and cr... [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
runestar
03-12-07, 07:37 AM I understand that when a fiend uses its innate ability to summon another fiend, you do not get xp from killing the summoned fiend as it is already factored into the cr of the original challenge, not at all unlike a spellcaster using summon monster.

However, how accurate is this analogy when some of the fiends get only a limited chance of success? Their cr remains the same regardless of whether their summoning attempt is successful or not. This is one aspect I have trouble coming to terms with.

For foes like balors or pit fiends, this is not a problem since their summoning attempt is always successful, so it is easier to gauge the impact this will have on the challenge they are expected to pose (ie: one can assume that a pit fiend will always be flanked by 2 horned devils, or a balor will have a marilith or another balor for support, and adjust their strategies accordingly)

However, for other fiends, this does not seem as straightforward. For example, look at the ice devil. Depending on how well you roll, you could have it summon up to 8 bone devils (rare, but not impossible if you luck out). Yet, its cr is a constant cr13 regardless of success or failure.

The only reason I can think of for this flat cr is that they simply considered all the possible scenarios that could happen, and took the average of all the crs to arrive at a expected value of the challenge it is supposed to present. However, does this seem fair? Considering that the average player is unlikely to face them more than once or twice. This means that for every player cursing at having to face 8 extra bone devils (which alone probably constitute more than a cr13 challenge), there are a few groups benefiting from this supposedly inflated cr because the ice devil failed its summoning attempt.

How do you adjudicate this in your games? :confused:
Naderion
03-12-07, 08:09 AM You wouldn't give a fighter a lower CR because he rolled really bad in an encounter and you wouldn't reduce the CR for a caster, because he failed his concentration check. It's meant that there is a great deal of chance involved. I also think, that this system is meant to get average results on the long run. The first you encounter might fail, the second too, but the third succeeds. On the long way to level 20, you will, likely, meet much more of the creatures and some give a bit more XP, than would be fitting for their strength, others give a bit less.
Even if you would adjust XP when the summoning fails, it will have close to no impact on the amount of XP in the whole campaign.
Thiez
03-12-07, 08:13 AM Wise words from Naderion. It's all average, and in the long run, it all balances out.
runestar
03-12-07, 08:32 AM What if you use the ice devil only once in your entire game? Then there is no long run to speak of....

I have some finance background, so I understand the concept of expected values, but doesn't that seem to much of a stretch in this context?
You wouldn't give a fighter a lower CR because he rolled really bad in an encounter and you wouldn't reduce the CR for a caster, because he failed his concentration check. It's meant that there is a great deal of chance involved.
I understand and accept this logic. However, there seem to be some examples which seem to stretch this rationale to the max.

Anyways, I think the whole idea is sitting a little easier with me. Thanks anyways for all your replies.:)
Naderion
03-12-07, 12:06 PM I have some finance background, so I understand the concept of expected values, but doesn't that seem to much of a stretch in this context?
True, it does. But hey! It's D&D! :D
HamHam
03-12-07, 12:13 PM The FCII has some guidelines for replacing the random summoning with definite spell like abilities, so I think even Wizards realizes that the whole random summoning thing is questionable.

I think deciding ahead of time if they will or will not summon and then awarding XP for the summons would not be wrong.
runestar
03-13-07, 02:36 AM I was contemplating removing the randomness of this and letting them have a chance of summoning a weaker fiend but with 100% chance of success.

Anyone have any good guidelines for this?:)
Gnarl
03-13-07, 03:41 PM The other day I did a TPK with a Canoloth. The party was composed of 4 fully rested 5th level adventurers (wizard, cleric, rogue and fighter), all moderately optimized (25 point-buy).

I rolled well and instead of 1 of those buggers, there were 4 of them. Magic circle against evil didn't help because of the spell resistance and of course the player had forgotten to buy a scroll of remove paralysis.

It was a combination of good rolls of my part and bad ones from the players, but when this happens, it usually means one or two deaths, not a TPK.

I would like a solution to this kind of crap too.
Thiez
03-13-07, 03:46 PM heh, try using an Ettin scoring two crits in the first round. Once the tank goes down, the rest of the party starts falling :)

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
runestar 03-12-07, 07:37 AM	I understand that when a fiend uses its innate ability to summon another fiend, you do not get xp from killing the summoned fiend as it is already factored into the cr of the original challenge, not at all unlike a spellcaster using summon monster. However, how accurate is this analogy when some of the fiends get only a limited chance of success? Their cr remains the same regardless of whether their summoning attempt is successful or not. This is one aspect I have trouble coming to terms with. For foes like balors or pit fiends, this is not a problem since their summoning attempt is always successful, so it is easier to gauge the impact this will have on the challenge they are expected to pose (ie: one can assume that a pit fiend will always be flanked by 2 horned devils, or a balor will have a marilith or another balor for support, and adjust their strategies accordingly) However, for other fiends, this does not seem as straightforward. For example, look at the ice devil. Depending on how well you roll, you could have it summon up to 8 bone devils (rare, but not impossible if you luck out). Yet, its cr is a constant cr13 regardless of success or failure. The only reason I can think of for this flat cr is that they simply considered all the possible scenarios that could happen, and took the average of all the crs to arrive at a expected value of the challenge it is supposed to present. However, does this seem fair? Considering that the average player is unlikely to face them more than once or twice. This means that for every player cursing at having to face 8 extra bone devils (which alone probably constitute more than a cr13 challenge), there are a few groups benefiting from this supposedly inflated cr because the ice devil failed its summoning attempt. How do you adjudicate this in your games? :confused:
Naderion 03-12-07, 08:09 AM	You wouldn't give a fighter a lower CR because he rolled really bad in an encounter and you wouldn't reduce the CR for a caster, because he failed his concentration check. It's meant that there is a great deal of chance involved. I also think, that this system is meant to get average results on the long run. The first you encounter might fail, the second too, but the third succeeds. On the long way to level 20, you will, likely, meet much more of the creatures and some give a bit more XP, than would be fitting for their strength, others give a bit less. Even if you would adjust XP when the summoning fails, it will have close to no impact on the amount of XP in the whole campaign.
Thiez 03-12-07, 08:13 AM	Wise words from Naderion. It's all average, and in the long run, it all balances out.
runestar 03-12-07, 08:32 AM	What if you use the ice devil only once in your entire game? Then there is no long run to speak of.... I have some finance background, so I understand the concept of expected values, but doesn't that seem to much of a stretch in this context? You wouldn't give a fighter a lower CR because he rolled really bad in an encounter and you wouldn't reduce the CR for a caster, because he failed his concentration check. It's meant that there is a great deal of chance involved. I understand and accept this logic. However, there seem to be some examples which seem to stretch this rationale to the max. Anyways, I think the whole idea is sitting a little easier with me. Thanks anyways for all your replies.:)
Naderion 03-12-07, 12:06 PM	I have some finance background, so I understand the concept of expected values, but doesn't that seem to much of a stretch in this context? True, it does. But hey! It's D&D! :D
HamHam 03-12-07, 12:13 PM	The FCII has some guidelines for replacing the random summoning with definite spell like abilities, so I think even Wizards realizes that the whole random summoning thing is questionable. I think deciding ahead of time if they will or will not summon and then awarding XP for the summons would not be wrong.
runestar 03-13-07, 02:36 AM	I was contemplating removing the randomness of this and letting them have a chance of summoning a weaker fiend but with 100% chance of success. Anyone have any good guidelines for this?:)
Gnarl 03-13-07, 03:41 PM	The other day I did a TPK with a Canoloth. The party was composed of 4 fully rested 5th level adventurers (wizard, cleric, rogue and fighter), all moderately optimized (25 point-buy). I rolled well and instead of 1 of those buggers, there were 4 of them. Magic circle against evil didn't help because of the spell resistance and of course the player had forgotten to buy a scroll of remove paralysis. It was a combination of good rolls of my part and bad ones from the players, but when this happens, it usually means one or two deaths, not a TPK. I would like a solution to this kind of crap too.
Thiez 03-13-07, 03:46 PM	heh, try using an Ettin scoring two crits in the first round. Once the tank goes down, the rest of the party starts falling :)