Building bigger glass cannons

[Mauther]

I'm running a fairly high level campaign, and I want to speed up the mook battles. I need to keep the spear carriers competitive as far as BAB, saves, CL, etc. I just don't need 300 hp meat bags that take 2 hours worth of dice rolling to weed thru. So I'm looking at keeping the monsters plain except down grading the HD type. d12 becomes d6, d8 and d10 become d4.

That leads me to 2 questions: do you think it will have a noticeable difference, and if so what sort of ECL/CR adjustment do you think would be warranted?

[erikun]

Lowering their HP means that they'll die faster, which means that they're less of a threat, which means that they're far less dangerous. This especially applies to groups, and 4-on-1 against a single monster four times is far less threatening than a single 4-on-4 fight, thanks to action economy.

[Mauther]

I'm aware, thats why I'm asking for feedback on the CR adjust. I'm looking to use this anytime it would be large party fights (squads, packs, etc). For regular encounters I'd use stock rules. I dont mind running one NPC with 300 pts, but 6 with 200+ hps is just a book keeping nightmare.

Also, my party's dynamics work towars this. They are defensive monsters (very hard to hurt) but they hit like kittens.

[Flickerdart]

Making something Necropolitan will probably do the trick - those d12 HDs aren't worth much next to the -- Constitution. You can also give them Quick and Frail (-1 HP per level each). The total result is a creature with an average of 4.5 HP per HD, which gives you 90 at 20th level. This carries no CR adjustment.

Or you could just erode the base creature's Constitution. A d12 HD (avg. 6.5) is only 6 points of CON above a d6 (avg. 3.5) so throw on Ritual of Blood (-2), Pathetic Constitution (-2), plus our old buddies Quick and Frail, and you've gone down to the equivalent of a d4.

[Thrair]

This especially applies to groups, and 4-on-1 against a single monster four times is far less threatening than a single 4-on-4 fight, thanks to action economy.

This. Solo bosses vs a party don't generally work as smoothly as encounters with multiple opponents.

Think about it this way: To make a lone boss challenging to a party, you have to either have it's CR WAY above the norm for opponents in that level range, or you have to "cheat" and give it lots of extra health so it won't die in 2 rounds.

You're already trying to avoid the latter. Meanwhile the former means the party is just as vulnerable to being instantly shredded as the boss. A boss of a CR above the party beyond a certain point starts being able to take out softer characters in one FRA and hit even the party tanks with almost every attack, or has access to much higher level spells than the party has access to. Either way, it turns encounters into glass cannon vs glass cannon. Which isn't very fun in a lot of cases. As it often reduces encounters to "who won initiative". And that's a problem that already rears it's head in higher level play anyways.



Trust me, it's better to have multiple opponents of lower CR. This forces the party to split their actions around. So they can't all flank and brutalize the boss, they have to pay attention to the position of their casters so they don't get run over, prevents save DCs and attack bonuses from getting out of hand on one side or the other, and makes combat less prone to instagibbing.


It also gives both you and the players more opportunity to use tactics and shine individually, as it allows for more diverse collections of enemies that require different skillsets to combat.
As an example, perhaps that TWF Barbarian can shred any target of reasonable CR in one FRA, because he's his built for raw damage output. What happens when you start attacking him with fragile, but mobile opponents who are moving around through difficult terrain? Suddenly he can't get his FRA off as easily and he has to slog it through terrain to close, which also prevents him from FRA.
This gives the party's less optimized characters, like perhaps a Shadowdancer or Monk, a chance to slip on past the obstacles and butcher those squishies.
Or your Wizard who's poorly optimized... say with a blasting build.... can suddenly start getting to shine by lobbing evocation at them over the walls.



In short: If you use multiple enemies, combat will be less binary (you die in one turn, or they do), it will last longer in general, and there will more opportunity for tactics to come into play.

[Thrair]

I'm aware, thats why I'm asking for feedback on the CR adjust. I'm looking to use this anytime it would be large party fights (squads, packs, etc). For regular encounters I'd use stock rules. I dont mind running one NPC with 300 pts, but 6 with 200+ hps is just a book keeping nightmare.

Also, my party's dynamics work towars this. They are defensive monsters (very hard to hurt) but they hit like kittens.

Ah, sorry. You replied while I was writing my first post.


You have something very rare. Most parties are the opposite and build almost entirely for damage output or, in the case of (good)full casters, battlefield control.

If you think combat is taking too long, then try tailoring your encounters to bypass their defenses with more fragile enemies. If they're stacking up loads of AC, start hitting them with monsters that use touch attacks, like incorporeal undead.
If they have a tendency to load up on defensive buffs before going into combat, have a wizard or two in the ranks of the bad guys who have beefed up dispel checks and Greater Dispel magic.

Remember: At higher levels, PCs are bound to be famous and considered stupidly powerful/skilled. Use that. The downside of fame is that your signature moves and fighting style might be famous, too. It's not cheating for your encounters to use foreknowledge of the PCs fighting styles and abilities if they've heard of or encountered the PCs previously.

[Flickerdart]

Think about it this way: To make a lone boss challenging to a party, you have to either have it's CR WAY above the norm for opponents in that level range, or you have to "cheat" and give it lots of extra health so it won't die in 2 rounds.
Eh, that's not always the case. A challenging boss fight (CR+4) is usually high enough above the party's level that the creature is naturally beefy and difficult to hit reliably, so all that action advantage isn't worth nearly as much. The extra levels also make it easier for the monster to quicken spells (or my favourite - Multivoice), or pick up ways to make extra attacks.

Your regular mook isn't going to be a good boss out of the box, but there are lots of monsters like dragons that were always intended to be faced solo, and are really good at it.

[Thrair]

Eh, that's not always the case. A challenging boss fight (CR+4) is usually high enough above the party's level that the creature is naturally beefy and difficult to hit reliably, so all that action advantage isn't worth nearly as much. The extra levels also make it easier for the monster to quicken spells (or my favourite - Multivoice), or pick up ways to make extra attacks.

Your regular mook isn't going to be a good boss out of the box, but there are lots of monsters like dragons that were always intended to be faced solo, and are really good at it.


Yah. I never said it was an absolute maxim. There's also a lot of encounter types that have the potential to punch well above their listed CR.

Using examples from Pathfinder, an Aboleth can be used creatively with it's illusion abilities to be surprisingly difficult to pin down. And the Worm that Walks template (which I recently had to fight in a campaign) is just disgustingly powerful against anything but AoE effects for just a +2 CR modifier.
And, ofc, high level casters (especially wizards) that have their buffs spells sorted out before combat begins are going to be a lot more dangerous than their CR would indicate.

I was just stating a general rule of thumb. And again, I posted this before reading what he said about his group (defensive-oriented), which throws off the balance curve compared to what you usually see. (I don't know about you, but most people I've seen de-emphasize defense in favour of more raw damage or crowd control)