Hey that's not what it says in the MM!

[Ranting Fool]

While reading this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=308730) and well most of Trippy's rather awesome if evil suggestions on changing monsters it got me thinking about CR and how players can feel "Tricked"

Example: Take your basic Hill Giant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/giant.htm) he has the following feats.

Cleave, Improved Bull Rush, Power Attack, Improved Sunder, Weapon Focus (greatclub).

Now not the worst feats in the world but we all know that there are many more feats we could take to make said giant a lot harder to fight. I once suggested to a player between games that a giant might do much better at range if they had Brutal Throw (http://dndtools.eu/feats/complete-adventurer--54/brutal-throw--278/) and he got all into a huff over it (Partly because he doesn't like the feat, though I think he might take it for his next character so he's gotten over that dislike)

Should this change the Hill Giants CR (Which is know is a vague system at best but it's a guide)?

Do you consider re-feating a monster a "Trick" against the players? / as a player do you get annoyed when you come across an iconic monster who can do things you weren't expecting?

[JeenLeen]

I can see it either way. I think it'd be good for the DM to say that some monsters may have been changed from their entries in the Monster Manual and that players should understand that. I think this is especially true if the party is very optimized, since you may need to adjust enemies to make them worthy foes.

On the other hand, I think you shouldn't do this all the time. Having your expectations satisfied part of the time is fun. In your example, I would find it better to have an in-between. Maybe most of the hill giants are normal, like in the MM, but the 'squad leader' has better feats. Or those are warriors (not the class, but for their tribe), so they are better-trained, but a random hill giant in the village might have normal feats.

Also, from an IC to OOC perspective, the character wouldn't know anything about hill giants' tactics or abilities (represented by their feats) unless their had the appropriate Knowledge and scored high enough on a roll.

I do know I felt cheated when I rolled very high on a knowledge roll and the DM said there was nothing I knew about it, but later I found out that nobody knew about those monsters since anyone who entered the area died... so that was a fair exception.

I know that's not a clear 'yes' or 'no', but maybe it can give some insight.

[Devronq]

Yes your right the CR is horrible the way it is it was way way worse in alot of 3.0 content. I see nothing wrong with changing up the feats. What's the level of optimization of your players? If there using the feats you wish to give monsters than no question about it let the hill giant have brutal throw. Bit if the players are very low OP and not choosing to take advantages of certain feats than minor changes like that could greatly effect the outcome of battle and annoy the players.

[Deca4531]

I dont see it as a trick really, and i often change monsters i use against my own players to make the fight an actual challenge. however i have had occasions where i became very annoyed when fighting a creature i thought i knew about.

our GM put us up against a werewolf, now i am a big fan of were creatures and most of my characters are lycans. so when fighting this thing i thought i knew its strengths and weaknesses, only to find out that this werewolf was build differently. its DR was different, it didnt pass the lycan curse but instead have you stat damage and a few other things. i felt a little insulted that a monster i not only should have known all about but had played quite often i ended up looking like a total noob against.

i dont think its bad to change a monster, and yes the CR should go up since your taking an average monster and possibly optimizing it.

[Keneth]

I always change my monsters, I give them different stats, different feats, sometimes templates, functional equipment if they can use it, etc. I don't see any reason why players should expect a generic example of any given creature, even non-intelligent monsters have the ability to adapt to their environment. :smallconfused:

And yes, changing their stuff can alter their CR. So if you give out XP and rewards based on CR, you should make sure they're appropriate.

[genesaika]

Isn't metagaming generally considered bad anyways?

If your players feel tricked then they are metagaming and I would suggest doing anything you can to throw them off, from changing feats/tactics to putting a similar monster out like a chain golem in place of a chain devil. Keep those metagamers on there toes!

[FearlessGnome]

1: The players are not supposed to make use of any OOC knowledge. They have no right to dump all Knowledge skills and expect to just 'randomly' try the perfect obscure tactic the first time they encounter a monster.

2: Most groups use at least mild/easy fixes for some classes or spells. No reason why NPCs and monsters should not have access to similar fixes, or feat or skill changes. If the party is heavily homebrewed, there is no reason why a monster should not have its fluff and immunities/resistances changed, or even new abilities granted..

3: CR does not work very well. Adjust encounters to suit the party's optimization level.

[Maginomicon]

The feats subsection of the Reading Monster Entries section in the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/intro.htm#feats) explicitly says that the feats can be switched out, however, feats marked with a superscript B are bonus feats and thus should not be switched out. So, so far as whether you're "allowed" to do something, feel free. You don't even have to pull a "I'm the DM so what I say goes" line. It's built-into the system.

However, what you should do is make sure to rebuild it level-by-level much like it were a character, making sure that it meets any feat prerequisites by the time it takes that feat. Each HD in the creature represents an advancement of ECL just like a PC would advance class levels. Thus, you can reassign skills (as stated in the Reading Monster Entries page (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/intro.htm#skills), its stated skills are class skills unless the bonus above the ability modifier is stated as a racial bonus or other external bonus), feats, and even reroll HP based on the given HD line. A hill giant's HD line "12d8+48" is determined simply from 12 hit dice of the Giant type's hit die (d8) plus 12 times the constitution modifier (+4, so 12*4=48).

Recalculating CR is tricky, but generally-speaking, given that an NPC with the same set of "associated" vs "non-associated" class levels as another NPC has identical CR, you can generally assume that no change you make to a monster's features within the normal rules will actually change its CR. It's all about the opportunity cost. If it has brutal throw, it summarily doesn't have some other feat in that slot, so it evens out.

[Ranting Fool]

1: The players are not supposed to make use of any OOC knowledge. They have no right to dump all Knowledge skills and expect to just 'randomly' try the perfect obscure tactic the first time they encounter a monster.

2: Most groups use at least mild/easy fixes for some classes or spells. No reason why NPCs and monsters should not have access to similar fixes, or feat or skill changes. If the party is heavily homebrewed, there is no reason why a monster should not have its fluff and immunities/resistances changed, or even new abilities granted..

3: CR does not work very well. Adjust encounters to suit the party's optimization level.

I'm not even going so far as to add random things to monsters or change what they are but rather just a little bit of rebuilding feats / common items used.

[Der_DWSage]

Well...first, my personal take on CR.

1:If a monster does not get a chance to make good strategic use of its abilities (Catching a Dragon in a small cave so he can't fly, Ogre forced to use bow and arrow so he can't use his strength, Rust Monster vs. party of Wizards so he just becomes a sad, hungry Rust Monster, etc.) then CR goes down.

2:If a monster/monster group does not last a round, (Except in the case of really lucky rolls, such as a critical scythe hit followed by a critical barbarian greataxe, max damage fireball vs. a group of levelled goblins who all fail saves razza frazza...) CR goes down by half.

3:If the monster gives significantly more trouble than they normally would, adjust CR upwards.

The Giant fix you're talking about would fall under #1 and #3, possibly.



Now, so far as changing things in the monster manual goes! Another personal take.

1:So long as you're not changing anything iconic (Without reason) you should be fine. An Ogre with Strength 6 but Intelligence 30, for example, is a bad idea. (Unless the campaign is revolving around finding this oddly intellectual runt of an Ogre.)

2:Feats are, 95% of the time, not iconic. Those that are iconic generally fall under 'Weapon Finesse' and 'Power Attack.'

3:If Players are too knowledgeable about D&D, and/or are having too easy a time with typical opponents, and/or always have JUST the right tactic to make opponents a non-issue, it is recommended you change things up.

4:If the players say that's bull because that's not found in the monster manual, remind them that humans were in there too at one point, and ask if he'd like to advance using nothing but the Humanoid hit die. Then ask them if they want to play Neverwinter Nights where things are completely unchanging, or if he'd prefer to keep playing D&D with real people, where things can and will change to provide a more interesting experience.

[johnbragg]

Do you consider re-feating a monster a "Trick" against the players? / as a player do you get annoyed when you come across an iconic monster who can do things you weren't expecting?

Not at all. I don't like this example, but that's based on not being crazy about the feat. But if you swap Improved Sunder for Point Blank Shot, I don't see how anyone could argue.


Should this change the Hill Giants CR (Which is know is a vague system at best but it's a guide)?

For one feat, I don't think so. Now, if you also monkeyed with the ability scores to trade some Strength for Dexterity, and swapped another feat for Rapid Shot, while his buddies dump Improved Sunder for Weapon Specialization--Greatclub, that might be a CR 8 instead of a CR 7.

[DonEsteban]

If PCs are allowed to use feats and powers from various sources, it is only fair to allow monsters to use the same sources. If players use said feats to optimize their characters (as opposed to pure fluff reasons) than using an equal amount of optimization wouldn't change the monsters' CR. To the contrary: Vanilla monsters against optimized PCs should have a reduced CR.*

And no, I wouldn't be offended if my DM used this "trick" and would in fact expect it from a good DM. I've used it and more myself. For example Unique undead (http://rpgcharacters.wordpress.com/2011/01/11/labyrinth-lord-uniquely-undead/) in an adventure with lots of wights.


I think we all agree that this this is of course hardly an exact science

[nedz]

I do it whenever I feel like it, especially with well known monsters because metagaming.

I do try to maintain verisimilitude but that's rarely an issue.

[Stux]

I use MM and similar as a guideline for monsters, not a bible.

I will change anything I feel makes sense for the encounter or the setting in general. The characters aren't supposed to know anything about a monster that they haven't learnt in game, so a player using their knowledge about how much HP a particular monster has or what its immunities are is metagaming. For this reason I never explicitly state what exact monster it is anyway. It will get a physical description, and if they succeed on a knowledge check, they get more information. But it isn't metagame information. I don't ever say 'this is a Rock Troll with the Dire Creature template', because there is no need in my opinion.

There is still consistency - if they fight the same creature as previously it WILL be the same - but they might need to do some prodding and deducing to figure that out.

Regardless, whoever DM'd we've always played with a strict 'no MM at the table' rule.

[jedipotter]

Should this change the Hill Giants CR (Which is know is a vague system at best but it's a guide)?

Do you consider re-feating a monster a "Trick" against the players? / as a player do you get annoyed when you come across an iconic monster who can do things you weren't expecting?

It's not a ''trick'', it is just part of the game. The MM and DMG both say the monsters are just ''general, typical representatives''. It is not like every monster in the world is a clone.

To add/change something like a feat is no different then anything else. You could give the Hill Giant a giant net and that would be something unexpected. Or you could give the giant a tanglefoot bag...even a giant sized one.

For CR, there are no hard and fast rules. You just have to figure it out for yourself. Does the feat really make the monster that much more powerful? Probably not. Unless your going for an already broken feat.

[hamishspence]

Dungeonscape had a few examples of making existing monsters a more interesting challenge, by swapping out their feats, giving them different weapons, etc.

[Story]

I always change my monsters, I give them different stats, different feats, sometimes templates, functional equipment if they can use it, etc. I don't see any reason why players should expect a generic example of any given creature, even non-intelligent monsters have the ability to adapt to their environment. :smallconfused:


If you're changing their stats, that could be problematic when Wildshape and Polymorph come out.

[Ravens_cry]

Changing the feats I am fine with. If it made things significantly* harder, I think it would be fair change the CR and XP reward, but people have different feats, why not monsters who are also sentient? Changing the actual base statistics less kosher unless you are trying to make a new and/or variant creature.
A hill giant might have different feats, it might even have class levels, but it's not suddenly going to get a breath weapon as a racial ability without making it something other than a hill giant.
*in the statistical sense

[Keneth]

If you're changing their stats, that could be problematic when Wildshape and Polymorph come out.

I play Pathfinder, polymorphing bonuses are all static. I also don't use the CR system, so I can tailor encounters any way I want without messing up the leveling pace or wbl.

[ddude987]

I think changing feats and/or gear shouldn't change a monster's CR within reason. Giving them appropriate gear for their hit dice is what I normally do and I almost always change a creature's feats. Also remember the CR system is considered flawed as not every party has the same optimization. For campaigns I run I treat all creatures as 3/5's their regular CR and I find that works well for the op I see.

[nedz]

You can extend it beyond feats. Everyone knows that a Balor is fire based, so try a Cold or Acid themed one.

[Flickerdart]

CR should be based on monster capabilities, not meeting arbitrary targets like "has this many feats."

[Eurus]

CR should be based on monster capabilities, not meeting arbitrary targets like "has this many feats."

Indeed. That's why it's so tricky to figure out, sometimes. If a feat change makes a monster significantly more dangerous, then yes, CR should increase. But a lot of monsters have bloated CRs anyway, so it might help them fill their intended role in an encounter.

[Ortesk]

Okay, i change every monster in the game. I give them non elite scores, i give them gear equal to loot amount there worth, and i use tricks and tactics. CR is an abstract view based around EXP, i dont use exp and i dish out levels when players have done something good to earn it. If your group is a fighter who buys bow feats but uses a sword so he can switch, a monk who is half mind blade and also a halfling, and you have someone who is playing healer class because cleric is to offensive, why'll being an orc, well party power and cr dont really fit general idea of the game do they. Now if you have pure optimized builds, how much of a threat is said hill gaint when barbarian frenzies and pounces, wizard lays spells which puts him on his ass, a warblade blows some maneuvers, and a cleric has buffed party to huge levels? Again, abstract instead of linear

[Ravens_cry]

You can extend it beyond feats. Everyone knows that a Balor is fire based, so try a Cold or Acid themed one.
Yes, but unless this is a new thing, a knowledge check should tell a player and their character that "While they often are found with fire abilities, Balors also occasionally can be found with acid or cold at their command."

[Stux]

Yes, but unless this is a new thing, a knowledge check should tell a player and their character that "While they often are found with fire abilities, Balors also occasionally can be found with acid or cold at their command."

But not if this is a mutant/unique Balor, in which case there is no prior knowledge. In that case on a successful knowledge check I would probably reveal no more than 'It appears to be a Balor, but there is something unusual about it that doesn't match descriptions you have heard'

[Ravens_cry]

But not if this is a mutant/unique Balor, in which case there is no prior knowledge. In that case on a successful knowledge check I would probably reveal no more than 'It appears to be a Balor, but there is something unusual about it that doesn't match descriptions you have heard'
That's what I mean by a new thing, and, yes, I would give something like the that as well. I'd also include it in the descriptions of the room. Instead of its iron throne glowing a dull red around it, it would look strangely pitted and worn with an acrid odour prevalent, or a rime of white frost and strangely cool air in the room.

[Flickerdart]

Different elementally themed Balors would be really easy to recognize since their sword and whip would no longer be on fire.

[ddude987]

How about completely ignore CR. If you know the party, how they fight, and how competent the players are, you should be able to judge an appropriate level encounter, or a string of appropriate encounters/challenges throughout the day. If you misjudge an encounter and it is to easy, throw multiple waves of baddies at the players. If you misjudge an encounter and its to hard to the point where multiple players could die, come up with a logical explination to help the players. For example, the goblins turned on each other to cut back their share of loot, the knights of blahland rode in and save the players but demand the players of something (money, quest, etc).

[Eurus]

How about completely ignore CR. If you know the party, how they fight, and how competent the players are, you should be able to judge an appropriate level encounter, or a string of appropriate encounters/challenges throughout the day. If you misjudge an encounter and it is to easy, throw multiple waves of baddies at the players. If you misjudge an encounter and its to hard to the point where multiple players could die, come up with a logical explination to help the players. For example, the goblins turned on each other to cut back their share of loot, the knights of blahland rode in and save the players but demand the players of something (money, quest, etc).

I personally don't mind this sort of thing, but I know that some DMs and players dislike it. Improvising something at the last minute to bail out a party can be seen as cheap, devaluing, or just boring, as can buffing up an encounter on the fly.

[gooddragon1]

I throw things together on the fly sometimes and hate the idea of writing up stats for an NPC. So:

Instead of writing up the stats for a cultist NPC... I crib the stats of a CR appropriate monster.

Example: A CR 5 boss encounter cultist

His hands appear to be viscious talons and his body is covered in spikes. He's much larger than a normal person but his arms appear too short for someone his size. He's also sporting a pair of very large bat-like wings.

It's a Manticore refluffed as a cultist. I could have just said he had a longsword or something but that's only if I wanted to allow disarming and sundering. People might guess it's a manticore or something with spikes but they wouldn't know for sure and it allows a DM to pregen NPCs without looking on the dumb table.

In addition, it allows me to throw pre-generated monsters that people can affect with enchantments and other stuff like sneak attacks.

===

The above scenario does handle metagaming somewhat but I love it when players metagame because it makes it easier on them. I also love over CR'ing things though.

[TuggyNE]

Should this change the Hill Giants CR (Which is know is a vague system at best but it's a guide)?

Often, yes, just like giving it the elite array: a thorough re-feating strengthens the monster and also focuses its strengths better, so that's worth a +1 CR, or sometimes even +2 (for example, switching the Tarrasque's Toughnesses into something more useful). However, that's only if you change all or most of the feats around.


Do you consider re-feating a monster a "Trick" against the players? / as a player do you get annoyed when you come across an iconic monster who can do things you weren't expecting?

It's not a trick, it's perfectly valid. There should, however, be some means of recognizing particularly different examples (higher Knowledge checks, perhaps, though that system is fraught with problems) and of course as mentioned an appropriate estimation of challenge and reward. Without those it's rather closer to being tricky.


Different elementally themed Balors would be really easy to recognize since their sword and whip would no longer be on fire.

"The balor swings its flaming whip at you, and you suddenly feel pierced with terrible cold. Take 4 points of bludgeoning damage and 5 points of cold damage." Hey, it works for orb of cold, right? :smalltongue:

[ddude987]

I throw things together on the fly sometimes and hate the idea of writing up stats for an NPC. So:

Instead of writing up the stats for a cultist NPC... I crib the stats of a CR appropriate monster.

Example: A CR 5 boss encounter cultist

His hands appear to be viscious talons and his body is covered in spikes. He's much larger than a normal person but his arms appear too short for someone his size. He's also sporting a pair of very large bat-like wings.
It's a Manticore refluffed as a cultist.

The same concept for my coming up with boss encounters on the fly was slightly different. On the fly in a similar situation, I came up with something a little different...

Black razor sharp claws gleamed in the torchlight. Razor sharp fangs showed inside the sadistic smile the cultist wore, fresh with blood. As he ran towards the players, wings shot out from his sides, tearing apart his robes. Blood red tentacles covered in spikes snaked out of his shoulders. He ran, nay, flew with inhuman speed, cackling as he came like a madman with the exception that this abomination was no man.

The build was Changeling white dragonspawn 2 Barbarian/2 Fighter/1 Warshaper/1 Soul Eater with lion and wolf totem for pounce and improved trip.

[nedz]

Different elementally themed Balors would be really easy to recognize since their sword and whip would no longer be on fire.


"The balor swings its flaming whip at you, and you suddenly feel pierced with terrible cold. Take 4 points of bludgeoning damage and 5 points of cold damage." Hey, it works for orb of cold, right? :smalltongue:

Yes it's Cold Fire and the flames are Purple — Just like Fireshield.

Really you can do this however you want, but the idea is to shock the players out of complacent metagaming.

[Stux]

Really you can do this however you want, but the idea is to shock the players out of complacent metagaming.

Yeah you want the players to be thinking in character about how to deal with a situation - to use their wits - but that means at the same time you have to give them clues as to what is up, otherwise they will just feel cheated. If done well it actually makes players feel more empowered, as they have figured out a puzzle logically, not just remembered something they read in a rule book.

[nedz]

Yeah you want the players to be thinking in character about how to deal with a situation - to use their wits - but that means at the same time you have to give them clues as to what is up, otherwise they will just feel cheated. If done well it actually makes players feel more empowered, as they have figured out a puzzle logically, not just remembered something they read in a rule book.

Agreed, though if they really are complacent and expect to metagame what they remember from reading the MM they may not seek even clues or disregard them. YMMV

[Ravens_cry]

Agreed, though if they really are complacent and expect to metagame what they remember from reading the MM they may not seek even clues or disregard them. YMMV
As long as you can point out that you did give them the clues, that's fine.

[Stux]

Agreed, though if they really are complacent and expect to metagame what they remember from reading the MM they may not seek even clues or disregard them. YMMV

In that case you have to make it painfully obvious that there was a clue afterwards, such as having an NPC quiz them about what happened, then hopefully next time they will pay attention.

[Curmudgeon]

... you have to give them clues as to what is up, otherwise they will just feel cheated.
How about being consistent in the way you present clues about enemies, all the time? I don't ever say "you see some Orcs"; rather, "you see some Medium size bipeds". Further information comes from using the skills in the game: Spot for details like red eyes, Knowledge (local) for capabilities. Unless the PCs are highly skilled (lots of ranks in the relevant Knowledge), the list of what feats the creature has will rarely come up. But when it does, it's much more likely to start with Power Attack than Alertness. Remember, the stat block is for one example monster, not a prescription for all creatures of the type.

As a general rule, D&D monster examples are of poor quality. You pretty much always need to rework them. So if any player complains about something not matching what's in the books, their PC should be hit by the Unerring Falling Bricks of Metagaming™.

[Stux]

Unless the PCs are highly skilled (lots of ranks in the relevant Knowledge), the list of what feats the creature has will rarely come up.

I'd go further than that. The list of feats the monster has will NEVER explicitly come up, regardless of knowledge checks. All information from knowledge checks should come in the form of information the character might know, not game mechanics. It is up to the player to infer from that information what capabilities the monster may have.

[nedz]

Well I don't think that the players are entitled to clues, they have to seek them out.


How about being consistent in the way you present clues about enemies, all the time? I don't ever say "you see some Orcs"; rather, "you see some Medium size bipeds". Further information comes from using the skills in the game: Spot for details like red eyes, Knowledge (local) for capabilities. Unless the PCs are highly skilled (lots of ranks in the relevant Knowledge), the list of what feats the creature has will rarely come up. But when it does, it's much more likely to start with Power Attack than Alertness. Remember, the stat block is for one example monster, not a prescription for all creatures of the type.

As a general rule, D&D monster examples are of poor quality. You pretty much always need to rework them. So if any player complains about something not matching what's in the books, their PC should be hit by the Unerring Falling Bricks of Metagaming™.

I suppose that you could complain that their characters don't look anything like the example characters of their class in the PH (et al).

[Curmudgeon]

I'd go further than that. The list of feats the monster has will NEVER explicitly come up, regardless of knowledge checks.
For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information.
If you run out of all other bits of useful information, you've got to give the player something. So they'll have some vague memory of a particular subset of those creatures which used tactics matching {describe a feat like Power Attack here}.

If the rules say they remember something, you must honor the PC's effort in boosting that skill. Anything less is simply unfair.

[PersonMan]

1:If a monster does not get a chance to make good strategic use of its abilities (Catching a Dragon in a small cave so he can't fly, Ogre forced to use bow and arrow so he can't use his strength, Rust Monster vs. party of Wizards so he just becomes a sad, hungry Rust Monster, etc.) then CR goes down.

I don't like rules like this, because they basically say 'I penalize anything but walking up to a monster and throwing yourselves at it'. Know dragons can fly, and flyers are dangerous, so you ambush the dragon in the cave? Less XP.

Don't know jack about dragons and walk into an open field against him? More XP.


2:If a monster/monster group does not last a round, (Except in the case of really lucky rolls, such as a critical scythe hit followed by a critical barbarian greataxe, max damage fireball vs. a group of levelled goblins who all fail saves razza frazza...) CR goes down by half.

Depends. If it's just an 'I bash my win button' thing, I agree it shouldn't give tons of XP, but if the party makes a genius plan to oneshot their enemies, they should get full XP for it, IMO.


3:If the monster gives significantly more trouble than they normally would, adjust CR upwards.

Depends. If the PCs do stupid stuff, or the dice roll well for the monsters, then no. If you (the DM) miss something that causes the encounter to be a lot harder than originally intended, yes.

[John Longarrow]

Ranting Fool,

Changing feats should not change CR. This should work the same as the party fighter taking different feats to use a different weapon (read bow instead of 2-handed instead of two weapon fighting).

Changing out their gear should be them using part of their treasure to their advantage, much like the players are running around in WBL gear instead of WBL bags of gold. If the monster has something in its treasure it can use, let it use it.

Only time you should really run into a change of CR is if you up the HD or change out its stats.

Taking a hill giant, give it brutal throw, and toss on feats to improve its ranged combat because it grew up "in mostly open terrain" makes a lot of sense, especially if its fighting in open terrain. Doing the same when it fights in close quarters would probably hurt it more than help it.

Letting it use the amulet of natural armor +2 that is from its treasure will make it a little harder, but not worth a CR. It also means the players should figure out what that amulet is quicker.

Give a hill giant two levels in Warblade however, and you should up its CR by 2.

[Flickerdart]

Changing feats should not change CR.
Changing feats should not increase CR if the new feats are as effective as the old ones were. We both know that not all feats are born equal, and if you change a monster's feats from Run, Alertness, and Dodge to Power Attack, Improved Bull Rush, and Shock Trooper, claiming that they're still the same challenge is self-evidently incorrect.

[John Longarrow]

Changing feats should not increase CR if the new feats are as effective as the old ones were. We both know that not all feats are born equal, and if you change a monster's feats from Run, Alertness, and Dodge to Power Attack, Improved Bull Rush, and Shock Trooper, claiming that they're still the same challenge is self-evidently incorrect.

Flickerdart.

I disagree.

1) Rules as written say you can swap them out.

2) There is no inherent benefit to any given feat that always makes it better than another. If there were, you could lower your effective character level by taking worse feats.

3) As Run, Alertness, and Dodge are not feats a hill giant has (per OP), I'm assuming you are intending to show how much removing these feats from a monster that can take advantage of them (say centaur) can really hurt it. For most centaurs, staying at range, spotting the enemy first, and hitting with a strengthed bow works very well. Swapping them for something that would slow down the centaur, make it easier to close with, and force it to fight at close range may make a DM consider lowering the CR, but not always.

For myself, I'm not sure where you dug up "We both know that not all feats are born equal" since most often it depends on what you are trying to do that makes a feat good or not. I will admit, for a sorcerer I played the three feats you listed would have been terrible choices and I'm glad I stuck with skill focus (perform) and versitile performer. Much better for RP reasons. Of course if you are trying to say "Power Attack, Improved Bull Rush, and Shock Trooper" are always better feats, sorry. Can't agree.

[Flickerdart]

Oh sure, by RAW, all feats are equal. By RAW, all classes are also worth +1 CR when added to a human, so a Fighter 20, Fighter 10/Wizard 10, and Wizard 20 are all characters of identical power and threat. RAW is useless when determining CR that means anything.

[Hangwind]

Actually, I participated in a campaign with a tier system for feats. It made things a little more interesting when you could take two or three feats for the price of one amazing one. (I could still slaughter the fighter with my psion though:smallbiggrin:)

[John Longarrow]

Flickerdart

And all three suck compared to that Bard 20 when it comes to wooing the princess at the court social.

Swapping out feats and saying some are better than others ONLY works if you put them in context. If you don't, well, you let someone else show why your point isn't valid.

For monsters changing feats out shouldn't impact their CR unless you are specifically optimizing for a specific encounter. If the DM is reworking a hill giant to do something they normally are good at, say making a grapple monster, then having the fight start with the spell caster is in reach of an improved initiative improved grapple hill giant could be a higher CR than just a hill giant. Of course how the fight starts and terrain have a bigger impact than feats.

[Crake]

If you're changing their stats, that could be problematic when Wildshape and Polymorph come out.

Unless otherwise mentioned in the rulestext for a monster, it's using 10s or 11s across the board. Considering point buy or rolling stats, there's room to go up or down 7 to 8 points either way without modifying the "average" monster's abilities.

[Flickerdart]

And all three suck compared to that Bard 20 when it comes to wooing the princess at the court social.
Hey baby, does this scroll smell like mindrape to you?

You are fundamentally misunderstanding what CR is actually for. By your approach (CR being some sort of magic indicator of the creature's capability in all walks of life) the PCs having to bargain with a troll (CR5, Int 6, Wis 9, Cha 6) are facing a much greater degree of challenge as if they had to bargain with an imp (CR2, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 14). This is quite obviously not what the number means, because any CR 1/2 commoner is a tougher case than the troll.

Trying to argue that a creature is an equal threat no matter what feats it has doesn't hold water either mathematically or logically. Hell, there are some feats that are strictly better than others. The feat Dodge grants +1 to AC against one enemy sometimes. The feat Luck of Heroes grants +1 AC against everything all the time, and also +1 to saves. In what context is a monster with this feat swap suffering a drawback that makes up for this increase in capability?

[John Longarrow]

Flickerdart

Hey baby (not sure if that is your age or not), but dodge is much better than luck of Luck of Hero's if you are following it with Mobility and Spring attack.

At least you are picking up on actually posting a WHY..

Still, if changing three feats would change a creatures CR by as much as adding a class level or two, I may agree with you. Since I can't figure out a way to make that equal, can't justify your increase of the CR of a HILL GIANT (as the original poster referred) by changing ONE feat.

Can't see the numbers, and your not showing them.

And as for mindrape.. welcome to EVIL and all the fun that the DM wants to include when you use it to get a princess to marry you.

[gooddragon1]

Hey baby, does this scroll smell like mindrape to you?

You are fundamentally misunderstanding what CR is actually for. By your approach (CR being some sort of magic indicator of the creature's capability in all walks of life) the PCs having to bargain with a troll (CR5, Int 6, Wis 9, Cha 6) are facing a much greater degree of challenge as if they had to bargain with an imp (CR2, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 14). This is quite obviously not what the number means, because any CR 1/2 commoner is a tougher case than the troll.

Trying to argue that a creature is an equal threat no matter what feats it has doesn't hold water either mathematically or logically. Hell, there are some feats that are strictly better than others. The feat Dodge grants +1 to AC against one enemy sometimes. The feat Luck of Heroes grants +1 AC against everything all the time, and also +1 to saves. In what context is a monster with this feat swap suffering a drawback that makes up for this increase in capability?

Hey, don't jinx it for the rest of us. If he wants to throw a CR 21 troll (who took toughness every opportunity and every class level was in sneak attack fighter and all his gear was in the form of scrolls of wish and all his skill points were invested in climb and swim and his ability score points all went into wisdom) with no ranged capability and no flying ability (and basically no ability to do anything other than fight in melee from gear or abilities) on an infinite flat plane of existence against my Level 5 wizard with the fiery burst reserve feat and who is currently flying 30 feet up he should absolutely be allowed to have the CR 21 troll stand there and take it and give me XP based on the logical progression of the table (since it doesn't normally handle XP that far above your level but you can theoretically calculate it).

I'd like to collect on that 384000 xp now please and epic wealth by level worth of treasure if you please. And if I might trouble you for the small favor of ignoring the pinning rules on XP that don't allow you to gain more than 1 level in a day?

[TuggyNE]

dodge is much better than luck of Luck of Hero's if you are following it with Mobility and Spring attack.

Honestly, I'm not sure if Dodge + Mobility + Spring Attack, considered as one feat, are worth more than Luck of Heroes. :smalltongue:

[rot42]

Hey baby, does this scroll smell like mindrape to you?

Gross. You should scrub this.

[Gwendol]

I typically change feats and gear, if only to make the monsters feel individual and less generic, and also to surprise the players a little. Try statting out an Ettin with archery feats for example (and axethrower) and equip him with javelins.

[The Insanity]

Metagaming, although sometimes necessary and unavoidable, is generally not cool. At least at my table.

[Chronos]

The only reason a DM shouldn't customize a monster is for the sake of time. The feats a monster is given in the book really just mean "It wouldn't be too surprising to see this kind of monster with these feats, so if you don't feel like taking the time to customize it, feel free to just grab those". But if it's a more significant encounter, or if you just have more prep time, of course not all orcs are identical.

[PersonMan]

So, I have a question for you, John Longarrow.

Assume we have a level 1 Expert who has a dozen permanent spells on him, all with the purpose of buffing his Craft (Knitting) to absurd levels. As a result, he has +100 to Craft (Knitting). If any PC wants to beat him in a knitting contest, then it will be very difficult, and the Expert would have a high CR, if I'm understanding your logic correctly.

However, because of this his CR is always high. Meaning that, when he gets stabbed and instantly killed by a level 4 fighter, they get a huge amount of XP.

Is there something I missed? Otherwise, your system doesn't seem to work very well with specialized enemies.

[Yawgmoth]

If your players feel "cheated" because you made an encounter they had to think about in-character instead of using their OOC knowledge, then you need better players. Preferably players who don't expect you to be an entertainment-vomiting robot. As the DM, it is my job to make things fun and interesting. What fun is there in fighting the same old off-the-shelf troll for the hundredth time? How's this encounter going to be interesting if the enemies have the same plots as described in a short paragraph and set themselves up for failure in the same simple written-for-space way? It isn't. You'd just be going through the motions.

Part of the fun is figuring out the fight as the fight is happening. You can't generate interest unless you do something unique because at this point in the community everyone has already killed 144,000 kobolds with crossbow traps, so many trolls that bridges are now protected habitats, and enough demons & devils to end the Blood War. So the book entries can't really be used as anything but filler because it's old hat; you have to use your main tool as a DM - your creativity - and alter stats, add/delete/exchange special attacks/qualities, and maybe even create things whole cloth to make an encounter worth remembering. Anyone who complains about that should find a different hobby.

Additionally, CR is a worthless "mechanic" and is really obviously just whatever number the writer was thinking about at the moment. There's just too many examples of monsters that are instant death at their CR and monsters that can't harm their intended-level enemies to think otherwise; that's not even getting into the impossible logistics of having a set number that encompasses class/race/feat/gear selections of four people at once. I'd have better luck guessing the Powerball numbers for the next month.

[Squirrel_Dude]

I don't mind changing either a monster's feats or their spells (not SLAs) prepared to keep them from being predictable, or to make them feel unique. Surely the Balor demon could have some feats more useful than weapon focus or Iron will.

[Fax Celestis]

You guys know that Dungeonscape actually talked about this pretty thoroughly, right? And specifically said that altering feats may require a CR increase by 1 or 2 points, depending?

[hamishspence]

You guys know that Dungeonscape actually talked about this pretty thoroughly, right? And specifically said that altering feats may require a CR increase by 1 or 2 points, depending?

I did mention that on the first page- though not the bit about CR change:


Dungeonscape had a few examples of making existing monsters a more interesting challenge, by swapping out their feats, giving them different weapons, etc.

[John Longarrow]

So, I have a question for you, John Longarrow.

Assume we have a level 1 Expert who has a dozen permanent spells on him, all with the purpose of buffing his Craft (Knitting) to absurd levels. As a result, he has +100 to Craft (Knitting). If any PC wants to beat him in a knitting contest, then it will be very difficult, and the Expert would have a high CR, if I'm understanding your logic correctly.

However, because of this his CR is always high. Meaning that, when he gets stabbed and instantly killed by a level 4 fighter, they get a huge amount of XP.

Is there something I missed? Otherwise, your system doesn't seem to work very well with specialized enemies.

PersonMan
You missed the logic. Just because the commoner is buffed (So long as it matches what wealth he should have for the encounter) and is a fantastic knitter, you don't get a higher CR for him. Just like a hill giant that swaps feats to be a better rock thrower doesn't get a better CR for changing a feat.

This does mean that some fights will be harder because the DM is playing to a monsters strengths instead of weaknesses. It is because the general CR system doesn't take into account a lot of variables that can make a fight harder or easier, such as lighting, terrain, starting distance, surprise, PC builds and equipment, buffs on PCs/monsters, etc...

Just as two PCs who are 11th level are considered equal mechanically, we know they won't always be equal in any given encounter. A 20th level fighter should own a 20th level wizard if they start in a spot the wizard can't use spell in. Like wise both will be owned if they face an epic dragon where neither can use magic, but that 20th level bard may be able to talk his way past it.

If you, as a DM, want to base experience given on how hard of a challenge your players face for a given encounter, go for it. You are not using the CR system in the game though. If you are using the CR system, swapping around a couple feats won't change a monsters CR.

[ddude987]

PersonMan
You missed the logic. Just because the commoner is buffed (So long as it matches what wealth he should have for the encounter) and is a fantastic knitter, you don't get a higher CR for him. Just like a hill giant that swaps feats to be a better rock thrower doesn't get a better CR for changing a feat.


If he is buffed from another source, such as your friendly neighborhood wizard, then the CR of the challenge as a whole should be higher since it wasn't just the commoner contributing to knitting.

[TuggyNE]

You guys know that Dungeonscape actually talked about this pretty thoroughly, right? And specifically said that altering feats may require a CR increase by 1 or 2 points, depending?

Glad to know my advice meshes with the official, sight unseen, right down to the amount of CR change. :smallamused: