Improving epic monsters

[Biggus]

In this thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?624797-Lvl-20-Pathfinder-vs-DnD3-5-SRD-Epic-Bestiary), Endarire wrote:


The most notable WotC epic threats from the SRD are the casters, mostly the Dragons. Much of everything else can be beaten with forcecage, flight, (improved) invisibility, long-range weaponry (mostly spells), and simply going first.

Intrigued, I checked, and discovered that sure enough, almost every non-caster monster in the ELH is vulnerable to at least one of these, most to at least three, and some to all five (for initiative, I assume that a level 21+ PC will have +10 at the very least, and some party members will have +20 or more; if they're expecting trouble and have had time to buff, add a further +5 to +15).

So I've been looking for ways to improve the ELH monsters so they're not such an easy fight for a well-prepared party. I've found something suitable for most of them (I'll post what I've come up with if anyone's interested), but I'm struggling with the following:

Brachyurus
Devastation Centipede
Devastation Scorpion
Primal Water Elemental
Mu Spore
Prismasaurus
Winterwight

Any ideas for thematically-appropriate powers to give these creatures? (If you have good ideas for other epic creatures, feel free to post those too).

Note that I'm not trying to make them a tough fight for a high-OP epic party, that's not going to happen short of making them all epic spellcasters, just to make them a bit more of a challenge for moderately-competent players.

[Doctor Despair]

Brachyurus
Devastation Centipede
Devastation Scorpion
Primal Water Elemental
Mu Spore
Prismasaurus
Winterwight


I'm curious what you added for the Lavawight that is inappropriate for a reskin for the Winterwight.

[Biggus]

I'm curious what you added for the Lavawight that is inappropriate for a reskin for the Winterwight.

The biggest problem I saw with those two is the lack of decent long-range attacks. I gave the Lavawight Meteor Swarm as a SLA as it's a fire spell. Thinking about it, I suppose Iceberg from Frostburn would do for the Winterwight.

Even with those they're still not very hard to beat for CR23 though, if anyone has any other ideas of how to improve them I'd love to hear them.

[AvatarVecna]

Even with those they're still not very hard to beat for CR23 though, if anyone has any other ideas of how to improve them I'd love to hear them.

Honestly, it's difficult to say. I've already kinda said my piece about epic balance in the hecatoncheires thread, but as a repeated summary making a point I'm sure you're already aware of: by the time you reach epic play, the gap between optimization floor and optimization ceiling across the various classes is simply too vast, even if you're putting in an absurdly high number of limitations on what's allowed to be done. And class balance dictates monster balance.

I put together a Fighter 57 in that thread with slightly better than normal feat choices, and WotC-standard item choices, and he was more or less at a 50/50 on beating the hundred handed one - that's about exactly where the game expects you to be. For a game of fighting fighter, shooting rogue, healing cleric, and blasting wizard, with none of them pulling fancy tricks, it's arguable that basically every monster in the game is more or less where it's supposed to be, and so they're fine where they are. But we know that's not the case. Players are going to try harder than that, even just by accident, and so monsters need to be improved as well. But then what's our standard? Warblade? Eldritch Knight gish? RKV? Swiftblade? DMM Persist Cleric with a pile of nightsticks? All of them are valid, but the gap between them gets big as you level, especially in epic. Where should we aim for monsters to be?

You can make monsters not get auto-defeated by certain common cheap tricks, but there's just too many cheap tricks for that to be foolproof. Some monsters just don't deserve anything even close to their CR, and you can't just give them all casting, for so many of them that just doesn't make a lick of sense, and they wouldn't be good at it anyway.

[RNightstalker]

To piggyback on the last comment, the best way to adjust the monsters is going to have to wait until the group is ready to face them as each goup has its own dynamic. One of the best places to start is reallocating feats; some are just completely terrible to begin with, and others don't have much of a fit. Giving Improved Initiative to a monster with a low dex is a waste of time; even before epic levels, going first matters. Stacking Improved Initiative and Superior Initiative would help, but if the players are in the +30's, giving monsters surprise is a good way to go. Continuing with the feats theme, your Devastation Vermin don't have any feats listed...that's a great place to start.

Epic monsters need to have a way to overcome a PC's Freedom of Movement effect if they're built on grabbing/grappling. The Brachyuras and similar monsters need to have some sort of epic pounce that allows them to jump up to a PC thinking they're safe bombarding from the air.

If you're doing an epic campaign, incorporate a BBEG spellcaster that buffs the monsters, puts a few rings on their horns and claws, a collar here and there, etc.

[AvatarVecna]

To piggyback on the last comment, the best way to adjust the monsters is going to have to wait until the group is ready to face them as each goup has its own dynamic. One of the best places to start is reallocating feats; some are just completely terrible to begin with, and others don't have much of a fit. Giving Improved Initiative to a monster with a low dex is a waste of time; even before epic levels, going first matters. Stacking Improved Initiative and Superior Initiative would help, but if the players are in the +30's, giving monsters surprise is a good way to go. Continuing with the feats theme, your Devastation Vermin don't have any feats listed...that's a great place to start.

Epic monsters need to have a way to overcome a PC's Freedom of Movement effect if they're built on grabbing/grappling. The Brachyuras and similar monsters need to have some sort of epic pounce that allows them to jump up to a PC thinking they're safe bombarding from the air.

If you're doing an epic campaign, incorporate a BBEG spellcaster that buffs the monsters, puts a few rings on their horns and claws, a collar here and there, etc.

Int 0/Int -, mindless creatures don't get feats or skill points. What bonuses they have are due to attributes, size, and presumably racial bonuses.

[Gruftzwerg]

Imho templates are a good way to help out most of those EPIC creatures who have significant shortcomings.

E.g. add Chimeric to a Prismasaurus

Now it can fly (50ft poor) and has 3 bite attacks. Makes it much less vulnerable to specific tactics.



You just need to find a template for each of the mentioned problems.

[Biggus]

Players are going to try harder than that, even just by accident, and so monsters need to be improved as well. But then what's our standard? Warblade? Eldritch Knight gish? RKV? Swiftblade? DMM Persist Cleric with a pile of nightsticks?

Definitely not the latter: as I said in the OP, trying to adjust them to high-op play is a none-starter.

But at the other end of the scale, none of the players I'm currently DMing for had played 3.5 before the current game. They started at level 1 and are currently level 11, and they've already worked out that being able to fly is very important, and so is high initiative. That's all I'm trying to do in the main, make it so that epic monsters can't be trivially defeated by tactics a reasonably intelligent but not very experienced player would think of.



You can make monsters not get auto-defeated by certain common cheap tricks, but there's just too many cheap tricks for that to be foolproof.

I'm not trying to make them foolproof, at least not the low-epic monsters, just patch up some of the more obvious holes. I don't even mind them being vulnerable to one or two standard tactics, I just don't want them to be vulnerable to everything.

High-epic monsters I do think should be hard to defeat, but that's going to require a complete rebuild for the non-casters I think, along the lines of what some people were suggesting in the Hecatoncheires thread.


To piggyback on the last comment, the best way to adjust the monsters is going to have to wait until the group is ready to face them as each goup has its own dynamic.

Hmm, that's probably a fair point. Still, I think that while a lot of them may need fine-tuning to the individual group, there are some changes which would make sense in general.


The Brachyuras and similar monsters need to have some sort of epic pounce that allows them to jump up to a PC thinking they're safe bombarding from the air.


I had considered giving them a big boost to Jump, but because of the way it works even +30 or something doesn't allow them to jump much higher. Maybe a special mechanic which allows them to jump as high as they can long or something?

Mind you, even then the PCs just have to fly up another hundred feet and resume the bombardment.


Imho templates are a good way to help out most of those EPIC creatures who have significant shortcomings.

E.g. add Chimeric to a Prismasaurus


That's not a bad idea, any other than Chimeric you'd recommend? I've not used templates that much, I tend to forget they exist for some reason.

[Gruftzwerg]

That's not a bad idea, any other than Chimeric you'd recommend? I've not used templates that much, I tend to forget they exist for some reason.

You can use any kind undead templates for their immunities (crit, mind affecting). Special mention for "Revenant" if you want to let a evil humanoid come back as undead, to kill they players who have killed him.

Spellwarped Creature gives Spell Resistance and buffs if a spell fails to penetrate your SR.

Multi-headed can increase the offense of some monsters greatly (those with head related special attacks/abilities).

Also have a look at the epic templates Paragon Creature (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/paragonCreature.htm) and Pseudonatural Creature (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/pseudonaturalCreature.htm)

I don't make use of templates that often. These are the one that directly did come into my mind. But there should be more useful templates that could help us out here. Maybe others can contribute to this?

[AnimeTheCat]

Any of the more animalistic or predatory monsters (so... pretty much all of the ones you listed) should basically not be able to be fooled by invisibility at all, even greater versions. Extraordinary abilities such as Perfect Scent*1 or Blind Sight should be standard on these creatures, and should cover 1.5x their reach, at a minimum.

Next, I don't think any of those (except maybe the Mu Spore, Winterwight, or Primal Water Elemental) can fit in a 20 ft cage or a 10 ft cube. They take up too much space (gargantuan size). I'm AFB right now, so that may or may not be true, but for something like the Brachyurus or Devestation Centipede, they are absolutely larger than 20 feet tall or long, so you're not really going to contain them in a forcecage. I suspect this is also true for the prismasaurus, but I could be wrong. What's more, I believe the Water elemental can just kind of squish through the force cage holes, and the 10 foot cube is too small to contain them. If the Winterwight can't gaseous form or something, give it a winter themed gaseous form or something. and I think you're good (can't recall if they are bigger than large or not). If it can fit in the cube, that's honestly kind of ok. You said you aren't trying to make them foolproof, so that can be one pretty decent weakness for the Winterwight.

Flight and long range weapons I'm going to bunch in to one group, because they can be handled in similar ways. Those are really only an issue for the Brachyurus and the Prismasaurus, in my opinion. The Water Elemental, Centipede, Scorpion, and Winterwight should all have concealment of some variety, if they don't already have it. Centipedes and Scorpions should be underground burrowing until they detect their prey with tremmorsense or blindsight. The Water Elemental should have like +infinity when hiding in water, and you shouldn't be encountering it otherwise. The Winterwight should create a blinding blizard in a 60 ft radius around it that provides it with concealment but doesn't block its vision. The Saruses... well... this can basically be their weakness. They can be targeted from great distances away, and they're vulnerable to flight (but they should be beeftanks worthy of being called epic, so insane AC and spell resistance, evasion, and buttloads of HP with really high CON scores).

And here's where we get in to the things that I think WotC kind of flubbed. Epic Creatures should be able to act multiple times per round of combat. They should have a base initiative score of no less than +10, and then have a secondary initiative score of 10 less than that, effectively giving them two turns per round of combat (higher based on higher HD). In a game where action economy rules, giving epic monsters the exact same agency as a single member of a 4 member party is like trying to balance the ocean on one side of the scale with ice cubes on the other. It's just not going to happen. Call it "Epic Initiative (Ex)" and call it a day. Slap it on every Epic monster. Every Monster (not PC) with Greater than 20 HD gains +10 to their initiative score. For every 10 HD past 20 HD, they gain a further +10. Every Monster (not PC) with greater than 20 HD gains an additional Initiative in each round of combat equal to their New Initiative score -10 (so their base initiative). Only one dice is rolled for initiative, and all turns are calculated off of that. For every 10 HD beyond 20 HD the monster possesses, they gain an additional Initiative per round of combat (3 at 30 HD, 4 at 40 HD, etc). This solves the "PCs go first and alpha strike it" problem*2

*1 - Don't know if this is a thing, but it's basically like 60 ft or more blind sight, it can just be defeated in other ways if the PCs are creative
*2 - I don't really think it's a problem, but I handle the party expectations differently and I basically encourage people not to minmax and pick specifically flavorful choices that may not be the supermostbestesttm. That usually makes things like this not a problem, and people have fun. If people do want to minmax, I do what I listed above and it's still fun.

[RNightstalker]

Int 0/Int -, mindless creatures don't get feats or skill points. What bonuses they have are due to attributes, size, and presumably racial bonuses.

Oops...well that's a great place to start: give epic creatures intelligence scores.

[Bronk]

Any ideas for thematically-appropriate powers to give these creatures? (If you have good ideas for other epic creatures, feel free to post those too).

Note that I'm not trying to make them a tough fight for a high-OP epic party, that's not going to happen short of making them all epic spellcasters, just to make them a bit more of a challenge for moderately-competent players.

I usually have them equipped with their loot due to their own intelligence or because they're working for someone else. Epic loot can take care of a lot of weaknesses. This also boosts them because now they could be working together which limits the ability of players to gang up on them.

Also, the bigger creatures can act as moving battle platforms, or hold up entire evil cities, like that one Goristro from... FCII? Not sure, I'm away from my books.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

Any of the more animalistic or predatory monsters (so... pretty much all of the ones you listed) should basically not be able to be fooled by invisibility at all, even greater versions. Extraordinary abilities such as Perfect Scent*1 or Blind Sight should be standard on these creatures, and should cover 1.5x their reach, at a minimum.

Gonna disagree here; I think that swings too far the other way, and becomes a hard shut-down to any PC stealth characters. There are a couple interesting variations that could work, though. Making it a cone could make for some interesting dynamics. A boost to perception skills so that they can at least make the Darkstalker Rogue work for their stealth would be hard to balance, but potentially workable. Or you could make it so they automatically pinpoint you after an attack, forcing PCs to keep moving and rehiding or get squished. And any Epic monster should have Blind-Fight as a bonus feat.


And here's where we get in to the things that I think WotC kind of flubbed. Epic Creatures should be able to act multiple times per round of combat. They should have a base initiative score of no less than +10, and then have a secondary initiative score of 10 less than that, effectively giving them two turns per round of combat (higher based on higher HD). In a game where action economy rules, giving epic monsters the exact same agency as a single member of a 4 member party is like trying to balance the ocean on one side of the scale with ice cubes on the other. It's just not going to happen. Call it "Epic Initiative (Ex)" and call it a day. Slap it on every Epic monster. Every Monster (not PC) with Greater than 20 HD gains +10 to their initiative score. For every 10 HD past 20 HD, they gain a further +10. Every Monster (not PC) with greater than 20 HD gains an additional Initiative in each round of combat equal to their New Initiative score -10 (so their base initiative). Only one dice is rolled for initiative, and all turns are calculated off of that. For every 10 HD beyond 20 HD the monster possesses, they gain an additional Initiative per round of combat (3 at 30 HD, 4 at 40 HD, etc).

Honestly, that's the kind of feature that should be available to any boss monster. Sounds like a good solution.


Oops...well that's a great place to start: give epic creatures intelligence scores.

You can also always give them appropriate bonus feats; even mindless creatures can have those.

[Efrate]

Every epic monster should feel epic so a few things.

Each gets at bare minimum 2 actions a round. 4 is better if you can balance it.

Most has an environmental component, so you never encounter a winterwight in not a blizzard. It does not affect them but it does your pcs.

Most have at least 1 attack with a long range. Your devaatation vermin spit poison up to HD x 10 feet or something.

Most have senses good enough to actually locate a stealth or invis pc.

Most need something to deal with magical defenses. A free action epic dispel with a decent bonus usable maybe 1x to 3x a day.

Big grapple types ignore FoM for grab, swallow whole etc. unless its created with the epic seed.

Everything gets plus 10 initiative. Mindless get bonus feats.

[Biggus]

Thanks for the ideas all, now we're getting to the kind of stuff I was hoping for.


You can use any kind undead templates for their immunities (crit, mind affecting). Special mention for "Revenant" if you want to let a evil humanoid come back as undead, to kill they players who have killed him. <snip>


Thanks for the suggestions, will have a look at those.


Any of the more animalistic or predatory monsters (so... pretty much all of the ones you listed) should basically not be able to be fooled by invisibility at all, even greater versions. Extraordinary abilities such as Perfect Scent*1 or Blind Sight should be standard on these creatures, and should cover 1.5x their reach, at a minimum.


Gonna disagree here; I think that swings too far the other way, and becomes a hard shut-down to any PC stealth characters. There are a couple interesting variations that could work, though. Making it a cone could make for some interesting dynamics. A boost to perception skills so that they can at least make the Darkstalker Rogue work for their stealth would be hard to balance, but potentially workable. Or you could make it so they automatically pinpoint you after an attack, forcing PCs to keep moving and rehiding or get squished. And any Epic monster should have Blind-Fight as a bonus feat.

I had been thinking along these lines, some kind of improved Scent ability seems appropriate for the Brachyurus in particular. Under blindsight/blindsense it says acute scent can be one method by which a creature can acquire those abilities. I don't mind a Rogue who's taken Darkstalker and maxed out their Hide and Move Silently being able to sneak up on epic monsters as the Rogue has specialised to be able to do that, I just don't want the Wizard to be able to cast Improved Invisibility on the whole party and leave them semi-helpless using nothing more than a 4th-level spell.


Next, I don't think any of those (except maybe the Mu Spore, Winterwight, or Primal Water Elemental) can fit in a 20 ft cage or a 10 ft cube.

Winterwight, Brachyurus and possibly Prismasaurus can fit in the 20ft cage. To clarify, not all of the creatures I asked for help with are vulnerable to all five of the tactics Endarire listed, although they are all vulnerable to at least four.


Centipedes and Scorpions should be underground burrowing until they detect their prey with tremmorsense or blindsight. The Water Elemental should have like +infinity when hiding in water, and you shouldn't be encountering it otherwise. The Winterwight should create a blinding blizard in a 60 ft radius around it that provides it with concealment but doesn't block its vision.

Good ideas, thank you.


And here's where we get in to the things that I think WotC kind of flubbed. Epic Creatures should be able to act multiple times per round of combat. They should have a base initiative score of no less than +10, and then have a secondary initiative score of 10 less than that, effectively giving them two turns per round of combat (higher based on higher HD). In a game where action economy rules, giving epic monsters the exact same agency as a single member of a 4 member party is like trying to balance the ocean on one side of the scale with ice cubes on the other. It's just not going to happen. Call it "Epic Initiative (Ex)" and call it a day. Slap it on every Epic monster. Every Monster (not PC) with Greater than 20 HD gains +10 to their initiative score. For every 10 HD past 20 HD, they gain a further +10. Every Monster (not PC) with greater than 20 HD gains an additional Initiative in each round of combat equal to their New Initiative score -10 (so their base initiative). Only one dice is rolled for initiative, and all turns are calculated off of that. For every 10 HD beyond 20 HD the monster possesses, they gain an additional Initiative per round of combat (3 at 30 HD, 4 at 40 HD, etc). This solves the "PCs go first and alpha strike it" problem*2

I've already given some epic monsters a +10 insight bonus to initiative, a la Pathfinder. Good point about the needing extra actions thing though, that's not something I'd really thought about.


*2 - I don't really think it's a problem, but I handle the party expectations differently and I basically encourage people not to minmax and pick specifically flavorful choices that may not be the supermostbestesttm. That usually makes things like this not a problem, and people have fun. If people do want to minmax, I do what I listed above and it's still fun.

My players are not by any means hardcore minmaxers, the nearest there is to that is a Barbarian who can do some pretty decent damage, and in any case I don't allow any of the stinky-cheese tactics in my games, but like most players they want their characters to be good at what they do.


You can also always give them appropriate bonus feats; even mindless creatures can have those.

Good idea, thanks.



Most has an environmental component, so you never encounter a winterwight in not a blizzard. It does not affect them but it does your pcs.

Most have at least 1 attack with a long range. Your devaatation vermin spit poison up to HD x 10 feet or something. [...]

Most need something to deal with magical defenses. A free action epic dispel with a decent bonus usable maybe 1x to 3x a day.

Big grapple types ignore FoM for grab, swallow whole etc. unless its created with the epic seed.


I like the idea of giving them an environmental component, I'll add that to the my list of possible solutions.

I've already turned the Devastation Beetle into a bombardier beetle and given the Devastation Spider the ability to shoot webbing like smaller Monstrous Spiders, but I hadn't thought of anything similar suitable for the other two. Now I come to look, Google tells me that some millipedes can spray chemicals up to 50cm, so that will do nicely for the Centipede, thank you.

Dispel abilities might be appropriate for some monsters, I'll have a think about that.

I've been wondering what to do about Freedom of Movement, I'll admit I hadn't thought of giving some monsters the ability to just straight-up ignore it.

[AnimeTheCat]

Gonna disagree here; I think that swings too far the other way, and becomes a hard shut-down to any PC stealth characters. There are a couple interesting variations that could work, though. Making it a cone could make for some interesting dynamics. A boost to perception skills so that they can at least make the Darkstalker Rogue work for their stealth would be hard to balance, but potentially workable. Or you could make it so they automatically pinpoint you after an attack, forcing PCs to keep moving and rehiding or get squished. And any Epic monster should have Blind-Fight as a bonus feat.

I had been thinking along these lines, some kind of improved Scent ability seems appropriate for the Brachyurus in particular. Under blindsight/blindsense it says acute scent can be one method by which a creature can acquire those abilities. I don't mind a Rogue who's taken Darkstalker and maxed out their Hide and Move Silently being able to sneak up on epic monsters as the Rogue has specialised to be able to do that, I just don't want the Wizard to be able to cast Improved Invisibility on the whole party and leave them semi-helpless using nothing more than a 4th-level spell.

The thing about something like a "Perfect Scent" ability is that it is workable outside of the strictly codified rules. A character that says they go out of their way to mask their scent should probably not be targetable by it, or at the very least should get a pretty massive circumstance bonus to their hide/move silently (or stealth if you've rolled them together). I would go so far as to include this as an inclusion on a rogue's capstone or similar. perhaps an epic rogue talent? Epic creatures should feel epic, otherwise any bloke could just go fight them and in the case of the Brachyurus that would make dispatching them too easy for me to even remotely consider them epic in any capacity. For every Epic ability that you grant an Epic Creature, the Epic Party should have some meaningful way to interact with it. Tie it to level, a Class Feature, an Item, whatever you want... but I don't condone and didn't really intend to recommend that there should be no way to combat this, but it should be a specialty and it should cost some level of resources. If it doesn't cost anything to beat it, does the creature truly deserve to be considered "Epic"?


Honestly, that's the kind of feature that should be available to any boss monster. Sounds like a good solution.

I've already given some epic monsters a +10 insight bonus to initiative, a la Pathfinder. Good point about the needing extra actions thing though, that's not something I'd really thought about.
A little bit of idea theft from Shadowrun (Initiative Passes) mixed with a little bit of general concept D&D. It could probably use some work in the particulars.


Winterwight, Brachyurus and possibly Prismasaurus can fit in the 20ft cage. To clarify, not all of the creatures I asked for help with are vulnerable to all five of the tactics Endarire listed, although they are all vulnerable to at least four.
I was under the impression that the two dinos were more than 20 feet tall, but it's all good. In my opinion, it's generally pretty difficult to make a mundane creature (or mostly mundane creature) challenging to a party who's supposed to have transcended the capabilities of humanity and mortality and ascended in to this somewhat strange realm of pseudo deific ability. Generally speaking "really big dinosaur" doesn't pose a challenge to entities of that nature.

[Biggus]

I was under the impression that the two dinos were more than 20 feet tall, but it's all good. In my opinion, it's generally pretty difficult to make a mundane creature (or mostly mundane creature) challenging to a party who's supposed to have transcended the capabilities of humanity and mortality and ascended in to this somewhat strange realm of pseudo deific ability. Generally speaking "really big dinosaur" doesn't pose a challenge to entities of that nature.

I think there may have been some confusion here, I'm talking about brachyurus, the large wolf-like creature in the ELH, not brachiosaurus, the gargantuan dinosaur.

[AnimeTheCat]

I think there may have been some confusion here, I'm talking about brachyurus, the large wolf-like creature in the ELH, not brachiosaurus, the gargantuan dinosaur.

HA! that's what I get for not checking source material. My brain kept reading that as Brachysaurus even thought I typed it out MULTIPLE times.

Even still, trying to have a mundane or mostly mundane (I assume, because I still can't find my ELH) big wolf thing be a challenge for pseudo deities is... ill advised at best? It needs to be as extraordinary in ability as the group is, so maybe it can have some level of extraordinary senses all together that let it react to otherwise unreactable situations (such as being targeted by force cage). Basically, even if the spell does not normally allow a save, the creature can reflex save (normal DC calculation, so 10+spell level+casting mod+misc) to avoid being in the target area (they X foot step outside of the area).

Just a thought. Spitballing, as they say.

[Gruftzwerg]

Another cheesy method would be Symbionts or the Symbiotic template.

Regular symbionts can give effectively undead immunity to mind-affecting effects.

With the Symbiotic template you can slap a full caster (as guest) onto an epic monster (host) for the mere cost of +1LA (on the host). You basically fuse a full caster with the epic monster.

[Biggus]

HA! that's what I get for not checking source material. My brain kept reading that as Brachysaurus even thought I typed it out MULTIPLE times.

Even still, trying to have a mundane or mostly mundane (I assume, because I still can't find my ELH) big wolf thing be a challenge for pseudo deities is... ill advised at best? It needs to be as extraordinary in ability as the group is, so maybe it can have some level of extraordinary senses all together that let it react to otherwise unreactable situations (such as being targeted by force cage). Basically, even if the spell does not normally allow a save, the creature can reflex save (normal DC calculation, so 10+spell level+casting mod+misc) to avoid being in the target area (they X foot step outside of the area).

Just a thought. Spitballing, as they say.

Weird how the brain does stuff like that, isn't it? I once ended up very embarrassed when my brain decided to see what it expected to see, rather than what the book actually said, which was the exact opposite.

I think the brachyurus is meant a be a guard dog and/or ambush predator, but as you say it has very little in the way of special abilities so it's not great even at that. One thing it does have which I've just realised I failed to notice when I looked at it first time is blindsight, so I guess they did think of the "perfect scent" thing.

Most of the ELH material is in the SRD btw, here's the brachyurus: https://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/brachyurus.htm

Some kind of extraordinary reflexes ability would probably make sense for some epic monsters, there's already precedent for that kind of thing with the Divine Denial feat giving a Will save against spells which don't normally allow a save.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

If there's one thing I really like about 5E, it's the extra actions that boss monsters get. Legendary Actions that they can take not on their turn like flying around or attacking (a few times per round), Lair Actions that are cool environmental effects that happen at initiative 0, and Legendary Saves that let them automatically pass three saving throws per day.

It's not enough at high levels; typically, the action economy is enough for players to still stomp a default, appropriately CR-ed boss monster without minions, but it's a step in the right direction and cool besides.

[Calthropstu]

Adding some templates may improve some. Altering feat choices (both wotc and paizo are really bad with feat choices) will give huge boosts. I seem to recall a "super tarasque" that just had feat selections altered to create a much more powerful monster.

Epic monsters, as has been stated, need something to take away the advantages a typical party will have. Flight is almost guaranteed at epic levels, so an epic threat must have a mechanic to deal with that. Burrowing, living underground, extreme rangeor being able to fly itself is absolutely needed.

Likewise some way of ignoring non epic spell defenses, removing spell defenses, bypassing immunities, or other work arounds are also a must. Throwing bigger numbers gets less effective, but not completely useless. An epic creature should be something nigh impossible for non epic characters to overcome.

[icefractal]

And here's where we get in to the things that I think WotC kind of flubbed. Epic Creatures should be able to act multiple times per round of combat. They should have a base initiative score of no less than +10, and then have a secondary initiative score of 10 less than that, effectively giving them two turns per round of combat (higher based on higher HD). In a game where action economy rules, giving epic monsters the exact same agency as a single member of a 4 member party is like trying to balance the ocean on one side of the scale with ice cubes on the other. It's just not going to happen. Call it "Epic Initiative (Ex)" and call it a day. Slap it on every Epic monster. Every Monster (not PC) with Greater than 20 HD gains +10 to their initiative score. For every 10 HD past 20 HD, they gain a further +10. Every Monster (not PC) with greater than 20 HD gains an additional Initiative in each round of combat equal to their New Initiative score -10 (so their base initiative). Only one dice is rolled for initiative, and all turns are calculated off of that. For every 10 HD beyond 20 HD the monster possesses, they gain an additional Initiative per round of combat (3 at 30 HD, 4 at 40 HD, etc). This solves the "PCs go first and alpha strike it" problem*2
I'm going to have to hard-disagree here, unless you're also saying that Epic-level PCs should get multiple actions. While I don't know that the ELH paradigm is really workable, if you are going with that paradigm then Epic does not mean it's a boss-fight.

A CR 23 Brachyurus has the same relationship to a 23rd level party that a CR 4 Tiger has to a 4th level party - a single one is a fairly easy fight, and you'd expect to fight them in groups, even more so once you exceed their level.

Now that said, a lot of the monsters are still underwhelming by that standard. But the fact that they don't make a good solo fight against an entire party is not any more of an issue than the fact that non-Epic creatures don't usually make good solo fights against a non-Epic party.

[AnimeTheCat]

I'm going to have to hard-disagree here, unless you're also saying that Epic-level PCs should get multiple actions. While I don't know that the ELH paradigm is really workable, if you are going with that paradigm then Epic does not mean it's a boss-fight.
The PCs do get multiple actions. They get an equal number of actions in a combat round as there are members of the party.


A CR 23 Brachyurus has the same relationship to a 23rd level party that a CR 4 Tiger has to a 4th level party - a single one is a fairly easy fight, and you'd expect to fight them in groups, even more so once you exceed their level. [/QUOTE
Sure, to the party that CR 23 creature is relatively equivalent to the CR 4 creature when they were at level 4, but the challenge a Tiger presents to a level 4 party is wildly different that anything that can feasibly challenge a level 23 party. Going further, that CR 23 creature is WILDLY different relative to the world.

[QUOTE]Now that said, a lot of the monsters are still underwhelming by that standard. But the fact that they don't make a good solo fight against an entire party is not any more of an issue than the fact that non-Epic creatures don't usually make good solo fights against a non-Epic party.
As right as you may be that those monsters are still underwhelming, why would you throw the baby out with the bathwater? You have an opportunity under the guise of making things *EPIC* to fix that dichotomy that exists. Why wouldn't you? You have wide sweeping creative license to make the game more interesting, but no, these epic monsters have to be the same dumpster fire that the non-epic monsters were because how dare we try to make things more interesting for these high level PCs.

[Gruftzwerg]

As right as you may be that those monsters are still underwhelming, why would you throw the baby out with the bathwater? You have an opportunity under the guise of making things *EPIC* to fix that dichotomy that exists. Why wouldn't you? You have wide sweeping creative license to make the game more interesting, but no, these epic monsters have to be the same dumpster fire that the non-epic monsters were because how dare we try to make things more interesting for these high level PCs.

Imho it all depends on the balance of optimization between DM and PCs. The generic monsters presented in the books are made for unoptimized casual players and not for experienced players with optimized builds and team setups.
If the players at a table starts to optimize their PCs, so should the DM with his NPCs and monsters.
As such, the NPCs and Monsters should only rely on DM fiat if the DM gives the same kind of fiat to his players. The rules should be equal to everyone. Otherwise it feels like cheating if DM uses constantly things that player could never replicate. Magic Items, class progression, templates and other RAW options are imho enough if you normally avoid homebrew stuff. But if you constantly make use of homebrew stuff and rules, go for it. Every table should play with the rules they enjoy the most. Things should just be equal beween players and the DM imho.

[Biggus]

Imho it all depends on the balance of optimization between DM and PCs. The generic monsters presented in the books are made for unoptimized casual players and not for experienced players with optimized builds and team setups.


This is true, but how many casual players actually play at epic levels? My players are already starting to struggle with the number of bonuses and special abilities they have, and they're only level 11. I feel like you've got to be fairly competent to handle anything but the simplest epic character.

[Doctor Despair]

Imho it all depends on the balance of optimization between DM and PCs. The generic monsters presented in the books are made for unoptimized casual players and not for experienced players with optimized builds and team setups.
If the players at a table starts to optimize their PCs, so should the DM with his NPCs and monsters.
As such, the NPCs and Monsters should only rely on DM fiat if the DM gives the same kind of fiat to his players. The rules should be equal to everyone. Otherwise it feels like cheating if DM uses constantly things that player could never replicate. Magic Items, class progression, templates and other RAW options are imho enough if you normally avoid homebrew stuff. But if you constantly make use of homebrew stuff and rules, go for it. Every table should play with the rules they enjoy the most. Things should just be equal beween players and the DM imho.

Honestly, I'm 100% with you on the FeelsBadness of NPCs having tools PCs can't access, but I feel like that's less objectionable when it comes to epic play. Lots of epic feats have such absurd requirements, epic items and artifacts may have ridiculously specific activation criteria, and epic magic is so broken to begin with that it's super conceivable that NPCs have some custom stuff PCs would have no way of knowing about and, having seen the NPC have it, would have extreme difficulty replicating (if they could at all).

[AnimeTheCat]

Imho it all depends on the balance of optimization between DM and PCs. The generic monsters presented in the books are made for unoptimized casual players and not for experienced players with optimized builds and team setups.
If the players at a table starts to optimize their PCs, so should the DM with his NPCs and monsters.
As such, the NPCs and Monsters should only rely on DM fiat if the DM gives the same kind of fiat to his players. The rules should be equal to everyone. Otherwise it feels like cheating if DM uses constantly things that player could never replicate. Magic Items, class progression, templates and other RAW options are imho enough if you normally avoid homebrew stuff. But if you constantly make use of homebrew stuff and rules, go for it. Every table should play with the rules they enjoy the most. Things should just be equal beween players and the DM imho.

I mean... that's not even really true though is it? The Stats of the PHB Half-Orc Starting Package with an elite array would be something along the lines of this (I'm literally just putting them in as 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8): Str - 17, Dex - 14, Con - 13, Int - 10, Wis - 10, Cha - 6. With the starting package feat of weapon focus, that means you're looking at a +5 to hit and a damage range of 5-17 without a critical hit, 15-45 on a crit. At level 1. Let's look at the CR 1 enemies, shall we?

Animated Object, Small - AC: 14, HP: 15 - Hit > 50% of the time, Dead in 2 hits on average
Camel - AC: 13, HP: 19 - Hit > 50% of the time, dead in 2 hits on average
Darkmantle - AC: 17, HP: 7 - Hit < 50% of the time, dead in 1 hit on average
Dog, Riding - AC 16, HP 16 - Hit < 50% of the time, Dead in 2 hits on average
Duergar Warrior 1 - AC: 17, HP 9 - Hit < 50% of the time, dead in 1 hit on average
Elemental, Small - AC: 15-17, HP: 9-11 - Hitting varies, usually < 50%, Death usually in 1 hit

I'm going to stop because I think you can see where I'm going. At no point, under even the circumstances outlined by the very basic guidelines provided by the PHB on how a character should look, is that CR 1 monster actually a challenge for a level 1 party, let alone a single Level 1 PC. The generic monsters presented in the book are simply not fine for a unoptimized group, they're still weak for one. Even if you went through four encounters right after another, you're not going to use much in the way of resources because you're winning fights in 1 or 2 hits approximately 50% of the time. Any minor level of optimization is going to make these monsters even less effective as challenges. This trend does not change either. Single entity equivalent CR creatures are not actually challenges for a full party of player characters who are not optimizing at all. This is because of simple issues such as action economy. When any 1 PC can go toe-to-toe with any 1 creature (under most circumstances), 4 vs 1 will always be a win for the party, hands down. Either you're going to throw higher CR creatures at the party and play rocket tag, or you're going to throw lower CR creatures at the party and play chip away. Giving equivalent CR creatures more leeway in combat to simply MATCH what the party can do is not that far outside of the realm of possibility as a means of making those CR equivalent creatures actual threats.

What I'm trying to say is that the party will not need the fiat of giving them more actions or turns in combat. The party already gets 4 turns per round of combat. Any CR Equivalent creature is not going to be able to survive that if they only get one action per combat round. Giving the creatures more actions in a combat round is a perfectly reasonable way to make a single entity creature more challenging and more memorable, because it stands out as being unique or more lethal than all the thing they've faced up until this point.

But sure. You do you and play your game the way you want to play. I think that single entity creature need some help to be more interesting without overbloating the CR of the creature, so I prefer to do this.

EDIT: I was still working on my response when these came through

Honestly, I'm 100% with you on the FeelsBadness of NPCs having tools PCs can't access, but I feel like that's less objectionable when it comes to epic play. Lots of epic feats have such absurd requirements, epic items and artifacts may have ridiculously specific activation criteria, and epic magic is so broken to begin with that it's super conceivable that NPCs have some custom stuff PCs would have no way of knowing about and, having seen the NPC have it, would have extreme difficulty replicating (if they could at all).

There are things that monsters can do that Players can't already though. Specifically in the form of Spell-like abilities and Supernatural-abilities. Many of them can be replicated as spells, but many of them can't (like demon SLA Summons and SLA Wishes). Monsters can achieve double digit Natural Armor bonuses (and if they're intelligent can feasibly also wear manufactured armor). Monsters are already distinct and different from PCs, why is this even really all that different? After all, I did call it "Epic Initiative (Ex)" so I flagged it as what it was. Whether you choose to also eventually give that to your PCs is up to you. Also, if your Druid can wildshape into it or if you can polymorph into it, you can get that too. So.... have I really done anything that doesn't already exist?

[Gruftzwerg]

What I mean is, single enemy encounters are imho never meant to pose a great threat in 3.5 due to party size, action economy. Add the higher chance that at least 1-2 PCs will beat the enemy in initiative and the odds are given that the single creature will die without any actions. This is always a problem in coorperative games, be it PnP or video games. Either you need to push the base stats of the single creature into nirvana, or you have to rely on some form of henchmen.

Further you have to keep in mind that a regular adventuring day consists of 4 of these encounters. And now we come again to the optimization part. If the group isn't even optimized for out of combat healing, even 4 easy encounters can sometimes prove a treat to the players. And believe me, I have seen tables above 10+ with healing issues between fights and who actively tried to avoid multiple encounters per day due to that reason. People often underestimate how much optimization they already use at their table (e.g. out of combat healing; communication who is going to play what build/role before the first session starts..). Even these small things can pile up. If the DM notices that the daily encounters have become to easy, he has to optimize em more. And these problems start way before EPIC and as such I have to ask why EPIC should be handled different.
The biggest problem here is, that if you haven't got used to optimizing encounters, it takes a lot of time and effort to do so. Imagine it like getting into real caster optimization, while you have played only blaster characters so far. I'm not implying that I'm perfect or even very good at this. But I'm still learning and see the progress within the rules given for the most part. The sole time I felt the need for adjustments was in a group of 7 moderate optimized PCs. Try to imagine single enemy encounters with 7PCs. Other than that, it is just a question of how much effort you put into encounter (and how fast you can do that due to experience and repetition).
If you just look at single creature encounters in a vacuum, they are often weak. But if you just see em as ingredient for optimization and as part of the entire adventuring day, things change imho.

[AnimeTheCat]

What I mean is, single enemy encounters are imho never meant to pose a great threat in 3.5 due to party size, action economy. Add the higher chance that at least 1-2 PCs will beat the enemy in initiative and the odds are given that the single creature will die without any actions. This is always a problem in coorperative games, be it PnP or video games. Either you need to push the base stats of the single creature into nirvana, or you have to rely on some form of henchmen.

Further you have to keep in mind that a regular adventuring day consists of 4 of these encounters. And now we come again to the optimization part. If the group isn't even optimized for out of combat healing, even 4 easy encounters can sometimes prove a treat to the players. And believe me, I have seen tables above 10+ with healing issues between fights and who actively tried to avoid multiple encounters per day due to that reason. People often underestimate how much optimization they already use at their table (e.g. out of combat healing; communication who is going to play what build/role before the first session starts..). Even these small things can pile up. If the DM notices that the daily encounters have become to easy, he has to optimize em more. And these problems start way before EPIC and as such I have to ask why EPIC should be handled different.

We're just going to disagree then. If the book states that the fundamental purpose of the CR system is to determine what is or is not challenging to a party, an equal CR creature should pose some credible challenge. It doesn't matter how many equal CR challenges you face, if your party consists of the baseline healbot cleric, skillmonkey rogue, blaster wizard, tank fighter.... equal CR single entity creatures will never be a challenge, even if you face 4 of them one after another. I'm talking about the most cliche of cliche parties. This is not optimization, this is standard RPG fare. A group saying "I'll play the X" is not optimization, that's social normality.

You also seem to still think that I think this is an epic only problem, which I don't. To quote myself:

As right as you may be that those monsters are still underwhelming, why would you throw the baby out with the bathwater? You have an opportunity under the guise of making things *EPIC* to fix that dichotomy that exists. Why wouldn't you? You have wide sweeping creative license to make the game more interesting, but no, these epic monsters have to be the same dumpster fire that the non-epic monsters were because how dare we try to make things more interesting for these high level PCs.
Just because the rest of the monsters are hot garbage, doesn't mean that these monsters need to be as well. There's an opportunity due to the monsters being called a word commonly associated with something substantial to fix those inherent issues. I think single entity creatures of equivalent CR should stand up to the party as an equal, they are an equal challenge (hence Challenge Rating).

It's fine though. If you think I find all of the "normal" non-epic monsters just fine and non-problematic, think that. That would be wrong and I'm pretty emphatic that I think that (see again, calling non-epic monsters dumpster fires), but sure think that.

I think that ALL monsters should be handled differently, not just Epic ones. Epic ones just have the easy button of "They're Epic" to explain a jump in power that might be unexpected. if you would prefer, it would probably be better to start sprinkling in things like this from lower levels, probably starting around level 10-14 so that you really ramp it up when the party starts achieving earth shattering levels of power and can pretty easily take on challenges nearly double their level in CR.


The biggest problem here is, that if you haven't got used to optimizing encounters, it takes a lot of time and effort to do so. Imagine it like getting into real caster optimization, while you have played only blaster characters so far. I'm not implying that I'm perfect or even very good at this. But I'm still learning and see the progress within the rules given for the most part. The sole time I felt the need for adjustments was in a group of 7 moderate optimized PCs. Try to imagine single enemy encounters with 7PCs. Other than that, it is just a question of how much effort you put into encounter (and how fast you can do that due to experience and repetition).
If you just look at single creature encounters in a vacuum, they are often weak. But if you just see em as ingredient for optimization and as part of the entire adventuring day, things change imho.
I'm pretty used to optimizing encounters. You know what works best? Multiple enemies! You know what you can't do within the confines of the rules as written and designed for a party of X level? Use multiple CR X monsters! This makes them useless as CR appropriate encounters, which I think is a huge mistake on behalf of the game designers (I won't Say WotC because Paizo is equally guilty of the same flaw). The most challenging encounters are the ones where the opposition has an equal or greater number of actions and options at their disposal, when compared to the party. The only way you can do this with single entity creatures is by increasing their action economy. I've done a lot of musing in my personal time about this where I consider having thresholds based on CR and Party Level. Perhaps equal CR creatures get an additional action per turn, but once they cease to be equal CR, they lose that extra action. Perhaps if the encounter's CR is 5 higher than the party level, they get two actions, showing that they are a more formidable foe and the party is going to have an even harder time fighting them, but when they've surpassed that power level, the enemy "seems slower" or the party can better predict what the enemy will do. D&D combat works in a world of fundamental abstraction anyway, so making these minor mechanical changes can be fluffed as anything, and the group will be none the wiser.

To you idea though, try to imagine a single enemy that challenges 7 PCs? Well... since you've nearly doubled the expected party, you're probably looking at a monster's CR equal to three higher than the average party level (If I remember the DMG correctly, it may be different). If we're talking party level 7 (7 level 7s because... 7...) then I would start with a CR 10 monster. Then I would consider what the party can do and try to find the best monster chassis that will be able to maneuver, position, avoid and harass the group. It would likely be some kind of Angel, Demon, or Devil because of their ability to summon other things and inherent spellcasting ability, plus their plethora of supernatural or spell-like abilities. Then, I would consider how many turns this creature would need in order to seem challenging, memorable, or large than life. In this instance, since I'm going with something that can probably summon, I would say just giving it one extra action per combat turn would probably be sufficient. Then I'm going to try and target weak willed party members to break up party formations and tactics as much as possible, while simultaneously sending summoned creatures to target spellcasters or to block lines of approach so that healers can't break enchantment or other effects. Assuming this single creature doesn't get one-shotted, that is a single creature that has now presented a memorable challenge and was an interesting combat that required the use of all member's resources. The one change of giving that creature multiple actions would allow them to not only summon help immediately, but also start the process of messing with group tactics from turn 1, assuming again, they weren't killed in one turn.

That's just my opinion though. You're free to have your own.

[icefractal]

The PCs do get multiple actions. They get an equal number of actions in a combat round as there are members of the party. And the Brachyurus' get an equal number of actions as there are members of the pack, what's your point?

By which I mean that in the ELH paradigm, a "challenging" fight for a party of 23rd level PCs is a group of Brachyurus'. A single Brachyurus is supposed to be an even match / tough fight for one 23rd level character.

I mean, would you give an Ogre multiple actions? After all, for 1st level characters it might be the entire party against a single Ogre. And (again, in the ELH paradigm) a 23rd level party facing a single Brachyurus shouldn't be any more of a "big deal" than a 1st level party facing a single wolf.

Now I'm not saying that paradigm is the best, but if you're changing it you should probably change the CR system too. If a foe is a tough challenge for an entire Xth level party, then calling them CR X is incorrect.

[Gruftzwerg]

The question is, why should I pick a single creature encounters? Using a single Brachyurus makes no sense, you use em as pack (5-10) to pose a great threat. Sure it ain't a CR 23 encounter anymore. But if you want to challenge a party of lvl 23 PCs, maybe you should look for creatures below CR23 that become a CR23 encounter as pack. If you look up single creature encounters of the same CR as the player lvl you are doing it wrong (making it to easy by designing useless single creature encounters).

But.. there is one good way to design single creature encounters, but that doesn't work with all of em. And that is setting up an Ambush. If the creature has the skills (hide, move silently) or abilities (invisibility or incorporeal for ambushes from the ground) that enable Ambushes, even a single creature can be deadly. It needs to surprise the entire party and take at least a single player down within the first round. And if these targets are the party caster/healer, things can quickly get ugly for the party. This strategy works on most squishy PC for their entire life (lvls). I barely see DMs who have the guts to execute deadly ambushes because it bears the risk of TPK. And when I say deadly, I mean as deadly and planned as PC would execute an ambush.
The problem is, that your party needs multiple ways to rezz or needs to be fine with dying characters/TPK. And many groups/DMs tend to avoid/dislike the risk of TPK. Which brings us into the dilemma that we dislike TPK but want challenging encounters. And hitting the sweet spot here is the real difficult part as DM, when designing encounter imho.

And as said, nothing forces the DM to use generic creatures, especially at epic lvl where the DM has so many options to alter his monsters/encounters. Things like templates, advancement and magic items exits for a reason.

I still fail to see any reason to give epic monster more DM fiat. The sole thing that I see is, the higher the lvl, the more planning is required for the side of the DM. He needs to be aware of all the PC options to avoid wasting time into easy solvable encounters. It's like a 1vs4 handicap chess game. And it becomes harder for the DM to design the right encounters the higher the lvl gets (and the more abilities the PC have). If the DM is either to lazy or incapable of designing good encounter within the rules, than let him give the monsters extra fiat. Other than that, I would just try to use optimized encounters.

[NigelWalmsley]

You need to start by defining, in reasonably precise terms, what you expect the PCs to be able to do at Epic levels. Unlike, say, 7th level characters, there isn't really any kind of consensus on what sorts of abilities PCs are going to have at that point. Even without going into "high-op play", a low-Epic character could be anything from "a Fighter who couldn't really contribute at 12th level, but now has a half-a-dozen more feats and two Epic feats, none of which are game-changing" to "a Wizard who has a dozen Simulacra following him around, each of which has a selection of spells that are optimized to be as level-independent as possible".


What I mean is, single enemy encounters are imho never meant to pose a great threat in 3.5 due to party size, action economy.

Depends what you mean by "pose a great threat". Also what you mean by "single enemy" (e.g. if the Wizard's first action is to summon some demons, does that count as a single enemy?). Normal CR = APL encounters aren't supposed to pose a great threat period. It's a four-man party ganging up on something that is as individually strong as one of them (a level X character with a PC class is CR X). I don't think single enemies are particularly less threatening in that case. Power scales fast, and while groups of low-level enemies may not have an action economy disadvantage, their actions are often pretty unimpressive. I think, for example, that most 7th-level parties would rather face four Ogres than one Hill Giant.

[Biggus]

Which brings us into the dilemma that we dislike TPK but want challenging encounters. And hitting the sweet spot here is the real difficult part as DM, when designing encounter imho.

Heh, trying to hit that sweet spot is what I spend a large percentage of my time as a DM doing. I'm not against TPK if the players have done something really stupid, but I don't want it to happen because I designed an encounter badly.


I still fail to see any reason to give epic monster more DM fiat. The sole thing that I see is, the higher the lvl, the more planning is required for the side of the DM. He needs to be aware of all the PC options to avoid wasting time into easy solvable encounters. It's like a 1vs4 handicap chess game. And it becomes harder for the DM to design the right encounters the higher the lvl gets (and the more abilities the PC have). If the DM is either to lazy or incapable of designing good encounter within the rules, than let him give the monsters extra fiat. Other than that, I would just try to use optimized encounters.

Well, there's the fact that designing good epic encounters is really difficult considering how badly designed a lot of epic monsters are. Personally I'm a DM of only middling experience, so I probably do lack the skills to make such encounters work well.

But then, I don't think that changing monster stats makes you a lazy or incapable DM; quite the reverse, I'm very much of the philosophy that if a tool is badly designed, you make a better tool rather than doggedly keep using the one you've been given.


You need to start by defining, in reasonably precise terms, what you expect the PCs to be able to do at Epic levels. Unlike, say, 7th level characters, there isn't really any kind of consensus on what sorts of abilities PCs are going to have at that point. Even without going into "high-op play", a low-Epic character could be anything from "a Fighter who couldn't really contribute at 12th level, but now has a half-a-dozen more feats and two Epic feats, none of which are game-changing" to "a Wizard who has a dozen Simulacra following him around, each of which has a selection of spells that are optimized to be as level-independent as possible".


Well, this is a difficulty I've found on these boards a lot, that people mean wildly different things by "high-op". To me, "a Wizard who has a dozen Simulacra following him around, each of which has a selection of spells that are optimized to be as level-independent as possible" is firmly in the realms of high-op; I've never played with a DM who would allow that kind of thing in an actual game.

I'm not sure how to define what I expect of PCs at epic levels without writing a long essay on it. What would be the key points you'd want defined?

[Efrate]

I expect epic pcs to have the following capabilities.

Flight, near constant, for everyone.
Full ability to interact on a meaningful level with incorporealness.
Teleportation, short range and long range.
Mind blank. Always.
Freedom of Movement, always.
Ability to take a full attack and move for all martials.
Immunity to poison, disease, petrification, death effects, negative levels.
Skill check bonuses around +30 minimum in any skill you use. +50 or higher if you are specialized.
See in invisibility always for everyone.
At least half the party with a non visual detection sense. Passively, without needing a spell.
Save bonuses approximately equal to or greater than your level.
AC minimum 30 for everyone.
Darkstalker on all stealth types.
Planar travel capabilities for all members of the party.
One emergency oh @#$% button that gives them total safety at least 1x a day.

And most importantly, enough tactical acumen to know to retreat regroup and come back better prepared.

Thats level 20+. It gets more crazy as you go higher.

[Roninblack]

I'll chime in that legendary actions are one of the cool things I like in 5e also, using the lair effects to help with environment ideas is really good too.

As for specific help with the Brachyurus, a wind walk ability reminiscent of skoll and Hati from Norse myth would be flavorful and not incredibly balance changing except to make long range flight *slightly* harder.

[AnimeTheCat]

And the Brachyurus' get an equal number of actions as there are members of the pack, what's your point?

By which I mean that in the ELH paradigm, a "challenging" fight for a party of 23rd level PCs is a group of Brachyurus'. A single Brachyurus is supposed to be an even match / tough fight for one 23rd level character.

I mean, would you give an Ogre multiple actions? After all, for 1st level characters it might be the entire party against a single Ogre. And (again, in the ELH paradigm) a 23rd level party facing a single Brachyurus shouldn't be any more of a "big deal" than a 1st level party facing a single wolf.

Now I'm not saying that paradigm is the best, but if you're changing it you should probably change the CR system too. If a foe is a tough challenge for an entire Xth level party, then calling them CR X is incorrect.

I think you've fundamentally misunderstood what the 3.5e CR system is, and how it works.


Challenge Ratings and Encounter Levels
A monster's Challenge Rating (CR) tells you the level of the party for which that monster is a good challenge. A monster of CR 5 is an appropriate challenge for a group of four 5th level characters.

So, your statement is simply in stark contrast with the stated goal/point of a Monster's CR. Basically everything you said, was counter to what the book says.


The question is, why should I pick a single creature encounters? Using a single Brachyurus makes no sense, you use em as pack (5-10) to pose a great threat. Sure it ain't a CR 23 encounter anymore. But if you want to challenge a party of lvl 23 PCs, maybe you should look for creatures below CR23 that become a CR23 encounter as pack. If you look up single creature encounters of the same CR as the player lvl you are doing it wrong (making it to easy by designing useless single creature encounters).
I don't think there's necessarily anything "wrong" with the CR system. It's imprecise and broad, and tends to break down at higher levels, but that's because of what it is fundamentally. By it's nature, the CR system is a rough approximation of the capabilities of a single entity compared to the expected capabilities of a group of four creatures equal to the CR of the creature. When any given group of four characters have fewer resources, options and capabilities, those CRs are going to be more "accurate". At higher levels, there's no possible way to meaningfully predict the capabilities of a party of four characters. there are simply too many variables. So, that's not necessarily something "wrong" with the CR system, it just doesn't do a good job of what it sets out to do, which is provide a rough approximation of capabilities necessary to challenge a party of four characters equal in level to the monster's CR.

Now, as for what I tend to do, I posted already that I prefer to use multiple lower CR creatures. To quote myself:

I'm pretty used to optimizing encounters. You know what works best? Multiple enemies!


But.. there is one good way to design single creature encounters, but that doesn't work with all of em. And that is setting up an Ambush. If the creature has the skills (hide, move silently) or abilities (invisibility or incorporeal for ambushes from the ground) that enable Ambushes, even a single creature can be deadly. It needs to surprise the entire party and take at least a single player down within the first round. And if these targets are the party caster/healer, things can quickly get ugly for the party. This strategy works on most squishy PC for their entire life (lvls). I barely see DMs who have the guts to execute deadly ambushes because it bears the risk of TPK. And when I say deadly, I mean as deadly and planned as PC would execute an ambush.
The problem is, that your party needs multiple ways to rezz or needs to be fine with dying characters/TPK. And many groups/DMs tend to avoid/dislike the risk of TPK. Which brings us into the dilemma that we dislike TPK but want challenging encounters. And hitting the sweet spot here is the real difficult part as DM, when designing encounter imho.
I 100% agree that you should play the creature as intelligently as possible to capture the essence of the creature. If that involves ambush hunting, perfect. If not, make sure the spells and feats are more in line with what the creature is supposed to do, because Toughness and Alertness are rarely it lol.


And as said, nothing forces the DM to use generic creatures, especially at epic lvl where the DM has so many options to alter his monsters/encounters. Things like templates, advancement and magic items exits for a reason.
I tend to use monstrous races with NPC and PC class levels, honestly. Unless the group is in a natural dungeon, most of the monsters in the Monster Manual aren't going out of their way to plague intelligent life, and you have to go seeking them out to find them. Even in a naturally occurring Dungeon, there's a particular ecology that has to be catered to. When done right, it works great, but when done poorly things just feel odd and out of place.


I still fail to see any reason to give epic monster more DM fiat. The sole thing that I see is, the higher the lvl, the more planning is required for the side of the DM. He needs to be aware of all the PC options to avoid wasting time into easy solvable encounters. It's like a 1vs4 handicap chess game. And it becomes harder for the DM to design the right encounters the higher the lvl gets (and the more abilities the PC have). If the DM is either to lazy or incapable of designing good encounter within the rules, than let him give the monsters extra fiat. Other than that, I would just try to use optimized encounters.
The only times I am advocating for a bucket of DM fiat on any monster is when that one creature is intended to be particularly challenging to the party. A single vampire against a party facing that challenge for the first time should be rightfully afraid of said creature. By the basic rules, they probably won't be due to the fact that it will be 4 vs 1. Same can be said about any iconic creature, honestly. I think monsters like Beholders and Illithids would benefit from this too. It would make fighting them for the first time far more memorable. I'm also not advocating for a one-size-fits-all mentality, not even a one-size-fits-most. I think it depends on the DM and the group. I tend to err on the side of planning something to be too powerful so that I can adjust on the fly.

[icefractal]

I think you've fundamentally misunderstood what the 3.5e CR system is, and how it works.{Scrubbed}
An encounter with an Encounter Level (EL) equal to the PC's level is one that should expend about 20% of their resourcesThat's not "an even match for the whole party", that's a fight the PCs are expected to win and still have plenty of gas for several more like it.

Also, consider this - what CR is a 3rd level character? CR 3. What CR is a 23rd level character? CR 23. Each of the 23rd level PCs individually is CR 23. Does it makes sense that a single CR 23 creature is an even match for 4-5 CR 23 creatures?

[JNAProductions]

I think you're either selectively quoting or didn't read the next page.That's not "an even match for the whole party", that's a fight the PCs are expected to win and still have plenty of gas for several more like it.

Also, consider this - what CR is a 3rd level character? CR 3. What CR is a 23rd level character? CR 23. Each of the 23rd level PCs individually is CR 23. Does it makes sense that a single CR 23 creature is an even match for 4-5 CR 23 creatures?

I mean, if you're gonna do that...


Challenge Rating
Same as the base creature +2.

...

Level Adjustment
Same as the base creature +8.

Which means that, since two monsters of CR X are EL X+2 (if I remember right), one Vampire PC is equal to eight Vampire NPCs... Of the exact same build.

[icefractal]

Yep, templates are inconsistent. In Pathfinder the rules for playing monsters set ECL = CR, and I think that's a lot closer to accurate.

And for that matter, I think only a PC-type character with real classes and magic items appropriate for their level really merits being CR X at Xth level. Most NPCs should probably be considered at least a point lower. Still, a casually-optimized PC easily merits CR equal to their level pre-Epic, so if you're talking about what kind of stats and abilities a CR X monster should have, look at what an Xth level PC gets.

[Calthropstu]

Yep, templates are inconsistent. In Pathfinder the rules for playing monsters set ECL = CR, and I think that's a lot closer to accurate.

And for that matter, I think only a PC-type character with real classes and magic items appropriate for their level really merits being CR X at Xth level. Most NPCs should probably be considered at least a point lower. Still, a casually-optimized PC easily merits CR equal to their level pre-Epic, so if you're talking about what kind of stats and abilities a CR X monster should have, look at what an Xth level PC gets.

PF sets CR at ECL-1. So a pf lvl 4 char is a cr3.

[AnimeTheCat]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote} That's not "an even match for the whole party", that's a fight the PCs are expected to win and still have plenty of gas for several more like it.

Also, consider this - what CR is a 3rd level character? CR 3. What CR is a 23rd level character? CR 23. Each of the 23rd level PCs individually is CR 23. Does it makes sense that a single CR 23 creature is an even match for 4-5 CR 23 creatures?

What you quoted was about encounter level. Challenge Rating is not Encounter Level. The book blatantly say what CR. Is.{scrubbed}

You play how you want to play. I don't really care to discuss it anymore because it's pointless to do so.

[JNAProductions]

What you quoted was about encounter level. Challenge Rating is not Encounter Level. The book blatantly say what CR. Is. {scrub the post, scrub the quote

You play how you want to play. I don't really care to discuss it anymore because it's pointless to do so.

If there's a single monster and no extenuating circumstances, a monster of CR X is EL X.

[AnimeTheCat]

If there's a single monster and no extenuating circumstances, a monster of CR X is EL X.

yeah... which means a creature of CR X should be a 20% resource draining fight for a Party of level X. That's what I said in the first place.

[JNAProductions]

yeah... which means a creature of CR X should be a 20% resource draining fight for a Party of level X. That's what I said in the first place.

I think I mistook you for another poster, then.

My bad!

[martixy]

I question whether it's even possible to have an epic creature that's not a total pushover.

For one, bags of HP stop being relevant at around level 5. 10 at best. Most of the OP monsters are just that.

High level play is, presumably, a fundamentally different playground than anything before. In the sense that if you're not certain you've already won, don't even bother showing up.

But if we put that aside, and decide that epic monsters are beholden to the same mode of play as the lower levels - e.g. monster in one corner, bunch of adventurers in the other, and they duke it out.

At that point the PCs are either straight up breaking the game at the high end or decked out with a million immunities on the low end. The monster has to start breaking the rules if it wants to put up anything even close to reasonable resistance. Evening the action economy in some manner is the LEAST it should be able to do.

5e's legendary actions are a neat concept that helps, but honestly, between the absolutely mockery wizards and psions make of the action economy at high level, you've barely begun evening out the playing field.

The neat part of HP is that it's ablative. It gives a clear indication of how well you're doing. But HP stops doing the same job at epic levels. Thing is, most parties at that level have so many status effects that you can use them as HP. Start stripping them off one by one.

Another thing, inspired by lair actions: Epic monsters should be forces of nature. Start playing with the environment at scale. Battlefield control is one of the strongest ways to play the game. Start taking that literally. Have the monster change the terrain, the geometry, the air, temperature, even space-time itself. One interesting idea is - have the monster cut off parts of space, creating small demiplanes around itself, separating the party, while the monster exists in all these planes simultaneously.

While we're at the topic of environment - environment can invalidate even obvious weaknesses. We all know how the tarrasque can't fly and it's frequently brought up what an oversight this is for a CR20 creature. But inability to fly becomes completely irrelevant if you're fighting the beast in a cave whose ceiling is within the creature's reach.

Then there's secondary objectives. If you have a monster can bring the whole mountain on top of your head, getting those prisoners you rescued 2 rooms back out before the whole dungeon collapses on their heads takes on an entirely new urgency. The party surviving a certain creature can become a moot point if the castle they're supposed to defend from the monster melts to slag under its fire aura before they're able to slay it.

[icefractal]

What you quoted was about encounter level. Challenge Rating is not Encounter Level.

If there's a single monster and no extenuating circumstances, a monster of CR X is EL X.

yeah... which means a creature of CR X should be a 20% resource draining fight for a Party of level X. That's what I said in the first place.

The bolded part is what I've been saying the whole time, so I'm not sure where the disagreement is then. Also, not really sure why talking about EL is irrelevant to CR when you agree that CR = EL for a single creature ... like the one that was being discussed.

[Asmotherion]

In this thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?624797-Lvl-20-Pathfinder-vs-DnD3-5-SRD-Epic-Bestiary), Endarire wrote:



Intrigued, I checked, and discovered that sure enough, almost every non-caster monster in the ELH is vulnerable to at least one of these, most to at least three, and some to all five (for initiative, I assume that a level 21+ PC will have +10 at the very least, and some party members will have +20 or more; if they're expecting trouble and have had time to buff, add a further +5 to +15).

So I've been looking for ways to improve the ELH monsters so they're not such an easy fight for a well-prepared party. I've found something suitable for most of them (I'll post what I've come up with if anyone's interested), but I'm struggling with the following:

Brachyurus
Devastation Centipede
Devastation Scorpion
Primal Water Elemental
Mu Spore
Prismasaurus
Winterwight

Any ideas for thematically-appropriate powers to give these creatures? (If you have good ideas for other epic creatures, feel free to post those too).

Note that I'm not trying to make them a tough fight for a high-OP epic party, that's not going to happen short of making them all epic spellcasters, just to make them a bit more of a challenge for moderately-competent players.

I've found that applying a single template from the following list generally can improve any monster by a lot.

-Half Dragon
-Ghost
-Bone/Corpse Creature
-Half-Fiend/Celestial.
-Necropolitan/Lich.

For example, imagine any of those templates on a LV 1 Humanoid, then on a LV 10 Humanoid and Finally on the Tarasque (Disreguard pre-reqs, it's just an example). All of those improve beyond recognition.

If you're not a fan of Templates, or if you want to get past that, Progression as Character Class/Prestige Class is one of my favorite things.