Are save-based attacks too overpowered in OOTs-verse?

[Justyz]

It seems that our heroes, despite being high level PCs, can't seem to make a save to, well, save their lives.

If anything they need to be grateful that 1 hit kill attacks like horrid wilting or slay living were stopped in their tracks before being completed - because it seems like nobody almost ever manages to avoid the full effect of the attack.

Considering save-based attacks almost always hit fully, aren't they over powered? They were supposed to originally work only occasionally, and then have an extreme damage (for their spell level). Instead they hit all of the time, so instead of being a kind of a gamble where it's high risk (save made) - high reward (save failed) it's not a gamble at all, making them a much better choice then normal attacks.

This is especially true in the last comic - the multi-eyed monster can drop 7 (maybe even 8) hits in one round and all of them are successful - if they can do that why even bother with other tactics?

[Peelee]

if they can do that why even bother with other tactics?
Because the author doesn't care about what is optimal or statistical likely. He cares about what makes an interesting story.

I am now going to rant:



Here's the thing: No matter what I draw in any battle scene, within ten minutes of posting it someone chimes in about how the characters are stupid for not executing this, that, or the other tactic. Never mind that said tactic would likely end the fight in one panel when it is my job to provide you with an entertaining battle scene. Never mind that said tactic may result in the person winning whom the plot does not need to win. Never mind that the fight may not be over yet. No, all that matters is that these characters are not living up to someone's imagined D&D tactical mastery.

Well, I don't give a damn anymore. The characters fight the way they fight to make an interesting page. They may make subpar decisions, I don't care. I don't spend enough time with the D&D rules anymore to eke out all of these Ultimate Killer Strategies anyway, so we're really running up against the limits of my knowledge and ability. The characters can't be better strategists than I am, and I care more about other aspects. Such strategies are usually boring to read and visually bland to look at anyway. There aren't going to be a lot of invisible save-or-die effects thrown around, because there are only so many ways I can draw characters succeeding at Fortitude saves (and then I still have to verbally explain what just happened). You should stop expecting them, because I'm not going to use them.

My job is to entertain, not to showcase perfect D&D tactics. If you can't be entertained by anything BUT perfect D&D tactics, that's on you.

[Fyraltari]

No. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0456.html)

[Mike Havran]

This is especially true in the last comic - the multi-eyed monster can drop 7 (maybe even 8) hits in one round and all of them are successful - if they can do that why even bother with other tactics?
Actually, Durkon made his save, Haley did not get to make the save and Belkar and Elan are notorious for sucky Will saves. So it is not that bad.

[Metastachydium]

No. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0456.html)

(See also basically every time Redcloak tries to use Disintegrate.)

[Peelee]

(See also basically every time Redcloak tries to use Disintegrate.)

Unsurprisingly, the author also has words to say about Disintegrate. :smallwink:


Disintegrate is a very useful spell for OOTS because it is equally plausible to utterly obliterate someone as it is to barely inconvenience them—it's the "swingiest" damage spell. Thus, there's a lot more uncertainty as to the outcome, which makes it more useful in storytelling. A person can get hit full force, they can get hit for partial force, or they can be missed entirely, and it's up to me which one of those happens. There's no collateral damage, which means it only hits the target I want to hit. If it kills, it makes Resurrection much harder without needing to do anything extra. And there's no well-established means of becoming immune to it, so no can tell me that OF COURSE Character X should have had Resist Disintegration cast come on do you even PLAY D&D????

[Metastachydium]

Unsurprisingly, the author also has words to say about Disintegrate. :smallwink:

Yeah, I know, but, y'see, how is it fair that he never gets to vaporize any of the most important characters in the comic (or, at least, Hinjo)?

[ORione]

No. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0456.html)

OOTS would be a better story if more of its fights looked like that.

[Riftwolf]

Why are we talking about save-or-dies being op when d% random effects up the CR of an encounter by an order of magnitude? (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0584.html)
This originally referred to Qarr summoning a Pit Fiend, but also on the same strip, a d% causes a double roll on the random encounter table! D%s are Vicious in Oots...

[Mastikator]

They just sometimes roll poorly. :smallwink: A nat 1 is always a failed save no matter how good stats you have.

[Yanisa]

A bit of geekery, but in straight D&D stats the Order doesn't have the best of saves. A lot of people seem to think the order has insanely high stats, or magic items, or buffs to saves, but in generally the Order (and most people in the comic) aren't highly optimized. Based on the Geekery thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?623429-Class-and-Level-Geekery-XVIII-Everyone-s-an-Expert), I figured these numbers out:

V has +10 Will
Durkon has +9 Fort
Minrah has +9 Fort
Mr. Scruffy has +9 Will
Elan has +8 Will
Haley has a +7 Will
Belkar has +6 Will

(For more details my original post (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25139186&postcount=829))

The handbook Beholder has a DC of 17. While this means the Party (except Belkar) is at good odds to make saves, at the same time even the best one (V) has a 30% chance to fail.

So while unlucky, it doesn't seem too unlikely.

[Metastachydium]

A bit of geekery, but in straight D&D stats the Order doesn't have the best of saves. A lot of people seem to think the order has insanely high stats, or magic items, or buffs to saves, but in generally the Order (and most people in the comic) aren't highly optimized. Based on the Geekery thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?623429-Class-and-Level-Geekery-XVIII-Everyone-s-an-Expert), I figured these numbers out:

V has +10 Will
Durkon has +9 Fort
Minrah has +9 Fort
Mr. Scruffy has +9 Will
Elan has +8 Will
Haley has a +7 Will
Belkar has +6 Will

(For more details my original post (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25139186&postcount=829))

The handbook Beholder has a DC of 17. While this means the Party (except Belkar) is at good odds to make saves, at the same time even the best one (V) has a 30% chance to fail.

So while unlucky, it doesn't seem too unlikely.

Those are fair approximations, but in most cases they should, perhaps, read "+[number] or more" (the value for V assumes that "moderate WIS" means "no bonus, no penalty"; meanwhile, the figures for Durkon and Minrah assume they had invested absolutely nothing into CON (which would be just plain weird even at the Order's level of optimization)). As for Elan, I'm pretty confident "+8 or (a lot) less" would be (a lot) more accurate, since judging by his actions, the comments of other characters and the fact I can't recall a single instance of his succesfully making a Will save, it is almost certain he has a WIS penalty (and probably not a small one at that).
The value for Belkar is likely spot on, though.

[madrobin]

Debating D&D rules back and forth is pointless. As Burlew has pointed out, this is a story crafted by him, not a D&D adventure. So if the plot requires that a blind, one-armed kobold armed with a sharpened pencil overwhelms the entire party, by golly, that's what's gonna happen.

Besides, the often total incompetence of the party has been an abiding and amusing theme of the entire series--to the point where it's surprising and pleasing when they don't butcher a situation. Their real improvement over the centuries (I think the series has taken that long; I'm not sure) has been that they now kinda sorta maybe in a way work together effectively and no one hates anyone else.

If OOTS were a space adventure, the heroes would be constantly crashing their spaceship into asteroids. If it were a western, the heroes would be accidentally shooting their own horses. If it were a war story, they'd get the maps wrong and invade and burn down a city in their own country. Enjoy it. Embrace it. What fun is a successful save, anyway?

[Jason]

If actual dice were being rolled then sure, it would be unlikely for all of the Order to miss their saves. Dice don't actually have anything to do with what happens in this comic though, do they?

[Quizatzhaderac]

Having read OotS first, and 3.5e rules second, I can say my expectation o how saves work (from OotS) doesn't really match the 3.5e rules.

Not to say that's a bad thing; c'est n'est pas un jouie de gorgons et gendarmeries. In many ways, I'd say OootS rules seem better, but questions remain of actually implement the apparent principles in a real game system.

The principles as I see them are thus:

1) People typically have good or bad saves. It's very rare for people to fail if they have a good save (see ultimate cleric duel) and very rare for one to pass with a bad save. This is somewhat true in 3.5e rules, but the degree is much more extreme in OotS.

2) There's a tradeoff where more devastating spells have less of a chance to succeed. This is actually the opposite of the rules since the power of the effect goes up with DC (as both are tied to spell level). But in OotS save or die spells tend to hit much less than save or annoyance spells.

3) Roy has a good will save. Not 15% more than Belkar, but enough to have several times the chance of saving the Belkar does.


Why are we talking about save-or-dies being op when d% random effects up the CR of an encounter by an order of magnitude?Pedantic nitpick: an order of magnitude is ten times, which would mean instead of a CR 13 encounter they got a CR 130 encounter

[Fyraltari]

c'est n'est pas un jouie de gorgons et gendarmeries.

These are spelled jeu and gorgones. Also a gendarmerie is the building where the gendarmes are.

[Jason]

Pedantic nitpick: an order of magnitude is ten times, which would mean instead of a CR 13 encounter they got a CR 130 encounter
The encounter referenced is when Qarr the imp summoned a Pit Fiend. Imps are CR2 and Pit Fiends are CR20. So it was an order of magnitude increase in the difficulty of the encounter.

Incidentally it also violated the rules, since 3.5 imps don't have the ability to summon other devils.

[Peelee]

c'est n'est pas un jouie de gorgons et gendarmeries.


These are spelled jeu and gorgones. Also a gendarmerie is the building where the gendarmes are.

Sacrebleu!

Also, Fyraltari, bad news for you - now that I'm a documented EU citizen, I can move to France and and make my campaign in the heart of the land. To L'académie Française!

[Metastachydium]

The encounter referenced is when Qarr the imp summoned a Pit Fiend. Imps are CR2 and Pit Fiends are CR20. So it was an order of magnitude increase in the difficulty of the encounter.

Incidentally it also violated the rules, since 3.5 imps don't have the ability to summon other devils.

(Speaking of that (and saves), the island devil was also definitely larger than large (and I'd say larger than huge, even though that's not officially possible), which means that it had 37+ HD and, accordingly, a Will save modifier of +29 at the very least, which means that unless V's INT score is higher than 40 and Durkon has a WIS score of 38+, the devil had to roll a 1 twice in a row for Crushing Despair and Bestow Curse to even affect it, and after those it would have still had to roll a 2 at best for Prismatic Spray to work, assuming V's INT score is no higher than 24.)

[Jason]

(Speaking of that (and saves), the island devil was also definitely larger than large (and I'd say larger than huge, even though that's not officially possible), which means that it had 37+ HD and, accordingly, a Will save modifier of +29 at the very least, which means that unless V's INT score is higher than 40 and Durkon has a WIS score of 38+, the devil had to roll a 1 twice in a row for Crushing Despair and Bestow Curse to even affect it, and after those it would have still had to roll a 2 at best for Prismatic Spray to work, assuming V's INT score is no higher than 24.)
Plus all three spells somehow also overcame the Pit Fiend's Spell Resistance (32 for the basic CR20 Large Pit Fiend). When Durkon says V got lucky he wasn't kidding.

[Doug Lampert]

Having read OotS first, and 3.5e rules second, I can say my expectation o how saves work (from OotS) doesn't really match the 3.5e rules.

Not to say that's a bad thing; c'est n'est pas un jouie de gorgons et gendarmeries. In many ways, I'd say OootS rules seem better, but questions remain of actually implement the apparent principles in a real game system.

The principles as I see them are thus:

1) People typically have good or bad saves. It's very rare for people to fail if they have a good save (see ultimate cleric duel) and very rare for one to pass with a bad save. This is somewhat true in 3.5e rules, but the degree is much more extreme in OotS.

3.5 rules as opposed to the comic:
Baring multiclassing or magic items helping your save, your good save is AT BEST keeping up with the DCs, your bad saves are hopeless.

As you level, the casters add to their casting stat (which only for clerics helps saves at all), and their spell level goes up 1 every 2 levels (adding one to DC), and if they care the caster takes spell focus and greater spell focus giving +2 to DC (the monsters need only ability focus for a +2 to DC with one special attack), while the target needs 3 feats to improve all three saves.

Monsters typically go up in HD faster than PCs go up in level, and monsters simply add HD/2 to most DCs (same rate of increase as a good save, except with more HD so they outpace the PCs). Add four HD to Sunny, that's +1 to CR, +2 to all DCs, have fun if Sunny has +2 to CR due to aberration HD for +4 more to save DCs.

Speaking of which, the caster chooses what spell to cast and thus what save to hit.

Baring stacking resistance items or lots of multiclassing, saves actually ARE almost always failed at high level D&D. It's not hard to optimize saves, but if you don't do so, then your odds on GOOD saves get worse every level, and your odds on BAD saves crash and burn quickly.

Someone posted the order's likely saves, Belkar is the only character known to have done ANYTHING to improve his odds (he and Elan are also the only ones benefiting from the multiclass boost to good saves). If Sunny is elite, then Sunny's save DC goes up +2 or so. If Sunny has a NON-EPIC ability booster item, then the DC goes up 3; epic adds more. If Sunny has ability focus (the BtB beholder doesn't, but the GM is explicitly allowed to rechoose feats) then some of the eye rays have an additional +2.

Basically, the order can all plausibly fail saves against a straight BtB beholder, and it's not at all unreasonable for Sunny to be at +7 or more to that making failed saves an overwhelming favorite and one out of bunches made (Durkon) a pretty expected rate.

[Fyraltari]

Embrace it. What fun is a successful save, anyway?
Plenty. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulVI9OHseMA)

Sacrebleu!

Also, Fyraltari, bad news for you - now that I'm a documented EU citizen, I can move to France and and make my campaign in the heart of the land. To L'académie Française!

https://i.redd.it/seeqlcxew6y21.jpg
Also, It's L'Académie française with capital L and A but a lower case f. They would care.

[Peelee]

They would care.

I would be disappointed if they didn't. Also, Google led me astray.

[Fyraltari]

I would be disappointed if they didn't. Also, Google led me astray.

The customs with regards to proper capitalization are a bit different between French and English and rather obscure, since no-one really cares. Just guess who published the guidelines about it?

[Peelee]

The customs with regards to proper capitalization are a bit different between French and English and rather obscure, since no-one really cares. Just guess who published the guidelines about it?

An Englishman who thought he was speaking Latin? :smallamused:

[Fyraltari]

An Englishman who thought he was speaking Latin? :smallamused:

No, I meant the French ones.

[Peelee]

No, I meant the French ones.

So did I, is the thing.

[hungrycrow]

3.5 rules as opposed to the comic:
Baring multiclassing or magic items helping your save, your good save is AT BEST keeping up with the DCs, your bad saves are hopeless.

As you level, the casters add to their casting stat (which only for clerics helps saves at all), and their spell level goes up 1 every 2 levels (adding one to DC), and if they care the caster takes spell focus and greater spell focus giving +2 to DC (the monsters need only ability focus for a +2 to DC with one special attack), while the target needs 3 feats to improve all three saves.

Monsters typically go up in HD faster than PCs go up in level, and monsters simply add HD/2 to most DCs (same rate of increase as a good save, except with more HD so they outpace the PCs). Add four HD to Sunny, that's +1 to CR, +2 to all DCs, have fun if Sunny has +2 to CR due to aberration HD for +4 more to save DCs.

Speaking of which, the caster chooses what spell to cast and thus what save to hit.

Baring stacking resistance items or lots of multiclassing, saves actually ARE almost always failed at high level D&D. It's not hard to optimize saves, but if you don't do so, then your odds on GOOD saves get worse every level, and your odds on BAD saves crash and burn quickly.

Someone posted the order's likely saves, Belkar is the only character known to have done ANYTHING to improve his odds (he and Elan are also the only ones benefiting from the multiclass boost to good saves). If Sunny is elite, then Sunny's save DC goes up +2 or so. If Sunny has a NON-EPIC ability booster item, then the DC goes up 3; epic adds more. If Sunny has ability focus (the BtB beholder doesn't, but the GM is explicitly allowed to rechoose feats) then some of the eye rays have an additional +2.

Basically, the order can all plausibly fail saves against a straight BtB beholder, and it's not at all unreasonable for Sunny to be at +7 or more to that making failed saves an overwhelming favorite and one out of bunches made (Durkon) a pretty expected rate.

A by-the-book beholder would be unlikely to accomplish this against commoners with no save bonuses or touch ac. Overall I think the likelihood would be something like 25%, which isn't implausibly small, but it would go down significantly if you gave the commoners any defensive bonuses. As unoptimized as they are, the Order still get some increases to their saves through leveling. Haley, Belkar, V, Elan, and Mr. Scruffy probably have an okay touch AC as well. Also, V, Hilgya and Durkon had their good saves targeted. Factor everything in and it would be incredibly unlikely for a standard beholder to pull this off.

Of course Sunny isn't a standard beholder, but given the competence they've shown so far I doubt they're much more optimized than the BtB beholder.

[TRH]

I think a big part of it is depiction. Save for half spells seem to be overcome a lot, because that keeps the main characters in the game while still depicting the effects of the spell. Save or die spells often inflict some damage on a successfuls save, so same principle. Save or suck/lose spells are often all or nothing, in which case we only get to see what they do on a failed save, so we don't get to see the powers of a caster or monster unless the Order keep flubbing saves like it's Baldur's Gate and they're all under a permanent Greater Malison effect.

[Fish]

...so we don't get to see the powers of a caster or monster unless the Order keep flubbing saves like it's Baldur's Gate and they're all under a permanent Greater Malison effect.
What gate?

[Fyraltari]

What gate?

Baldur's.0

[Justyz]

Having read OotS first, and 3.5e rules second, I can say my expectation o how saves work (from OotS) doesn't really match the 3.5e rules.

Not to say that's a bad thing; c'est n'est pas un jouie de gorgons et gendarmeries. In many ways, I'd say OootS rules seem better, but questions remain of actually implement the apparent principles in a real game system.

The principles as I see them are thus:

1) People typically have good or bad saves. It's very rare for people to fail if they have a good save (see ultimate cleric duel) and very rare for one to pass with a bad save. This is somewhat true in 3.5e rules, but the degree is much more extreme in OotS.


2) There's a tradeoff where more devastating spells have less of a chance to succeed. This is actually the opposite of the rules since the power of the effect goes up with DC (as both are tied to spell level). But in OotS save or die spells tend to hit much less than save or annoyance spells.

3) Roy has a good will save. Not 15% more than Belkar, but enough to have several times the chance of saving the Belkar does.

Pedantic nitpick: an order of magnitude is ten times, which would mean instead of a CR 13 encounter they got a CR 130 encounter

I like this interpretation, and even this set of rules. I dislike save or die attacks to begin with, so I like them being significantly nerfed. It's also nicer to have a higher degree of certainty and not be so reliant on rolls and sheer luck. So if your save is atrocious, you get dominated every time until you learn your lesson and buy an amulet. And if you have an iron will taking you down will take very rare luck, or maybe just give up on it.

Thanks for your reply.

[Riftwolf]

Baldur's.

Nonono Baldur had CAKE. Or at least the High Priests of the demigods were lured by the promise of Baldurs Cake. I only had Baldurs Cake 2: Shadows of Almond.

[Taevyr]

Nonono Baldur had CAKE. Or at least the High Priests of the demigods were lured by the promise of Baldurs Cake. I only had Baldurs Cake 2: Shadows of Almond.

Never had 2, though I did enjoy the "Taste of the Sword Coast" expansion.

[TRH]

Never had 2, though I did enjoy the "Taste of the Sword Coast" expansion.

The "Quiche of Dragonspear" expansion is best left alone, however.

[Quizatzhaderac]

3.5 rules as opposed to the comic:
So, I'm thinking how I would change 3.5 to fix these issues.

Give each spell a bonus or penalty to DC. Save or die spells get a penalty and save or inconvenience spells get a bonus. That way fights like the pit fiend fight make more sense as it's actually easier to hit with a "prepare the ground" spell than a fight ending spell.

Monsters stats would be built on CR (as opposed to HD), with formulas like save bonus= .5 CR +X, AC = .75 CR +X and HP =4+X * CR5/4. Where is is a loosely bound variable used to customize each aspect of the monster.

[Metastachydium]

Monsters stats would be built on CR (as opposed to HD), with formulas like save bonus= .5 CR +X, AC = .75 CR +X and HP =4+X * CR5/4. Where is is a loosely bound variable used to customize each aspect of the monster.

No, no, no, no, NO, you won't take monster/race transparency from me!

[Quizatzhaderac]

No, no, no, no, NO, you won't take monster/race transparency from me!What you do mean by "monster/race transparency"?

[Metastachydium]

What you do mean by "monster/race transparency"?

Races are just monsters that are easier to play and very nearly everything is ultimately playable.

[Doug Lampert]

Races are just monsters that are easier to play and very nearly everything is ultimately playable.

But there are ways to calculate a PC's CR, and for elite members of the "normal" PC races it's exactly equal to class level. So this just gives a formula for level based saves. Just apply the alternate formula only to abilities currently using HD in the save calculation and you're done without breaking transperancy.

You could work his formula without breaking PC/NPC transparency.

[Incidentally, if you insist on transparency, do not as you value your sanity look at the eligibility for epic feats, for non-standard PCs it's based on ECL, which does not even exist for many monsters.]

[Quizatzhaderac]

I would have used the word "parity" instead of "transparency" since my changes don't affect the ability to see what race or monster a thing is.

So for a monster to be playable you need a have the parameters: level, effective level, and HD. If I wanted to lazily support this parity I would say all those numbers are the same are provide a table mapping CR to the level the monster would be as a player. This approach wouldn't be perfect, but would it be worse than the monster manual entries that have no special thought given to how the monster works as a character?

And if the creator doesn't want to be lazy, give it an advancement table in the style of classes. For example for a pixie (note that I'm not claiming to do this well, just illustrating what one could do).
Alignment
Usually neutral good

Hit die
1/2 * D3

Class Skills
A pixie's racial skills are Bluff, Concentration, Escape Artist, Hide, Listen, Move Silently, Ride, Search, Sense Motive, and Spot

Skill Points at 1st Level
(7 + Int modifier) × 4.

Skill Points at Each Additional Level
7 + Int modifier.

Weapon and Armor Proficiency
A pixie is proficent with all simple weapons, as well as the shortsword and longbow

Spells
A pixie may cast spells in the manner of a bard. The "any spell" options must be taken from the bard spell list; spells of a lower level may be substituted instead.

At level 10 and every two levels thereafter, the pixie may re-choose one of it's any spells.

Caster level bonus
Three bonus caster levels, in addition to one level per hit die.

Invisibility
The pixie may cast invisibility at will.

Greater Invisibility
A pixie remains invisible even when it attacks. This ability is constant, but the pixie can suppress or resume it as a free action.

Table: Pixie advancement


Level
Base attack bonus
Fort save
Ref save
Will save
Special
Dex bonus
Int bonus
Wis bonus
Cha bonus
Damage reduction
Spell resistance
Spells learned


1st
0
0
2
1
Lesser invisibility
1
2
2
2
2
11
Dancing Lights, lesser confusion


2nd
0
0
3
2
Alertness
3
3
2
3
4
12
Detect Chaos/ good/ evil, law, Entangle


3rd
0
0
4
3
Dodge
5
4
3
4
6
13
Detect Thoughts


4th
0
0
5
4
Weapon finesse
7
5
4
5
8
14
Detect Magic


5th
0
0
6
4
Greater invisibility
8
6
4
6
10
15
Permanent Image


6th
0
1
6
4

10
7
5
7
10
16
Any zeroth level


7th
0
1
7
5

12
8
6
8
10
17
Irresistible Dance


8th
0
1
7
5

14
9
7
9
10
18
Any first level


9th
0
2
8
6
evasion
15
10
7
10
10
19
Any second level


10th
0
2
8
6

17
11
8
11
10
20
Confusion


11th
0
2
9
7

19
12
9
12
10
21
Any third level


12th
0
3
9
7

21
13
10
13
10
22
Any fourth level


13th
0
3
10
8

22
14
10
14
10
23
greater dispell magic


14th
0
3
10
8

24
15
11
15
10
24
Any fifth level


15th
0
4
11
9

26
16
12
16
10
25
Any fifth level


16th
0
4
11
9

28
17
13
16
10
26
Any sixth level


17th
0
4
12
10

29
18
13
16
10
27
Any sixth level


18th
0
5
12
10

31
19
14
17
10
28
Any sixth level


19th
0
5
13
11

33
20
15
18
10
29
Any sixth level


20th
0
5
13
11

35
21
16
19
10
30
Any sixth level



Spells per day


level
0th
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th


1st
1
0







2nd
1
5







3rd
1
5
0






4th
1
5
0
0





5th
1
5
0
0
0

0


6th
4
5
0
0
0

0


7th
4
5
0
0
0

0


8th
5
5
0
0
0

0


9th
5
5
1
0
0

0


10th
5
5
1
1
0

0


11th
5
5
2
1
0

0


12th
5
5
2
2
0

0


13th
5
5
2
2
0
0
0


14th
5
5
2
2
1
0
0


15th
5
5
2
2
1
1
0


16th
5
5
2
2
1
1
1


17th
5
5
2
2
2
1
1


18th
5
5
2
2
2
2
1


19th
5
5
2
2
2
2
2


20th
5
5
3
4
3
2
2

[Metastachydium]

Well, no thanks. As far as I'm concerned, PF solved the monster HD/ECl issue just fine with its rules for monstrous PCs and that without convoluted equivalency tables or having to do overbloated monstrous classes for every previously single HD critter. The logic behind it is sound (+1 PC class level = +1 to CR so CR=ECL) and it is perfectly compatible with 3.5.

[Quizatzhaderac]

Well, no thanks. As far as I'm concerned, PF solved the monster HD/ECl issue just fine with its rules for monstrous PCs and that without convoluted equivalency tables or having to do overbloated monstrous classes for every previously single HD critter. The logic behind it is sound (+1 PC class level = +1 to CR so CR=ECL) and it is perfectly compatible with 3.5.I don't think I understand your position.

It seemed to me like at first you were saying it would be impossible to convert between a monster's CR and a PC's level, then when I offered a means to do that you say it's easy and already been done perfectly.

[Metastachydium]

I don't think I understand your position.

It seemed to me like at first you were saying it would be impossible to convert between a monster's CR and a PC's level, then when I offered a means to do that you say it's easy and already been done perfectly.

No, my position is that it is absolutely unnecessary to set up a convoluted system where monsters are built in a way fundamentally different from PC race characters. The appeal of the PF method is that it removes the (frankly, more trouble than worth) LA mechanic without doing away with stuff like HD and standardized save progressions to give monsters a clump of hp and some set saves directly dependent on CR and some random variable.

[Kardwill]

OOTS would be a better story if more of its fights looked like that.

Yeah, in a comic, "making your save" usually means nothing interesting happened. It's kinda wasted pagespace. That's the reason that Durkon was seen partally transformed into stone, even if he made his save" : Just so that we would see what he was struck with, and that it would at least generate some drama.

But a pure round-by-round, missed-my-attacks-for-the-round, the-enemy-made-their-save-so-you-wasted-a-spell-slot D&D combat would be very boring in comic form.

[Liquor Box]

A bit of geekery, but in straight D&D stats the Order doesn't have the best of saves. A lot of people seem to think the order has insanely high stats, or magic items, or buffs to saves, but in generally the Order (and most people in the comic) aren't highly optimized. Based on the Geekery thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?623429-Class-and-Level-Geekery-XVIII-Everyone-s-an-Expert), I figured these numbers out:

V has +10 Will
Durkon has +9 Fort
Minrah has +9 Fort
Mr. Scruffy has +9 Will
Elan has +8 Will
Haley has a +7 Will
Belkar has +6 Will

(For more details my original post (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25139186&postcount=829))

The handbook Beholder has a DC of 17. While this means the Party (except Belkar) is at good odds to make saves, at the same time even the best one (V) has a 30% chance to fail.

So while unlucky, it doesn't seem too unlikely.

So, if you look at them each individually, there is a decent chance that the save will be failed. But the cumulative chance (based on your save estimates) that all seven will fail their saves is 0.11576% or about 1/1000. I don't think anyone would bat an eye if a few of them failed their saves, so long as some of them passed theirs.

[Kardwill]

So, if you look at them each individually, there is a decent chance that the save will be failed. But the cumulative chance (based on your save estimates) that all seven will fail their saves is 0.11576% or about 1/1000. I don't think anyone would bat an eye if a few of them failed their saves, so long as some of them passed theirs.

It's likely Durkon passed his own save. So that's 5 failed saves (including a wisdom save from an housecat. So let's say 4 failed saves), 1 successfull save, and one failed Strength check from Haley. That's a far better chance.

EDIT : Oops, looks like Durkon failed his save. Weird, since petrification was shown to be an immediate effect previously.

[Timy]

So, if you look at them each individually, there is a decent chance that the save will be failed. But the cumulative chance (based on your save estimates) that all seven will fail their saves is 0.11576% or about 1/1000. I don't think anyone would bat an eye if a few of them failed their saves, so long as some of them passed theirs.

You are with the idea that the numbers above are correct.

And keep in mind that a mere +1 to the DC goes a long way probability-wise ^^

With the numbers above, we have around 40% chance of miss for each indivual save (8- on the D20) and 0.4^7 = 0.16% around what you said

Let's imagine that the save DC is not 17 but 25 because why not (it could be base bonus because it is not a beholder and this creature has 20 base save DC and Serini being epique with a lot of magical item at her disposal could up again the DC and because Rich wanted it could have it :D).

We have now around 75% chance of miss for each indivual save (15- on the D20) and we have 0.75^7 = 13.3% so not so unlikely.

And if Rich really wanted he could imagine the not-beholder with a save DC of 35 and for a 19- we have 0.95^7 = 70% : pretty likely !

Well, here, the point is that we can forget the math because Rich said so and even with the math, there could be scenarii where Sunny would have for whatever reason very high DC and very good aim and it would be kind of normal for every one of them to fail the saves ^^

[hungrycrow]

You are with the idea that the numbers above are correct.

And keep in mind that a mere +1 to the DC goes a long way probability-wise ^^

With the numbers above, we have around 40% chance of miss for each indivual save (8- on the D20) and 0.4^7 = 0.16% around what you said

Let's imagine that the save DC is not 17 but 25 because why not (it could be base bonus because it is not a beholder and this creature has 20 base save DC and Serini being epique with a lot of magical item at her disposal could up again the DC and because Rich wanted it could have it :D).

We have now around 75% chance of miss for each indivual save (15- on the D20) and we have 0.75^7 = 13.3% so not so unlikely.

And if Rich really wanted he could imagine the not-beholder with a save DC of 35 and for a 19- we have 0.95^7 = 70% : pretty likely !

Well, here, the point is that we can forget the math because Rich said so and even with the math, there could be scenarii where Sunny would have for whatever reason very high DC and very good aim and it would be kind of normal for every one of them to fail the saves ^^

You also have to account for the eye rays having an attack roll before the saves. Even if Sunny has a particularly high attack bonus, they still fail on a nat 1, so you have to multiply by .95^7 again.

[Linworm]

It seems that our heroes, despite being high level PCs, can't seem to make a save to, well, save their lives.

If anything they need to be grateful that 1 hit kill attacks like horrid wilting or slay living were stopped in their tracks before being completed - because it seems like nobody almost ever manages to avoid the full effect of the attack.

Considering save-based attacks almost always hit fully, aren't they over powered? They were supposed to originally work only occasionally, and then have an extreme damage (for their spell level). Instead they hit all of the time, so instead of being a kind of a gamble where it's high risk (save made) - high reward (save failed) it's not a gamble at all, making them a much better choice then normal attacks.

This is especially true in the last comic - the multi-eyed monster can drop 7 (maybe even 8) hits in one round and all of them are successful - if they can do that why even bother with other tactics?

Because this is just how the Giant's writing is, for the good or bad.
If Durkon and V hadn't been immediately taken out of the fight they would've massively overshadowed "lesser" party members like Minrah or Elan or even Belkar's pets and possibly ended the encounter by themselves be destroying the Beholder right away with powerful spells and leaving Serini on her own.
Notice how V's "prismatic spray" attack seems to vary wildly in efficacy depending on the situation, with him insta-killing the giant demon on the island very conveniently when he had outlived his role in the story but doing squat nothing here against the beholder because it's still "too soon" to end the encounter.
Notice how the more powerful the casters get the sooner "something" always comes up to disable their power as the story progresses.

It kinda reminds me of how in Inuyasha the author introduced a "black hole hand" that could suck anything inside and thus kill any enemy instantly... and then the author would always bs some sort of "poison" "poison bees" etc etc. to conveniently disable it.

It's just the way it is, which is not to say you have to like it, I'm annoyed myself sometimes by this sort of contrivance, but that's just how it is.

[Quizatzhaderac]

No, my position is that it is absolutely unnecessary to set up a convoluted system where monsters are built in a way fundamentally different from PC race characters. The appeal of the PF method is that it removes the (frankly, more trouble than worth) LA mechanic without doing away with stuff like HD and standardized save progressions to give monsters a clump of hp and some set saves directly dependent on CR and some random variable.So would you say that the scaling issues Doug Lampert mentioned don't exist or are trivial?

Also, just to be clear, do you understand that my initial suggestion was to change the way that monster manual writers build monsters, not the way DMs build monsters?

[Metastachydium]

So would you say that the scaling issues Doug Lampert mentioned don't exist or are trivial?

How exactly hp and base save values being based on CR would solve the issue with save DCs? If the DCs for monster abilities are too high because of HD bloating, then all that needs to be changed is how these DCs are calculated. They could, for instance, be based on an "effect level" (analogous with spell level) and follow the same rules as spells or whatever.


Also, just to be clear, do you understand that my initial suggestion was to change the way that monster manual writers build monsters, not the way DMs build monsters?

?

[Fyraltari]

snip

This sounds like you are blaming The Giant for things that came from Dungeons & Dragons's poor game balance.

[Jasdoif]

No, my position is that it is absolutely unnecessary to set up a convoluted system where monsters are built in a way fundamentally different from PC race characters. The appeal of the PF method is that it removes the (frankly, more trouble than worth) LA mechanic without doing away with stuff like HD and standardized save progressions to give monsters a clump of hp and some set saves directly dependent on CR and some random variable.On one hand, I can see the reason for CR and ECL being different; CR measures on the encounter scale while ECL measures outside of it, so an ability that's highly useful outside of a single encounter (like a vampire's 14,400/day at-will dominate person) is going to be much more valuable to a player character that's involved in everything during than the day than one of their opponents that only exists in the theoretical sense outside of a single encounter....But on the other hand, simply having abilities with that kind of divergence feels like the actual problem. (Also the vampire entry is gross, like it's a naive port from an earlier edition with an entirely different design paradigm)

Probably my favorite LA-alternative is Arcana-Unearthed-style racial classes. Admittedly it's clearly aimed at making otherwise LA +1 races playable at first level by splitting the "super" abilities/adjustments across three optional levels (and also making the choice of profession vs heritage a conscious decision), but it should more broadly applicable without much trouble. And I doubt it's pure coincidence that the not-actually-related Unearthed Arcana's racial paragon and LA buyoff variants each involve (multiples of) three levels....

[Quizatzhaderac]

How exactly hp and base save values being based on CR would solve the issue with save DCs? If the DCs for monster abilities are too high because of HD bloating, then all that needs to be changed is how these DCs are calculated. They could, for instance, be based on an "effect level" (analogous with spell level) and follow the same rules as spells or whatever."all that needs to be changed is how these DCs are calculated" all I did was suggest a change in the way to calculate things.

And this "effect level" you speak of, is that proportional to CR or HD? If HD, I don't see how it can be used to escape problems from HD bloat. If CR that's really just calling six a half dozen.


?
Okay, so if you look at a monster manual entry you will see a lot of numbers. For purpose of analysis, we will divide these into independent and dependent numbers. For example HP is a dependent number derived from the independent numbers number_of_HD size_of_HD, and CON_score.

number_of_HD is by far the most important number and effects basically every number used in actual play.

But, a PC and a typical monster scale differently. Also we want certain asymmetries between players and most monsters. When we change the big variable (number_of_HD) we're also changing many other things we may not want to change to the same degree.

So my suggestion was to make CR the main independent variable used to determine the monsters other parameters. Other (possibly hidden) numbers would be used in those calculations to modify the monster away from average. This way the designer could just think "this monster is +5 AC above average for the CR".

Now you complained about this system being complex. But complex for who?

The context I suggested for all this is that this system would be used by someone writing the monster manual or supplementary bestiary. The person reading the monster entry would not be aware or it at all unless they apply deeply analyze the relationships between CR, HD, and various other monster parameters.

For the initial designer, yes it is. But this is a feasible one-time effort and (in my opinion) a reasonable effort in designing a good gamming system.

For people publishing books in the system, they would have to learn some additional rules, and they would probably be provided a spreadsheet. Again, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect authors to put in the time to learn the extra rules. I think it would actually be easier for additional monsters (once you know the system) as you wouldn't have to keep poking in different places to balance out the effects of your HD variable.

For someone using monsters as written, there would be no complexity, as they're still reading numbers off the page.

[Liquor Box]

You are with the idea that the numbers above are correct.

And keep in mind that a mere +1 to the DC goes a long way probability-wise ^^

With the numbers above, we have around 40% chance of miss for each indivual save (8- on the D20) and 0.4^7 = 0.16% around what you said

Let's imagine that the save DC is not 17 but 25 because why not (it could be base bonus because it is not a beholder and this creature has 20 base save DC and Serini being epique with a lot of magical item at her disposal could up again the DC and because Rich wanted it could have it :D).

We have now around 75% chance of miss for each indivual save (15- on the D20) and we have 0.75^7 = 13.3% so not so unlikely.

And if Rich really wanted he could imagine the not-beholder with a save DC of 35 and for a 19- we have 0.95^7 = 70% : pretty likely !

Well, here, the point is that we can forget the math because Rich said so and even with the math, there could be scenarii where Sunny would have for whatever reason very high DC and very good aim and it would be kind of normal for every one of them to fail the saves ^^

On the contrary, the save values for the order are conservative and would probably be higher rather than the DC. For example, for Durkon, his save assumes he is at least level 13 and at least 12 constitution and has no other boost to his saves. In all probability it is higher.

Of course, if the Giant want's to justify the all those saves being made for story purposes he could make a special rule that all beholders (or this beholder) has an especially high DC. But it's still interesting to talk about how it would work in the context of it happening in a game.

[Metastachydium]

On one hand, I can see the reason for CR and ECL being different; CR measures on the encounter scale while ECL measures outside of it, so an ability that's highly useful outside of a single encounter (like a vampire's 14,400/day at-will dominate person) is going to be much more valuable to a player character that's involved in everything during than the day than one of their opponents that only exists in the theoretical sense outside of a single encounter....But on the other hand, simply having abilities with that kind of divergence feels like the actual problem. (Also the vampire entry is gross, like it's a naive port from an earlier edition with an entirely different design paradigm)

Probably my favorite LA-alternative is Arcana-Unearthed-style racial classes. Admittedly it's clearly aimed at making otherwise LA +1 races playable at first level by splitting the "super" abilities/adjustments across three optional levels (and also making the choice of profession vs heritage a conscious decision), but it should more broadly applicable without much trouble. And I doubt it's pure coincidence that the not-actually-related Unearthed Arcana's racial paragon and LA buyoff variants each involve (multiples of) three levels....

I don't know. 3.5 is not famous for balancing stuff well. Some classes are ridiculously strong, others are garbage. Some races are damn good, others are a joke. Fixing that would necessitate rewriting the whole system, so why couldn't we just keep things simple and user friendly?



And this "effect level" you speak of, is that proportional to CR or HD? If HD, I don't see how it can be used to escape problems from HD bloat. If CR that's really just calling six a half dozen.

I said "analogous with spell level", so the answer is neither. The value would depend on how strong the ability is and the relevant modifier derived from the relevant stat (mostly CON or CHA), just like spell DCs are a function of how strong a spell is (spell level) and how high the caster's relevant ability modifier (INT, WIS or CHA) is.


Okay, so if you look at a monster manual entry you will see a lot of numbers. For purpose of analysis, we will divide these into independent and dependent numbers. For example HP is a dependent number derived from the independent numbers number_of_HD size_of_HD, and CON_score.

number_of_HD is by far the most important number and effects basically every number used in actual play.

But, a PC and a typical monster scale differently. Also we want certain asymmetries between players and most monsters. When we change the big variable (number_of_HD) we're also changing many other things we may not want to change to the same degree.

So my suggestion was to make CR the main independent variable used to determine the monsters other parameters. Other (possibly hidden) numbers would be used in those calculations to modify the monster away from average. This way the designer could just think "this monster is +5 AC above average for the CR".

Now you complained about this system being complex. But complex for who?

The context I suggested for all this is that this system would be used by someone writing the monster manual or supplementary bestiary. The person reading the monster entry would not be aware or it at all unless they apply deeply analyze the relationships between CR, HD, and various other monster parameters.

For the initial designer, yes it is. But this is a feasible one-time effort and (in my opinion) a reasonable effort in designing a good gamming system.

For people publishing books in the system, they would have to learn some additional rules, and they would probably be provided a spreadsheet. Again, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect authors to put in the time to learn the extra rules. I think it would actually be easier for additional monsters (once you know the system) as you wouldn't have to keep poking in different places to balance out the effects of your HD variable.

For someone using monsters as written, there would be no complexity, as they're still reading numbers off the page.

I might have misunderstood you, then. Do you mean that monsters would still have HD, saves based on type and number of HD &c. &c., but developers would calculate, say, the number of HD a monster has based on the desired CR? If so, I have nothing against that.

[Quartz]

Getting back to the OP, high level 3.5E characters tend to have save-boosting items. The Christmas Tree effect. The Order does not appear to.

[Linworm]

This sounds like you are blaming The Giant for things that came from Dungeons & Dragons's poor game balance.

/shrug
Whatever the faults of the D&D game balance might be they're no justification to handwave away faults in the writing, from any writer, ever.
It's up to these authors to hide their plot contrivances and narrative devices so the reader doesn't see the cogs moving behind the curtain, not for us to turn a blind eye because "it's someone else's to blame".
Not that blaming has anything to do with this, criticism is not blaming, and conflating the two isn't healthy.

[Fyraltari]

/shrug
Whatever the faults of the D&D game balance might be they're no justification to handwave away faults in the writing, from any writer, ever.
It's up to these authors to hide their plot contrivances and narrative devices so the reader doesn't see the cogs moving behind the curtain, not for us to turn a blind eye because "it's someone else's to blame".
Not that blaming has anything to do with this, criticism is not blaming, and conflating the two isn't healthy.

Okay what do you think The Giant should have done then? Have a party made up entirely of spellcasters? Never have Haley, Belkar, Roy and Elan meanigfully contribute to the fighting?

[Quizatzhaderac]

I might have misunderstood you, then. Do you mean that monsters would still have HD, saves based on type and number of HD &c. &c., but developers would calculate, say, the number of HD a monster has based on the desired CR? If so, I have nothing against that.We're essentially building the monster backwards (CR determines secondary stats (total save bonuses, HP, final AC), which determines primary stats (ability scores, HD, natural AC), so I wouldn't quite say anything is based on HD, but some things have a simple linear relationship, in which case the reader might see either based on the other.

As for types, I'm imaging each type has a half filled out spreadsheet. For example the giant type (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#giantType) would have par HP, BAB, fort, and dex saves; it would have an above par fort save.

As for keeping the linear relationship between HD and final stats, that's made more complicated by the fact that the relationship between HP and CR isn't linear (and probably shouldn't be), so we have to adjust the relationship between CR and one or more of #HD, size of HD, con score. This can be done a few ways.

The first way is to change the number of HD per CR. This would absolutely break the simple relationship between HD and a bunch of other stuff. I wouldn't favor this since some abilities use #HD directly in mechanics, so I'd like to keep HD within a certain range of CR.

The second way is to change the con scores. Since this affects fort saves, my instinct is to say this should be done sparingly.

The third way is to change the size of hit dice. Any big change will, of course, involve breaking out of the D4-D12 range players are in. (as an aside, I assume nobody is actually manually rolling 48 d10 to determine a tarrasque's HP? That they're either using the supplied value or some computer that could handle 25 D36 just as easily?)

My main inclination would be for the monsters' sheet to say HP and level separately with no indication about how they relate. Maybe something in advancement that says how many additional HP per CR.

[georgie_leech]

It's funny to see people discussing coming up with formulas for monster stats, when 4e did exactly that, (http://blogofholding.com/?p=512) and we all know how well that edition is loved here... :smallamused:

[Jasdoif]

I don't know. 3.5 is not famous for balancing stuff well. Some classes are ridiculously strong, others are garbage. Some races are damn good, others are a joke. Fixing that would necessitate rewriting the whole system, so why couldn't we just keep things simple and user friendly?Well, if the primary goal is keeping things simple and user friendly, I think it'd be to start with a system that is simple and user friendly. There are plenty of tabletop RPGs that are not D&D to choose from.


That aside....I don't think it'd have to quite be as drastic as a system rewrite to address that....Most any campaign setting (or campaign, for that matter) will involve some degree of going over the modular races/creatures/classes/feats/spells and Keeping what fits
Altering what doesn't quite fit
Dropping what conceptually doesn't fit
Dropping what mechanically would take too much effort to make fit
Adding what needs to fit. That doesn't sound too far from what you seem to be suggesting, and e.g. Arcana Unearthed doesn't use any of the "default" classes.

Many of the imbalances in 3.x are linked directly to abilities being undervalued, restrictions being overrated, and/or deliberate design decisions to manipulate "balance" for something else; all entirely possible while being simple and user friendly (and perhaps even facilitated by it).

[Metastachydium]

We're essentially building the monster backwards (CR determines secondary stats (total save bonuses, HP, final AC), which determines primary stats (ability scores, HD, natural AC), so I wouldn't quite say anything is based on HD, but some things have a simple linear relationship, in which case the reader might see either based on the other.

As for types, I'm imaging each type has a half filled out spreadsheet. For example the giant type (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#giantType) would have par HP, BAB, fort, and dex saves; it would have an above par fort save.

As for keeping the linear relationship between HD and final stats, that's made more complicated by the fact that the relationship between HP and CR isn't linear (and probably shouldn't be), so we have to adjust the relationship between CR and one or more of #HD, size of HD, con score. This can be done a few ways.

The first way is to change the number of HD per CR. This would absolutely break the simple relationship between HD and a bunch of other stuff. I wouldn't favor this since some abilities use #HD directly in mechanics, so I'd like to keep HD within a certain range of CR.

The second way is to change the con scores. Since this affects fort saves, my instinct is to say this should be done sparingly.

The third way is to change the size of hit dice. Any big change will, of course, involve breaking out of the D4-D12 range players are in. (as an aside, I assume nobody is actually manually rolling 48 d10 to determine a tarrasque's HP? That they're either using the supplied value or some computer that could handle 25 D36 just as easily?)

My main inclination would be for the monsters' sheet to say HP and level separately with no indication about how they relate. Maybe something in advancement that says how many additional HP per CR.

No misunderstanding, then. If you don't mind, I'll continue to dislike the notion that building monsters should follow rules fundamentally different from building PCs (I mean, if one likes that sort of thing, one can be my guest and go play 5e), and I'll continue to posit that the problem Doug brought up can be overcome through simpler means.


Well, if the primary goal is keeping things simple and user friendly, I think it'd be to start with a system that is simple and user friendly. There are plenty of tabletop RPGs that are not D&D to choose from.


That aside....I don't think it'd have to quite be as drastic as a system rewrite to address that....Most any campaign setting (or campaign, for that matter) will involve some degree of going over the modular races/creatures/classes/feats/spells and Keeping what fits
Altering what doesn't quite fit
Dropping what conceptually doesn't fit
Dropping what mechanically would take too much effort to make fit
Adding what needs to fit. That doesn't sound too far from what you seem to be suggesting, and e.g. Arcana Unearthed doesn't use any of the "default" classes.

Many of the imbalances in 3.x are linked directly to abilities being undervalued, restrictions being overrated, and/or deliberate design decisions to manipulate "balance" for something else; all entirely possible while being simple and user friendly (and perhaps even facilitated by it).

I'll defer to your greater wisdom regarding how un/official campaign settings work. That said, I still think "treat CR as ECL and call it a day" is simpler than using monster classes, both for developers and players.

[Doug Lampert]

No misunderstanding, then. If you don't mind, I'll continue to dislike the notion that building monsters should follow rules fundamentally different from building PCs (I mean, if one likes that sort of thing, one can be my guest and go play 5e), and I'll continue to posit that the problem Doug brought up can be overcome through simpler means.



I'll defer to your greater wisdom regarding how un/official campaign settings work. That said, I still think "treat CR as ECL and call it a day" is simpler than using monster classes, both for developers and players.

CR as ECL only works if magic items are a negligible part of character power (so not in D&D) or if the monster as a monster has Magic items appropriate to a PC of its level/CR (so not in D&D) or if you don't care at all about balance.

Take a monster equal to a level 10 character with NO GEAR, and add a bunch of +4 ability modifiers and a bunch of magic defenses and armor and weapons, and it looks a lot more dangerous than CR 10.

[Jasdoif]

CR as ECL only works if magic items are a negligible part of character power (so not in D&D) or if the monster as a monster has Magic items appropriate to a PC of its level/CR (so not in D&D) or if you don't care at all about balance.

Take a monster equal to a level 10 character with NO GEAR, and add a bunch of +4 ability modifiers and a bunch of magic defenses and armor and weapons, and it looks a lot more dangerous than CR 10.Interestingly, 4th Edition tried to address this....Creature formulae used total level (instead of half-level like PCs), and NPCs had an additional level-based bonus to abstract away the effects of gear the PCs were assumed to have (and a "magic threshold" if you wanted to explicitly equip an NPC in excess of that).


The other big thing you'd need for CR as ECL to start looking viable is to remove all attempts to use "not expected to be available in all encounters" as a cost reducing factor, so CR and ECL have a stable(r) relationship. Of course, it stops looking much like D&D if you don't have Vancian casting or if what your wizard can accomplish with spells is on par with what anyone without spells can accomplish (hey, there's 4th Edition again).

[Metastachydium]

CR as ECL only works if magic items are a negligible part of character power (so not in D&D) or if the monster as a monster has Magic items appropriate to a PC of its level/CR (so not in D&D) or if you don't care at all about balance.

Take a monster equal to a level 10 character with NO GEAR, and add a bunch of +4 ability modifiers and a bunch of magic defenses and armor and weapons, and it looks a lot more dangerous than CR 10.

CR as ECL for the purpose of facilitating the usage of monstrous races doesn't have that issue, though, since nothing prevents a monstrous Pc from acquiring PC-quality gear.



The other big thing you'd need for CR as ECL to start looking viable is to remove all attempts to use "not expected to be available in all encounters" as a cost reducing factor, so CR and ECL have a stable(r) relationship. Of course, it stops looking much like D&D if you don't have Vancian casting

Frankly, I'd absolutely prefer spontaneous casting were it not for the developers deliberately crippling it so that prepared can be so very much stronger. (And I'd readily trade prepared casting for the spell point system or something like the spirit shaman's spells retrieved.)


or if what your wizard can accomplish with spells is on par with what anyone without spells can accomplish (hey, there's 4th Edition again).

Yeah, a semblance of balance! What a horrible notion! (Not that I'm a big fan of how 4e basically uniformized everything, but still.)

[Jasdoif]

Frankly, I'd absolutely prefer spontaneous casting were it not for the developers deliberately crippling it so that prepared can be so very much stronger. (And I'd readily trade prepared casting for the spell point system or something like the spirit shaman's spells retrieved.)The spirit shaman thing is what Arcana Unearthed went with for all its spellcasters, along with a unified spell system. (I replaced and went through my Arcana Evolved books recently, is likely why I keep remembering examples for it; I don't think any of the version-like differences between Arcana Unearthed and Arcana Evolved have come up)


Yeah, a semblance of balance! What a horrible notion! (Not that I'm a big fan of how 4e basically uniformized everything, but still.)Questions of how exactly to fill out a Venn diagram between "balanced" and "uniformized" aside; I'm still convinced that the period where Pathfinder was outselling 4th is the main reason WotC moved to 5th so much more quickly than they did to 4th (or have yet to do for what I assume will be 6th)...and why 5th resembles 3.x much more than it does 4th.

[Doug Lampert]

CR as ECL for the purpose of facilitating the usage of monstrous races doesn't have that issue, though, since nothing prevents a monstrous Pc from acquiring PC-quality gear.

Um, that IS the issue. The monster as PC acquires PC quality gear and is VASTLY more dangerous than it should be because it has all the monster abilities for CR X + all the gear that a PC of level X is getting half or more of his power from.

[Angelalex242]

Gonna throw in a point where Durkon did not in fact make his save.

[Metastachydium]

The spirit shaman thing is what Arcana Unearthed went with for all its spellcasters, along with a unified spell system. (I replaced and went through my Arcana Evolved books recently, is likely why I keep remembering examples for it; I don't think any of the version-like differences between Arcana Unearthed and Arcana Evolved have come up)

Never read through those, but I like the way it sounds.


Questions of how exactly to fill out a Venn diagram between "balanced" and "uniformized" aside; I'm still convinced that the period where Pathfinder was outselling 4th is the main reason WotC moved to 5th so much more quickly than they did to 4th (or have yet to do for what I assume will be 6th)...and why 5th resembles 3.x much more than it does 4th.

And especially why it appears to borrow stuff straight from PF.


Um, that IS the issue. The monster as PC acquires PC quality gear and is VASTLY more dangerous than it should be because it has all the monster abilities for CR X + all the gear that a PC of level X is getting half or more of his power from.

So RHD and racial abilities are suddenly more valuable than class levels with class features? That's new to me.

[Doug Lampert]

So RHD and racial abilities are suddenly more valuable than class levels with class features? That's new to me.

Um, you are taking a monster, which is STATED to be CR X (in the rules), which is STATED to be equal to class level X (ditto), and then ADDING gear to it. Claiming it is still equal to level X is claiming that gear is WORTHLESS! X+Y = X ONLY if Y=0, and Y is here the entire value of all PC gear.

Or you can claim that the initial claim that CR X is comparable to class level X is wrong, which makes ALL NPCs unbalanced.

Additionally, you appear to have FAILED TO NOTICE, that CR=ECL means that a monster can have MORE racial HD than a comparable character would have levels, so a racial level need NOT be equal for the monster to be far too powerful.

[Metastachydium]

Um, you are taking a monster, which is STATED to be CR X (in the rules), which is STATED to be equal to class level X (ditto), and then ADDING gear to it. Claiming it is still equal to level X is claiming that gear is WORTHLESS! X+Y = X ONLY if Y=0, and Y is here the entire value of all PC gear.

Or you can claim that the initial claim that CR X is comparable to class level X is wrong, which makes ALL NPCs unbalanced.

Let's see what the developers think about this through an example, specifically that of the frost giant jarl! It gets 8 class levels and a +8 to its CR. How much is its gear from that? Well, not much: it gets a +2 weapon, a +2 armour, a +2 cloak of CHA and a minor ring of fire resistance. Which is to say, a negligible amount of gear for a 22 HD creature.


Additionally, you appear to have FAILED TO NOTICE, that CR=ECL means that a monster can have MORE racial HD than a comparable character would have levels, so a racial level need NOT be equal for the monster to be far too powerful.

Where the difference between the number of RHD and CR is so large as to be relevant, we're mostly talking about 30 HD creatures with an 1d8 slam attack or something of that sort, though. Or do you think those critters are immensely powerful?

[georgie_leech]

Let's see what the developers think about this through an example, specifically that of the frost giant jarl! It gets 8 class levels and a +8 to its CR. How much is its gear from that? Well, not much: it gets a +2 weapon, a +2 armour, a +2 cloak of CHA and a minor ring of fire resistance. Which is to say, a negligible amount of gear for a 22 HD creature.


It's also missing the point: A Frost Giant Jarl is CR 17. A level 17 PC has a lot more than just that gear. Specifically, around 300000gp worth of more gear. So you've already got significant differences between how one designs an NPC and one designs a PC.

[Metastachydium]

It's also missing the point:

Quite on the contrary,


A Frost Giant Jarl is CR 17. A level 17 PC has a lot more than just that gear. Specifically, around 300000gp worth of more gear. So you've already got significant differences between how one designs an NPC and one designs a PC.

because the 8 class levels bump its CR by 8. Doug argued that PC gear is accounted for in the 1 level = +1 CR equation, but the jarl gets basically none of the gear but the entire CR bump.

[georgie_leech]

Quite on the contrary,



because the 8 class levels bump its CR by 8. Doug argued that PC gear is accounted for in the 1 level = +1 CR equation, but the jarl gets basically none of the gear but the entire CR bump.

Which kind of works against your idea that CR=ECL is an effective way to decide how powerful a given NPC/Monster would be as a PC:


CR as ECL for the purpose of facilitating the usage of monstrous races doesn't have that issue, though, since nothing prevents a monstrous Pc from acquiring PC-quality gear.

Either a monster-as-PC lacks a lot of the various magical doodads the game expects you to pick up along the way (various forms of resistances, immunities, utility items, etc.), or they end up significantly more powerful than your estimate because you're adding significantly more wealth than what an NPC of equivalent CR would get. And that is going to be a problem with any amount of play; the loot you get from WBL is based on the average treasure you're getting over the levels. Under the assumption that CR = ECL, a Frost Giant shoud join up with a party of level 9 adventurers. That Frost Giant that (for some reason) builds towards being that Jarl specifically would gain roughly 300000 gp worth of loot and magical equipment as the rest of the party levels from 9 to 17; that same Jarl plucked from the Monster Manual or SRD to join a level 17 adventuring party has none of that. So CR clearly makes a poor guide as to what ECL a monster should be.

Not that the existing rules are much better. I certainly wouldn't peg a Frost Giant as ECL=18, but that's what you get if you combine 14 RHD with LA +4.

[Metastachydium]

Either a monster-as-PC lacks a lot of the various magical doodads the game expects you to pick up along the way (various forms of resistances, immunities, utility items, etc.), or they end up significantly more powerful than your estimate because you're adding significantly more wealth than what an NPC of equivalent CR would get. And that is going to be a problem with any amount of play; the loot you get from WBL is based on the average treasure you're getting over the levels. Under the assumption that CR = ECL, a Frost Giant shoud join up with a party of level 9 adventurers. That Frost Giant that (for some reason) builds towards being that Jarl specifically would gain roughly 300000 gp worth of loot and magical equipment as the rest of the party levels from 9 to 17; that same Jarl plucked from the Monster Manual or SRD to join a level 17 adventuring party has none of that. So CR clearly makes a poor guide as to what ECL a monster should be.

That's a non-issue as far as I'm concerned. First and foremost, I don't see why anyone would use the monster with class level combos if it is actively detrimental, since one can just add those levels oneself. Further, as far as I'm concerned a player of a given level (i.e. ECL) has a WBLevel appropriate for that level. That's what WBL is about.
Also & anyhow, a core-only nighter or ninja 20 has the same ECL and CR as a druid 20. If you want balance, you have come to the wrong place.


Not that the existing rules are much better. I certainly wouldn't peg a Frost Giant as ECL=18, but that's what you get if you combine 14 RHD with LA +4.

And let's not even get started on how they gave LA +18 to that one monster for a bunch of SLAs! (Parenthetical remark: for the record, PF doesn't claim its method is perfect. It basically says "use with caution" and "ideally, monstrous PCs should play in monstrous parties").

[enq]

Because the author doesn't care about what is optimal or statistical likely. He cares about what makes an interesting story.
And as someone familiar enough with D&D to laugh at the references and fun-poking but unfamiliar enough to have like, no idea what tactical options even exist, I'd say he hits that mark.

[Jasdoif]

That's a non-issue as far as I'm concerned. First and foremost, I don't see why anyone would use the monster with class level combos if it is actively detrimental, since one can just add those levels oneself. Further, as far as I'm concerned a player of a given level (i.e. ECL) has a WBLevel appropriate for that level. That's what WBL is about.Theoretically at least, a creature with a given CR should pose a challenge to a character with the same ECL. The character will of course have equipment appropriate to their level, so if the creature doesn't have equipment then its base abilities need to be adequate to pose a challenge...so then if that adequate-on-its-own creature gets equipment, it's going to be superior than it was.

This has much more to do with how much of a character's power is expected to come from gear, though....As well as the DMG trying to have it both ways, in this case; it says a monster PC is supposed have (PC) wealth-by-level for its ECL, while a monster NPC's equipment is supposed to meet NPC Gear Value (by level) for its actual class levels only.

[Metastachydium]

Theoretically at least, a creature with a given CR should pose a challenge to a character with the same ECL. The character will of course have equipment appropriate to their level, so if the creature doesn't have equipment then its base abilities need to be adequate to pose a challenge...so then if that adequate-on-its-own creature gets equipment, it's going to be superior than it was.

This has much more to do with how much of a character's power is expected to come from gear, though....As well as the DMG trying to have it both ways, in this case; it says a monster PC is supposed have (PC) wealth-by-level for its ECL, while a monster NPC's equipment is supposed to meet NPC Gear Value (by level) for its actual class levels only.

The reason why I brought up the jarl is that it doesn't get anything even remotely resembling PC quality gear, and yet evry one of its class levels boost the CR by a +1. This either means that CR does not account for gear or that a PC level is worth more than a +1 if gear is accounted for. In either case, the CR=ECL approach works just fine (i.e. it doesn't cause larger balance issues than what is already inherent to the system).

[Jasdoif]

The reason why I brought up the jarl is that it doesn't get anything even remotely resembling PC quality gear, and yet evry one of its class levels boost the CR by a +1. This either means that CR does not account for gear or that a PC level is worth more than a +1 if gear is accounted for. In either case, the CR=ECL approach works just fine (i.e. it doesn't cause larger balance issues than what is already inherent to the system).I think it's more likely that the specific case of the frost giant jarl doesn't meet the expectations placed upon it; it doesn't approach the gear a PC would have (as you mention), and the +2 frost greataxe alone is almost twice the expected NPC gear value for its eight class levels. That the jarl's supposedly ill-suited for a player character (as indicated by its level adjustment being "—"), despite the base frost giant being otherwise, doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in its use as an example for a situation involving ECL. Given that it appears in the original Monster Manual, I suspect the rules/guidelines for advancing a creature by class levels weren't solid when the jarl was written/ported.


And for the record, for what little these examples are worth:
One of the Eberron sourcebooks (Five Nations, I think) has entries that explicitly call out that the CR was increased to reflect higher-quality gear than normal.
The random dungeon section in Miniatures Handbook supports using "a creature’s CR as the rough equivalent of a PC’s level" if someone wants to play an unusual creature.

[TuringTest]

Theoretically at least, a creature with a given CR should pose a challenge to a character with the same ECL.

Forgive me as I've missed most of the conversation, and I'm in no way deeply knowledgeable of D&D rules, but...

Isn't a given CR considered a challenge to a party of four characters of the equivalent level? Or is that equivalence valid only for D&D 5E?

I'm trying to understand the conversation, since I don't know much about how CE and ECL are used.

[Jasdoif]

Theoretically at least, a creature with a given CR should pose a challenge to a character with the same ECL.Forgive me as I've missed most of the conversation, and I'm in no way deeply knowledgeable of D&D rules, but...

Isn't a given CR considered a challenge to a party of four characters of the equivalent level? Or is that equivalence valid only for D&D 5E?

I'm trying to understand the conversation, since I don't know much about how CE and ECL are used."Challenge" may have been a poor choice of wording on my part.


ECL is "effective character level", and the same number as level in typical cases. How well ECL actually handles the atypical cases is a point of much contention; but that's the number used in situations like these.


A single creature of a given CR is indeed supposed to be challenging to a party of four characters of the equivalent ECL; but that comes with the definition of "challenging" meaning the party is expected to win with competent play, but consume about one-fifth of their resources (hit points, spells, etc.) doing so.

By "a challenge" I meant that (without knowledge of starting conditions) both sides could reasonably expect to win, there's no foregone conclusion....Which is also about where four creatures of a given CR would rate against a party of four characters of the equivalent ECL.

[danielxcutter]

Judging by how hard some monsters got shafted by the ECL system, it does seem that the designers were at least trying to keep monstrous characters from being PCs. Look at the Blue.

[Metastachydium]

I think it's more likely that the specific case of the frost giant jarl doesn't meet the expectations placed upon it; it doesn't approach the gear a PC would have (as you mention), and the +2 frost greataxe alone is almost twice the expected NPC gear value for its eight class levels.

Heh. It's almost as if these people had no idea what they were doing.


That the jarl's supposedly ill-suited for a player character (as indicated by its level adjustment being "—"), despite the base frost giant being otherwise, doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in its use as an example for a situation involving ECL. Given that it appears in the original Monster Manual, I suspect the rules/guidelines for advancing a creature by class levels weren't solid when the jarl was written/ported.

What or what isn't playable according to the Wizards is not a very reliable metric, if you ask me.


And for the record, for what little these examples are worth:
One of the Eberron sourcebooks (Five Nations, I think) has entries that explicitly call out that the CR was increased to reflect higher-quality gear than normal.
The random dungeon section in Miniatures Handbook supports using "a creature’s CR as the rough equivalent of a PC’s level" if someone wants to play an unusual creature.

Man, 3.5 is a mess!


Forgive me as I've missed most of the conversation, and I'm in no way deeply knowledgeable of D&D rules, but...

Isn't a given CR considered a challenge to a party of four characters of the equivalent level? Or is that equivalence valid only for D&D 5E?

I'm trying to understand the conversation, since I don't know much about how CE and ECL are used.

Yes, that is correct. But each PC class level is worth a point of CR too (so, for instance, a 0 RHD creature with ten class levels is officially considered a challenge of a party of four 10th level PCs).


Judging by how hard some monsters got shafted by the ECL system, it does seem that the designers were at least trying to keep monstrous characters from being PCs. Look at the Blue.

Preach it! For it is true!

[Jasdoif]

Judging by how hard some monsters got shafted by the ECL system, it does seem that the designers were at least trying to keep monstrous characters from being PCs. Look at the Blue.What's interesting about the Blue is that the 3.0 Blue had three powers, most significantly charm person, at-will with a manifester level of 8th. I could see thinking that called for a level adjustment....

Hobgoblins (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/hobgoblin.htm), conversely, were victims of seriously overrating the impact of ability score increases.


Heh. It's almost as if these people had no idea what they were doing.You can see why I'm not particularly moved when bad individual examples are found :smalltongue:

[danielxcutter]

What's interesting about the Blue is that the 3.0 Blue had three powers, most significantly charm person, at-will with a manifester level of 8th. I could see thinking that called for a level adjustment....

Hobgoblins (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/hobgoblin.htm), conversely, were victims of seriously overrating the impact of ability score increases.

Standard goblins, orcs, and half-orcs have a total of -2 to stats while PC races tend to have a total of 0. Kobolds used to be even worse but got a LOT of goodies in later sourcebooks.

Oh, and the 3.5e Blue is basically just the normal goblin, except the bonus is into Int instead of Dex and they have a power point from the start... which means they still have a stat total of -2. And they have an LA adjustment of +1, while the :elan: has the same stat total and is arguably underrated at LA +0 due to how many things you get.

To be fair, I think the devs did misjudge more things than active malice(like overvaluing martials way too much), but I'd say for them, the imbalance is mostly a failure in terms of degree rather than direction(or well existence). The Astral Construct nerf is a fine example of why I'm entirely willing to suspect them of more than just incompetence.

[BloodSquirrel]

/shrug
Whatever the faults of the D&D game balance might be they're no justification to handwave away faults in the writing, from any writer, ever.
It's up to these authors to hide their plot contrivances and narrative devices so the reader doesn't see the cogs moving behind the curtain, not for us to turn a blind eye because "it's someone else's to blame".
Not that blaming has anything to do with this, criticism is not blaming, and conflating the two isn't healthy.

This presumes that the Order failing their saves is a fault in the writing, which it isn't. We got an interesting and challenging fight out of it. The only "problem" with it is that it may be statistically unlikely under D&D rules (which the comic is not 100% strict about- a one in a million chance is explicitly a sure thing in this comic) under a given set of assumptions.

[Hurkyl]

This presumes that the Order failing their saves is a fault in the writing, which it isn't. We got an interesting and challenging fight out of it. The only "problem" with it is that it may be statistically unlikely under D&D rules (which the comic is not 100% strict about- a one in a million chance is explicitly a sure thing in this comic) under a given set of assumptions.
The problem is that this sort of thing changes how the reader engages with the story. For example, the more blatant author fiat is, the harder it is to maintain one's suspension of disbelief.

[Liquor Box]

The problem is that this sort of thing changes how the reader engages with the story. For example, the more blatant author fiat is, the harder it is to maintain one's suspension of disbelief.

Yeah, the "it makes for a better story" answer doesn't do much for me either. You could apply that answer to any plot hole in any fiction that handwaving something made for a better story.

If the story required Serini to be a challenge for the party it could have been accomplished by other means. Perhaps Serini had other allies, perhaps a couple of members of the Order were trapped outside the cave when it was sealed or perhaps there's some indication that Sunny has higher than normal save DC for some reason.

[OvisCaedo]

Putting aside whatever the numbers 'should' be and only looking at it narratively, I feel like it kind of makes the party seem... a bit pathetic and frail. The entire party was just nearly wiped out instantly by a juvenile beholdermysterious many-eyed creature. Not quite, of course, and it gave Haley especially some neat action and a chance to shine after! But also makes me think the party was extremely lucky that Sunny and Serini ignored the rest of the party picking themselves back up for what seemed like several rounds, only focusing on Haley, when as far as I can tell Sunny could have easily just... zapped them all again WHILE aiming the antimagic at Haley. Or just, immediately upon Minrah waking up and starting to do things. Putting her and the lizard back out of commission could have only taken two beams. Three to include Elan if they didn't immediately notice Minrah waking up. (which maybe they just NEVER did somehow?)

But maybe mysterious eye monster beams have a recharge time in this universe? Serini was trying to tell Sunny to use another one on Haley, but maybe that wasn't an option for a couple rounds prior.

as an aside, I decided to look up how beholders (the completely different creature) worked in 3.5, and their mechanics about firing arcs on eyes do a lot to explain why Sunny flipped upside down like that for it, and make it seem like a really clever tactic. Which... also feels slightly at odds with then proceeding to take a significant dip in apparent competency by either failing to notice the party pulling itself back together or just not bothering to respond.

I dunno. I don't think it's awful writing or anything, but it's definitely got some aspects that gave me pause. Ultimately, though, those issues won't really matter to the story.

[BloodSquirrel]

The problem is that this sort of thing changes how the reader engages with the story. For example, the more blatant author fiat is, the harder it is to maintain one's suspension of disbelief.

It isn't author fiat if it's been consistently portrayed that way as a fundamental aspect of the universe since the beginning. It's also not like it's being used as a lazy way to have the Order lose or win a fight that they shouldn't- the Order was put in a sticky situation, and they found a clever way out of it. We could have had the same outcome to the fight if half of the Order had made their saves and the half that didn't just turned out to be completely useless for the rest of the fight, but instead we got to see them working around the problem, using teamwork, and taking advantage of a noticeable weakness in their enemy (ie, Elan getting Sunny to blink by talking about getting sand in his eye).

D&D combat rules are not optimized for storytelling. Rich's tweaks and interpretations are well-thought out changes that make combat more interesting to read, make dramatic moments more possible, and get around the kind of abstractions that are necessary in table top combat but make no sense when translated to a visual medium.

Or, to be cheekier about it, you're basically complaining about him not killing Xykon using The Peasant Railgun.

[Seward]

The only "problem" with it is that it may be statistically unlikely under D&D rules (which the comic is not 100% strict about- a one in a million chance is explicitly a sure thing in this comic) under a given set of assumptions.

Given that the actual world of OOTS is a compromise created by literal Gods after a zillion failures as an Action-Comedy Parody of a Role Playing Game, it won't strictly conform to the rules of drama or the rules of 3.5.

This is why Tarquin and Elan can sometimes punch way above their weight in a strategic fashion. And sometimes are buffoons.

Near as I can tell, it is a world that mostly conforms to D&D rules (including occasional edition changes) without being an actual campaign (with GM, players etc, so no PC-as-puppet-intruding-on-world they way you get in Drew Hayes Spell Swords and Stealth series, or authors like in Redshirts). But it also conforms to Rules of Drama, which include the concept of Protagonist (and PC vs NPC more as in "Protagonist Character" vs "Non Protagonist Character than "Player Character") and the kind of complaints V often makes about probability.

Mostly this plays out with D&D at tactical level and Rule of Drama at strategic level but sometimes you get an overlap and saving throws are absolutely a place where Rule of Drama often overrules dice-based game mechanics in this series. (See Haley familing saves vs Maximized Fireballs, which have quite low reflex saves for their level vs Sorceress Bandit, Young Adult dragon being affected, much less defeated, by disintegrate, which has to penetrate both spell resistance and saving throws, prismatic spray turning a huge demon to stone, which...of course...shouldn't have been there at all without Rule of Drama anyway, everybody failing saves vs CR15ish dominate effects in vampire fight, a bunch of things in this beholder fight, etc etc etc.)

Where saves mostly work as intended? Redcloak. He gets the kind of results you'd expect and is tactically savvy enough to just cast a spell again when opposition gets lucky.

[hungrycrow]

Where saves mostly work as intended? Redcloak. He gets the kind of results you'd expect and is tactically savvy enough to just cast a spell again when opposition gets lucky.

Huh. You know if he wasn't so tactically savvy, the rule of drama would probably make all of his spells work the first time.

[KorvinStarmast]

Huh. You know if he wasn't so tactically savvy, the rule of drama would probably make all of his spells work the first time.
Somewhere, a copper piece harlot just leveled up to silver piece harlot ... DING! :smallbiggrin:

[Fergie0044]

Putting aside whatever the numbers 'should' be and only looking at it narratively, I feel like it kind of makes the party seem... a bit pathetic and frail. The entire party was just nearly wiped out instantly by a juvenile beholdermysterious many-eyed creature. Not quite, of course, and it gave Haley especially some neat action and a chance to shine after! But also makes me think the party was extremely lucky that Sunny and Serini ignored the rest of the party picking themselves back up for what seemed like several rounds, only focusing on Haley, when as far as I can tell Sunny could have easily just... zapped them all again WHILE aiming the antimagic at Haley. Or just, immediately upon Minrah waking up and starting to do things. Putting her and the lizard back out of commission could have only taken two beams. Three to include Elan if they didn't immediately notice Minrah waking up. (which maybe they just NEVER did somehow?)

But maybe mysterious eye monster beams have a recharge time in this universe? Serini was trying to tell Sunny to use another one on Haley, but maybe that wasn't an option for a couple rounds prior.

as an aside, I decided to look up how beholders (the completely different creature) worked in 3.5, and their mechanics about firing arcs on eyes do a lot to explain why Sunny flipped upside down like that for it, and make it seem like a really clever tactic. Which... also feels slightly at odds with then proceeding to take a significant dip in apparent competency by either failing to notice the party pulling itself back together or just not bothering to respond.

I dunno. I don't think it's awful writing or anything, but it's definitely got some aspects that gave me pause. Ultimately, though, those issues won't really matter to the story.

You've answered your own question here, Sunny is a juvenile. His/her only competent actions so far have been at the express instruction of Serini. And when she was in danger, they immediately ignored the wider battle (like the dangerous wizard getting back up) to focus on Serini's welfare, albeit not in the most productive fashion. From what we've seen so far Sunny is a dangerous opponent, but only when Serini is giving the orders. Haley seems to have recognised this and took actions to separate the two.

[danielxcutter]

I suspect Serini only brought Sunny because a) Sunny’s AMF cone makes cheesing adventurer types hilariously easy and b) she underestimated the Order immensely.

[GeoffWatson]

Remember https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0456.html ?

Sometimes save-based spells are underpowered.
Whatever is funnier I guess.