De canistro textrinum

[Fuchs]

Again, Kaelik, stop your strawmanning hyperbole. We are not talking about making ALL high level enemies low level, we are talking about making a few high level enemies lower level. That's quite a difference.

Hey Fuchs, suck a dick. That is explicitly K's original position. His position was that you should jsut make Gods CR 7 so that your PCs can beat them. Reducing that means you have to reduce Greater Barghests, because it would destroy the setting to have Greater Barghests going around killing gods.

Kaelik, you need to stop worrying about a hypothetical setting that the GM who is running a low-level adventure one-shot or limited campaign is not using anyway. If gods are cr7, why do you think there would be godkilling greater barghests in the adventure at all? Please try to understand that we're not talking about one setting for everyone, we're talking about different adventures or campaigns using different settings. If I am running a one-shot low level adventure where the party faces a god at level 5 as the final boss, it does not change or affect the forgotten realms mid-level adventure or campaign I will be running after that.

I honestly don't get why you are unable to understand that no one but you cares about a hypothetical setting that's not getting used.

If you sit down to play D&D, do you assume everyone agreed to the house rule "and the GM shall never let us encounter monsters that are at less than full health"? I certainly do not think so.

Hey Fuchs, you are an idiot. Acting within the rules by having them be damaged does not mean that stronger versions can't exist.

Having arbitrary CR 7 Gods who are not weakened within the rules does.

I don't get why you assume that having low level versions of higher level enemies would mean higher level enemies cannot exist. Did you forget that there are rules to advance monsters? You can totally have advanced vrocks, right? So, why would you think that having vrocks of a certain level would mean there can't be stronger vrocks? I mean you really sound totally crazy when you claim "If you have CR3 vrocks in game stronger vrocks CANNOT EXIST! But if you have cr9 vrocks, stronger vrocks CAN TOTALLY EXIST CAUSE THE RULES!"

[Kaelik]

Fuchs, are you trying your absolutely hardest to be as stupid as possible?

I have explained this shit like seven times, and each time you ignore everything I have said and then express confusion about stuff I have already explained. If you aren't going to even try to learn what I would say to X where I literally just told you what I would say to X, why should I even bother talking with you?

[Fuchs]

Kaelik, you have never explained why you are fine with CR9 Vrocks and CR18 vrocks in the same setting, but think having CR3 vrocks means you cannot have CR9 vrocks in the same setting anymore.

Can you explain that?

Edit: Rules to make lower cr vrocks through energy drain exist, so that sholdn't be a problem.

[Korwin]

Again, Kaelik, stop your strawmanning hyperbole. We are not talking about making ALL high level enemies low level, we are talking about making a few high level enemies lower level. That's quite a difference.

Yes, thats an difference. And as I recall it, the orginal position from K was, reskin ALL encounters (ALL monsters the player will met) into lower CR monsters (so the basketweaver can handle them).

Reskin, not creating a new monster using the old monster as basis.
Reskin, like in: Thats an the Vrock (not an Baby-Vrock).

K's later post read more sensible. (Templating an Vrock so he gets weaker, and its clear (after the fight) there are normal (unnerved) Vrocks out there.


Edit:

Kaelik, you have never explained why you are fine with CR9 Vrocks and CR18 vrocks in the same setting, but think having CR3 vrocks means you cannot have CR9 vrocks in the same setting anymore.

At least in my game the CR18 Vrocks would'nt be called Vrock, they would be the "Elite Guard of the Vrock King" or something, they would look different. The players AND the Characters would know there is something up with them.

[K]

Again, Kaelik, stop your strawmanning hyperbole. We are not talking about making ALL high level enemies low level, we are talking about making a few high level enemies lower level. That's quite a difference.

Hey Fuchs, suck a dick. That is explicitly K's original position. His position was that you should jsut make Gods CR 7 so that your PCs can beat them. Reducing that means you have to reduce Greater Barghests, because it would destroy the setting to have Greater Barghests going around killing gods.

No, that's what you think my position is because you made a pile of assumptions and then got mad at your assumptions. The fact that I'd denied all of your assumptions in previous posts has not dispelled them.

For example, if you are doing a Time of Troubles scenario from Forgotten Realms where the gods have been exiled to earth and are temporarily killable, you can still have Greater Barghests and even have a Barghest kill a god. You can end the adventure and return the gods to full power and the PCs can totally brag that they killed Myrkul or Bhaal or something, and it means something in the setting because Bhaal really is gone in the setting.

That's an actual adventure from the canon of DnD. They even made it into a three-part novel series, so it's not like its an example that I pulled out of my ass.

You seem to think that I wanted to rewrite the entire MM just to have one god-killing adventure. I don't know why you would think that when it's so completely unnecessary.

I also don't see why CR 3 Vrocks offend you in a world where CR 9 and CR 22 Vrocks are completely standard and there are actual rules stating that encounters/monsters can be lowered in CR in a number of ways. Until you answer that in any sensible way, I'm just going to assume that you don't actually have an argument.

[hogarth]

I was sympathetic to Kaelik until I realised that having a baby owlbear in a game would apparently make him ragequit. Shame on me...

Hey, remember how modifying words change the word in front, and that Summoned Balors are not the same as Balors? Apply that to Baby Owlbears.

So....everyone is in agreement? It's fine if Demogorgon is occasionally Baby Demogorgon as long as the GM makes that clear with some back story of some kind?

[Fuchs]

Edit:

Kaelik, you have never explained why you are fine with CR9 Vrocks and CR18 vrocks in the same setting, but think having CR3 vrocks means you cannot have CR9 vrocks in the same setting anymore.

At least in my game the CR18 Vrocks would'nt be called Vrock, they would be the "Elite Guard of the Vrock King" or something, they would look different. The players AND the Characters would know there is something up with them.

And if the characters never encountered vrocks before, and fail their knowledge rolls?

[Korwin]

Edit:

Kaelik, you have never explained why you are fine with CR9 Vrocks and CR18 vrocks in the same setting, but think having CR3 vrocks means you cannot have CR9 vrocks in the same setting anymore.

At least in my game the CR18 Vrocks would'nt be called Vrock, they would be the "Elite Guard of the Vrock King" or something, they would look different. The players AND the Characters would know there is something up with them.

And if the characters never encountered vrocks before, and fail their knowledge rolls?

They win or they lose? I dont understand the question.
From an storybuilding angle, why would I use Elite-Vrocks when in the whole campaign wasnt an single Vrock?

[Fuchs]

No, I mean why would the characters know those are not normal vrocks, never having encountered normal vrocks before?

[K]

Vrocks are a pretty poor example though, because there's nothing about the description that makes them sound particularly dangerous from an in-game point of view. I prefer my example of a 50 foot dragon because that sounds dangerous even to an ignorant peasant. So if your campaign has 1st level characters fighting a dozen 50 foot dragons, that sounds like a weird place to start.

I'll admit that you can't de-power a 50' dragon and still have it be a CR 1 monster, but there are still ways to make it a CR 1 fight. Maybe you do a fortress battle where the players shoot ballista from covered positions. Maybe they are the crew of a battle skyship. Maybe they are in battlemech Iron Golems. Basically, any set of circumstances where 1st level guys actually have a shot.

That being said, dismissing those as "a Wizard did it" is the same as dismissing everything in an adventure that gives verisimilitude and variety to encounters.

I mean, should every monster you face be at full health and power and show none of the effects of the story? They should never catch the plague in your plague adventure and never show the wounds of a previous battle?

Should every monster not be faced in a situation where it's not at its best? If so, you just wrote dragons in caves out of the canon of the game.

I don't know what to tell you. The game gets super boring if the adventure and actions taken in it has no effect on the challenges you face.

[Korwin]

No, I mean why would the characters know those are not normal vrocks, never having encountered normal vrocks before?

Since in this hypothetical situation, I would be the MC, I would make shure they have fought an normal vrock before?
Happy?

[Fuchs]

No, I mean why would the characters know those are not normal vrocks, never having encountered normal vrocks before?

Since in this hypothetical situation, I would be the MC, I would make shure they have fought an normal vrock before?
Happy?

Sure. But then, what about a monster you'd like to use and have never used it before, and your party is at a level where you'd have to beef up the monster a lot to make it a challenge? Introduce it as cannon fodder first?

[Korwin]

Sure. But then, what about a monster you'd like to use and have never used it before, and your party is at a level where you'd have to beef up the monster a lot to make it a challenge? Introduce it as cannon fodder first?

What if, what if.
How long do you want to ask what if questions?

Why do I want to use an monster suddenly I never used before?

But lets say I do want to use it for some reason.
Yes, both options are viable for me.
Depending on how much weaker it is, its also possible to:
Use it on an single Char.
Use it with other Monsters*.
Use not one but many*.

*OK thats the cannon fodder use.

But just to be clear, this is an tangent.
Has nothing really to do with reskinning.

The first version, which K toned down since.

Reskin, not creating a new monster using the old monster as basis.
Reskin, like in: Thats an the Vrock (not an Baby-Vrock).

I dont have anything against the other Version.

[...You Lost Me]

I don't even know what this topic is about. Korwin is the only one who makes sense right now.

[Mistborn]

I don't even know what this topic is about. Korwin is the only one who makes sense right now.

Nocker wants campaigns to be MTP heavy games that subvert peoples expectations of D&D and warm motherlike DM will coddle players by fudging dice.

K wants Cr 7 Demogorgon with his CR 3 Vrock minions, he has yet to adequately explain why.

LM wants everyone to them to stop being frozen fast.

[K]

The first version, which K toned down since.

Reskin, not creating a new monster using the old monster as basis.
Reskin, like in: Thats an the Vrock (not an Baby-Vrock).

I dont have anything against the other Version.

I haven't toned down anything. If you want a CR 3 Vrock, then make it.

The big debate here had been that for some reason people think that this means that you can't make a CR 9 Vrock or a CR 22 Vrock for your campaign/setting. The seems bizarre to me because since 3e the game has been designed for monsters to float up and down in the CR scale and to gain and lose powers.

The fact that people have grabbed onto the "well, it's OK if you have a story reason" or "it's ok if you tell the PCs you are doing that" seems equally weird. Giving people the metagame knowledge that the world has bigger vrocks doesn't seem to have a purpose other than to give out metagame knowledge.

The only issue seems to be "does the DM have a requirement to give metagame knowledge."

To that, I can only say "no." It doesn't serve any purpose to do so other than to allow PCs to game the combat minigame.

Believe it or not, I'd actually accept that "PCs should get metagame knowledge so they can game the combat minigame and the setting" as an understandable position that I don't agree with.

[John Magnum]

I'll admit that you can't de-power a 50' dragon and still have it be a CR 1 monster, but there are still ways to make it a CR 1 fight. Maybe you do a fortress battle where the players shoot ballista from covered positions. Maybe they are the crew of a battle skyship. Maybe they are in battlemech Iron Golems. Basically, any set of circumstances where 1st level guys actually have a shot.

That's not a CR 1 fight, that's increasing the effective party level. Those are different paradigms.

[K]

I'll admit that you can't de-power a 50' dragon and still have it be a CR 1 monster, but there are still ways to make it a CR 1 fight. Maybe you do a fortress battle where the players shoot ballista from covered positions. Maybe they are the crew of a battle skyship. Maybe they are in battlemech Iron Golems. Basically, any set of circumstances where 1st level guys actually have a shot.

That's not a CR 1 fight, that's increasing the effective party level. Those are different paradigms.

Not really.

Technically, they are actually Encounter Level 1 fights (EL 1). The EL of the fight has always been a separate number from the CR of the monsters, including factors like circumstances and terrain and other things that make the base CR of the monster into a harder or easier fight. For example, fighting a flying monster in a tiny room decreases the EL of the fight and not the CR of the monster, but it doesn't matter because treasure and XP are based on the EL.

"Effective level" is for when PCs gain monster levels. Otherwise, you cannot gain effective level (not to be confused with effective caster level). This means that if you kill a CR 14 dragon with a ballista shot at 1st level, you get EL 1 XP for a 1st level character and only need 1,000 XP to get to 2nd level instead of 14,000 XP to get to 15th effective level because you fought an EL 14 encounter with an EL 14 character.

[Mistborn]

The thing is that K has engaged in a bit of goalpost shifting here.

If you want to use CR 3 Orcs reskinned as Vrocks in order to not slaughter a party of basketweavers that's bad and you should feel bad.

If you want to use CR 3 Vrocks that are crippled for some in story reason. That's borderline and how much satisfaction is the party going to get from fighting gimped Vrocks anyway.

Initially K was arguing for the first but it seems like he has stealthily switched to to arguing for the second after Frank told him why that was bullshit.

As for CR 18 Vrocks with class levels, what of it? Monsters with class level is a thing that happens it's totally justified in-universe.

[Foxwarrior]

Oh, so K 4 posts up, all those example ways that someone could justify a CR 3 Vrock or Demogorgon weren't actually relevant to your position?

Then I really don't see the benefit of encouraging people to do that stuff at all, unless your objective was to create the most complicated player/character knowledge boundaries you could.

Wouldn't things be easier to manage if you called your lesser Vrocks "Krovs" or something? That way players would know that they don't know, so they could direct their minds towards finding out, rather than towards pretending that they don't know.

[Kaelik]

Kaelik, you have never explained why you are fine with CR9 Vrocks and CR18 vrocks in the same setting, but think having CR3 vrocks means you cannot have CR9 vrocks in the same setting anymore.

YES I FUCKING DID!

Yes, if you want to modify monsters substantially in a way that makes all high level enemies low level, then you need to get consent first. If you want to add HD or class levels or templates, you don't, because those are something they already agreed.

...

I know there are ways to modify monsters within the rules. Those ways don't destroy the setting, because the existence of summoned Balors doesn't mean that real Balors can exist, in fact, it means they must. But "Vrocks" without any of their abilities actually means that their can't be Vrocks who naturally have that ability.

Just like if there existed humans without arms (aside from by amputation) in any sort of reasonable numbers, it would mean there wouldn't be humans with arms, because you have to have an actual reason for the difference.

Are we done now? Or are you going to be come confused, and question what possible reason I could think that special CR 3 Vrocks without any abilities being natural Vrocks changes what is natural about Vrocks, where having Vrock Fighters does not change what natural Vrocks are like.

[K]

Oh, so K 4 posts up, all those example ways that someone could justify a CR 3 Vrock or Demogorgon weren't actually relevant to your position?

Then I really don't see the benefit of encouraging people to do that stuff at all, unless your objective was to create the most complicated player/character knowledge boundaries you could.

Wouldn't things be easier to manage if you called your lesser Vrocks "Krovs" or something? That way players would know that they don't know, so they could direct their minds towards finding out, rather than towards pretending that they don't know.

Story reasons for a Demogorgon are a lot more important than a Vrock because Demogorgon is going to be the heart of the adventure. There can just be story reasons for Vrocks to be weaker and I don't think it really matters if the PCs never find out why, though it seems like it would piss off people a lot less if they knew.

But no, life would not be easier with an incredibly complicated system where the various versions of monsters each had their own name so that PCs could use metagame knowledge.

I mean, just choosing feats means that you can make trolls that cast Charm Monster or can turn into a werewolf form for the battle. Do you really need a separate name for each variation on an ability as long as the players know that all trolls Regen and fear fire?

[K]

Kaelik, you have never explained why you are fine with CR9 Vrocks and CR18 vrocks in the same setting, but think having CR3 vrocks means you cannot have CR9 vrocks in the same setting anymore.

YES I FUCKING DID!

Yes, if you want to modify monsters substantially in a way that makes all high level enemies low level, then you need to get consent first. If you want to add HD or class levels or templates, you don't, because those are something they already agreed.

...

I know there are ways to modify monsters within the rules. Those ways don't destroy the setting, because the existence of summoned Balors doesn't mean that real Balors can exist, in fact, it means they must. But "Vrocks" without any of their abilities actually means that their can't be Vrocks who naturally have that ability.

Just like if there existed humans without arms (aside from by amputation) in any sort of reasonable numbers, it would mean there wouldn't be humans with arms, because you have to have an actual reason for the difference.

Are we done now? Or are you going to be come confused, and question what possible reason I could think that special CR 3 Vrocks without any abilities being natural Vrocks changes what is natural about Vrocks, where having Vrock Fighters does not change what natural Vrocks are like.

That is a nonsense answer, and that's why people don't think that you've answered the question.

It seems like you are saying that there is no possible way that a CR 3 Vrock can have the same abilities because you lowered the stats, even if you left all of the abilities.

It also sounds like you are saying that removing even one ability for any reason means that it's not a Vrock any more and that's somehow bad because players not knowing all the abilities is bad. That seems strange since there are common reasons for abilities to be removed (both from feats taken and for story reasons like teleport blocks) or just not used.

[Mistborn]

Are we done now? Or are you going to be come confused, and question what possible reason I could think that special CR 3 Vrocks without any abilities being natural Vrocks changes what is natural about Vrocks, where having Vrock Fighters does not change what natural Vrocks are like.

It can't be helped sempai, the basketweavers in this thread are frozen fast and that's the long and short of it.


Fuchs and nocker can't stand the idea of people playing RPGs and adhering to a set of rules. I think it's because my theory of people having a resistance to admitting they are playing on easy mode. In fact this resistance is so great in the case of Fuchs and nocker they must deny that some play styles exist/accuse people like myself of having badwrongfun, lest they admit they've been playing on easy modo all along.

Is this a fair summation sempai?

[Foxwarrior]

K 3 posts up:

Well, that troll is a charmer troll, and the other one is a trollwolf. Not that the DM always has to say their names or even be the one to invent them: it's not like you can see a creature's type name on its HP bar or anything.

The point of using a different name is not so that the PCs can use metagame knowledge, but so that they know they don't have any. Kaelik might be really good at it, but I (and given how skeptical Fuchs was, probably Fuchs too) must expend some cognitive resources to throw away ideas that rely on metagame knowledge: resources that could otherwise be put towards coming up with cool ideas that would make the game more memorable.