Talk:Epic Path: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
i'd set hit dice to be the same as the base CR, so they match every other field. hit dice are used for a few things, but nothing major that I recall. If you'd rather set them to the adjusted CR, that would maybe scale a bit better, but don't kill yourself shooting for it | i'd set hit dice to be the same as the base CR, so they match every other field. hit dice are used for a few things, but nothing major that I recall. If you'd rather set them to the adjusted CR, that would maybe scale a bit better, but don't kill yourself shooting for it | ||
I'm happy to just use base CR. It's easier (look! it's done already!), and it makes patterns slightly weaker, which makes me happy, since they're all OP. | |||
* if all the variables in a pattern are +1 or greater, why is the pattern of the adjusted CR listed? Why can't we just lower the adjusted CR and all the variables by 1 until at least something is a 0? | * if all the variables in a pattern are +1 or greater, why is the pattern of the adjusted CR listed? Why can't we just lower the adjusted CR and all the variables by 1 until at least something is a 0? | ||
| Line 10: | Line 11: | ||
historically, in 3.0, 3.5, pathfinder, etc, 'monster templates' were the only way to increase the level of existing monsters. we have the MMM, so, yes, we could if we wanted flatten out the patterns a bit. even more importantly, this is the basis of the notion of adjustable patterns i mentioned a few days ago, namely, adding a range of numbers to allow even larger pattern CR adjustments by picking from a slider, which adds to every field to adjust patterns from 1-5, or 2-7, or 3-9, or something. historically, the larger CR adjustment patterns were better and tougher, as well. do we strictly need to do either? no. but it'd be awfully cool :) | historically, in 3.0, 3.5, pathfinder, etc, 'monster templates' were the only way to increase the level of existing monsters. we have the MMM, so, yes, we could if we wanted flatten out the patterns a bit. even more importantly, this is the basis of the notion of adjustable patterns i mentioned a few days ago, namely, adding a range of numbers to allow even larger pattern CR adjustments by picking from a slider, which adds to every field to adjust patterns from 1-5, or 2-7, or 3-9, or something. historically, the larger CR adjustment patterns were better and tougher, as well. do we strictly need to do either? no. but it'd be awfully cool :) | ||
adjustable patterns are NEVER going to happen. NEVER. Once this pattern pass is done, I'm never touching it again. I hate them. I will always hate them. And I think you're missing my point, but I doubt I can convey it properly here on this talk page. | |||
* negative numbers in patterns are fine as long as it doesn't force the total adjusted value below CR 1. The same problem arises if bonuses push the adjusted value of the CR above 44. I can add checks for this into all the formulas, but it will likely triple the complexity of the monster template to do so (which is why I'm not). Or, we could just rely on GMs to not actively try to break the game. | * negative numbers in patterns are fine as long as it doesn't force the total adjusted value below CR 1. The same problem arises if bonuses push the adjusted value of the CR above 44. I can add checks for this into all the formulas, but it will likely triple the complexity of the monster template to do so (which is why I'm not). Or, we could just rely on GMs to not actively try to break the game. | ||