|
7 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 10:36AM
#441
|
Date Joined:
May 25, 2012
|
Well and the practise is we do that because we know that an ogre is suitable for a certain level range. But if I want to create something totally new, or they do even, they'll need to use the shorthand to express what the new monster is intended to do. Otherwise you end up saying "well it's like a giant in power but a bit more thus-and-such."
It's cumbersome.
Yes, I can imagine that designing new algebraic expressions and word problems for your players to fight can be quite cumbersome. I remember this one time when my cleric had to stop a train leaving St. Louis while traveling 60mph, and our party's wizard had to stop another train leaving Toronto going 45 mph... before the two could meet somewhere in the middle.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 10:40AM
#442
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
aww and here I thought we were having a decent conversation. Oh well, the evidence in the packet says a resounding "yes" to using the term "level" when referring to monsters. Does that mean the monsters are built by level? Maybe not but if they're associating the monsters with encounter difficulty and the word "level" is a common marker for both characters and encounters, that means we can safely say that monsters will be associated with levels. The evidence is in the beastiary, at the end of every single monster description where they have the recommended level for that monster. And in the DM guidelines on page 12 where they tell you that to make an easy encounter you "Use monsters whose average level is equal to or lower than the characters’ average level." If they're not talking about monster levels, what exactly are they referring to? It's all there, black and white, clear as crystal: level is going to be the common short hand term for both character power and encounter difficulty, and monsters will fit into that level by having a recommended level assigned in the stat block. Of course, that could change but until it does I'm afraid all this conjecture about bounded accuracy somehow hand waving levels away is mostly hot air. I'll agree that the approach is different, but the levels are here to stay until a packet comes out to show us otherwise.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 10:44AM
#443
|
|
|
aww and here I thought we were having a decent conversation.
Oh well, the evidence in the packet says a resounding "yes" to using the term "level" when referring to monsters. Does that mean the monsters are built by level? Maybe not but if they're associating the monsters with encounter difficulty and the word "level" is a common marker for both characters and encounters, that means we can safely say that monsters will be associated with levels.
The evidence is in the beastiary, at the end of every single monster description where they have the recommended level for that monster. And in the DM guidelines on page 12 where they tell you that to make an easy encounter you "Use monsters whose average level is equal to or lower than the characters’ average level."
If they're not talking about monster levels, what exactly are they referring to?
It's all there, black and white, clear as crystal: level is going to be the common short hand term for both character power and encounter difficulty, and monsters will fit into that level by having a recommended level assigned in the stat block.
Of course, that could change but until it does I'm afraid all this conjecture about bounded accuracy somehow hand waving levels away is mostly hot air. I'll agree that the approach is different, but the levels are here to stay until a packet comes out to show us otherwise.
And just because they use the word "level" doesn't mean that equates in any way to Character Level. You refusal to see the difference is why you can't understand how "Monster Level" is just an approximation of xp vaule, and does not reflect an inteded level for the attacking party, which is the entire crux of BA monster design.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 10:53AM
#444
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
And just because they use the word "level" doesn't mean that equates in any way to Character Level. You refusal to see the difference is why you can't understand how "Monster Level" is just an approximation of xp vaule, and does not reflect an inteded level for the attacking party, which is the entire crux of BA monster design.
The fact that it's comparable enough to use as a short hand means it doesn't have to equal character level. I couldn't care less if it did. I care that I've got an easy to understand term that will provide me with a marker for how powerful monsters are - which it does. Maybe I'm not accepting any difference because it's not especially important to me that it's different or the same. What I care about is I've got a series of markers that I'm familiar with, that my players understand and that express monster power well enough for me to create encounters on the fly. Whether it's different or not doesn't matter to me.
|
|
|
