Community

Im looking at the stone golem and noticed its XP value is 14,260.   Its  level 13 monster.

Now I'm looking at the fire giant.   Its a level 10 monster worth 7,900 xp.

Yet the fire giant has more hp, a better AC, moves quicker and does more damage.   It also has a further reach.  Same amount of attacks.

A Stone golem does have slow and some immunities.   Slow seems to slow down the creature by 10 feet a round... which isn't that terrible an ability.    The immunities don't seem to be damage related... blocks things like sleep.   Some spells have special effects on it like transmute rock to mud, stone to flesh and transmute mud to rock.

I'm skeptical that the extras outweigh the fighting advantages that the fire giant has.   And its also stupid as all heck with an Int of 3.

Where do you think the XP/Level difference is coming from?

Back in my day, monster experience were worth 300x(their CR). 

But now, I give up how they rate their experience on monsters.  

Jan 23, 2013 -- 8:29PM, TheOneWhoCallCrow wrote:

Back in my day, monster experience were worth 300x(their CR). 

But now, I give up how they rate their experience on monsters.  

I'm still assuming that somewhere during design, the adventures had rooms circled as "party levels up here", and the monster xp values are fudged to fit.

It seems you are either mising its completely immunity to weapons that are not either adamantine (no current rules for) or magic (specifically not assumed to be had at any particular point in the game), or are discounting it as not coming in to play because you unreasonably expect that the party will never find themselves facing one without the proper equipment (thus rendering a major feature of the creature's defense into wasted word count).

Why? Because 8 months in, and WotC has yet to hash out how they even want to treat monsters, let alone the details.

Nigh-total immunity to magic is supposed to be a big deal, especially considering that golems are one of the few critters you can expect to not have awesome loot (and thus would otherwise be an excellent choice to disintegrate).

Jan 23, 2013 -- 10:46PM, AaronOfBarbaria wrote:

It seems you are either mising its completely immunity to weapons that are not either adamantine (no current rules for) or magic (specifically not assumed to be had at any particular point in the game), or are discounting it as not coming in to play because you unreasonably expect that the party will never find themselves facing one without the proper equipment (thus rendering a major feature of the creature's defense into wasted word count).

This thing right here. Golems are scary 'cause you won't necessarily have the means to hurt them and if you do it might be improvised. I once had an encounter where the players had to resort to beating a werewolf to death with a pair of silver candlesticks. It was awesome and I can't think of any reason why I would ever want to create a situation where the players don't have to improvise their way arond a creature they can't kill with their normal methods.

Jan 23, 2013 -- 10:46PM, AaronOfBarbaria wrote:

It seems you are either mising its completely immunity to weapons that are not either adamantine (no current rules for) or magic (specifically not assumed to be had at any particular point in the game), or are discounting it as not coming in to play because you unreasonably expect that the party will never find themselves facing one without the proper equipment (thus rendering a major feature of the creature's defense into wasted word count).

ha ha ha ha!   Thanxs!   I completely missed out on the magic immunities somehow.   That helps explain some of this to me.

you guys don't think that needing a +1 sword explains the big diff, do ya?   That can't be everything.   It sure does look like its a fighter centric foe.

Jan 24, 2013 -- 9:49AM, cocoasword wrote:

you guys don't think that needing a +1 sword explains the big diff, do ya?   That can't be everything.   It sure does look like its a fighter centric foe.

Since fighters can't make magic items, its not really a fighter centric foe.  It always seemed wierd that even the monsters immune to magic still required magic to kill.

yeah, but spellcasters aren't going to do anything against it.   Its immune to almost all spells!

Its immune to all fighters as well. It requires items not assumed in the base game to exist and be available. So the only classes capable of killing it with out plot armor are spellcasters.

yeah, but the spells genearlly don't effect it.   I think there are only 3 that do.