|
5 months ago ::
Jan 23, 2013 - 8:16PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Jan 12, 2013
|
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?
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 23, 2013 - 8:29PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
May 14, 2010
|
Back in my day, monster experience were worth 300x(their CR).
But now, I give up how they rate their experience on monsters.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 23, 2013 - 8:34PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
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.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 23, 2013 - 10:46PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Sep 25, 2007
|
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).
Careful, man. That much logic might be illegal on the internet. - Salla
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 23, 2013 - 10:53PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Dec 13, 2006
|
Why? Because 8 months in, and WotC has yet to hash out how they even want to treat monsters, let alone the details.
Want the tl;dr of my posts? Read the bold text; I put it there to highlight the main points for ease of skimming.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 23, 2013 - 11:05PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
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).
The metagame is not the game.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 23, 2013 - 11:21PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
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.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 24, 2013 - 12:20AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Jan 12, 2013
|
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.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 24, 2013 - 9:49AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Jan 12, 2013
|
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.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 24, 2013 - 10:54AM
#10
|
|
|
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.
 | Big Model: Creative Agenda
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? join the Old Guard of 4th Edition
Reality Refracted: Social Contracts
D & D: A Documentary Kickstarter (http://kck.st/SyKNzf)
Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Show
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl |
|
|
|
