I noticed something about the XP values of monsters based on templates today. That was bothering me a bit - I was trying to figure out the relative power (and thus XP value) of a Lich. The rules are clear enough (though the devil's work to find, sometimes): an NPC counts the same as a Standard Monster. A Template - lich, vampire, mummy, etc. - turns the Standard Monster into an Elite Monster. But looking at the numbers - a 15th level magic user turned Lich, therefor, would be worth 2800XP. That seemed awfully low. So I decided to test it - run a lich up against a party (Theresa, Fighting Eagle, a bunch of NPCs, a bit lower than the real party would be), just a straight fight, nothing fancy. The results? a very close thing, but the party beat it - a very close thing: 2 of 6 down, 2 more in single digits, 5 or 6 using healing surges and potions - though the cleric still had cure spells, so they were probably going to live anyway... (Though I missed a couple of the lich's powers - this could have been a monster win....)
Those aren't results you would expect from a 2800 XP monster. The Kuo-tao we fought with the lower party were worth 3100XP - parties are different than individuals, but still, 2800 should be in the range of that lower party - the usual high level party can take out those monsters (a fire giant is 2000, for example) without working up much of a sweat. (Well, fighting fire giants, I imagine they would perspire a bit.) This test party was lower, but still comparable - why was this so hard? and if it is this hard - what kind of XP should it be worth?
I found the answer: I looked up the DMG's rules for generating NPCs. They are quick and dirty rules - "only give them the thins you'll need to run them in an encounter or an adventure." In practice it means - don't list every feat and stat and skill and magic item they have back in the vault - reasonable advice. But it also means - a noticeably limited set of powers. This is what an NPC gets:
1 at will
1 encounter below 11, a second if over 11th level.
1 daily, 2 if over 21st level
1 utility, 2 if over 11.
And that explains the XP value. This might not make much difference for mid-level NPCs - but it's rather striking how much that costs you for a 16th level magic user. Who gets:
3 at wills
4 encounters
3 dailies
4 (I think) utilities
Playing that version of the Lich creates a much more dangerous foe. The results above - are about what you would expect from a comparable solo monster - an adult red dragon (15th level solo monster - 6000XP.) I verified it, sort of - played the Lich from the monster manual, against the same party - they took it out without much trouble. Took a lot of damage, used up some daily and encounter powers - but none of them were bloodied, let alone zeroed, none of them used any healing (other than a Temporary HP buff at the beginning) - the issue was never in doubt. That is what I would expect - 14th level elite for the default, 16th level elite for the template - without all those spells, it would be a far tamer thing.
Now - the question might be - should you play the Lich from the book, or should you play it as a full blown Character, with all those powers, plus the Lich template? I would assume, that's not a hard question to answer. It would seem to me, if you are going to fight a lich, or a death knight, or something like that, you are going to want an opponent that offers a bit more resistance than 5 kuo-tao or a fire giant with a hell hound. Those are fun things to fight, but they are not a Lich. Fortunately - from what I see - you can work out the XP fairly easily - for something like that, I would just treat it as a Solo Monster that easily enough - the numbers, and the strength, seem to work out about right.
And finally - I will vent a bit. I seem to find a lot to complain about in 4th Edition - and so much of it is this kind of thing. The DMG offers guidance in how to create a quick and easy NPC - fair enough, and useful, and most of the time you probably do want to be able to knock an NPC out in 10 minutes - and you can do it with those rules. But sometimes, you will want an NPC who is just as full a challenge as a PC. And a Lich? why would you want anything else? If you are trying to beard the monster in its den especially - you expect the thing to be waiting for you (basically) - certainly as a DM, I would think, you would plan to have the thing lying in wait. Now - the rules make it simple enough to do this: the lich template works quite well on top of a full character - but the XP guidelines are nowhere near right for something like that. And I have not found anything that indicates how much XP a full PC would be worth... so I have to make an executive decision, as it were. But it annoys me how often I find something in DD4 that is like this - weakened - reduced - simplified. "You're doing too much work" says the DMG about NPCs, starting them out or fully equipping them - fine advice for generating a couple thieves in a barroom somewhere, but for the leader of a rival party? head of a pirate band? as lich? Have these guys ever played D&D? have they ever made a dungeon? Maybe I am unique (though if I am, so is everyone I have ever played the game with), but especially with the Big Bad Monsters, building them out, the whole mess - stats and powers and magic items and treasure and where they got it and how they plan to use it, is a major part of the appeal. Certainly, in the past, fighting liches, it was clear enough that the DM had built the thing out completely - and why would't you? you want to make that kind of adventure an event, at some level - and that needs a worthy monster.
Okay. But I'll say it again - it is depressing to think of the things the current version has taken away. This probably comes up more with PCs - the condition of hybrids, say... But I find it comes up as often with monsters and combat (going either way) as with PCs. Like this - the way the NPCs the DMG would generate are stripped down so much. The things dragons (say) can't do - from the old Aura (ancients still have it, but they're the only ones) to the spells they use to have. Obviously the lack of high stakes magic items, like a vorpal blade. And just simple things, like the removal of the old "threatening reach" - not being able to take an opportunity attack against something a square away (but in reach). Man. They are changes I don't really understand - all they do is flatten the game. Flat is not really what I want.
Thursday, December 5, 2013
Saturday, November 30, 2013
Lich Hunt
The idea here is to have a lich take over a school of magic - this you get battles against novice magic users, plus the lich and his henchmen. If this is something like a university, you could also have bands of clerics or monks associated with the rest.
Being undead, the Lich would also be protected by swarms of undead.
Plan - would be for multiple people to work up pieces of the adventure. Some of the pieces you need are:
- encounters with the magicians
- the battle with the Big Bad Lich himself
- possibly a battle with a gang of clerics or similar types
- lots of undead
- encounters outside, on the approach
- random encounters with monsters who use the opportunities created by the lich and his works.
Doing this as a team effort has a lot of advantages - from the obvious division of labor to the way it lets parts of the dungeon contain surprises.
We need to work out a backstory and setup. We need to work out a way into the adventure.
Being undead, the Lich would also be protected by swarms of undead.
Plan - would be for multiple people to work up pieces of the adventure. Some of the pieces you need are:
- encounters with the magicians
- the battle with the Big Bad Lich himself
- possibly a battle with a gang of clerics or similar types
- lots of undead
- encounters outside, on the approach
- random encounters with monsters who use the opportunities created by the lich and his works.
Doing this as a team effort has a lot of advantages - from the obvious division of labor to the way it lets parts of the dungeon contain surprises.
We need to work out a backstory and setup. We need to work out a way into the adventure.
Lich Lead
A mysterious figure at the inn has offered you a chance to investigate his former monastery, which has become shrouded in rumor and fear. What he hasn't mentioned is that he already visited the monastery, found out about the vampires, and stolen a relic that he needs to take to the Magic Academy to break the curse of the vampires and free the monastery. He wants your help to roust the evil and deliver the talisman (which he doesn't mention). What he doesn't know is that the Lich devoured the monastery and moved on to the Academy, leaving his phylactery behind with a Vampire Lord to guard it. He does know they noticed him and have sent villains to retrieve it - and him.
Monday, April 1, 2013
Baseball 2013
Spring has been a long time coming this year, but there is one unmistakable sign - baseball! Somehow last year I did not manage to get a post up at the beginning of the year - I blame Bobby Valentine; at least it saved me the embarrassment of picking the sox for the post-season. Anyway - this year -
AL East:
Toronto - the truth is, I don't think this division can be picked in the least. Toronto seems to be the consensus, having imported a host of top class players - but note that they imported them from the Marlins and Mets - those teams did not win with Reyes and Johnson and Dickey and company, why are the Jays so much better? Now - in fact, I suspect the Jays will have a heck of a team - but... it's a little too easy to pick them. I have Jose Batista in my fantasy league, though, so you can be assured I'll be waving the Canadian flag any time I can.
Boston - Ah, well... I don't know what criteria I have used to pick the order of these teams - but I might as well go with the rooting interest. One game in the book, they sure look capable of winning some games - though I think the real question with this team is going to be the rotation. If Lester and Buckholtz bounce back (as they can - they are young...), if Lackey and Dempster can be effective and stay on the field (I'm more optimistic about Lackey's effectiveness and Dempster's durability than the opposites), if Dubront can be a bit more consistent - there's a lot to like. They won't be hammering the ball, but they ought to be driving line drives and doubles all over the place; they have speed; they have very good defense; they have what looks like a deep and effective bullpen. It's fragile - that rotation, especially, can go to hell in a hurry - but if they hold up, this is a team that can do a lot more damage than anyone outside of Boston thinks...
Baltimore - with all the angst about the Sox and Yankees it is easy to forget the Orioles, who won, a bit earlier than they were supposed to. I don't know if they can sustain it - probably not, a lot of luck went into last year's run - but they got some decent pitching, and at least some of it could get better... No, I don't really believe it... I do think they will continue to hit pretty well - something better from Wieters seems a safe bet, I think Davis and Jones will continue to produce - they have enough core to hang around, but getting into the post-seasomn is going to be a struggle.
Tampa Bay - let's see how far pitching can take a team. Though if Myers is ready or Jennings steps it up, they could be all right. And the pitching can take them quite a ways. But without things working out, they are thin...
New York - this is a rooting interest. But looking at the team they're running out there - holy crap! They are old; they are all hurt - Texeira and A Rod and Jeter, Granderson too. They do have some pretty decent pitchers, and Cano, and financial resources... but the team on the field today is sub-Astros quality - and not going to get better for a while. I don't think they are going to be able to overcome the missing players this year. Maybe enough of them will come back to not embarrass themselves - but I suspect the worst for the Yanks. Heh heh heh.
Central:
Detroit - I think they might be the safest pick in baseball - 90 odd wins, and the division. They have a great top of a rotation; they have a great middle of the lineup; they have - well, some talent around that. And they have holes. But they are in a weak division and they are going to get to 90 wins - the post-season seems a safe bet here.
Chicago - They are still around. They never quite seem to make up their minds if they are going to contend. I think they got a bit more last year than they have a reason to expect this year, which means they shouldn't trouble the Cats, but will probably finish second easy enough.
KC - All their good young hitters regressed last year - so - they'll probably come back this year. I don't know if they have enough pitching - though they did load up on Tampa Bay pitchers. Second place is in reach, if things break for them.
Cleveland - probably not for the Indians, though who knows - Tito ought to steady them, they have some interesting players, and brought in a bunch of interesting failures (the likes of Drew Stubbs...) They could be respectable. Or hopeless. Probably a bit better than hopeless. 72 wins, that sort of thing.
Minnesota - there's talent hanging around this roster too, but not enough to trouble anyone. I took three hitters and a closer on my fantasy team, so there is that. Here's hoping for that big Justin Morneau comeback!
West:
Angels - on paper they are a beast, though perhaps thin in the rotation. In fact - I am not sold on them, though they should get past 90 wins easily enough. They might be this year's version of the Yankees - hammer their way to the post-season, then get bumped by the Tigers or Rays or something...
Rangers - they lost a lot of talent this year, but I think they have enough of a team to hang around (though they have to do better than yesterday.) The pitching is still decent, starters and bullpen, they have a strong defense, they have hitters - they don't have the anchor of someone like Hamilton, but they are pretty good. They should hang around the wild card race.
A's - teams that rise too fast do tend to settle a bit, especially young pitchers; but they have real talent - they are certainly capable of hanging around. I hope they do - at least, I hope they stay in contention over the next couple years - I hate seeing good young teams that fall apart. They could be TAmpa west...
Seattle - they don't look nearly as bad as they have in recent years... that's not saying a lot.
Houston - poor bastards.
NL East:
Washington - this might be the best team in baseball. ALl that pitching, starters and relievers; a killer infield; Bryce Harper. I expect they will stay a force for a while. They seem determined to put a team on the field. A good thing.
Atlanta - they seem to have done a neat job of retooling on the fly, without dropping all that far out of contention. Now, they are putting together another good young team - Hayward and all those Uptons, good young pitchers, good young infielders - they should be in the wild card hunt, and in position to take the division if things go wrong in the capitol.
Philly - fading, but still dangerous with all those pitchers - and the ever present possibility that the old hitters will rise up for one last gasp. Everything went wrong last year - if things were to go right this year, they could slither into the post-season and cause trouble. Their problem is that they are in a tough division (well, behind 2 tough teams) - it will be hard to get close enough...
Florida - is Giancarlo Stanton the loneliest man in America? is he checking out houses in Boston and New York as we speak? Will some surprise team pull the trigger for him? (Washington? Detroit? San Francisco?) What odds do you give that he will last the year in Miami?
New York - poor bastards.
Central:
Cincinnati - this is another division that is very difficult to predict. The Reds, though, are another contender for the best team, in the game. Pitching - Cueto, Latos, etc. - Chapman, Marshall, Broxton; Votto and Bruce and Phillips and Choo and - they're really good. Deep and talented with a track record, with promise - a good bet, I think...
SL - they have some old timers who could fade, but plenty of solid talent - I don't hate them anymore, so I can take a cooler look at them. They have front line pitching, pitching depth; they do rely on some ancient outfielders and some uninspiring, but useful, ball players - but still seem quite capable of continuing to haunt the post-season...
Pittsburgh - this is being perverse, there are probably no reasons to pick them ahead of Milwaukee, but I am going to do it anyway. I was thinking Andrew McCutcheon might be the loneliest man in America, but in fact, they have some decent players around him. Maybe. Sometimes.
Milwaukee - They are probably better than Pittsburgh - though they weren't all that great with Greinke and Hart and one is gone and one hurt... We will see.
Chicago - hopeless. Some nice players getting developed, but still...
West:
SF - might as well. Part of what gives you pause is that they did what they did without getting the best from a bunch of players - if Pence and Sandoval hit, if Lincecum comes back - this is a team capable of greatness. Though even without that, they should slither into the post-season, and are then more than capable of winning it all, with all that pitching.
LA - on paper, there is a lot to like; in the real world - I don't know. But talent will out, sooner or later - chemistry and the like are not going to win and lose ball games very often. The pitching is impressive - we'll see where it takes them.
Arizona - trading players like Upton for character guys is a good way to finish fourth. Character only really matters when you are finishing fourth and you don't want guys punching each other in the dugout.
Colorado - I believe they are again devoid of pitching. There were a couple years there where Rockies starters were getting drafted in fantasy leagues - not so much anymore. Make what you will of that.
SD - they seem to creep a little closer to not being an embarrassment every year - so who knows. They also seem capable of winning games for no conceivable reason, which is worth something.
So: all right - who will do what? Wild Cards - AL: Boston, Texas. NL: Atlanta - SL. World series? oy - Detroit vs. Washington - though Boston/Washington is the one I want.
Awards?
AL:
MVP - should have been Trout last year - might as well pick him this year.
Cy Young - Verlander, until someone else beats him
Rookie of the Year - wishful thinking, sure, but Jackie Bradley Jr.
NL:
MVP - there's a fair amount of competition here. Braun generally puts up the numbers, though it might be a matter of time before he puts up a 50 game suspension. Votto has one and could get another any time. How good will Bryce Harper be? can Hayward step up a notch? could Stanton's team win enough to make anyone remember he exists? can Kemp stay healthy? Ad Gon recover? Will Posey keep playing like he has? I'll say Votto, this year.
Cy Young - Strasbourg is bound to win it sooner or later.
Rookie - I should have an opinion - there seem to be lots of pitchers around this year (the AL has more offense) - I'm going togo with Shelby Miller, though that might be because I have him in three different fantasy leagues. Sad, I know, but hey, you have to root for something!
AL East:
Toronto - the truth is, I don't think this division can be picked in the least. Toronto seems to be the consensus, having imported a host of top class players - but note that they imported them from the Marlins and Mets - those teams did not win with Reyes and Johnson and Dickey and company, why are the Jays so much better? Now - in fact, I suspect the Jays will have a heck of a team - but... it's a little too easy to pick them. I have Jose Batista in my fantasy league, though, so you can be assured I'll be waving the Canadian flag any time I can.
Boston - Ah, well... I don't know what criteria I have used to pick the order of these teams - but I might as well go with the rooting interest. One game in the book, they sure look capable of winning some games - though I think the real question with this team is going to be the rotation. If Lester and Buckholtz bounce back (as they can - they are young...), if Lackey and Dempster can be effective and stay on the field (I'm more optimistic about Lackey's effectiveness and Dempster's durability than the opposites), if Dubront can be a bit more consistent - there's a lot to like. They won't be hammering the ball, but they ought to be driving line drives and doubles all over the place; they have speed; they have very good defense; they have what looks like a deep and effective bullpen. It's fragile - that rotation, especially, can go to hell in a hurry - but if they hold up, this is a team that can do a lot more damage than anyone outside of Boston thinks...
Baltimore - with all the angst about the Sox and Yankees it is easy to forget the Orioles, who won, a bit earlier than they were supposed to. I don't know if they can sustain it - probably not, a lot of luck went into last year's run - but they got some decent pitching, and at least some of it could get better... No, I don't really believe it... I do think they will continue to hit pretty well - something better from Wieters seems a safe bet, I think Davis and Jones will continue to produce - they have enough core to hang around, but getting into the post-seasomn is going to be a struggle.
Tampa Bay - let's see how far pitching can take a team. Though if Myers is ready or Jennings steps it up, they could be all right. And the pitching can take them quite a ways. But without things working out, they are thin...
New York - this is a rooting interest. But looking at the team they're running out there - holy crap! They are old; they are all hurt - Texeira and A Rod and Jeter, Granderson too. They do have some pretty decent pitchers, and Cano, and financial resources... but the team on the field today is sub-Astros quality - and not going to get better for a while. I don't think they are going to be able to overcome the missing players this year. Maybe enough of them will come back to not embarrass themselves - but I suspect the worst for the Yanks. Heh heh heh.
Central:
Detroit - I think they might be the safest pick in baseball - 90 odd wins, and the division. They have a great top of a rotation; they have a great middle of the lineup; they have - well, some talent around that. And they have holes. But they are in a weak division and they are going to get to 90 wins - the post-season seems a safe bet here.
Chicago - They are still around. They never quite seem to make up their minds if they are going to contend. I think they got a bit more last year than they have a reason to expect this year, which means they shouldn't trouble the Cats, but will probably finish second easy enough.
KC - All their good young hitters regressed last year - so - they'll probably come back this year. I don't know if they have enough pitching - though they did load up on Tampa Bay pitchers. Second place is in reach, if things break for them.
Cleveland - probably not for the Indians, though who knows - Tito ought to steady them, they have some interesting players, and brought in a bunch of interesting failures (the likes of Drew Stubbs...) They could be respectable. Or hopeless. Probably a bit better than hopeless. 72 wins, that sort of thing.
Minnesota - there's talent hanging around this roster too, but not enough to trouble anyone. I took three hitters and a closer on my fantasy team, so there is that. Here's hoping for that big Justin Morneau comeback!
West:
Angels - on paper they are a beast, though perhaps thin in the rotation. In fact - I am not sold on them, though they should get past 90 wins easily enough. They might be this year's version of the Yankees - hammer their way to the post-season, then get bumped by the Tigers or Rays or something...
Rangers - they lost a lot of talent this year, but I think they have enough of a team to hang around (though they have to do better than yesterday.) The pitching is still decent, starters and bullpen, they have a strong defense, they have hitters - they don't have the anchor of someone like Hamilton, but they are pretty good. They should hang around the wild card race.
A's - teams that rise too fast do tend to settle a bit, especially young pitchers; but they have real talent - they are certainly capable of hanging around. I hope they do - at least, I hope they stay in contention over the next couple years - I hate seeing good young teams that fall apart. They could be TAmpa west...
Seattle - they don't look nearly as bad as they have in recent years... that's not saying a lot.
Houston - poor bastards.
NL East:
Washington - this might be the best team in baseball. ALl that pitching, starters and relievers; a killer infield; Bryce Harper. I expect they will stay a force for a while. They seem determined to put a team on the field. A good thing.
Atlanta - they seem to have done a neat job of retooling on the fly, without dropping all that far out of contention. Now, they are putting together another good young team - Hayward and all those Uptons, good young pitchers, good young infielders - they should be in the wild card hunt, and in position to take the division if things go wrong in the capitol.
Philly - fading, but still dangerous with all those pitchers - and the ever present possibility that the old hitters will rise up for one last gasp. Everything went wrong last year - if things were to go right this year, they could slither into the post-season and cause trouble. Their problem is that they are in a tough division (well, behind 2 tough teams) - it will be hard to get close enough...
Florida - is Giancarlo Stanton the loneliest man in America? is he checking out houses in Boston and New York as we speak? Will some surprise team pull the trigger for him? (Washington? Detroit? San Francisco?) What odds do you give that he will last the year in Miami?
New York - poor bastards.
Central:
Cincinnati - this is another division that is very difficult to predict. The Reds, though, are another contender for the best team, in the game. Pitching - Cueto, Latos, etc. - Chapman, Marshall, Broxton; Votto and Bruce and Phillips and Choo and - they're really good. Deep and talented with a track record, with promise - a good bet, I think...
SL - they have some old timers who could fade, but plenty of solid talent - I don't hate them anymore, so I can take a cooler look at them. They have front line pitching, pitching depth; they do rely on some ancient outfielders and some uninspiring, but useful, ball players - but still seem quite capable of continuing to haunt the post-season...
Pittsburgh - this is being perverse, there are probably no reasons to pick them ahead of Milwaukee, but I am going to do it anyway. I was thinking Andrew McCutcheon might be the loneliest man in America, but in fact, they have some decent players around him. Maybe. Sometimes.
Milwaukee - They are probably better than Pittsburgh - though they weren't all that great with Greinke and Hart and one is gone and one hurt... We will see.
Chicago - hopeless. Some nice players getting developed, but still...
West:
SF - might as well. Part of what gives you pause is that they did what they did without getting the best from a bunch of players - if Pence and Sandoval hit, if Lincecum comes back - this is a team capable of greatness. Though even without that, they should slither into the post-season, and are then more than capable of winning it all, with all that pitching.
LA - on paper, there is a lot to like; in the real world - I don't know. But talent will out, sooner or later - chemistry and the like are not going to win and lose ball games very often. The pitching is impressive - we'll see where it takes them.
Arizona - trading players like Upton for character guys is a good way to finish fourth. Character only really matters when you are finishing fourth and you don't want guys punching each other in the dugout.
Colorado - I believe they are again devoid of pitching. There were a couple years there where Rockies starters were getting drafted in fantasy leagues - not so much anymore. Make what you will of that.
SD - they seem to creep a little closer to not being an embarrassment every year - so who knows. They also seem capable of winning games for no conceivable reason, which is worth something.
So: all right - who will do what? Wild Cards - AL: Boston, Texas. NL: Atlanta - SL. World series? oy - Detroit vs. Washington - though Boston/Washington is the one I want.
Awards?
AL:
MVP - should have been Trout last year - might as well pick him this year.
Cy Young - Verlander, until someone else beats him
Rookie of the Year - wishful thinking, sure, but Jackie Bradley Jr.
NL:
MVP - there's a fair amount of competition here. Braun generally puts up the numbers, though it might be a matter of time before he puts up a 50 game suspension. Votto has one and could get another any time. How good will Bryce Harper be? can Hayward step up a notch? could Stanton's team win enough to make anyone remember he exists? can Kemp stay healthy? Ad Gon recover? Will Posey keep playing like he has? I'll say Votto, this year.
Cy Young - Strasbourg is bound to win it sooner or later.
Rookie - I should have an opinion - there seem to be lots of pitchers around this year (the AL has more offense) - I'm going togo with Shelby Miller, though that might be because I have him in three different fantasy leagues. Sad, I know, but hey, you have to root for something!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)