Talk:Abaddon the Despoiler (5e Creature)

From D&D Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

AC Recalculation Concerns[edit]

As the original creator of most of these Space Marine and Chaos Space Marine stat blocks, I have some concerns about making such drastic increases to Armor Class just because some of them are wearing Terminator Armor.

For starters, giving a creature a 10-point boost to its AC is going to force his Challenge Rating to go up. For Armless Abby here it won't be that much (his CR will probably go up to 21), but for a generic Terminator that's going to be a big, big increase; somewhere in the ballpark of CR 11, when it is currently CR 8.

For another, as a longtime fan of Warhammer 40k and a fan of 5E, I don't think Terminator Armor merits such a high AC. Yes, it offers much greater protection than standard Space Marine powered armor, but it's hardly impregnable. Genestealers can rip through Terminator Armor like tissue paper with their rending claws, after all.

Let's put this in perspective here. The Tarrasque, supposedly one of the most durable creatures in existence, has an AC of 25.

At the end of the day, this is still D&D first and foremost. I made these stat blocks with the intention that they could be fought by a normal party of D&D characters, without the player characters needing to arm themselves with 40k equipment to stand any hope of victory. --SlaadSack (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Let me explain, how that happened. Once upon a time, Mark 10 Tacticus Armor (5e Equipment) was weaker than 5e SRD:Plate Armor (or even just "merely comparable"). "Power armor shouldn't be this weak; it's tough and big" - so AC was increased by 1. Reasonable. But then, i decided to buff Power Armor (Raider) (5e Equipment), to make it tougher than 5e SRD:Plate Armor; as such crude power armor is made of same materials, but is a lot tougher. And obviously, Space Marine's armor is tougher than "pile of boiler steel riveted onto exoskeleton frame", due to better materials - so again, AC was increased - all while keeping the proportionate difference between suits (aka Powerscaling, "a > b"). And due to armor alterations, NPC statblocks should also be altered, for consistency; cue fiddling-diddling with every character, who wears power armor. --User 12345 (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
    • And in fact, buff of other power-armors was modest. They're buffed by 1, while Power Armor (Raider) (5e Equipment) and Fallout armors increased by 3 for consistency. As such, power armors could actually get increased even higher for inter-continuity consistency - but, that would need more statblock changing. But then, as you said, we get to Rarity and CR things. Essentially, there's a lot of bugs in logic of item's stats - and fixing such bugs makes new bugs elsewhere, cue more fixing needed. --User 12345 (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
  • More over - i thought what Catatphractii Terminator Armor (5e Equipment) was baseline. So i made things consistent with it. Cue huge AC. Dreadnought should logically be even tougher - cue even higher AC. Basically, those chains of logical thoughts and attempts to make things consistent resulted in very high AC. --User 12345 (talk) 21:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Besides, AC 20 for power armor isn't all that high for me. Military Grade Special Type Armor (5e Equipment) has big AC, despite being flak armor variant (a high-end flak armor, but still not powered armor); such vests are still used in WH40K, especially on backwards worlds. As such, super-heavy armor (e.g. caparace armor) and power armor need re-calculations for consistency. --User 12345 (talk) 21:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Well, i was aiming for consistency. That is - what gear from next epochs is usually all-around better than gear form previous epochs; aka what default assumption is party with high-end Futuristic weapons. Cue re-balancing statblocks of gear in relation to each other, in order for proper lines of "this is stronger than that". I identified inconsistencies as "typos", not as "it's by design" - cue stats consistent with same epoch, but ludicrous from Medieval point of view. In such case, maybe we should have "variant" variations? --User 12345 (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Maybe that's result of poor research? There are many types of Terminator Armor; Catatphractii model is old and tough, stronger than modern armors. Yet at the same time, armor of high-ranking commanders should be tougher than standart, with lots of bells and whistles - and armor of Primarchs, like Abaddon, should be even tougher than that of generic commanders. As such, AC of "regular" Terminator troopers could be one tad smaller - while AC of Terminator-clar Primarchs would likely be even bigger. So, there is a lot of research needed, for both calculations and consistency. --User 12345 (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

The main thing that guides decisions around adjusting stats is and should always be *game balance*. You can fluff armor as being made out of whatever the hell you want, but what matters is the impact it has on the table, which I think is not appropriate in this case for the reason the author stated (wanting this to be balanced against core D&D content). Nobody really cares about comparing homebrew 40k content to homebrew Fallout content based on *lore* balance; if you include both of these in your D&D setting, you're probably doing some sort of silly mashup where you can fight deathclaws with a chainsword or something, and in that case segregating them into different power levels because the settings are different in lore is probably detrimental to the experience of a mashup. And if you aren't doing a mashup, who cares whether the ceramite space marine armor numbers are bigger than they would be for steel power armor? You don't even have steel power armor in the campaign! Ontoanin (talk) 23:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Well, even if we disregard "inter-setting consistency" (though it is possible in practice, due to planar travel and such), you still need to make consistency between epochs. Things from previous epochs are still available, and could be rather widely used - and so, things from new epochs should be better than things from previous epochs, unless such old-pattern things are heavily modernized (modernization what would - again - alter their stats, making them up-to-date). E.G. futuristic armor vests are tougher than modern armor vests, modern armor is tougher than renaissance victorian armor, and renaissance armor is tougher than medieval armor. In WH40K, many Modern weapons are still used - such as Stubbers, Autoguns, all sorts of cannons; that's before going to melee weapons and primitive worlds and such. As such, we still need *lore* balance between Medieval, Renaissance, Modern and Futuristic gear - for all of them are parts of single, coherent setting. Cue futuristic stats needing corrections. --User 12345 (talk) 10:26, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
  • There is, also, one bit you missed. Space Marine, Unarmored (5e Creature) has Natural Armor of 15; so, he has +3 from Dexterity and +2 from being tough. Natural Armor stacks with worn armor (if you're already tough, and you put armor on top, you're very hard to kill; "imagine glass vase in safe, and steel kettlebell in safe - which variant is more likely to survive being thrown out of the window?"). As such, Space Marine's AC would be 2 points higher than what's written on armor; E.G. if his power armor has AC20, then marine's total AC is AC22. --User 12345 (talk) 10:26, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Again, maybe we should have multiple variants of same entities and pages? One what pursues *game balance* even to detriment of logic and lore consistency - and another, what pursues *lore* and *consistency*, with "game balance" being afterthought ("as long as it doesn't contradict lore and consistency"). --User 12345 (talk) 11:05, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Natural armor generally doesn't stack with worn armor in 5e, my friend. You pick one or the other, you don't get the benefits of both. An armored Space Marine has an AC of 15 from natural armor, yes, but when he's wearing a full suit of powered armor, the worn armor supersedes any natural armor he might have.

As for lore concerns, you will note that I've been adapting the lore of these creatures to fit the context of D&D. Hence why the daemon primarchs and generic daemon princes spend their time chilling in the Abyss rather than in the Warp, which does not exist in D&D's cosmology. The idea is to make these things work within the lore and setting of D&D, not to force the system to fit them. Or at least, that's the idea I've always tried to follow when designing homebrew content.

For perspective, let's say that we have a 20th-level Fighter with a Strength of 20 and a legendary weapon like, oh, let's say, the artifact Blackrazor. Between his proficiency bonus of +6, his Strength modifier of +5, and the weapon's +3 bonus to attack and damage rolls, this fighter has a total attack bonus of +14. Abaddon's 30 Armor Class means that this guy--who is literally as strong and powerful as it is possible to get without magical enhancement, and wielding one of the best weapons in the base game--needs to roll a 16 or higher just to hit him, so 75% of the time, this max-level fighter will miss. And speaking from personal experience, constantly whiffing dice rolls when you're trying to do something that your character is (supposedly) good at, is not fun. It may be consistent with 40k's lore, but it ain't fun.

These problems get exacerbated when an 8th-level Fighter goes up against a generic CR 8 Terminator, who has the same 30 AC as Armless Abby; the poor 8th-level Fighter can't even scratch the Terminator's paint job unless he gets a 19 or a 20, and that's assuming that he also has 20 Strength and a +3 weapon.

I would suggest that you read up on understanding bounded accuracy.--SlaadSack (talk) 15:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Again, maybe we need two versions of Abby and others? One what's balanced, and one what's lore-accurate? After all, we just got into conflict between *balance* and *lore*, needing to put one over other - so, maybe we just make multiple versions of pages, each with it's design philosophy ("fits into standard DND" vs "lore accurate, balance be damned"). --User 12345 (talk) 16:29, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
  • "Consistent with 40k's lore, but it ain't fun". Well, in WH40K, most cases of ordinary humans with ordinary weapons trying to take on Terminator did fail (unless there's enormous mob of humans focusing fire). When i was assigning such AC's, i was keeping in mind what player party would also be equipped with Futuristic gear. In other words - not only you "can't even scratch the Terminator's paint job", but Terminator can't scratch your paint job either - if you're Terminator Marine or someone equivalent - what results in long, drawn-out fight. And if you're not equipped to Futuristic standarts - then, well, "a brief life burns brightly". --User 12345 (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Also, i forgot to correct stats of other WH40K characters, as to make them consistent with Space Marine stats... As such, there's a mess with all those AC's. And we still didn't figure out, how we should balance gear of different epochs, while maintaining consistency, and not breaking balance. I'm balancing on "balanced against same epoch", while your is "balanced for normal DND"; former results in medieval party being crumped, latter results in gross logical errors. --User 12345 (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
  • I think, latest AC increase could be reversed. We definitely need a third guy to figure out this "lore vs balance". --User 12345 (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
    • Marine stats are back to normal. Now, reversing the "Raider Armor" consistence errata (screw idea of "it being tougher than Plate Armor" - that's makeshift pile of scrap metal). --User 12345 (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Guy, i did read Bounded Accuracy. "PC ACs could not exceed 21, and monster ACs do not exceed 31"; Failbaddon's current AC is 28, and Dreadnought is 31 AC. As such, things are rules-correct from your point of view (though when "Manual of Technologies" comes out, it's versions will be further corrected). That's before going to things, like weapons having Armor-Piercing quality often found on firearms, therefore decreasing AC. --User 12345 (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

So I think we're in agreement that there's tension between doing what we consider a faithful representation of the source material, and doing something that slots into D&D without adjustment. You've asked for a third party to adjudicate this, but we already have that — the relevant reading is Help:Precedent, the admin advice for the wiki that says that unless marked otherwise, homebrew pages are presumed to be balanced against core content, not against each other (which they point out leads to endless power creep, as we see here). The Precedent page encourages the use of Template:Design Disclaimer, especially in our case; see the fifth bullet point on the Precedent page's list.

Since the author already built this to be balanced to core, in line with admin expectations, I don't think rebalancing for lore is necessary at all, even if you think it does result in "logical" problems. Clearly, balanced-to-core is the expected form anyway, and adding the Design Disclaimer template to all the core-balanced pages mostly just undermines other authors' attempts to do what they felt was right to begin with.

Building a self-consistent setting with its own set of power levels for various different technologies, all internally balanced but not necessarily friendly with just being inserted into core D&D without issue, sounds like the perfect use case for a sourcebook. Ontoanin (talk) 17:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Reversing edits completed. Things are like after i started correcting things, but before "Raider Armor incident". Bloated AC of Terminator-armor-wearing NPC's (like Failbaddon) is because, i looked at 5e Armor and thought "stats of power armor there doesn't fully line up with stats of Space Marine creatures - so i must correct this". Terminator Armor just can't have 20 AC, like mere Tacticus Armor. Dreadnought is even tougher, so it's AC was risen proportionately (plus, Chaos Dreadnought should be comparable in AC to loyalist dreadnought). --User 12345 (talk) 17:40, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
    • TL;DR: one user statted power armors, and another statted NPC's, without checking each-other's stats. Then i just put them towards a common denominator. --User 12345 (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
    • Also, power armor can't be weaker than Full Plate. It's big and heavy. That's why AC's ended up increasing by 1 in many places. --User 12345 (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

You haven't addressed the points I've made in my post just above — the default "common denominator" is core balance, as explained on Help:Precedent, and if you want to balance things around some other denominator, I feel like it'd probably be best to make your own sourcebook where you can create your own framework for what "should" be stronger than what else. Otherwise you're taking a bunch of core-balanced pages (that are following the Precedent page guideline) and changing their common denominator, which is the purpose of Template:Design Disclaimer if the author is doing it, but which I worry might come across as rude otherwise. Ontoanin (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Then we need the WH40K sourcebook. And myriad of other sourcebooks. But you still didn't explain, what to do with disparity between listed Armors and listed NPC statblocks? I know what that's supposed to be balanced against normal DND - but, terminator armor is a lot stronger than normal power armor; Terminators having merely 20 AC (like normal tactical marine) is blatant typo. If that's unbalancing - increase CR, to accommodate it. --User 12345 (talk) 18:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
  • So, we also revert those changes - therefore, putting back all those blatant typos ("power armor is as tough as plate armor", "terminator armor is as weak as tactical armor", and other such absurdities)? Or we do something else? --User 12345 (talk) 18:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

So, we're still locked between blunt violation of lore/logic/common sense on one side, and ruining game balance at other. And both options are unacceptably bad; if former, statblocks are so incorrect what they aren't capable of properly modeling entities from such setting (especially if you're fan of such setting, what knows what he plays about) - and if latter, it's hard to make encounters without them being lopsided and unfair. Both are not fun to play. In my opinion, most high-tech settings are extremely difficult to model without falling into "lore VS balance" fork (e.g. "balanced" Terminator Armor is blasphemous lore-wise, and feels like cardboard cutout; lore-correct Terminator Armor is mountain of AC, immune to most attacks what aren't critical hits). The first solution to model high-tech settings as sourcebooks, with entities being balanced against entities from same sourcebook, or against other sourcebooks - therefore, cutting the gordian knot by removing core out of equation; but, this is not an option for core-balanced pages... --User 12345 (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't think someone writing two space marine armors to be the same, or power armor to be comparable to core 5e plate armor, is inherently a "typo"; I think it's excusable as an author saying "I want this character to wear this cool thing, this is about how good it'd be in the game", and leaving it. I don't really see what might be the issue with just writing up some proposed rules for armor-and-weapons-by-tech-level all together in one coherent sourcebook where you can stat up all the fictional settings you want simultaneously ("Manual of Technologies", maybe?). But in any case, if you're considering changing balance across a whole class of articles, with many authors involved, I think asking an admin for thoughts would be appropriate. Ontoanin (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Well, while that can be used for extremely silly campaigns, that is unsuitable for serious campaign. "I want this character to wear this cool thing, and i want it to be as close to lore as possible". As such, we definitely need "Manual of Technologies", where each thing's stats are exactly as in lore, with balance being afterthought (e.g. firearms lethality is heavily downplayed in normal DND - but in "Manual of Technologies", i would not be downplayed - cue 7d6 rifles, and things ramping up from there; ludicrously high AC's, compensated by armor-piercing attacks; etc). --User 12345 (talk) 11:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
And, by "extremely silly", i mean "complete nonsense". Thinking what "Normal" Power Armor and Terminator Armor have same stats, is about as egregious and outrageous as thinking what Dagger and Greatsword have same stats (if not more so). If campaign is at least as lore-accurate as "Turn Signals on a Land Raider", "If the Emperor had a Text-to-Speech Device", or "unfunnymouse videos" - then, such statblocks with disastrous typos and errors can't be used in practice, due to being too inaccurate. --User 12345 (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abaddon_the_Despoiler_(5e_Creature)&oldid=1952324"