Re: what is it about angels?

In article <Pine.LNX.4.61.0702010834240.14326@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Gary Johnson  <zzjohnsg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>1. Any creature of CR X should defeat a character of level X - the rule
of 
>thumb for CR is that it's a 4-on-1 fight in favour of the PCs, so you add

>4 to the EL if it's a 1-on-1 fight. In other words, the leonal may be an 
>appropriate 1-on-1 fight for a single 16th level character, because the
EL 
>for the leonal is then 12 (for CR) + 4 = 16.

I think you are mistaken.  The rules are very clear that a PC-class
character 
of level X is a creature with CRX.  A 6th level human fighter or cleric is
CR6 
(this is completely consistent throughout _SCAP_ and _Worms_, for
example).  
Your argument would make a single 6th level PC-class character a CR2, and
I
have never seen one labelled that way.

The DMG says that a fight against a single creature of CR=party level, for
a party of 4, should use up about 1/4 of their daily resources--in other
words a challenge, but not a serious threat.  This is my experience with
many of the lower-level book creatures, but a few stand out as anomalies.
I am inclined to consider the anomalies as mistakes.  In some cases they
are simply creatures which are hard to rate--wizards, for example, or
anything
which has the crunch power and crappy HP and AC of a wizard--but that does
not seem to explain the angels.

My experience is that a PC party which is not driven onto its weaknesses
in
some way can readily beat CR=party level, and is desperately threatened
by CR=party level + 4. 

The rest of your post--I'm not basing my statement that the creature is
mis-CR'ed on the outcome of the fight.  Obviously it could have gone 
differently; high level combat is chancy and cir***stantial.  But you can 
look at the AC, hp, spell-like abilities and so forth and see that the
good 
outsiders are not built on the same scale as other creatures of their CR. 


I'm fairly content with the explanation for that which was proposed a few
posts back.  Saddened--I think it's an unnecessary flaw in the system--but
at least it makes sense.

Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@[EMAIL PROTECTED]