Talk:Garchomp (3.5e Monster)

From Dungeons and Dragons Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search


RatedDislike.png Sulacu dislikes this article and rated it 1 of 4.
Seeing one of my favorite Pokemon adapted for D&D is sweet, but not really liking the result puts me in a bad position. Sure, Garchomp is fast, I guess. It's only the 42nd fastest Pokemon in the Pokedex as of Generation 5. But hey, that still puts it in the top 7%, right. How many actions per round will Deoxys get in his speed forme?

That little quip aside, letting a Pokemon honor its name is good and all that, but it shouldn't come at the cost of any sense of game balance. Should a well trained Garchomp be able to unleash 4 Draco Meteors in a round? I don't give a crap about the Charisma loss; it can still fill a round with utter destruction and then faint knowing all opposition to his trainer is dead forever. Even with the drop in save DCs, the enemy is still guaranteed to take at least 400 damage unless it happens to have Evasion.

If you fix the balance issues, take out the exorbitant number of actions per round, and remove the rest of the excessive fan wank then you'll end up with a real nice monster.

About Draco Meteor - that can explicitly be used only once per hour. And Garchomp's quickness doesn't recharge it any faster. I actually prefer Dragonite, so fan wank has nothing to do with this. (The real fan wank from me can be found in Mew's article, 'cause that's my favorite Pokémon by far.) And the brokenness? Garchomp got banned from standard competitive play on Smogon, because any team not explicitly built to deal with it got shredded. I was trying to recreate the same sense of dread here - that when Garchomp shows up, the players will be going "Oh, @#*%." (I explicitly said that Garchomp was unfair.) I did tone it down a little, though. --Luigifan18 (talk) 14:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Fine, I guess I didn't read that little clause but it does little to change my point. An effective three or four turns per round is too much. There's so many less broken and utterly exploitable ways to accomplish this, like giving it alacrity and access to things like a reflavoured temporal acceleration, access to more ways to utilize instantaneous actions, and altogether improving its base damage. Even at three turns per round, damage from effects like Power Attack stacks out of proportion real quick. That said, it sure hits like a pansy. On a semi-related note, a primary bite attack adds one and a half times its Strength bonus to damage.
As an end note, just stating in the article that Garchomp is 'unfair' is no excuse for its flouting of general game balance. It's up to the creator to make it fair. For now, my rating stands. --Sulacu (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't really know what you mean by any of that. Is "aclarity" meant to be moment of aclarity? What's an instantaneous action? And I really want Garchomp to get an absurd number of attacks per round - the whole point is to make monks very, very jealous. Garchomp is what the monk should be - making up for a relative lack of power with immense speed. --Luigifan18 (talk) 17:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Also, Garchomp's meant to be able to go toe-to-toe with a typical adventuring party, which will outnumber it four to one. Getting nearly as many actions as they do goes a long way towards that; in fact, I think that a lot of monsters in 4th edition do exactly that... --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, by the rules, a monster of CR X is supposed to be able to go toe-to-toe with an X-level adventurer and win 50% of the time. --Ghostwheel (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)