Talk:Celestial Dire Lion (3.5e Creature)

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Featured Article Nomination[edit]

Yes check.svg.png — This article became a featured article! --Green Dragon 02:14, 5 September 2009 (MDT)

Minor Changes:

Smite Evil (Su): Once per day a celestial creature can make a normal [[SRD:Melee Attack|melee attack]] to deal extra damage equal to its HD (maximum of +20) against an evil foe.


Smite Evil (Su): Once per day a celestial creature can make a normal [[SRD:Magic Weapon|magic]] melee attack to deal extra damage equal to its HD (maximum of +20) against an evil foe. (celestial creature template)

Please note the difference in attack and weapon before and after the pipe. Also, this is FA worthy. --Green Dragon 02:14, 5 September 2009 (MDT)

Support: The stats checked out fine to me. Other then that a few minor grammar things may have to be done. In any case ready for FA status. --Green Dragon 02:14, 5 September 2009 (MDT)

Comment: CR. This isn't a very good example of a creature of CR 7, due to how low its damage is. I mean, how many level 7 parties are going to be threatened by that kind of damage? The original Dire Lion has that damage, and it's CR 5. Plus, compare to the Tiger, a CR 4 creature and its damage. And its DR barely matters since most attackers at that level have a magic weapon. --Ghostwheel 02:44, 5 September 2009 (MDT)

Dire Lion and Celestial Creature. --Green Dragon 03:04, 5 September 2009 (MDT)
Just because it's by the book doesn't make it a good creature as an example of an EL 7 encounter on its own. Rather than citing the template and base creature, look at its stats. It's a horrible monster as a representative of CR 7 creatures when you look at some of the others, including the remorhaz, eight-headed hydra, illithid, and invisible stalker. --Ghostwheel 03:08, 5 September 2009 (MDT)
Why did this even become a featured article? The picture's nice, but apart from that there's nothing special about this monster. It's a horrible representative of what EL 7 encounters are supposed to achieve, and anyone could have simply plopped the template on the base creature to get the final outcome. There doesn't seem to be anything cool or special about it apart from the picture, with the stats itself being massively underpowered for a creature of this level. --Ghostwheel 04:09, 5 September 2009 (MDT)
Guess we just needed another featured article to take up space on the main page. This article may meet all the prereq's for a featured article but I give it a "Epic Fail" in flavor. Maybe no one in this community can make anything as unique as a templated creature. Sad, sad, sad. --Jay Freedman 12:01, 5 September 2009 (MDT)
Seriously? I templated it for convenience for summon monster pages. There is like a billion other templated creatures. The CR is set to 7 because it should be by the book if it is used in an SRD only game. Even if the CR doesn't make much sense. --Aarnott 12:30, 5 September 2009 (MDT)
No problem with that. But should something of this level be a featured page? I think not... :-\ --Ghostwheel 12:33, 5 September 2009 (MDT)
Definitely not. --Aarnott 12:33, 5 September 2009 (MDT)
Exactly. Thus my consternation. And yet it is. Someone want to explain why such an abysmal failure of a creature who is supposed to represent a challenge that taxes 20% of the daily resources of a level 7 party is a featured page? --Ghostwheel 12:35, 5 September 2009 (MDT)
Because I found it a nice picture? -- Jota 12:47, 5 September 2009 (MDT)
*patpats* And we appreciate it much. Wonderful picture (see my second-and-a-half comment), but this content itself is... really under-average as far as balance goes. All in all, it's not a good article in and of itself, and I don't understand why it was even nominated, much less picked to become a featured article when there are far more deserving ones out there. --Ghostwheel 12:51, 5 September 2009 (MDT)
I wasn't really serious, for the record. You'll also notice this article skipped the standard FA procedure (nomination, comments and voting, all that jazz) and just became one, so you'll obviously have to take it up with GD. -- Jota 12:56, 5 September 2009 (MDT)
...I'm beginning to rethink my choice of which wiki I'm on as more BS piles up. >_> --Ghostwheel 13:05, 5 September 2009 (MDT)
I get more page-views here though. And Jay is a page-view whore. Sorry ladies and lionesses. :P --Jay Freedman 13:10, 5 September 2009 (MDT)

←Reverted indentation to one colon

One: no soliciting. Two: I actually think, not only with the attacks labeled as "magic" (not done) and when one keeps in mind the special attacks, the organization, and the full attack I actually think this is a very good CR 7 example. Everyone knows most of the creatures you listed above are grossly overpowered for their CR (hydra for example). I find this one to be a much more of a medium for a CR. --Green Dragon 13:16, 5 September 2009 (MDT)
I don't really care what edition is featured. However, what's important is that it be a good article. In comparison to what a featured article should have, this one sucks. GD, you talk about procedure as far as deleting articles and such goes... Do you only follow procedure when it's convenient? Why didn't this article go through the usual process of becoming a featured article? Why did it become one overnight? Etc etc etc. >_> --Ghostwheel 13:15, 5 September 2009 (MDT)
(Note the times the last two comments were posted, this is in response to the last post that wasn't mine.) Take a look at some of the monsters I listed. The tiger, a creature *3* CR levels below this one can deal more damage in a single round. That its attacks count as magic doesn't matter, since PCs (almost) never get DR X/Magic. And no, the only monster I listed that might be overpowered/designed incorrectly is the illithid who bypasses damage for an "I win if you roll badly" ability that can take down the whole party. A level 7 character can deal a LOT of damage, taking the Hydra down very quickly. Our understanding of what's "proper" for CR at certain levels is developed in two ways; seeing what an equivalent-level party can do, and comparing a creature to others of its CR rating. Compared to most other CR 7 monsters, this one sucks on nearly every level. On the second count, it fails horribly, and there's no real creativity here. It should not have become a featured article.
Furthermore, you still didn't respond to my second concern. Why are you bypassing procedure and protocol when you're the one who calls for it on other people's articles? Is it only for use when it's convenient for you? Do you only cite it when you feel like it can benefit you? Isn't that incredibly inconsistent behavior? --Ghostwheel 13:24, 5 September 2009 (MDT)
Though I agree with the procedure questions being asked, I'll note that the "level" of the monster shouldn't be considered to bar it from nomination. Level 1 articles should have the equal chance to getting FA status as level 20 articles. I was only able to find the SRD Tiger, and I assume this is what you meant - but an FA article needs a picture for the front page. The tiger doesn't have one (to note - not sure if we can put a picture on a SRD creature if it didn't have one in the source material - anyone know if this is true or the legals on this?). I know it may seem trivial, but the image helps bring out the article. The stats look fine to me as long as you aren't playing in an overpowered game.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   13:30, 5 September 2009 (MDT)
Let's take a look at an "average" level 7 half-orc barbarian with a base str of 16. Str is 16 + 2 (Racial) + 2 (Item) + 4 (Rage) = 24 (+7). Attack is +7 (BAB) + 7 (Str) - 2 (Power Attack) + 1 (Magic) = +13/+8. Damage comes out to 8 (Average of 2d6+1 from +1 Greatsword) + 10 (Strength) + 4 (Power Attack) = 23. This means that on a full attack the barbarian has a damage potential of 46 damage. This is a basic, core-only barbarian without anything special in any way. The celestial lion has comparable attack rolls, around the same AC if we take level-equivalent items, but can only do up to 2d6+14+1d8+3 = 28.5 damage. The barbarian could kill this lion--on his own--in 2 rounds, taking very little risk and winning far more often than the lion would. Heck, we could pick up Weapon Focus and power attack for another 1. Also, let's compare HP. This creature has 60 HP. Assuming average HP for levels past 1 and 14 con (+4 from rage), the same barbarian would have 12 + 6.5*6 (Hit Dice) + 4*7 (Con Mod) = 79 HP. And that's before an item that boosts con, or anything of the like. As you can see, the lion is completely underpowered for a monster of its level. I'm not talking about nominating the tiger for FA status, but this article certainly doesn't qualify for it either.
And I never said that level 1 articles shouldn't have the same chance as level 20 articles of being nominated for FA status, or that the tiger should be nominated for FA status (please don't straw man). Rather, monsters who are lauded for their quality and balance should be put up for FA status regardless of their level. This one barely has any flavor text, and isn't balanced at all for its CR, as I've shown above (yes, with real numbers all laid out so you can check them yourself and see the truth of my statement). It should not have even been nominated for FA status, much less put up without any thought for procedure or protocol. --Ghostwheel 13:42, 5 September 2009 (MDT)
I agree with hooper in that I'm not sure I see anything really "wrong" with this page, but I fully agree that it in no way merits FA status, and I am also befuddled as to why GD skipped the entire procedure. --TheWarforgedArtificer 13:53, 5 September 2009 (MDT)
You make some good points, but the thing you have to keep in mind is that CR is at best a rough estimate of a creature's power in comparison to a standard party of adventurers - typically a fighter, a rogue, a cleric, and a wizard, with perhaps a bard as backup. If anything in the formula deviates from the normal, the system can easily break down. It isn't perfect. But you're also basing yours on the idea that the barbarian does maximum damage and hits every time. Now yes, if we do it over a lot the barbarian does have the trend to most likely defeat the creature relatively easily more so than anything else.
For best results when using the D&D CR system with creatures, you need to look at the creature's statistics and the statistics of your PCs. Imagine what would happen if everyone rolled either a 10 or an 11 on their d20 rolls for the whole combat, and that all other dice rolls were similarly averaged. Now, if your PCs would win said combat but take perhaps 4 rounds to do so, then you should award XP for an actual combat against said creature as a CR equal to your party's average level. If the party would win or lose quickly, then adjust the CR to match. We should try this out.
On the final note, you stated above "But should something of this level be a featured page? I think not... " which gave the impression that you didn't believe lower level articles should be considered for FA - even if no questions exist on their stats. I'm glad you clarified - I just wanted you to know what was said that made me say that. Now, flavor text I do believe would be good. This is cut and dry.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   13:55, 5 September 2009 (MDT)
One, with RAW, the hydra is almost impossible to take down (regenerating heads, multiplying heads, fast healing, multiple attacks, etc). To be honest I have never taken down a EL appropriate hydra - I always end up running. With the regenerating heads, multiple heads, fast healing, multiple multiple (for extra heads calculated in this time) attacks it is unworldly. No EL 7 barbarian, no matter what D&D world you are coming from, could ever take down a EL (closest) hydra. It's not fair. This CR 7 is a fair fight - especially with animal tactics it could get very interesting. --Green Dragon 13:56, 5 September 2009 (MDT)
Red herring. Please stay on topic--that this article was featured without any regard for procedures or protocol.
As an aside, let's take the above barbarian. Power Attacking for 3, your average DPR against the hydra's AC of 18 becomes 33. That means on average a barbarian is going to take down a hydra within 4-5 rounds (on his own, taking Fast Healing into account). With a full party at his side supporting him with spells (Glitterdust, look at the hydra's Will save), extra damage (Sneak Attack will increase that damage even more) and healing (though probably redundant at this point), a party of decently build characters can easily take down an eight-headed hydra at 7th level without severing even a single head. Look above at the comparable stats. The celestial dire lion has nothing on either of these creatures, the hydra or the barbarian.
@Hooper: This level of quality, creativity, and balance. Not level as in CR. This article was posted as a FA without nomination, protocol, procedure, or any real flavor text or creativity. And I do wish GD would stop being evasive and address my actual points instead of dancing around them so he doesn't look bad or like he made a mistake. Which he did. I still don't know what's going through his mind, featuring an article without nominating it or checking it for quality. Also, "average" doesn't assume that people "roll a 10" on every attack. It assumes that over the course of rounds, people will roll a bell curve, which ends up being in the middle. The difference there is that on "rolling a 10" some attacks will always hit, and others will always miss. This isn't the case here. The total damage of each attack is multiplied by the chance it'll hit, thus getting an average. There's a big difference. (<-Statistics.) --Ghostwheel 14:09, 5 September 2009 (MDT)
I agree with most - but your above mentioned barbarian is not the average level 7 barbarian - he is way above average.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   14:11, 5 September 2009 (MDT)
Let's check that against actual numbers. First the items. An average character of 7th level is supposed to have 19k in magic items at his disposal. A +1 Greatsword? Around 2k. A +2 Str item? Around 4k. We're well within our limit, and could probably have picked up a +2 sword for even more damage. Now for stats... you don't think that around 16 base strength is about right for most PCs on a primary stat? ...Do you usually play with 22 point buy or something? And that's with a single core-only feat. For the purpose of the example, you could have taken Toughness for the other 2 feats at your disposal. This example is well within the limits of a level 7 character, with nothing outstanding or incredible about it. Fairly average. --Ghostwheel 14:16, 5 September 2009 (MDT)

←Reverted indentation to one colon

Aside from the boys bickering. Hey GD. Why did you pick this article as a FA? Is it your favorite! Hehe. --Jay Freedman 14:28, 5 September 2009 (MDT)(Do you like lions?)
Ghost, May I ask where you are getting your numbers? The only thing I'm aware of is the Character Wealth chart, which for 3.5 is shown on page 54 of the DMG and has the wealth-per-character at level 7 as 8,665 - not 19k as you list above.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   14:28, 5 September 2009 (MDT)
...It might say "NPC" at the top of the chart you're looking at. 3.5 DMG, page 135. Have a looky-look. --Ghostwheel 14:30, 5 September 2009 (MDT)
No, its for PCs - even describes that the total is meant for a per-character wealth who was a member of a four-person party. Odd. Two seconds, let me check that page you reference. Wow. Just looked. The chart you reference does in fact give that number, but then the DMG directly conflicts itself on the page I referenced. Even taking the number given on page 154 and dividing for a party gets a different number, so that isn't what they meant. And the page I referenced mentions that the total shown includes items, so that isn't the issue. Hmm. Very odd. Checking errata. Edit: Ah, okay. Read a sidebar. I see what the issue is now.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   14:31, 5 September 2009 (MDT)
So... yeah. Average stats. By far. Though this isn't the issue at hand at all... *looks to GD, waiting for him to stop being evasive* --Ghostwheel 14:54, 5 September 2009 (MDT)
I'm sorry, I simply do not understand what you mean by evasive. As I explained above this article is simply just SRD material on SRD material (SRD:Dire Lion) on SRD material (SRD:Celestial Creature). I think everything everyone said above has zero relivance and if everyone would like to further bring it up and not listen to logic (a key foundational element of D&D Wiki) then one will simply get banned. D&D Wiki is not a website where one can get their way without any grounds. --Green Dragon 00:44, 10 September 2009 (MDT)


Guys... I know where that image comes from, and not only is it definitely not intended to be a Celestial Dire Lion (in fact, if the creature in question (a Nian) has ever been made a D&D monster, I haven't come across it - if anyone does go looking for it, it's the thing that fireworks are intended to scare of at Chinese New Year celebrations), but I really doubt the people who originally published it ( would be too happy about seeing it here, especially not without attribution. Since I note that this wiki does follow the normal licensing rules of everything being automatically made free-license and that copyrighted work shouldn't be submitted without permission, I would strongly recommend its removal (I'd do so right now myself if not for the slim possibility that Wei-Cho had given permission, but if I don't see evidence of such permission soon, I will remove it and take steps to inform its creator that it has been reproduced here. Draxynnic 08:36, 14 October 2009 (MDT)

Thanks for that link "Draxynnic," we'll need to inform them quickly. However, if you check out the the image page you'll note the legal bit has been linked to.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   09:37, 14 October 2009 (MDT)
Please read the image documentation. Sure, other people use the image in other ways, however for us that works as a celestial dire lion. Also all the license information and legal information can be found on the image page (see link above). If you know of any problems related please let us know. --Green Dragon 21:10, 15 October 2009 (MDT)
Looks legit to me with the documentation. I've notified a company representative just in case, but it should be legitimate with the documentation. (Although I must point out that my own personal mental image of a celestial lion, dire or otherwise, involves less green scales and more shining gold fur. :P) Draxynnic 02:00, 22 October 2009 (MDT)
Since you are asking in any case do you think you could also ask if referencing "AreaNet" is correct? Or should it be someone else for that part? --Green Dragon 10:03, 22 October 2009 (MDT)

Text on Front Page[edit]

On the front page, it says "While lions do not typically hunt humans selectively, some have been known to become man-eaters and seek human prey. " I doubt a Celestial creature would do such. --Axaj 19:42, 21 December 2009 (MST)

Except humans can be evil too, of course. --Green Dragon 03:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


A lion is already Large. How is this a dire lion if it's the same size? --Paperfaust 21:15, 14 February 2011 (MST)

This is Large because the dire lion is also Large. --Green Dragon 21:40, 14 February 2011 (MST)
Personal tools
Home of user-generated,
homebrew pages!
system reference documents
admin area
Terms and Conditions for Non-Human Visitors