I am beginning to appreciate some of the design decisions of 4E.

[Jeff Carlsen]

The original poster has it just about right. I may not play 4e, but I've certainly learned a lot from it. Particularly in the way it works for the Game Master.

The system was written from the ground up for the GM to easily build an encounter that was dynamic, interesting, and balanced for a certain level of difficulty, while still being easy to run. Monster levels and roles are a clever concept that seem to work well.

I play mostly Savage Worlds these days. While I find that the simplicity of that system makes creating NPCs and Monsters really easy, it lacks D&D 4e's toolset for building full encounters. This is something we should pay attention to when designing all games from here on out.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

As much as I thought they were fantastic and revolutionary when they first came out, I have grown to hate the whole "PCs and NPCs work the same" set of rules.

PCs being a certain degree of complex is a good thing, because the player only needs to make one of them. Maybe one or two extras if they really want.

Not only does the DM need to make a whole lot more NPCs, but the rules are built around PCs first, not NPCs. Want to make a high ranking diplomat who's very good at his job? You can either ignore the rules and make up his diplomacy number, level him up and now the diplomat is somehow a better warrior then the guards are. It makes a degree of sense for PCs who overall get better at everything as they level up. But it and a good number of other rules just don't work for NPCs.

 

[Reynard]

I wonder: if I look at what I did for the guards and consider what I want for the high priest, can I find a system for both or either?

The guards are fodder. They are there, ultimately, to make the fight more interesting by a) threatening the PCs and b) prolong the life of the high priest so he can get off more spells.

So, a) means the guards have to be capable of harming the PCs without necessarily being able to kill them outright. And b) means there needs to be enough of them and they need to be able to last long enough to occupy the PCs. I assigned (rather arbitrarily) the important combat stats to the guards as follows: Init +4; Move 20; AC 21 (FF 19, T 12); hp 45 (6 HD for spells, etc.); Saves: F +8, R +4, W +4; Att +10 melee (1d10+4), +8 Ranged (1d8+2); CMB +10, CMD 20; Special Attack: Smite 1/day (+4 to hit, double damage); Physical skill rolls at +8, mental skill rolls (including perception) at +4.

Now, the goal of the High Priest is to be the real meat of the encounter, particularly as a source of cool spell effects and summoned beings. This is why I spent 2.5 hours prepping the High Priest: I wanted to know all the villain's potential spells and tactics for the battle.

(Point of reference: the PCs are trying to assassinate the High Priest in his home city and temple.)

It seems too arbitrary to just make up a half dozen spell effects for the HP, though that would certainly be easier:
1) Ranged Touch +12, 7d8 fire damage 3/day
2) Summon Greater Fire Elemental 1/day
3) Mass cure guards 2d8+14 1/day
4) Hold Person 3/day Will DC 21 negates
5) Word of Recall 1/day
6) DIE! (140 points of damage, DC 21 Fort for half) 1/day.

Actually, that was pretty ease.

Hmm....

 

[I'm A Banana]

And the issue of huge DM prep time was one they both tried to fix and knocked out of the park.

I've got some mixed results for this in general, but they certainly did try to address it, and, in the realm of combat NPC's, they did not-too-shabby of a job. Picking out 30+ spells is no fun, and there needed to be a way to quickly get to the heart of it, and class templates do a nice job.

In practice, that boils down to the 3e advice of "pick a few high-level powers and ignore the rest", with 4e's lack of long-term buffs.

There's some definite streamlining 3e/PF can do with regards to whipping up enemies (especially enemy PC-race spellcasters)

 

[Piratecat]

I'll be blunt. Edition warring - "Waah, 4e is better! No, 3e is better! No, Pathfinder is better!" - is not something we want to see here. Please don't make those sort of contentless posts trying to prove that your game is the One True Way, Dammit.

Instead, discuss the issue. Brainstorm ways to adapt one game methodology into another to speed up prep time. Offer help. Sympathize. That's all awesome. Posts such as the first part of #3, the second part of #4, or #5, above are not.

When you see edition war sniping, please report it using the triangular "!" to the left of every post. That's definitely the most efficient way to have it dealt with.

 

[Votan]

I also really like how they make the "look and feel" of each creature somewhat unique. Fighting Lloth feels very different than fighting Orcus. Dragons have some really interesing powers that make each type feel very unique (above and beyond the different types of breath weapon). The 4E rules led to a degree of really creative designs for NPCs that I think was the high point of the 4E system (at least in my opinion).

 

[kitsune9]

I run Pathfinder and really enjoy it. I don't like 4E much.

However there's something to be said for not having to spend 2.5 hours putting together spell info for an enemy who might last 4 rounds.

Dammit.

Welcome to the club Reynard. I worked on this vile NPC spellcaster who was going to be a total butt-kicker. It took me four hours to get him statted up and ready to go. He died in the very first round. Four. Hours. Gone.

Really funny when I think about it.

I don't play 4e either, but I do like their monster management concept.

 

[prosfilaes]

It makes a degree of sense for PCs who overall get better at everything as they level up. But it and a good number of other rules just don't work for NPCs.

Er, why? I mean, if my mage hasn't used his dagger in 4 levels, why does his BAB keep going up? And once we accept that it does for PCs, why is it such a big deal if it happens for NPCs? High skills in D&D 3/Pathfinder need high levels, and high levels come with hit points and BAB improvements. It may be odd, but it's just the way their universe works.

 

[Wiseblood]

I liked saving throws too. I couldn't help but laugh when somebody failed a save 5 times in a row. It was even funny when it happened to my monsters.

 

[Kunimatyu]

I eventually just got fed up with designing monsters in 3.5 -- it takes too long for too little payoff. Pathfinder is a bit better, and I like how it offers general target numbers for damage/attack/defense, but it's still pure clunk in how you do it.

Paizo DOES have a solution, though - if you run their modules, you won't have to design anything horribly clunky, and 3.5 plays quite smoothly until the higher levels (which are not-coincidentally missing from your average Adventure Path). I see Paizo as sort of like the Apple of RPG companies - if you do things the way they want you to, you'll have a wonderful user experience, but if you stray off the path, things get hairy fast.

On the flip side, I like 4e's monster design guidelines, and its emphasis on unique abilities for each monster. If only combat didn't take so darn long! There's no time for exploration or RP if you want to have more than one interesting combat per session.

These days, I just run Savage Worlds, and port over 4e-style monster abilities. It has what I need - fast prep, quick play, and interesting combats. I'm curious if Gamma World will offer some of these advantages as well.