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

[amnuxoll]

The simplest solution is just to use the 4e monsters in Pathfinder. Just grab the 4e stat block and adjust the numbers a bit. Not everything will translate (example: push/pull/slide effects) but I'll bet most of it just falls right out.

The other quick solution is to steal an existing critter stat block and re-skin it: another 4e trick.

Obviously, if you want to create a special NPC or monster you have to put more thought into it than that. That's actually a page that 4e could take of d20's book: sometimes you need to do it the slow way to make it special. The concept of an elite or solo monster has worked poorly most of the time I've seen it used.

 

[Celtavian]

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.

I use some 4E design choices in my Pathfinder game. I like some of what 4E did to be honest.

I buffed hit points to insane levels like 4E did with their BBEG. I no longer base hit points on the hit die for the end of adventure BBEGs. Instead I design the BBEG with the idea in mind that he will be battling a party rather than designing him like a character.

I think 4E's BBEG design better fit the fiction model, and D&D is storytelling before adherence to mechanics. So I design my BBEGs according to my idea of a fictional BBEG. Which mostly incorporates bloating their hit points so they can last against an entire party beating on them while dealing out enough damage to make the party feel threatened.

The one thing 4E didn't do though was design the offense of a BBEG to be in line with the idea of fighting a party. I'm working on that part. You can't only design hit points and defensive stats to make the BBEG stay alive. You also have to design the guys offense to threaten five people. That usually means some kind of damaging aura or AoE type attacks or a series of single attacks so tough that it will put a single individual in enough danger that he will feel like he almost lost his life.

I'm working on that part right now. But monster design was fairly well done in 4E when it comes to BBEGs. I've taken that design idea and tweaked it to make it useable in Pathfinder.

 

[pemerton]

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.

Interesting comment. One of the reasons I shifted from Rolemaster to 4e was becoming fed up with RM's lack of encounter building guidelines.

The one thing 4E didn't do though was design the offense of a BBEG to be in line with the idea of fighting a party. I'm working on that part. You can't only design hit points and defensive stats to make the BBEG stay alive. You also have to design the guys offense to threaten five people. That usually means some kind of damaging aura or AoE type attacks or a series of single attacks so tough that it will put a single individual in enough danger that he will feel like he almost lost his life.

I'm working on that part right now.

The 4e designers have tried to solve this problem in MM3 and Monster Vault. You (or anyone else interested in this conversion project) might want to have a look at those books.

 

[The Human Target]

Yeah the solo monster problem has been pretty much solved IMO.

These new solos are terrors.

 

[Kaiyanwang]

The simplest solution is just to use the 4e monsters in Pathfinder. Just grab the 4e stat block and adjust the numbers a bit. Not everything will translate (example: push/pull/slide effects) but I'll bet most of it just falls right out.

The other quick solution is to steal an existing critter stat block and re-skin it: another 4e trick.

Obviously, if you want to create a special NPC or monster you have to put more thought into it than that. That's actually a page that 4e could take of d20's book: sometimes you need to do it the slow way to make it special. The concept of an elite or solo monster has worked poorly most of the time I've seen it used.

Actually, there is a table with guidelines in the monster creation rules.

When I don't have enough time, I use it in this way: I select a CR appropriate monster, then slap on it a "new skin" and appropriate Supernaturals to fit the guidelines.

So the same line of the table could be a Drow Aspect Warrior, a Warp Spider, and a Blessed One (Drider) of the Drows of my Setting. The high DC value attack listed in the table could be a stunning attack, a web, or a poison depending from the monster.

Please note that I prefer classical monster creation. I prefer monsters and PC follow the same rules - and the table does not cover things like CMB/CMD, or touch attack so I have to eyeball. But it's nice have a fast otpion when needed."Facis de necessitate virtutem".

 

[Vicar In A Tutu]

I played 3E for six years (2000-2006), and during that time I started many campaigns. Not a single campaign was played to the end, mostly due to the fact that I burned out as a DM when the campaign reached semi-high levels (9+). I can't stand to spend time on prep - beside the fun stuff like possible plot twists and characters (fluff, not crunch). In the end, prepping for 3E felt like doing homework.

4E didn't completely solve this, but it made DMing a whole lot easier. My first 4E campaign (which is also my current) has gone on for about a year and a half, the characters are lvl 14, and it's still easy for me to DM.

I buy quite a few pathfinder books (classic monsters revisited, devil and demon books, bestiaries), but prefer to just read them for inspiration. When it comes to my purchasing habits, I buy 4E to play and Pathfinder to read.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Man, by the end of my last 3.5 campaign was I winging it like a madman. Prep bored me to tears, and I found the less prep I did, the more fun the game was.

I was pretty good at eyeballing AC and save amounts and damages, to make the creature more fun.

I liked and still like 3.5, but I hope I never have to make an NPC strictly by the rules there again.

But one advantage I see in 3.5 is that if you do the work, it is a lot easier to make monsters more unique. Choose different spells, and switch around feats, and Stone giant shaman #1 is very different from #2.

But what I would do in this case, is choose 1/2 of the spells every level and just have all casters use them. Spells like dispel magic are so good, every NPC should have access to it. Choose the other half for each NPC. Do the same for feats.

A few hours of work on making the generic 1/2 genric of NPCs should save tons of time making the unique 1/2 unique.

 

[slwoyach]

How in the world does it take 2.5 hours to put together a spell list? People always come in with these stories about massive amounts of time required to set up encounters and I just don't buy it. Most of my encounters are run on the fly with absolutely no prep time.

 

[Celtavian]

re

How in the world does it take 2.5 hours to put together a spell list? People always come in with these stories about massive amounts of time required to set up encounters and I just don't buy it. Most of my encounters are run on the fly with absolutely no prep time.

If you truly want to follow the rules for NPC building and you want to use complex spell strategy, it can take a lot of time to design an NPC. I don't know about 2.5 hours. But building a high lvl NPC with a concept in mind or a party can take a long time to do right.

That's one of the main reasons I'm not about to give my NPC character level hit points to die in two rounds when I took a long time to build that NPC. No dang way. I want an epic fight and I'm going to get an epic fight even if I have to give my NPC a thousand hit points.

 

[fumetti]

My three favorite innovations of 4E:

1. Spellcasters are useful at low levels! I never played a Magic-User before 4E because of lack of things to do early on.

2. Minions! What an ingenious idea. Fodder for low levels.

3. Rituals! Allows arcane spellcasters to study the combat spells they need without sacrificing useful non-combat spells.




I am mixed about:

4. High HP at low levels. On one hand, I like not dying so easily. On the other hand, 1st level is too early for characters to start throwing caution to the wind.

5. Surges. Good game mechanic and removes the dependency on healing spells/potions, but makes the game really unrealistic. It also diminishes the strategy required for survival--finding places to hide from wandering monsters while the wounded heal, keeping plenty of food/water, etc.




And what seemed like a positive hasn't quite turned out that way:

6. Every class has virtually the same combat effectiveness. Everybody can start out with +4/5 to hit and does d6-d10 damage, regardless of class. The only difference is armor class. What began as a liberating innovation (everyone can fight) quickly turned into a homogenation of the classes. Three PHBs and a gazillion classes...all basically doing the same things.

7. Ironically, most of my low level combats have taken fewer rounds to complete than in early editions. Yet, these combats take twice/three times as long to play out. Major win for the hardcore rule-nerds. Not so victorious for those wishing to spend time on the actual story...