[Playtest 2] The Madman, the Sociopath, and the Simpleton

[Blackwarder]

That's probably what I'll end up doing, I'm mainly concerned wether I should also crank up monster HP or not...

Btw, I'll rule that you can't parry missile weapons at all in my game...

Warder

 

[slobster]

That's probably what I'll end up doing, I'm mainly concerned wether I should also crank up monster HP or not...

Warder

I would leave mook enemies like orcs and kobolds alone, though I can see a definite argument for upping the hp on ogres and big guys like that. They were more on the ball in the first playtest, in my mind.

 

[The Shadow]

So what would you suggest we do to try and make the monsters a challenge?

We discussed giving the orcs an extra +2 to hit - a 'class bonus' in addition to their strength. They still won't be in the PC's league, but they'll be more scary. (For bonus fear, give them a +3 instead, same as a 1st level fighter.) I can't speak to the lethality of that scenario, because of course we didn't do it.

Heh. When I suggested toning down the orc experience, both Jim and Darren officiously reminded me we were supposed to playtest the rules as they be writ.

When Miglin killed a few kobolds, though, I insisted on giving him a half-share of the XP. Oh, the gnomanity!

 

[Argyle King]

My suggestion would be that things like HP, defenses, and to-hit bonuses be more consistent between monsters and PCs. I'm perfectly fine (and applaud 4E) with a design which means monsters are built using slightly different rules than PCs. However, I feel that the way monsters and PCs interact with the world and each other should be more consistent. That is to say that I feel, when comparing PC math to the math involved of the physics engine of the game world, the results should be consistent with doing the same -comparing monster math to the the numbers the game world is built upon.

 

[The Shadow]

I keep thinking of new things to mention.

Darren and Jim both found backgrounds to be a fun and easy way to slap a character together. They both would have preferred to mix-and-match feats a bit, but when I explained that would ultimately be possible, they agreed that specialties were a very good and flavorful way of organizing them.

I personally found backgrounds to be very... freeing. Thief and Warlock synergized very nicely. It was good to be able to say, "Yes, I am a thief. But I'm not a rogue." It frees up worldbuilding too, so you don't have to justify everyone in a thieves' guild having levels of things they shouldn't need.

 

[fuindordm]

Interesting point about monsters having little chance of hitting. The reverse situation was a key balancing point of 1e design; even 1hd monsters typically had a better THAC0 than the 1st level fighter, not counting the Str bonus. There are a lot of in-world justifications for this--it simply makes sense that savages who fight all the time for food and territory would be better fighters than civilised folk, even if they are fighters.

This situation had the good side effect of making any fight a drain on resources at low levels. Personally, I like my PCs to be tough enough to put up a really good fight, but not so tough that they can afford to fight everything. They should choose their battles wisely.

Thanks for the story!

 

[MarkB]

I ran the playtest scenario yesterday, for a party of the pre-gen fighter, cleric and rogue plus a custom human wizard, and our experience was similar to yours.

The party never felt in any real danger, and with the skill/ability check DCs set as they are, any time multiple characters could make a check the party never failed.

We did have a good time nevertheless, especially in the Wormwrithings quest. I enjoyed running Miglin as a somewhat obfuscating character with a fascination for 'interesting' rock formations. Favourite part was as they were setting off:

Wizard: Wait, are there still purple worms in there now?
Miglin: I don't know, I'm not there now.
Wizard: Well, when did you last see a worm there?
Miglin: About six months ago.
Wizard: Oh, that doesn't sound so bad. Let's go.

(Ten minutes later, as they're about to enter the Wormwrithings)

Miglin: Ahh, it'll be interesting being back here again. Haven't been down here in about six months, since I saw that purple worm.


The random rolling in the tunnels was a little swingy. I think we'd been through every other encounter at least twice before I finally rolled for a singing crystal formation, and then they got two sets of three crystals in a row.

The kobold dragonshields were the only monster that posed a significant problem to them, and I'm not sure I was running them properly - it was hard to tell whether their protection ability covered themselves as well as their adjacent allies. I ran it the former way first time round, and the Disadvantage caused them to shrug off attacks for two full rounds. It seemed very powerful either way - I felt that it ought to have required a reaction to use.

The blind ogre encounter was just embarrassing. The wizard moved up on first initiative and Thunderwaved the ogre back behind the kobolds, after which they ran full-tilt into the middle of the cavern to get out of its weapon range, and were picked off by the rest of the party. The ogre never got close to anyone.

By the time they'd collected all the crystals and were heading back, I described the tunnels as echoing with the occasional cry of kobold war bands - not in anger as they pursued the party, but in terror as they desperately fled out of their path.

The wizard found the Sleep spell rather swingy with its hit point limit. It was very impressive first time out, taking down six 3hp kobolds on a roll of 18 points, but when he tried to use it upon a band of four 11hp orcs, it was frustrating to roll 21, just short of taking down a second orc.

All in all, we had a good time, the rules played well, but XP values and monsters' effectiveness definitely need some tweaking.