Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Voss" data-source="post: 4155565" data-attributes="member: 57593">As solos?&nbsp; No.&nbsp; My experience with the solo monster in the available 4e material has been very poor.&nbsp; After a flurry of activity the combat turned into a long, drawn out and extremely boring grind.&nbsp; That wasn't fun.Elites... eh.&nbsp; I'm not to keen on them either, particularly with the glimpse of the template (+50% hp and +2 to defenses, was it?)&nbsp; Just making them able to soak more damage doesn't make them interesting. (plus its rather appropriate for what are usually considered soft targets- wizards and the like).What I do like is the larger combats that don't turn into TPKs.&nbsp; At one point in a trial encounter, there were 10 monsters on the mat (two had already died).&nbsp; Mixing it up with a variety of monsters with a clear leader was fun, tactical, interesting, and heroic.&nbsp; Playing dogpile on the wizard (monster, dragon, whatever) definitely isn't.&nbsp; Beowulf fighting Grendel is interesting.&nbsp; Beowulf, the Gray Mouser, Bishop Otto and Gandalf playing 'Schoolyard Bullies' with Grendel, not so much, and sadly that was what 3e leaned toward.And, of course, having tried it out, combats that were 6-12 monsters vs 6 PCs were more fun. Any combat with significantly fewer monsters than PCs were either dreadfully easy or dreadfully boring, even if the monsters were solos (the dragon) or just much higher level- I tried a level 10 Chuul against the sample characters and another encounter with&nbsp; a Gnoll Daemonic Scourge (8) &amp; a Gnoll Clawfighter (6).&nbsp; Both were easy, which was a little disturbing.&nbsp; A defender went down in each encounter, but novaing dailies and encounter powers in the same round with action points basically meant that they tore the enemies down to manageable levels.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Voss, post: 4155565, member: 57593"] As solos? No. My experience with the solo monster in the available 4e material has been very poor. After a flurry of activity the combat turned into a long, drawn out and extremely boring grind. That wasn't fun. Elites... eh. I'm not to keen on them either, particularly with the glimpse of the template (+50% hp and +2 to defenses, was it?) Just making them able to soak more damage doesn't make them interesting. (plus its rather appropriate for what are usually considered soft targets- wizards and the like). What I do like is the larger combats that don't turn into TPKs. At one point in a trial encounter, there were 10 monsters on the mat (two had already died). Mixing it up with a variety of monsters with a clear leader was fun, tactical, interesting, and heroic. Playing dogpile on the wizard (monster, dragon, whatever) definitely isn't. Beowulf fighting Grendel is interesting. Beowulf, the Gray Mouser, Bishop Otto and Gandalf playing 'Schoolyard Bullies' with Grendel, not so much, and sadly that was what 3e leaned toward. And, of course, having tried it out, combats that were 6-12 monsters vs 6 PCs were more fun. Any combat with significantly fewer monsters than PCs were either dreadfully easy or dreadfully boring, even if the monsters were solos (the dragon) or just much higher level- I tried a level 10 Chuul against the sample characters and another encounter with a Gnoll Daemonic Scourge (8) & a Gnoll Clawfighter (6). Both were easy, which was a little disturbing. A defender went down in each encounter, but novaing dailies and encounter powers in the same round with action points basically meant that they tore the enemies down to manageable levels. [/QUOTE]

Verification