Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Reynard" data-source="post: 4015479" data-attributes="member: 467">I really think there are two aspects to the game that are sometimes in concert and sometimes in conflict: character rules and DMing rules.  When these two things are less closely linked, as they were in earlier editions, I think it is easier for any particular group to determine how they interact in play (through preferences and playstyle choices).  When they are bound more tightly together (such as through "core mechanics" and characters and creatures using the same rules) there's less flexibility for the individual group to determine for themselves how they interact.  The "density" of the rules has a major impact as well, and of course the quality of the rules.I consider the pit fiend MM entry a "promise kept" and think it is an example of where 4E may provide some of that necessary seperation distance.  While I am not necessarily a big fan of the specifics of the pit fiends design, the construction of the stat block and the design philosophy of the abilities are very cool, IMO.  It is kind of a return to 1E/2E, where creatures were both a) less complex than characters, and b) designed under a different paradigm than characters.  The ability to grab a quick creature without having to modify it is a boon to DMs and increases the authoritative control of the DM.  Obviously, we want to be able to design creatures from the ground up -- that's part of the DM's job, too -- but creatures that run faster and are easier to grok give the Dm more game-space to work with.  likewise, creatures that have unique abilities not dependent upon the same concrete list of abilities available to players provides more game-space, too.In short -- the monster end of 4E is looking up from perspective.  I am still concerned about the rigidity of roles and rules and how those things affect the interaction between DM and player, but there seems to be at least one "point of light".</blockquote>

Verification