Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Twowolves" data-source="post: 3867662" data-attributes="member: 18093">After years of playing, owning and reading tons of diverse sytems from many different genres, I have found that one thing that had been missing was PC-Monster equality. By that I mean that in many many systems, the Monsters/NPCs didn't play by the same rules as the PCs. And that bugged me. For example, one sci-fi game I ran ages ago had hit locations for the PCs, but NPCs were just effectively &quot;hit point pools&quot;. Sure you rolled hit location when you shot at them, but only to see if you did extra damage on a &quot;critical&quot; hit (head or puddins). In 3rd ed D&amp;D, they put the monsters/npcs on such an even footing that they were able to make monster classes. Monsters (in 3.5 ed anyway) have the same skill progression, feat progression, stat point bumps, etc etc etc. This, IMO, was one of the most brilliant things they could have done with the system. Going one step further, it was done so well that with monster advancement, class levels and templates, you had a near limitless flexibility when it comes to creating challenges for PCs. The cherry on the sundae is that you can describe a monster completely differently than the mechanics outlined above. To me, the concept in 4th ed of streamlining monsters and putting them into a box defined by role may be easier to run &quot;on the fly&quot;, but it sure seems from what we've been shown thus far to be a big step backwards in terms of the even playing field between sides of the DM's screen.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Twowolves, post: 3867662, member: 18093"] After years of playing, owning and reading tons of diverse sytems from many different genres, I have found that one thing that had been missing was PC-Monster equality. By that I mean that in many many systems, the Monsters/NPCs didn't play by the same rules as the PCs. And that bugged me. For example, one sci-fi game I ran ages ago had hit locations for the PCs, but NPCs were just effectively "hit point pools". Sure you rolled hit location when you shot at them, but only to see if you did extra damage on a "critical" hit (head or puddins). In 3rd ed D&D, they put the monsters/npcs on such an even footing that they were able to make monster classes. Monsters (in 3.5 ed anyway) have the same skill progression, feat progression, stat point bumps, etc etc etc. This, IMO, was one of the most brilliant things they could have done with the system. Going one step further, it was done so well that with monster advancement, class levels and templates, you had a near limitless flexibility when it comes to creating challenges for PCs. The cherry on the sundae is that you can describe a monster completely differently than the mechanics outlined above. To me, the concept in 4th ed of streamlining monsters and putting them into a box defined by role may be easier to run "on the fly", but it sure seems from what we've been shown thus far to be a big step backwards in terms of the even playing field between sides of the DM's screen. [/QUOTE]

Verification