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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 3868339" data-attributes="member: 48965">No...not really.  If I want a hardcore undead fighter in 3.5...I make it a fighter/barbarian/swordsage/warblade/etc.  Where's the actual finaggling coming in at?  You give it a class appropriate to what you want to achieve.Huh?  So basically you have the racial abilities( which willbe the same and simplified for combat) that are the same for each monster, plus those from a role...how is this any different from 3.5 if you add a class to a monster?  There were (in 3.5) and still will be (in 4e) things designated by race that you then add a role (class) to.Not understanding this at all.  How does what we know about 4e monsters so far,  allow more variation than 3.5 where you could add a template, a class(w/feats, skills, spells, etc.) to the base monster's abilities?How is this any different than giving the monsters roles which may or may not coincide with what you want for the monster?  In the end a role will only be able to encompass a certain concept, and...unless were dropping the whole simplification thing...will be kept purposefully simple.  How does this in anyway speak to more flexibility than 3.5?  I guess if you buy enough sourcebooks with enough of the designers preconceived roles it could, but I doubt out of the box 4e monsters will be anywhere near as customizable as 3.5 monsters are.  Monsters, like character classes are archetypes for that particular concept...that's why a monster's abiities and a character's class are similar</blockquote>

Verification