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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Primal" data-source="post: 4068822" data-attributes="member: 30678">No, I don't think it takes too much effort ("extra work"), say, to give a monster lower-than-average HPs, right? Do you*really* think that a DM, who adjusts the "danger curve" of the campaign to match the party's abilities is using a "crappy" method? I'm a bit baffled why you'd think that it would be "bad" or "not fun" if *all* the PCs get to "shine" , since I though this was one of the design goals in 4E? So some of the guys (e.g. those with better HPs) may occasionally get to be more "heroic" than they "normally" would at their level, but I never saw this "unbalancing" the game at all. And why would "weaker" monsters make for an "unbalanced" campaign, if the DM knows how to adjust their numbers and stats for a balanced encounter? Besides, isn't this "more heroic at lower levels" another design premise of 4E? In factm I never saw anyone being more "heroic" than others just because of HPs, but *Ability scores* are another matter...Let me tell you something -- *ALL* PCs in that campaign had lower-than-average HPs, but this wasn't actually the reason which led to the party's demise at 8th level. Here's the thing: it's the dynamic *attack rolls* in D&D that did the thing. Really. And the fact that we split the party and each PC went exploring on their own, certainly. But in the end, a regenerating BBEG slew each of us in single combat, due to horrible attack rolls. I mean, I rolled single-digits for *five* consecutive rounds with *ALL* of my three attacks... and the funny thing is that I only needed to roll 10 to hit! And the same happened to the Ranger and the Cleric. So, I don't think it was just bad luck... that was destiny.  And the funny thing is that under the "normal" circumstances any one of use should have killed that BBEG in melee. Now, would this be a valid argument for static *attacks* in D&D?      You may seem to think that every PC must be "optimized" for combat, since that's the "heart and soul" of D&D, right? And "sucky" PCs are "badwrongfun", right? Yet I know many people who run campaigns in which "non-heroic" abilities and events play a much larger role. I tend to see it this way: if the basic premise of a campaign is interesting, I don't mind creating a "weak" (minimized) PC as long as the character is interesting and fun to play *and* has some sort of goals which are also possible to achieve in that campaign. If you want to play cobblers, blacksmiths and whatnot -- why should you not be able to play them in D&D? Is it because D&D *should* be about "monster bashing" and little else? Is variety in character options a bad thing, if it allows for "non-optimized" builds? I don't think so, if the DM and the players both know which sort of campaign a DM is going to run. So, maybe you don't like players who create "Tanks who can't do their job", but is that really the "heart" of the problem, or is it because you can't think of ways to work around this "problem"?And I'm quite surprised that you seem to think that rolling for stats does not affect game balance as much as rolling for HPs. So your Fighter has 25 HPs more than my Fighter, but he has only STR 12 (your best score) while I have 14-18 in all my stats. Which of them will be "suckier" in most campaigns? And yet, although the 'Point Buy' system is far better from the perspective of game balance, it tends to produce almost identical stats -- especially if you only have 28 points to buy your stats with.As for the NPC design -- you seriously think your "mysterious" NPC will be able to "hold back" his powers for more than a round or two? I know that this type of metagaming has always existed, but with static HPs I suspect it will become an even more significant feature in the game. In 3E, that 10th level Wizard might have 10-70 HPs (excluding Feats), so it'd be pretty pointless to "guesstimate" his HPs (except that if he's a BBEG, he's probably got more than just 10 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />) and try to pick a "group assault plan" based on that. In 4E, assuming wizards get 8 points at 1st level and 4/level, he might have about 54-62 HPs (excluding Feats). So in 4E you're actually able to know which tactics everyone *should* use to take him down -- maybe even on round 1. So yeah, it's just for NPCs, but I think most DMs prefer using PC races and classes for BBEGs and I think it might prove to be a serious "flaw" in 4E.As for monster BBEGs... as the designers have hinted at 'Orc Shamans who spit acid', I think it's a random roll or two on a "Special Powers"-table (similar to how Chaos mutants work in WFRP).</blockquote>

Verification