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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5672766" data-attributes="member: 82106">I didn't hate Vancian magic in quite the way some people seem to. It has its limitations and I'm perfectly happy with the treatment you get in 4e as a replacement. Anyway, there is still the Spellbook feature, which I think is again pretty underutilized for similar reasons. I can live with that, but it would be more useful with monsters that had more significant strengths and weaknesses. Yeah, and I don't entirely disagree with this either. In fact I think the 'problem' is more subtle. I'll say a bit more on that later.Yeah, I do think that there could be some varieties of monsters that are particularly suitable for this though. Instead of needing to use a very few at-level monsters or several that are down level enough to be less interesting it would be fine to have some monsters with a different offense/defense ratio. 4e fixes that too tightly IMHO.On the whole, but the problem is perception. When playing these 2 point variations are lost in the noise. Maybe your super tactical people track everything with an eagle eye and notice. What I see is that the more ordinary players can't tell the difference between a REF of 20 and a REF of 22, it is simply lost far down in the noise of situational bonuses and penalties and conveys next to nothing. Meanwhile the giant Purple Worm that dodges blows 95% as well as a Quickling isn't conveying any sense of anything whatsoever except that the numbers are arbitrary and purely gamist. I've come to believe that this simply leads to a perception that monsters are just game pieces and seriously subverts their distinctiveness despite anything designers try to do with traits and powers. I fully appreciate all the gamist advantages of 4e design. However, I've simply come to the conclusion that gamist considerations are overvalued in 4e. Hell I KNOW they are because I hear the complaints about it both online and at my table, consistently and without end. I don't want random broken BS game mechanics, but there IS a middle ground here somewhere. I'm just here to say that within the scope of 4e this would be one of the very easiest and most visible ways to cater to both existing players (who can always simply hammer every monster down to the level of consistency it has now anyway) and the people that feel differently. That was the topic of the thread, and that would be my advice to Mike and Co. It will increase the value of strategic thinking by making the strengths and weaknesses of monsters come through more in their basic math, make them FEEL more appropriate, and I don't think it will impact tactics and consistency anywhere near as much as some people think. In any case, it is easy to find out, try it. At the simplest level. Just make a few encounters with some customized monsters with a +/- 5 envelope on defenses instead of the typical 2-3 points. You'll find it actually makes things more fun, and if it makes a few encounters easier it will also make a few harder and you have plenty of simple ways to adjust that.</blockquote>

Verification