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: 5693782" data-attributes="member: 82106">Well, as I posted someplace, you could have a 5+5 HD monster with AC -5, and another similar level monster (hill giant, slightly higher HD 8+1-2 IIRC) with an AC 5. That's a huge variance. That's the whole point, there is no 'formula' and you can see the same with damage output. You've got large high hit die monsters with no more than a medium damage attack, and lower level creatures with 5 attacks that each do only slightly less damage. The average melee attack damage of 1e monsters is thus all over the map. 1e monster's special abilities and special attacks are also quite a bit more varied. I don't know what you looked at, but the special abilities of 4e monsters are particularly constrained. Yes, there are a lot of them, but they are virtually all limited to highly constrained superficial effects. Thus greater variation in numbers, slightly less constrained abilities, etc would not break 4e and would make monsters more distinctive and interesting.As for the argument that you'll have some parties that are not able to exploit a monster's weaknesses. This is what I would call '4e thinking'. Why are you fighting a monster you can't get an advantage over? This is foolish. It is exactly the kind of thing you EXPECTED would get you killed fast in 1e. Don't expect me to cry or be generous to you when you go into that fight against a giant and expect to be able to hit his FORT very much. Should have thought ahead. This is exactly why 1e was much more of an exploration focused game and did that style of play so well. 4e actively works against it by removing the need to plan, and some other things that haven't been addressed here. Besides, it is not as if you can't do the 'haha I nerfed the party' thing in 4e either. Flying monsters vs a melee heavy party, etc all amply allow for that, it is just much less prevalent. [MENTION=56645]Nagora[/MENTION]I disagree. While 1e was an excellent framework for exploration it was pretty limited in almost every other way. Clever players could get around most plots with magic except at low levels, and many characters had nothing at all they could do if they weren't fighting except the same stuff every other character could do, or they had special abilities but they only worked in specific environments, etc. It wasn't a good tactical combat game either, so it was pretty narrow. Later editions provide a lot more depth over a wider range of play. You can say it is has gained us 'nothing', but that's only true if we were all wanting to play the game that 1e delivered. That was a fine game, for a while.</blockquote>

Verification