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: 8273028" data-attributes="member: 82106">Hmmmm, that wasn't my perception. I mean, yes, higher level monsters in earlier versions of the MM tended to be tactically insufficient in a good number of cases. This wasn't, IMHO, an intentional part of the design. In fact it was PARTLY a result of complaints by players that "the math is off!" because their high level PCs didn't get a full +1/level increase in attack bonus and some of their defenses fell behind somewhat. As a result WotC printed the heinous 'Taxpertise' feats which simply larded on an extra +1/+2/+3 to attack bonus. This, coupled with somewhat weak damage output and insufficient action economy at high levels made a lot of monsters into punching bags. There were also inevitably a few other minor chinks in the design, like Orbizard optimization was a bit out of control (you could build a total lockdown build that was guaranteed to win almost any fight as long as it got to go first, though it did require use of rare Daily resources, so it wasn't completely OP). Note that there were a few monsters, like the Dracolich, which broke the action economy the OTHER way, lol. They were hated even more than things like the Purple Worm which were pretty much hapless against a decently optimized party. 4e had its issues, and they cropped up at Paragon/Epic mostly, but in terms of the basic design, it was merely details of execution of individual elements, coupled with a spineless attitude towards player demands for changes, that was a mild problem.If you get out MM2 and drop Demogorgon into a 30th level capstone fight, you won't think he's 'too small' in any sense. The PCs are likely to win, but they will have to work for it some. Lolth is even nastier, as an MM3 design.</blockquote>

Verification