Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mustrum_Ridcully" data-source="post: 4564175" data-attributes="member: 710">Very good analysis, Stalker0. As usual. Unfortunately, I still have to spread some XP around before handing some to you again! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown    :("  data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" />Your observations on how changing hit points and damage values of monsters are accurate and very important. The amount of damage taken per attack and per round affect the "value" of healing. I haven't experimented much yet, but I think, from my experiences so far, doubling damage and halving hit points will probably be too swingy (and overall, too deadly). But maybe 25 % less hit points and +33 % damage could work for some monsters. (If C: Combat Power:  HP x Damage = C  =>  3/4 HP x 4/3 Damage = C)Maybe particular Solos and Elites. I am mostly a fan of the NPC/PC divide, since it just is more useful for playing.I know that Savage Species and the LA/ECL rules were a big "hit" in some way, but looking at the numbers given by these systems, I think that most non-humanoid monsters didn't seem to get good results. The "problem" of 4E might be that every monster (even humanoid) ones have a special ability that makes them a little non-standard. But as monsters, it is easier to balance them for their level with their full package of abilities, while adding class abilities can change around this. This doesn't make it exactly easier to recreate monsters as PC races.But Savage Species and the accompanying rules weren't created together with the 3.0 core rules. They came later, as a supplement, after we had some experience with the game. Maybe there will be a 4E savage species, that will give more rules to make monstrous races work. The design space of the multiclass rules, racial feats, power-swapping and similar things are just getting started to be explored, and there might be a few innovations yet to come.Some things you didn't address specifically: I think the Minion/Elite/Solo categories are a good addition to the game, and the combat roles for monster are also a very useful tool.While level is still the primary measure by which we describe difficulty of monsters, the roles allow you to make certain predictions on how well your party will fare against these monsters (particularly if you are not playing a standard party). And they also provide a useful tool to build encounters that are interesting and challenging (and the latter not just due to the levels, but also the enemies composition). This is very hard to judge, because it also depends on your priorities and goals. I think the system does what it aims to do very well, and I think it does it better then 3E achieves its goals. But do you agree with all the goals? Or do you agree with the "non-goals" (like PC/NPC transparency)?I think the system works very well for creating and running monsters. For me as a DM, it is a major boon. For me as a player, it so far has provided me with very interesting challenges. In both roles, I love how race specific abilities make fights against monsters of that race unique, and it is a very interesting change of pace from 3E, where the classes slapped onto humanoids was that made them unique (but not really, because a Kobold Sorcerer is not that different from a Goblin Sorcerer).</blockquote>

Verification