Easilly assembled encounters, more character driven adventures?

[WampusCat43]

Here is where I have a problem with 3e...

QFT, brother, QFT.

 

[Lizard]

Optimal or non-optimal is only part of the problem.

What if you want to want to modify monsters? It's a lot easier to look at the "hobgoblin warcaster" as a "template" you can add to a monster than slapping cleric levels onto it.

See, I have the exact opposite perception. The monsters in 4e (and later 3e) books frustrate the hell out of me, because they're NOT based on any kind of repeatable mechanics, but on special powers which don't map to anything else in the game. (Look at the 3e warcaster). I *like* being able to turn Joe Hobgoblin into any kind of hobgoblin I want. (And with PCGen, it's easy). I do not like having to create a new monster 'type' for ever variant hobgoblin I can imagine.

Please don't tell me I can still add class levels in 4e. As a matter of mechanics, I can, but as a matter of practicaliy? One of the main reasons for the change in monster design was that as PC classes get richer, monster design must get poorer, or the DM could not keep up with the huge range of abiliites. (Not to mention that daily powers in the hands of monsters are more powerful, since they don't need to save them for later encounters)

4e wants complex PCs and lots of monsters in a fight -- which means monsters must be greatly simplified. The best thing about 3e, the thing which most sold me on the game -- the same rules for PC and monsters -- was the first thing pulled from 4e.

 

[catsclaw]

The best thing about 3e, the thing which most sold me on the game -- the same rules for PC and monsters -- was the first thing pulled from 4e.

Really? It wasn't whether it was fun to play, or easy for new players to learn, or had a lot of industry support, or had interesting and compelling classes, but that you used the same mechanics for monsters and players?

I'll admit, I've been sold on games because of a particular mechanical element (I'm looking at you, In Nomine) but I wouldn't have tried to play it more than once or twice if that was all it had going for it.

I'm also having a little trouble understanding your objection to adding class levels to monsters--you like 3.5 because you can, and you end up with really complicated creatures to run. You dislike 4e, even though you can, because you're worried the creatures are going to be too complicated?

More complicated than 3.5? Have you ever tried to stat out three versions of an Ordained Champion of Hextor (for levels 7, 9, and 11)? And precalculate the buffs? Remember, the higher level one can swift cast War domain spells, but the lower level one can't, so the higher level one will probably swift cast Divine Power right away (changing their HP and to hit), while the lower level one can't so might not have the opportunity.

 

[Storminator]

The best thing about 3e, the thing which most sold me on the game -- the same rules for PC and monsters -- was the first thing pulled from 4e.

How many times have you pointed this out? We get it man, we get it.

Please don't ever bring it up again.

PS

 

[Henry]

...I *like* being able to turn Joe Hobgoblin into any kind of hobgoblin I want. (And with PCGen, it's easy). I do not like having to create a new monster 'type' for ever variant hobgoblin I can imagine.

Playing Devil's advocate a minute: PCGen falls outside the "10 minute prep" thing you mentioned, though (believe me, I've used the program since version 1.2 or so!) - it may take that long in PCGen to make out that one Hobgoblin. Historically, 3e has indeed taken me FAR longer to make lots of prep for a game than earlier editions did. IN 2e I largely made up the monster mechanics myself anway, but with 3e I resorted to doing the exact same thing as in 2e -- ignoring the rules entirely, and just plain deciding what the monster's stats should be given the PC level. And from what Massawyrm's review said, this is just the sort of system D&D is going back to.

There's lots I don't like about 4e -- the loss of its attrition mechanics and resource management, for one thing -- but the DM prep, for all I've seen, looks DARNED better than the "lego set" mechanics of 3e. It's like "Build-a-Bear" versus "Lego Blocks."

 

[Lizard]

Really? It wasn't whether it was fun to play, or easy for new players to learn, or had a lot of industry support, or had interesting and compelling classes, but that you used the same mechanics for monsters and players?

Really. I was 'out of' D&D for about a decade, and when I saw they'd unified the mechanics so that everything followed the same rules, I was hooked and started paying attention to D&D again. It's not the sole reason I play/played it, but it's what brought me 'back' to D&D. (That and seeing Profession/Craft skills in stat blocks. Guess what ELSE is gone?)

I'm also having a little trouble understanding your objection to adding class levels to monsters--you like 3.5 because you can, and you end up with really complicated creatures to run. You dislike 4e, even though you can, because you're worried the creatures are going to be too complicated?

Adding a few fighter or rogue levels in 3x doesn't make things very complicated. In 4e, adding a fighter level is the same as adding a wizard level -- you get a LOT of options. Great for PCs. Not so much for monsters if you want more than one of them on the field.

More complicated than 3.5? Have you ever tried to stat out three versions of an Ordained Champion of Hextor (for levels 7, 9, and 11)? And precalculate the buffs? Remember, the higher level one can swift cast War domain spells, but the lower level one can't, so the higher level one will probably swift cast Divine Power right away (changing their HP and to hit), while the lower level one can't so might not have the opportunity.

Never needed to dip into all that to build the enemies I want to build. Honestly, an interesting base monster+a few class levels+some creative flavor text usually gets me what I want.

 

[Lizard]

How many times have you pointed this out? We get it man, we get it.

Please don't ever bring it up again.

PS

Apparently, it's still shocking news to some.

 

[Lizard]

There's lots I don't like about 4e -- the loss of its attrition mechanics and resource management, for one thing -- but the DM prep, for all I've seen, looks DARNED better than the "lego set" mechanics of 3e. It's like "Build-a-Bear" versus "Lego Blocks."

Guess what my favorite toy was as a child?

Hint:It wasn't a bear.

Now, it might be that when we actually see the mechanics, there'll be enough crunch to keep me enterained -- a system as meticulously fine-tuned as 4e cannot have a 'pull numbers out your ass' system. A large part of the 'fun' of monster building is working within limits, of saying 'given these boundaries, how can I get what I want?'. It will be interesting to see what the 4e limits are and how much they challenge creativity.

 

[Stalker0]

Granted, it's still low level -- 6-7 -- but I just don't have this whole "I need six hours to prep!" meme going. In 8 years of running 3x, it's very rare I ever have anything done more than 2 hours before go time.

Emphasis mine. This is the sweet spot of 3e right there. I too have no problems running things at 6th level. Magic isn't too crazy, monsters aren't too crazy, the party doesn't have any "win the adventure" powers yet, everything in good.

Let's jump that up to 10th, and see if preparation is still as easy.

 

[Scrollreader]

Lizrd: I don't doubt you when you say you run a level 6 game withvthe aid of both an online hyperlinked SRD /and/ dedicated character creation software without a problem or loads of prep time.

But I want to be able to run a game with two pencils, scrach paper, and three books. I don't want to /require/ my laptop for play, or need it unless I want to spend hours looking through the books. And I ocassionaly, do like to play long term games, with consequences, sucesses and failues, that go from 1-21. It's grand that you don't, for your playstyle, and with your tools need things to be simplified. But a hell of alot of the rest of us do.