Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6071766" data-attributes="member: 87792">Ever been in a crypt?&nbsp; I have.&nbsp; And a sewer.&nbsp; Both are fine.&nbsp; So are abandoned keeps - you have space.&nbsp; Especially if your encounter takes up several rooms.&nbsp; What isn't OK is a maze of twisty and narrow underground passages except as a very rare change.Possibly.&nbsp; But even in 2008 it had fewer obvious mechanical bugs than 3.5 does.In short you decided &quot;This adventure should be one level.&nbsp; Therefore we are going to make it one level by adding extra fights until it is one level whether they are either narratively appropriate or interesting&quot;.&nbsp; I can hardly blame the 4e designers for that.This is merely following in D&amp;D's great traditions.&nbsp; No edition since 1974 has been properly playtested.&nbsp; Seriously.&nbsp; No one looked at the Druid and the Monk and thought someone was wrong?&nbsp; No one tried paring them off against each other?&nbsp; No one looked at the CR3 Shadow and thought &quot;That can't be taken by 3rd level people&quot;?&nbsp;&nbsp; I don't believe that the MM1 is any worse than the 3.5 or 3.0 monster manuals for playtesting or design.You mean it followed in the traditions of 3e where the game pretended to be the same but really, really wasn't?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 6071766, member: 87792"] Ever been in a crypt? I have. And a sewer. Both are fine. So are abandoned keeps - you have space. Especially if your encounter takes up several rooms. What isn't OK is a maze of twisty and narrow underground passages except as a very rare change. Possibly. But even in 2008 it had fewer obvious mechanical bugs than 3.5 does. In short you decided "This adventure should be one level. Therefore we are going to make it one level by adding extra fights until it is one level whether they are either narratively appropriate or interesting". I can hardly blame the 4e designers for [I]that[/I]. This is merely following in D&D's great traditions. No edition since 1974 has been properly playtested. Seriously. No one looked at the Druid and the Monk and thought someone was wrong? No one tried paring them off against each other? No one looked at the CR3 Shadow and thought "That can't be taken by 3rd level people"? I don't believe that the MM1 is any worse than the 3.5 or 3.0 monster manuals for playtesting or design. You mean it followed in the traditions of 3e where the game pretended to be the same but really, really wasn't? [/QUOTE]

Verification