Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 4498596" data-attributes="member: 7635">That is a relic of not having a definitive encounter-building system. 3e and 4e tried to structure the game so that every 13/10 relevant (= to PC level) encounter constituted a level. Therefore, a game could be measured by meaningful challenges, and (in 4e's case) after 300 meaningful encounters, the game ends. This is stark contrast from the system of &quot;eyeball based on HD&quot; that older D&amp;D used. Sometimes, you faces a weak set of foes (6 kobolds) next to a strong foe, (an owlbear), across from a non-encounter (12 skeletons, all turned), only to meet the master of the dungeon, a 5th level wizard (who proceeds to fireball the party and wipe most of them out). Perhaps that adventure was enough XP to level the thief, but the fighter need twice as many foes to level, etc.The latter could easily be done, since there is no rhyme or reason to it other than &quot;this monster entry says 1d6+1 kobolds in a combat&quot; or &quot;I want the master of the dungeon to be 5th level mage&quot;. Designing the same encounters in 3e would require EL/CR consideration (Is it a challenge?) and in 4e it would mean creating, and spending, an XP budget on foes of different types of foes (kobold wyrmpriest + 2 kobold minions + a kobold slinger...)The trade off for balance is spontaneity. The trade off for flexibility in inequality. D&amp;D has tried since 2000 to limit wild fluctuation on either side of the equation, but by doing so has introduced additional steps into the system, limiting &quot;on the fly&quot; creation. (While I applaud 4e for allowing a lot more flexibility than 3e in encounter/monster design, things like the treasure tables being replaced by parcels creates a more structured acquisition of treasure. Null sum gain.) But I haven't answered you question. 4e is, for the most part, only missing options 3e once had (classes, races, powers/builds, monsters, items). WotC is more than aptly supplying many of these options in the coming year. I think 4e could take a step back though, and introduce some &quot;non-killable&quot; monsters (monsters mostly used as allies/NPCs, rather than cannon fodder) like metallic dragons, nymphs, and centaurs, as well as more &quot;mundane&quot; monsters (giant insects, lions and tigers and bears (oh my)). Things that could flesh out the world a bit more.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Remathilis, post: 4498596, member: 7635"] That is a relic of not having a definitive encounter-building system. 3e and 4e tried to structure the game so that every 13/10 relevant (= to PC level) encounter constituted a level. Therefore, a game could be measured by meaningful challenges, and (in 4e's case) after 300 meaningful encounters, the game ends. This is stark contrast from the system of "eyeball based on HD" that older D&D used. Sometimes, you faces a weak set of foes (6 kobolds) next to a strong foe, (an owlbear), across from a non-encounter (12 skeletons, all turned), only to meet the master of the dungeon, a 5th level wizard (who proceeds to fireball the party and wipe most of them out). Perhaps that adventure was enough XP to level the thief, but the fighter need twice as many foes to level, etc. The latter could easily be done, since there is no rhyme or reason to it other than "this monster entry says 1d6+1 kobolds in a combat" or "I want the master of the dungeon to be 5th level mage". Designing the same encounters in 3e would require EL/CR consideration (Is it a challenge?) and in 4e it would mean creating, and spending, an XP budget on foes of different types of foes (kobold wyrmpriest + 2 kobold minions + a kobold slinger...) The trade off for balance is spontaneity. The trade off for flexibility in inequality. D&D has tried since 2000 to limit wild fluctuation on either side of the equation, but by doing so has introduced additional steps into the system, limiting "on the fly" creation. (While I applaud 4e for allowing a lot more flexibility than 3e in encounter/monster design, things like the treasure tables being replaced by parcels creates a more structured acquisition of treasure. Null sum gain.) But I haven't answered you question. 4e is, for the most part, only missing options 3e once had (classes, races, powers/builds, monsters, items). WotC is more than aptly supplying many of these options in the coming year. I think 4e could take a step back though, and introduce some "non-killable" monsters (monsters mostly used as allies/NPCs, rather than cannon fodder) like metallic dragons, nymphs, and centaurs, as well as more "mundane" monsters (giant insects, lions and tigers and bears (oh my)). Things that could flesh out the world a bit more. [/QUOTE]

Verification