NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Plane Sailing" data-source="post: 5184260" data-attributes="member: 114">I think that one of the problems with Dave Noonans comment is that it is far too shallow. While it might be true for goblins or orcs who are due to die in hordes, the end result of this philosophy is monsters at all levels that can only do 5 things before they die. The same 5 things.I much prefer the 3.0e demons and devils (for example), where although in each situation they might only do 5 things before they die, they can do a different selection of 5 things each time. In one encounter a 3.0 devils 'Animate Dead' power might be fundamental to the encounter, in another encounter it might not be used, and on a third occasion there might be an on-the-fly opportunity where it makes a lot of sense.They focussed on how a monster might be used in one single combat, without considering how they might be used in an adventure or even a campaign.Like so much in 4e, the 'combat' is the fundamental unit of play, and most things were designed to fit around that.(If there is ever a 5e, I hope that they take up Kamikaze Midgets suggestion and make "the adventure" the fundamental unit of gameplay - but that discussion is happening elsewhere!).Back to the original question, Ydars is speaking about Adventure Design, and Noonan is speaking about Monster design. As a result, the two are not necessarily in conflict.  I think that Kalarels stat block made him a spectacularly uninteresting combatant, but the faults in the module regarding him were not about his stat block, it was about the lack of any sense in the plotting of the adventure (as Prof Cirno points out quite comprehensively)Cheers</blockquote>

Verification