Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5185591" data-attributes="member: 87792">In short, WoTC module designers implementation of skill challenges suck.  If skill challenges aren't part of the narrative, what the hell are they doing there?  The issue here is one of implementation. All prime skill challenge fodder. The thing is that with 4e design, the camera is centred on the PCs.  Monsters don't need that level of detail in their statblocks for anything other than Perception, Insight, or Stealth.  All you need to know is rough level of training and level of difficulty the PCs are attempting  to know whether to use the easy, the medium, or the hard DCs and for what skill challenge level.  Less than should be in a normal 4e statblock, I expect.  Wouldn't be in a normal 4e statblock, granted.  Would be in many 4e statblocks.  Quick question: How does he shoot his bow?  Extremely fast but not that hard, trying to turn the air black with arrows (At Will double attack)?  Fairly normally, but occasionally picks out a target and fires an extra powerful attack at them (encounter or recharge power)?  Exploiting opportunities (immediate action with trigger)?  Almost up to melee then dancing out of reach (one of a number of skirmisher powers)?  And are simply laughable compared with how much skirmisher or lurker powers tell you in 4e about how people fight.  So you think that 4e stat blocks don't have attributes? Do tell how?  On the contrary.  With the single exception of the alcoholism (and arguably morale) it tells you less than the 4th edition Monster Manual (and particularly the Monster Manual II) tells you about generic bad guys of a given type who aren't minions.  Here, you're getting somewhere.  Really?  I'd do something like:Terrible Tactics (no action): The bandit gains no bonus from flanking.Plus the tactics block of text.  Yes, Paizo's adventure fluff beats WoTC's.  I don't think anyone disputes this. The thing is that in 4e, most of the building blocks are standardised.  It just takes several to make a monster.  Skirmishers tend to rely on shift or move-without-provoking-from-target.  I read 4e stat blocks and just know it afterwards.  It's all in the stat block for most monsters.   Compared to what?  The <a href="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/ettin.htm" target="_blank">3e Ettin?</a>.  The <a href="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/devil.htm#chainDevilKyton" target="_blank">3e Kyton?</a>  (CR6 would probably map to low paragon in 4e).  Even <a href="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/giant.htm" target="_blank">3e cloud giants</a> are little better. The only monsters in 3e with anything resembling a normal 4e palette of options are those with some form either of magic or of spell like abilities.  And if you see one <a href="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/goblin.htm" target="_blank">3e goblin</a> you've seen them all unless the DM adds templates or levels.  The difference is you're going to meet a lot more goblins than you are pit fiends unless you are doing something really weird. In short, Pit Fiends are 3e Spellcasters rather than 3e Spear-carriers.  In 4e this more or less makes them Solos partly from complexity and partly from threat.  Except, as I believe I have illustrated, the number of available and substantially different options has increased massively for anyone who wasn't a spellcaster.  For spellcasters it's shrunk - but the monsters only normally need to repeat their default attack modes while waiting for an opening. And this doesn't get into the whole issue of differentiation - where monsters would pick their spells from the same list.  Meaning that a lot more felt like different looking reskins than they do with monsters who literally move differently on the battlemat.</blockquote>

Verification