Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MrMyth" data-source="post: 5185710" data-attributes="member: 61155">I'm not sure how true this is - it was my understanding several of the later adventures have been a lot more engaging than the early one.  Even if the 4E mods remain these failures, I think you are making a massive assumption that the issue is the statblock rather than the encounter design. My home game uses 4E stat blocks, sometimes stripped down even further. Focused entirely on combat details. That has not translated to it being nothing but a hackfest. PCs have bargained with enemies, joined forces with them, got involved in intrigues, trading - all sorts of roleplaying. I suspect many other home games are the same. I suspect there are even more than a few WotC adventures where this is true.  Similarly, I've seen some excellent conversions of Paizo adventures into 4E. Using 4E statblocks. I don't think that reduces those adventures to one long string of combat encounters.  I can understand the desire for more flavorful enemies - and I think that is found in their lore, as well as in the design of the encounter itself and the adventure as a whole. I don't think adding useless elements to combat stats would serve to particularly enhance things out of combat, and would make things less straightforward for the DM in combat. At least, in my opinion.  Similarly, your understanding of skill challenges is very, very, very different from my own.   Yeah, I've seen more than a few skill challenges along these lines. Maze of Shattered Souls, a recent dungeon adventure, is a good example. The entire point of skill challenges is to provide a framework for this sort of thing without reducing it to one or two rolls - to provide options. Maybe the skill challenges in some adventures are poorly designed. But the sort of approach you describe is a core tenet of 4E philosophy. The idea that there are approaches any party can take to get past obstacles, rather than needing a rogue to get past the locked door, or a bard to bargain with the bandits. And in most 4E games I've seen, listed skills in a skill challenge are the primary and expected skills, but many other approaches tend to be allowed if they seem reasonable.   Well, yes. I get the sense that most skills are there to show the flavor of the enemy. As, often, the abilities do as well. Look, your following example makes no sense at all - a 4E stat block could also show that the Stag Lord hates humans, is good with a bow and dealing with terrain, has good stealth and acrobatics, high dex, low wisdom/charisma. The only thing I wouldn't expect to see in a standard stat block would be the note on being sickened by booze - and that's hardly a given.  I mean, even when I've wanted more expansion on the flavor of certain monster abilities, often the names alone give just the same sort of RP guidance you are looking for.   I really think you are looking at things from a distorted perspective. Why would you be unable to build in this sort of sickness into a 4E character? Why would a 4E monster never have notes about not using good tactics? Why would you need to put down a battlemat if PCs sneak up on him and simply stab him death while unconscious?  ProfessorCirno, I really get the sense - now more than ever - that you aren't arguing against 4E, you are arguing against some imaginary perception of 4E that neither matches the game that WotC has written, nor the game that people are playing. I can understand your concerns, certainly. But I don't see these problems supported or encouraged by the rules. I see tactics blocks and lore entries for monsters, and lately in significant detail.  I just don't understand how when 4E lists skills, they "don't say much", but when 3.5 stat blocks show he has "high stealth and acrobatics,"it "gives some major clues on how he would fight".  Identical pieces of information, yet you somehow see one of these are completely useless, and the either as evidence of a fully developed character. Are you certain there is no bias at hand in your perception of the game?</blockquote>

Verification