I don't get the dislike of healing surges

[Imaro]

The "level" solution, for example, seems to imply that cinematic PCs will never fight goblins or other low level monsters.

I may be misunderstanding your point here, but in 3.x/PF it remains feasible for even a high level PC to face goblins or other low level monsters since you can add NPC and PC classses to them in order to increase their CR.

 

[Hussar]

I may be misunderstanding your point here, but in 3.x/PF it remains feasible for even a high level PC to face goblins or other low level monsters since you can add NPC and PC classses to them in order to increase their CR.

But, wouldn't that mean that the creature is no longer a low level monster?

And, change it from humanoids, which can add class levels, to, say, animals or vermin, where you can't.

Yes, you can use bigger vermin and advance them that way, but, then again, they aren't the low level monster anymore.

The graduation from kobold to orc to ogre to troll to giant is pretty well established in play - all you have to do is look at the modules. Keep on the Borderlands is distinctly lacking in giants whereas Queen of the Demonweb Pits has a dearth of kobolds.

 

[Guest 85555]

But, wouldn't that mean that the creature is no longer a low level monster?

And, change it from humanoids, which can add class levels, to, say, animals or vermin, where you can't.

Yes, you can use bigger vermin and advance them that way, but, then again, they aren't the low level monster anymore.

The graduation from kobold to orc to ogre to troll to giant is pretty well established in play - all you have to do is look at the modules. Keep on the Borderlands is distinctly lacking in giants whereas Queen of the Demonweb Pits has a dearth of kobolds.

I always saw this as being more about customization and creating cool monster encounters rather than allowing kobolds to remain viable at higher level. But it was one of my favorite innovations in the game. Since I ran a lot of Ravenloft games in 2E (where customization of monsters was expected) I found the templates, classed/leveled monsters, etc to be great for my GMing style.

 

[Imaro]

But, wouldn't that mean that the creature is no longer a low level monster?

And, change it from humanoids, which can add class levels, to, say, animals or vermin, where you can't.

Yes, you can use bigger vermin and advance them that way, but, then again, they aren't the low level monster anymore.

Wait what? So it's not about whether your high level fighter can beat down an iconic monster like goblins and it still be challenging... it's about whether your 15th level fighter can still fight a monster that is mechanically a challenge for 1st level characters? I'm not understanding this at alll.

The graduation from kobold to orc to ogre to troll to giant is pretty well established in play - all you have to do is look at the modules. Keep on the Borderlands is distinctly lacking in giants whereas Queen of the Demonweb Pits has a dearth of kobolds.

Not sure at all what this has to do with my point? You as DM can through class levels, templates, advancements, etc. create your own scale with these monsters in 3.x/PF?? I fail to see how it's hardcoded in??

 

[Imaro]

I always saw this as being more about customization and creating cool monster encounters rather than allowing kobolds to remain viable at higher level. But it was one of my favorite innovations in the game. Since I ran a lot of Ravenloft games in 2E (where customization of monsters was expected) I found the templates, classed/leveled monsters, etc to be great for my GMing style.

I think this is how most people used them... however the tools could also be used to make more powerful versions of the base monster if you wanted to.

 

[Guest 85555]

I think this is how most people used them... however the tools could also be used to make more powerful versions of the base monster if you wanted to.

I don't disagree. That was just the selling point for me. Ultimately the flexibility of it allowed you do all these things. I loved the idea of creating monsters and villains the same way you created PCs. Had loads of fun making my bad guys in 3E.

 

[Hussar]

I always saw this as being more about customization and creating cool monster encounters rather than allowing kobolds to remain viable at higher level. But it was one of my favorite innovations in the game. Since I ran a lot of Ravenloft games in 2E (where customization of monsters was expected) I found the templates, classed/leveled monsters, etc to be great for my GMing style.

Oh, totally. The customization of monsters is certainly one of the best things about 3e. Fantastic idea and implementation.

But, that's a bit beside the point. Imaro is saying that because you can add class levels to base monsters, you can keep those monsters viable throughout the duration of the campaign.

My point is, a 14th level barbarian kobold isn't a kobold anymore. It's a short 14th level barbarian.

 

[Imaro]

Oh, totally. The customization of monsters is certainly one of the best things about 3e. Fantastic idea and implementation.

But, that's a bit beside the point. Imaro is saying that because you can add class levels to base monsters, you can keep those monsters viable throughout the duration of the campaign.

My point is, a 14th level barbarian kobold isn't a kobold anymore. It's a short 14th level barbarian.

First off this isn't what I'm saying... there is still a progression where eventually heroes don't, in general, fight kobolds and goblins anymore. However I am saying if you decide to start at 4th or 5th level which many would say is roughly equivalent to D&D 4e's 1st to 3rd level, because you want a more high fantasy campaign... then yes you can upgrade a kobold to be challenging at 4th-6th in 3.5 and PF.

As to your point of it not being a kobold anymore... how is this any different, from a mechanical perspective, than what 4e does... except in 4e they give you pre-made bundles of race/powers/abilities and in 3.5/PF you have to construct it by mixing and matching your own bundles of race/powers and abilities? In 4e a single kobold can be a level 5 monster with abilities and powers no level 1 kobold posseses... again I'm not seeing your point.

EDIT: In other words, aren't classes like Barbarian or sorcerer or whatever just me constructing the "role" I want the kobold to be? In game there is no Barbarian "class".

 

[Guest 85555]

Oh, totally. The customization of monsters is certainly one of the best things about 3e. Fantastic idea and implementation.

But, that's a bit beside the point. Imaro is saying that because you can add class levels to base monsters, you can keep those monsters viable throughout the duration of the campaign.

My point is, a 14th level barbarian kobold isn't a kobold anymore. It's a short 14th level barbarian.

I would say it is both a kobold and a 14th level barbarian, which is what makes it interesting (otherwise I would just throw a 14th level human barbarian at the party). To me this is like the aged vampire categories they introduced in 2E. The whole point was to make vampires both interesting and viable at higher levels. A 500 year old vampire is still a vampire, just way more powerful. A 500 year old vampire 18th level necromancer is also still a vampire just more powerful and an 18th level necromancer on top of things.

 

[BryonD]

Er, yes, it is. In 3E, if you want to be back in the fight the next day, all you needed was a cleric or a cleric-in-a-can.

In what way is this a controversial statement?

That isn't what you said and it isn't what I challenged.

You said in 4E it is no different than any prior edition because there was no condition of being truly wounded.

But you are wrong because the fact that the condition can be very short lived in 3E doesn't make that condition no exist.

Under the rules of 3E a fighter alone in the wounds can survive a fight but be in need of healing that make take several days without finding aid.

In 4E a fighter alone in the woods who survives a fight can surge away any damage taken.

The previous potential for being in a state of being wounded and needing healing is now gone.

The fact that you never had standard-issue-healsticks, IMO, marks you as more the outlier than my game.

I think actual data trumps your assessment. But, for sake of argument, lets presume you are correct.

Do you agree that your assessment offers nothing to "outliers" such as myself and that us "outliers" have decent reason to dislike surges? What do surges offer to us "outliers" that doesn't reduce the quality of the game.

The only real difference between 4E and 3E here is that you don't have to tote around Father Maynard if you don't want to.

Again, you are focusing on the GAME and completely ignoring the STORY.
Hypothetically let's agree that fighter 1 in a 3E game kills some BBEGs, loses HP and then gets back to full HP. And fighter 2 in a 4E games does exactly the same thing.

Yes, mechanically they are equal. But the equality ends there.

In the 3E game the fighter may have taken wounds which required significant time to recover from. It is only the application of divine aid that removes the wounds quickly.

In 4E you can describe the exact same wounds. But then you need to describe the fighter simply making them disappear. And not in a Jack Bauer, fight-now go to hospital when the terrorists are dead way, but in a the wounds are gone forever just because way. Or you can limit your story in such a way that the fighter may not ever be truly wounded. Both options work for 4E. But you may not describe wounds which require true healing and maintain a quality narrative.

And, just as an aside, my current PF game has no cleric.....