D&D 5E Idea to handle the "ghoul problem"

[JasonZZ]

Not the only, but that playstyle - which was fine for 30 something years - has just as much right to be the default playstyle as yours. As an addon module, wimpy ghouls and any other padding of walls and dulling of blades is fine.

Well excuse me for not being a killer DM who judges a game's quality by the number of PC corpses it generates.

"Wimpy ghouls"? "Any other padding of walls and dulling of blades"? And yet you insist you aren't guilty of "one true way-ism". I wonder if you even comprehend just how hostile you're being here.

 

[Stalker0]

Fights with multiple lower level monsters are much tougher than expected.

That's something that is going to happen in a bounded accuracy system. Since monsters don't scale as fast as they do in previous editions, then lower monsters aren't really that low compared to current level monsters. The action economy becomes a much stronger component of damage, and multiple creatures effectively multiply that economy several fold.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Well excuse me for not being a killer DM who judges a game's quality by the number of PC corpses it generates.

"Wimpy ghouls"? "Any other padding of walls and dulling of blades"? And yet you insist you aren't guilty of "one true way-ism". I wonder if you even comprehend just how hostile you're being here.

I'm not being hostile. You are welcome to play any way you wish, and I sincerely hope you have fun doing so, but trying to force a fringe style in as the default is going too far.

 

[JasonZZ]

I'm not being hostile. You are welcome to play any way you wish, and I sincerely hope you have fun doing so, but trying to force a fringe style in as the default is going too far.

As far as this thread goes, you're the only one who thinks ghouls are fine; in fact you (and *ONLY* you) seem to think they should be even more deadly. Where does that place your playstyle?

 

[DEFCON 1]

As far as this thread goes, you're the only one who thinks ghouls are fine; in fact you (and *ONLY* you) seem to think they should be even more deadly. Where does that place your playstyle?

JRRNeiklot is just our resident AD&D die-hard. It's always appeared to me that anything that doesn't match up exactly to the original game he will always consider to be "easy mode" or not worth playing... even if after those 30 years of overall RPG design have made improvements to RPGs across the board that he doesn't want to consider valid. LOL.

You basically have to view all of his comments through that lens to understand where he's coming from. Of course... why he wants 5E to be exactly like AD&D when he already has AD&D is the one perplexing question I've always had.

 

[Rhenny]

That's something that is going to happen in a bounded accuracy system. Since monsters don't scale as fast as they do in previous editions, then lower monsters aren't really that low compared to current level monsters. The action economy becomes a much stronger component of damage, and multiple creatures effectively multiply that economy several fold.

You bet. Just now, after DMing the playtest for quite a while, I'm just starting to get the hang of challenging the players using proper numbers of attackers, etc. For me, and I suspect, most of us who are used to previous editions of D&D, this is the single most difficult adjustment to make. (Heck...it even took Mearls by surprise).

The more I get used to it, the more I like it. I like the idea that a ghoul will still be frightening to a 12th level group too. In my last session, I used 4 greater ghouls (like ghasts in the Against the Slave lord bestiary but with 36 hp) against a party of 3 PCs, and it worked pretty well for an easy encounter. The ghoul's claws attack (note that the new version only gives 1 paralyzing claw attack) only hit one PC, and that PC was able to save vs. the DC 11 check (I think it was 11...I may have bumped it to 12 since they were Greater Ghouls). It still frightened the group, but it didn't derail anything. Certainly the new ghouls that make 2 attacks (one claws that can paralyze and a bite that can't paralyze) are much less deadly.

 

[Uller]

Nor should it be, but that's still a huge nerf from 1E when they were entitled that many attacks per segment of surprise. Ghouls are nasty. Working as intended.

1e Ghouls' touch causes paralysis. I always played it if one of their 3 attacks hit then the PC got one save, not up to 3. Maybe Col Playdough intended a PC to have to make up to 3 saves but call me skeptical.

 

[JasonZZ]

JRRNeiklot is just our resident AD&D die-hard. It's always appeared to me that anything that doesn't match up exactly to the original game he will always consider to be "easy mode" or not worth playing... even if after those 30 years of overall RPG design have made improvements to RPGs across the board that he doesn't want to consider valid. LOL.

You basically have to view all of his comments through that lens to understand where he's coming from. Of course... why he wants 5E to be exactly like AD&D when he already has AD&D is the one perplexing question I've always had.

I still think he wants to impose his playstyle on others.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I still think he wants to impose his playstyle on others.

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[Warbringer]

I still think he wants to impose his playstyle on others.

Indeed, he has turned at my house several times to correct our playstyle...

come on