Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 9614998" data-attributes="member: 4937">Yes, absolutely.&nbsp; It's that specific observation that made me make the change, couple with my experience with 1e AD&amp;D where precisely at the time the impact of failing a save was increasing, the chances you'd make the save were also increasing.I am OK with caster roshambo, where the caster cleverly attacks the weakest attribute of the monster.&nbsp; For one thing, under my system even if the caster has the perfect Will attack, it probably only has DC 14 and full immunity on a save, so that brute still has a 50% chance of saving versus the attack, and a 50% chance you wasted your action.&nbsp; The problem in 3e was compounded by the fact it was pretty easy to get a DC 20 save, and then you easily folded the brute with a win button.&nbsp; You end up with very generic monsters that are always best beaten by pulling the same beat down tactics in every fight, and in particular if you don't accept the tactical complexity of 4e and all that entails, you also get every fight just whittling down hit points to foregone conclusions.&nbsp; This monster is hard to attack with magic, and this one easy, this monster you can kite and this you need to get close to this monster is tough for the fighter and this one tough for the wizard, and so forth is a good thing.&nbsp; Yes, if you play a specialist Enchanter, a lot of things are easy... until you run into an undead and are hiding behind the cleric... who is hopefully a member of the party.&nbsp; I'm good with all of that, just so long as every PC has a reasonable number of opportunities to shine or fail.&nbsp; What you don't want is Johnny One Trick solving every problem with a big enough hammer.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 9614998, member: 4937"] Yes, absolutely. It's that specific observation that made me make the change, couple with my experience with 1e AD&D where precisely at the time the impact of failing a save was increasing, the chances you'd make the save were also increasing. I am OK with caster roshambo, where the caster cleverly attacks the weakest attribute of the monster. For one thing, under my system even if the caster has the perfect Will attack, it probably only has DC 14 and full immunity on a save, so that brute still has a 50% chance of saving versus the attack, and a 50% chance you wasted your action. The problem in 3e was compounded by the fact it was pretty easy to get a DC 20 save, and then you easily folded the brute with a win button. You end up with very generic monsters that are always best beaten by pulling the same beat down tactics in every fight, and in particular if you don't accept the tactical complexity of 4e and all that entails, you also get every fight just whittling down hit points to foregone conclusions. This monster is hard to attack with magic, and this one easy, this monster you can kite and this you need to get close to this monster is tough for the fighter and this one tough for the wizard, and so forth is a good thing. Yes, if you play a specialist Enchanter, a lot of things are easy... until you run into an undead and are hiding behind the cleric... who is hopefully a member of the party. I'm good with all of that, just so long as every PC has a reasonable number of opportunities to shine or fail. What you don't want is Johnny One Trick solving every problem with a big enough hammer. [/QUOTE]

Verification