Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mephista" data-source="post: 7135470" data-attributes="member: 6786252">Hmm...&nbsp; so, some responces. Asking for high level monsters is pretty valid.&nbsp; I disagree with some things, but that is pretty valid.&nbsp; Especially since the Moon Druid is so dependant upon having Beast or Elemental monsters to copy.I already use PC classed antagonists against PCs.&nbsp; I don't know why some people are so, so insistant that NPCs can't use the same mechanics as PCs.&nbsp; And I don't need them as stat blocks in a book to do it.&nbsp; Honestly, even at low levels I'm tweaking things because they don't fit my game.&nbsp; You just said &quot;stop assuming DMs are newbies,&quot; but I feel like that's exactly the heart of your argument.&nbsp; Assume the GMs are newbies that cant' tweak monsters to suit their games.&nbsp; Need more mobility?&nbsp; Give them the mobility feat, and done.&nbsp; Boom.&nbsp; These are meant to be guidelines, not hard rules.&nbsp; I think saving throws are fine, as is.&nbsp; That's how magic works for the players - figure out a weak save and target it.&nbsp; I have absolutely no problem with the reverse.&nbsp; D&amp;D is a team game where people cooperate together.&nbsp; Its only natural that some members have weak points that other PCs cover for.&nbsp; The team is heroic, not the individuals.&nbsp; I don't think this is a case of saving throws being bad as having save-or-suck spells in the first place.Redo high levels?&nbsp; Honestly, we need entire classes redone, not just high levels.&nbsp;&nbsp; This is a problem of just being a new edition. Capstone abilities aren't designed to be impressive.&nbsp; That's a Pathfinder conceit.&nbsp; No, its the abilities at 17//18 that are supposed to be the &quot;captstone&quot; big bumps in power, following the Tier design.For the most part, I can understand the monster issue, but the rest?&nbsp;&nbsp; I'm not seeing it.&nbsp; Sorry.&nbsp; I think they work great as is.&nbsp; We'll just have to disagree based on playstyle.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mephista, post: 7135470, member: 6786252"] Hmm... so, some responces. Asking for high level monsters is pretty valid. I disagree with some things, but that is pretty valid. Especially since the Moon Druid is so dependant upon having Beast or Elemental monsters to copy. I already use PC classed antagonists against PCs. I don't know why some people are so, so insistant that NPCs can't use the same mechanics as PCs. And I don't need them as stat blocks in a book to do it. Honestly, even at low levels I'm tweaking things because they don't fit my game. You just said "stop assuming DMs are newbies," but I feel like that's exactly the heart of your argument. Assume the GMs are newbies that cant' tweak monsters to suit their games. Need more mobility? Give them the mobility feat, and done. Boom. These are meant to be guidelines, not hard rules. I think saving throws are fine, as is. That's how magic works for the players - figure out a weak save and target it. I have absolutely no problem with the reverse. D&D is a team game where people cooperate together. Its only natural that some members have weak points that other PCs cover for. The team is heroic, not the individuals. I don't think this is a case of saving throws being bad as having save-or-suck spells in the first place. Redo high levels? Honestly, we need entire classes redone, not just high levels. This is a problem of just being a new edition. Capstone abilities aren't designed to be impressive. That's a Pathfinder conceit. No, its the abilities at 17//18 that are supposed to be the "captstone" big bumps in power, following the Tier design. For the most part, I can understand the monster issue, but the rest? I'm not seeing it. Sorry. I think they work great as is. We'll just have to disagree based on playstyle. [/QUOTE]

Verification