Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Scurvy_Platypus" data-source="post: 4821102" data-attributes="member: 43283">Yeah, but 3.x programmed this sort of thing into the game system. ACs increase faster than most characters ability to hit them "naturally", forcing people to try and stack bonuses as much as possible. So people start doing so, and WotC goes "Oh, everyone stacks bonuses like mad... huh. Ok, we'll just add [X, Y, Z] since people are doing this, and that way the creatures will still be a 'challenge' for them."I mean, we know they lied about the CRs on dragons for example, in order to make the fight feel more "epic" or whatever. So jiggering ACs, giving creatures "save or suck" abilities and so on, that's just a normal part of their design approach. Basically, as people have ramped up to try and catch up to the critters, the critter makers inflate things to try and keep it "challenging". All that's happened is the cycle of inflation.So what goes through my mind is, this is a design problem. Err, that sounds stupid. I mean that following the chain of reasoning (as I understand it), basically they made things tough and then went "Oh, we should do something so people don't feel completely screwed."Either that or they said, "Huh... you know, earlier versions of the game had Iterative Attacks and we're going to keep them in this version, so... why don't we do something so that Fighters are needed explicitly because of their ability to do Iterative Attacks better than anyone else?"If the basic problem is that ACs are inflated, then isn't it a better solution (or at least one worth considering) to simply say, "Because of the different design assumptions between Trailblazer and other OGL games, when using monsters from another OGL source, you'll want to make a few adjustments. The following chart will help:" And then follow with a chart that lists AC from X to Y, Hit Points....whatever the problem bits are.Does it mean there's a bit of work for the GM? Yup. But there's work for the GM no matter which way you cut it, and I think it's better to slide a bit of it into Prep time as opposed to trying to fix a system that's not working, monster designers have already effectively reduced the effectiveness of (by building monsters with the assumption that folks are going to be Iterative Attacking with a massive stack of bonuses) and that's slowing down things at the table.In the Pathfinder game I'm in, there's 6 of us players, we're level 9, and we have roughly 4 hours of play on a weeknight. This translates to basically a bit of rp and usually one combat. 2 combats if the encounter is supposed to be "easy". In a couple of cases, combat has taken 5+ hours to sort through.Slow down in the game isn't only about Iterative Attacks. It's just one point among many. Critters that cause characters to flee with a failed save extend things out. Tactical movement between critters that are fast (over 30) and slow (20 like my !%#$% dwarf) extend things out. Trying to figure out spells extends things out. Damage Resistance if you don't have the secret weapon extends things out. And so on.I guess what I'm trying to get at is, Monster design seems to have fueled a bunch of different things in the game. Given the importance that killing them has within the d20 rules, I wonder if the solution really is to nibble around the edges and try to fix a problem (Iterative Attacks) that's an attempt to address another problem (inflated monster stats).Like I said, if Iterative Attacks were a special ability of the Fighter Class, then sure, I'm down with fixing it. But since they're a mechanic that everyone is tapping into, I have to wonder why we should bother keeping the mechanic instead of scrapping it and dealing with the problem directly.If it's just "sacred cow" status and it's just a given that Iterative Attacks are going to stay period.... *shrug*... well, it's the will of the masses then.</blockquote>

Verification