Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Primal" data-source="post: 4079187" data-attributes="member: 30678">What I'm really seeing here is that the combat rules bear more resemblance to DDM than 3E. For example, I don't like the fact that all monsters have one or two *unique* abilities that are inherently linked to its "role" in combat (e.g. that bugbear "strangler's" weird 'Meat Shield'-ability). In a gamist system it creates awkward situations in which NPCs and monsters are overly simplistic with one or two "special" abilities that the PCs cannot ever learn, and vice versa (unless the NPCs take 'heroic' character levels, of course). Like some others, I'd my monsters to have a role outside combat, in the setting, and the stat block should reflect that, too.  Moreover, I see the game divided into two essential functions: highly complex combat sequences that bear more resemblance to board games than RPGs and in which you are *required* to be tactically "savvy" to "win" against DM (this was also noted in one of the playtest reviews -- the DM *has* to try his best to compete against PCs). I don't see this encouraging role-playing in combat. If anything, I could see meta-gaming becoming even *more* emphasized during combat as everyone is trying to "outwit" the DM.  I'm not against everyone getting their "primary" ability modifier to attack and damage -- we have even house-ruled that wizards have to succeed in INT check (DC 15) to aim spells in certain circumstances (e.g. during a chaotic melee). Yet if everyone is able to do more or less the same amount of damage in combat, why create a list of 1000+ or so Talents/Feats/Class Powers? In the end, wouldn't it be easier to create them "on the fly" by picking some stuff from the list (e.g. "I want to inflict an extra +D6 and shift the kobold one square, and both of them are allowed on level 1")? This would also encourage more role-playing in combat, as the players describe how the "stunt" actually works, and it would let them be more innovative and improvise. Anyway, that's how I see it.  Then there's the 'non-combat' stuff which is apparently pretty well-designed are more to my taste (e.g. those "big vs. small intent" social rules in DMG). Yet I'm a bit hesitant about NPCs being mechanically treated like this: "Armorsmith Ortros - can create any metal armor up to Chain Mail. His stuff is of good quality, but not exceptional." How would Ortros defend himself in combat? What if one of the PCs wants to compete in a Armorsmithing check with him? How does his ability translate into the mechanics?</blockquote>

Verification