Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6036712" data-attributes="member: 6696971">@<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/members/pemerton.html" target="_blank">pemerton</a> Evertything you've written above captures my thoughts.  However, there is one issue whose resolution (to my knowledge) has not been fully canvassed by the devs.  It very much interfaces with the above.    Are all of the various lobbies expected to play with the same monsters? This is a big one for me.  I believe the answer that the devs have given us is no.  I'm not sure if you have the current playtest materials (I believe that you do).  While nuanced with thematic features that are advanced beyond the initial iteration, I still find this bestiary quite lacking.  I will need a bestiary with thematic and tactical depth that is in-line with 4th edition to be convinced to play this edition. There are limited ways to do this given the infrastructure of the current bestiary.  The best way that I see is to have clearly labeled 4e keyword powers/features siloed away in each monster listing.  Taking advantage of these to provide more thematic/tactical depth would naturally require an adjusted encounter budget as each creature would be more potent in and of themselves and the synergy of a group of them would exacerbate things.   This would allow: - thematic/tactical depth for each creature.- coherent, synergistic thematic/tactical depth for intra-species combat.- 4e combat playable from the beginning. Similarly, they could silo away 4e AEDU power structure in each class and allow them to be playable from the beginning (which could match up with the new encounter formula). However... Then we have the difficulty of QCing not just one encounter formula (PC output vs hazard/monster output), but two.  The 1st group that I outlined above generally (not the "generally" for anyone who reads this and takes offense) is less interested in encounter balance and, in some cases, it is actually averse to their interests (swinginess and intense strategic play diminishing the impacts of tactical play).  Therefore, they may be less interested in encounter balance in the core.  I'm uncertain because they seem to indicate they do have a vested interest of encounter balance in the core as every module must springboard/interface off of it.  So then, you have a core that must be tuned properly and subsquent modules (4e bestiary versus 4e PC builds).  This isn't even touching about the necessity of a deeper action economy (presumably, again, by way of template?) for the 4e bestiary and PC builds.  What if the designers feel that a deeper action economy isn't necessary?  Is it feasible to produce the tactical depth of 4e without a deeper action economy?  Possibly, but rather than having a general, explicated action economy (and the powers/abilities interfacing with that), the current core has random "extra-action" action economy buffs intrinsic to certain abilities.  Messy, incoherent, annoying fiddliness is high in that design framework. None of the above even touches the hazard/condition system and any non-combat pillar mechanical resolution systems...which presumably will not be built just for one style of modular play but also "core-capable".   As each playtest comes out and I more deeply consider all of the 2nd and 3rd order functions of these interchanges (each module with core and each module with the other modules), my spidey sense is tingling.  It tells me that without a borderline titanic QC effort, the potential for gross entropy to manifest in the final product will be deep. I wish it was as simple as "add more creatures" but there are so many wild-cards (and wild-cards within wild-cards) embedded within this future product.</blockquote>

Verification