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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Felon" data-source="post: 5158743" data-attributes="member: 8158">Kzach, it isn't just DM's who think that way. The people who designed 4e think that way too. Has anyone here played Revenge of the Giants? This is a recipe for one big, grindy, endlessly frustrating turd of a product. Here's the checklist of ingredients:Making players take on more than three encounters without an extended rest (the current record is seven)? Check.Bypassing the quality/quantity trade-off by making most encounters over the party's level (so monsters can outnumber the party while enjoying high defenses and HP)? Check.Having two of those above-party-level encounters roll together into one encounter that's six or seven levels over the party? Afraid soGiving monsters powers that let them heal all the monsters on the battlefield as a minor action ad infnitum? Sho' nuff.Letting monsters toss out conditions like daze, blind, or dominate at-will (save ends)? Consistently.Making combat more "dynamic" by throwing out battlefields fulll of difficult or hindering terrain that only happens to affect the players? Shamelessly. Expressly stipulating that encounters can't be handled through peaceful means, no what the players say or do? Sadly, check and mate. Bear all of that in mind while noting that this adventure's design is credited to Bill Slavicsek, Mike Mearls, and David NoonanThe real kicker is that I actually bought RotG for a DM who was new to running 4e. I thought it would be a good example of how to design good encounters. Now my party hates me a little. I think many of us are continuing just out of morbid curiosity as to how ridiculous things will eventually get.</blockquote>

Verification