Mearls redesigns the Ogre Mage

[Mark CMG]

Taking out the complications but not the complexity would be good. I just hope they don't go so overboard with their new philosophy that DnD stands for Dumb`n Down.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Like any sort of experimentation, you typically need a "control." Assuming the same default party composition that the core CR system assumes is a developer's control. Start deviating from that and you introduce a whole cascade of issues that need to be dealt with.

On top of that, you then need to inform the end user that the creature was balanced with that alt.party composition in mind, which then means that some DM has to compensate (in reverse, sorta) to adapt it for use with his Ftr/Rog/Wiz/Clr party.

IMO, fiddling with the encounter to adapt to a "non-standard" party is your local DM's job, not the developers'.

I don't dispute the need to shoot for a median group. But it shows a remarkable inflexibility to insist that every creature be suited only to that median group, especially when on the other hand you keep introducing core classes that increase the chance that your core group assumptions are no longer valid.

It also makes adapting the game to a DMs individual style more difficult. That in turn pushes people to alternative rule sets (True 20, Grim Tales) or campaign settings (Midnight, Oathbound) that you (meaning WotC) don't make.

The overriding philosophy of 3.x was supposed to be 'options', yet somehow that seems to translate to 'player options'. The DM should have that freedom, too, and WotC should make some effort to accomdate that.

 

[WampusCat43]

Where was this just three days ago? I just put my players through a battle with one of these and her barbarian ogre 'lover'. After the Cone of Cold, this thing was almost useless - just flew around regenerating and sneaking in invisible to try again. Fight took two hours!

 

[buzz]

I don't dispute the need to shoot for a median group.

Well, I believe the CR system assumes that basic party composition. For the assigned CR rating to have any meaning, some defaults need to exist. I think it's far more sensible to keep products oriented towards a baselnie, and then provide guidance on how to deviate. E.g., the examples of alternate party compositions in PHB2 are essentially showing you how to drop core class roless and still keep pace with ELs.

It also makes adapting the game to a DMs individual style more difficult. That in turn pushes people to alternative rule sets (True 20, Grim Tales) or campaign settings (Midnight, Oathbound) that you (meaning WotC) don't make.

I don't think that this necessarily follows. Your first sentence is making an assumption, upon which you're basing an even bigger assumption in the next sentence. I think it would be far more difficult, for instance, to "adapt" the game if every product--or even every mechanical tidbit--was making different assumptions about how the game is being run.

The design and dev team is dealing with a core audience that numbers (depending on whom you talk to) in the hundreds of thousands to the millions. It's impossible for them to cater to multiple styles in a profitable way, much less in an efficient one. They will please far more people by maintaining focus.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

It also makes adapting the game to a DMs individual style more difficult. That in turn pushes people to alternative rule sets (True 20, Grim Tales) or campaign settings (Midnight, Oathbound) that you (meaning WotC) don't make.

That doesn't follow logically at all. If you know what to expect from the baseline, you can go off in your own directions more easily. Having weirdo outlyer monster types means the process takes longer and is harder.

Third edition has given us (imperfect) baselines, where previously we had to fly blind for the most part. Since the baselines have also come with more customization systems than we had previously, it's a lot easier to tweak a monster now for a weirdo group and know what the results are likely to be than in the old days.

Taking a 1E ogre mage and applying player character levels to it gave wildly unpredictable results. I know, I had to go through that in my first major campaign in the 1980s.

Today, we have a good idea of what an NPC can do at a certain CR and can have a reasonable guess how even non-standard classes will do against it. It's simply not something that was nearly as easy to do previously.

If you want to switch to an alternate system, do it. But this isn't something that would push you in that direction.

 

[Glyfair]

And they didn't have thief abilities, so they couldn't technically backstab you.

I meant that in the non-techical sense.

Please say you have the same problem with beholders, remorhazi, lurker aboves, trappers, mimics, piercers...I could go on.

Beholders are just plane weird. None of the others seem like random collections of abilities. Demons, Devils, etc. on the other hand...

 

[Mercule]

I rather like the redesign. Cone of cold to lightning bolt was good.

Something about the way Mike was musing about the spell-like abilities did remind me of a major frustration that I have with some of the design thought in 3E. I've read where the developers decided to pare down the number of special abilities some monsters (specifically demons and devils) have. The reasoning was that they don't have time to use them all in a combat, anyway.

That's just a bad decision, IMO. Sure, a single cannon fodder monster won't get to use them all, but using that mentality hamstrings the gamers who are doing more than a string of combats. Recurring villains, or even multiple occurances of the same lieutenant fodder, get a chance to display a broader range of abilities and to differentiate themselves from others of like kind.

I guess you can just add "more special abilities" to my wishlist for 4E.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

It also makes adapting the game to a DMs individual style more difficult. That in turn pushes people to alternative rule sets (True 20, Grim Tales) or campaign settings (Midnight, Oathbound) that you (meaning WotC) don't make.

You're right, that didn't come across well. Let me try again

If the underlying assumptions are that any party capable of facing a CR 'X' opponent has access to magic weapons, then adding DR5/magic to many/most critters at that CR isn't a big deal. The party can deal with it, right? However, someone running a low magic or low magic item campaign will have to tweak those monsters, adjust its CR, maybe beef it up in other ways, to accomodate the fact that his players won't be able to bypass it's DR.

There's nothing wrong with this. But the more of those assumptions there are and the more you tighten the variation of any given CR (eg, somethings are easy CR8s, some are hard CR2s, etc), the more tweaking needs to be done. The more the published material zeros in on that ideal target (for those base assumptions), the less appealing the product is to those who prefer to vary from those assumptions.

I see a lot of the 'psionics is magic vs psionics is different' debate in this.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Beholders are just plane weird. None of the others seem like random collections of abilities. Demons, Devils, etc. on the other hand...

Nothing says random collection of abilities thrown together in a stupid hodgepodge like rolling for the type of attack on a chart.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

The reasoning was that they don't have time to use them all in a combat, anyway.

That's just a bad decision, IMO.

I concur. It also hamstrings DMs who want to mix things up a little with their party. The fewer special abilities a critters has, the more likely they are to become one-trick ponies that either the party has the proper counter for and walks over, or don't have the needed spell/magic item/class ability and get whacked.