Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Alex319" data-source="post: 4705848" data-attributes="member: 45678">This is an interesting discussion, and in some ways related to the discussion in the thread linked to on the first page about &quot;4e monsters: not scary?&quot;I think that a lot of discussion about save or die effects (not necessarily in this thread, but in general) centers around the idea that monsters need save or die effects to be threatening, and that their removal in 4e decreases the effective threat level of the monsters.However, relative monster power level isn't the issue here. If the monsters aren't powerful enough, you can always use tougher monsters. And if they're too powerful, you can just use weaker monsters. This applies regardless of how save-or-die effects (or lack thereof) are handled, so you can always adjust the power/threat level appropriately.The main difference between 3.5e and 4e here is the source of the threat. In 3.5e, high-powered monsters were threatening because of save-or-die abilities that can kill you in one hit. In 4e, high-powered monsters are threatening because of their ability to withstand lots of damage, deal damage over a long period of time, and work with their teammates to pull off combos on the players.If I may offer an analogy which seems appropriate (and AFAIK has not been brought up before):4e combat is like medieval warfare, with a simpler &quot;vulnerability matrix&quot; between different unit types, and emphasis on mass combat, numerical superiority, large-scale maneuvering, and attrition-based tactics.3.5e combat is more like modern warfare, with an emphasis on targeted, high-powered strikes, specific &quot;counters&quot;, asymmetrical warfare, surprise attacks, and pre-battle intelligence and preparation.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Alex319, post: 4705848, member: 45678"] This is an interesting discussion, and in some ways related to the discussion in the thread linked to on the first page about "4e monsters: not scary?" I think that a lot of discussion about save or die effects (not necessarily in this thread, but in general) centers around the idea that monsters need save or die effects to be threatening, and that their removal in 4e decreases the effective threat level of the monsters. However, relative monster power level isn't the issue here. If the monsters aren't powerful enough, you can always use tougher monsters. And if they're too powerful, you can just use weaker monsters. This applies regardless of how save-or-die effects (or lack thereof) are handled, so you can always adjust the power/threat level appropriately. The main difference between 3.5e and 4e here is the [I]source[/I] of the threat. In 3.5e, high-powered monsters were threatening because of save-or-die abilities that can kill you in one hit. In 4e, high-powered monsters are threatening because of their ability to withstand lots of damage, deal damage over a long period of time, and work with their teammates to pull off combos on the players. If I may offer an analogy which seems appropriate (and AFAIK has not been brought up before): 4e combat is like medieval warfare, with a simpler "vulnerability matrix" between different unit types, and emphasis on mass combat, numerical superiority, large-scale maneuvering, and attrition-based tactics. 3.5e combat is more like modern warfare, with an emphasis on targeted, high-powered strikes, specific "counters", asymmetrical warfare, surprise attacks, and pre-battle intelligence and preparation. [/QUOTE]

Verification