Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6116778" data-attributes="member: 1465">Only the first one is what I would call "robustness". The others are something else.And I think it does quite well until a certain level. When it starts to fall apart, it's typically because of specific magical effects that tend to throw balance away, the same effects that make everything fall apart, and the CR resulting from the system means less than at low levels, so then it is when it ceases to be robust.With regard to point 2, the only obstacle that the 3e monster creation rules create IMO is the fact that they force you to increase many (in fact, all) different facets of a monster, so you cannot have a monster that is both huge with HP and low with attack bonus, or has one very challenging superpower but low HP, if it is matches with the fiction. I am not familiar with 4e system but I doubt it allows these either.Point 3, I don't know what to say. I run many 3e adventures using monsters from the books, and they were usually fun, interesting and challenging, and so were the (few) monsters I advanced or templated. Maybe you think 3e monsters were boring and unchallenging, but that was not my experience.Point 4 no, definitely this is what 3e did not achieve. As I wrote before, it didn't even try to achieve this because the starting concept of the whole edition was "system mastery".</blockquote>