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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TwinBahamut" data-source="post: 5863025" data-attributes="member: 32536">Darn it, I liked many previous Rule of Threes, but this one is making me nervous again... Why did he have to go imply that they're considering even dropping the "solo" designation for solo monsters. Does changing a perfectly fine name really benefit anything?Anyways, if they want to create interesting solo monsters, they need to take a look at how they are handled in many videogames. Games like the Monster Hunter series (and its many knock-offs) are all about fighting giant enemies who can single-handedly challenge a whole group, and the way they are handled in those games can offer many lessons to the developers. Similarly for something like the game Resonance of Fate, which has a great "part" system that lets you slowly wear away a powerful foe's strength as you break off its weapons and armor. Or they could just use the classic idea of a solo monster essentially being a whole group of independent sub-units that move together and each have their own HP totals and ability to take actions. Or maybe they can just change their entire approach to negative conditions and how they affect both PCs and monsters. "Save or suck" is not the only option, after all.Also, I'm not exactly excited by the game mechanics implied in that conversation about class levels. It sounds too much like 3E for my tastes, and I refuse to agree with praise for the potential of a multiclassing system that is so well known for being completely broken and useless.I'd like to see the return of lines, but that whole discussion of cones and such just confused me... If you are not even tracking the position of characters to such a precision that you need a grid, then how do you even differentiate cones, blasts, lines, or anything else? Don't those very terms mandate some degree of grid play? I don't get it at all.</blockquote>

Verification