Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Rule-of-Three: 03-27-12
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="LightPhoenix" data-source="post: 5863654" data-attributes="member: 115"><p><strong>Q1: Solo Monsters</strong></p><p></p><p>I'm not sure I get the outcry of dropping the "solo" designation. 2E had rough designations as well - the Organization entry. I'm confident that whatever direction the designers plan to take, it will include monsters designed to be a challenge by themselves, and those monsters will have that spelled out. It's been that way in almost every edition previous in one form or another. On the other hand, I did like the monster "classes" as a short-hand for their basic function, and I hope they do keep those.</p><p></p><p>What I liked about this answer was that they recognize that they're not done iterating Solo design. While I liked Solo design in 4E, there was still a lot of room to make things better. I would like to know more about 5E's action economy (if it's nailed down) in relation to monster design; one thing I felt made (some) Solos more fun was they could do a lot of stuff each turn - diversity of effects versus raw numbers.</p><p></p><p><strong>Q2: Multiclassing</strong></p><p></p><p>I was not a huge fan of 3E multiclassing. I was not a huge fan of 4E multi-classing. Both had systems that were relatively simple and elegant within the context of their design, but demonstrated problems that indicated they were not well thought through. What 5E <em>needs</em> to do in order to do well in this area is to properly iterate the system and think about/discuss the emergent consequences of each part of the system.</p><p></p><p><strong>Q3: Cone and Line spells</strong></p><p></p><p>I've never understood why Line spells never existed in 4E; it's a simple extension of the rules/judgement for determining line of sight. You could generally do cones the same way, but it's awkward to say the least.</p><p></p><p>Moving into the more meta area of the question, I would like to see a hybrid of the tile-based and non-mat systems. I think there's a lot of room for more of a wargame-style system that would take the best of both worlds and combine them. Something that gets rid of the awkwardness of tiles and gets rid of the ambiguity between what different people are seeing. I wouldn't be busting out rulers or anything, but I like the concept.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="LightPhoenix, post: 5863654, member: 115"] [B]Q1: Solo Monsters[/B] I'm not sure I get the outcry of dropping the "solo" designation. 2E had rough designations as well - the Organization entry. I'm confident that whatever direction the designers plan to take, it will include monsters designed to be a challenge by themselves, and those monsters will have that spelled out. It's been that way in almost every edition previous in one form or another. On the other hand, I did like the monster "classes" as a short-hand for their basic function, and I hope they do keep those. What I liked about this answer was that they recognize that they're not done iterating Solo design. While I liked Solo design in 4E, there was still a lot of room to make things better. I would like to know more about 5E's action economy (if it's nailed down) in relation to monster design; one thing I felt made (some) Solos more fun was they could do a lot of stuff each turn - diversity of effects versus raw numbers. [B]Q2: Multiclassing[/B] I was not a huge fan of 3E multiclassing. I was not a huge fan of 4E multi-classing. Both had systems that were relatively simple and elegant within the context of their design, but demonstrated problems that indicated they were not well thought through. What 5E [I]needs[/I] to do in order to do well in this area is to properly iterate the system and think about/discuss the emergent consequences of each part of the system. [B]Q3: Cone and Line spells[/B] I've never understood why Line spells never existed in 4E; it's a simple extension of the rules/judgement for determining line of sight. You could generally do cones the same way, but it's awkward to say the least. Moving into the more meta area of the question, I would like to see a hybrid of the tile-based and non-mat systems. I think there's a lot of room for more of a wargame-style system that would take the best of both worlds and combine them. Something that gets rid of the awkwardness of tiles and gets rid of the ambiguity between what different people are seeing. I wouldn't be busting out rulers or anything, but I like the concept. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Rule-of-Three: 03-27-12
Top