Rule of Three 3/6

[pemerton]

I'm a big fan of having certain monsters that are just freakin' unfair by any normal standard.

<snip>

I hope 5E makes this a new class of monster--call them "special monsters," maybe, or "advanced monsters," or something. Critters that really force the players to get creative, because if you just draw swords and charge in, you're doomed.

As someone mentioned on the SoD thread, these sorts of monsters aren't part of the combat system at all. They're part of the exploriation mechanics.

 

[I'm A Banana]

As someone mentioned on the SoD thread, these sorts of monsters aren't part of the combat system at all. They're part of the exploriation mechanics.

Well, yes and no.

Yes, monsters like this can make up part of the exploration rules -- ear seekers and rust monsters come to mind. "Gotcha!" monsters. Monsters as traps.

No, that's not the only place they should occur. There's a lot of room for monsters that work more like horror villains: they will kill you, and you will not be able to kill them. Perhaps you can survive an encounter with them. Perhaps you will win a victory over them. Perhaps you can find a way to defeat them, however temporarily.

Or even monsters who just work more like a mythic villain: there is a trick to avoiding their doom-causing effect, or but once you know the trick, you can probably kill them without a 10-round slog-fest.

So, while you're right that exploration monsters can have these effects, they can also occur in things that are supposed to be conflicts but that aren't necessarily supposed to be combats. When you finally kill the vampire, or the medusa, or whatever, it's over in a flash. The challenge is working up to that point (and pulling off the plan well).

This plays into shorter encounters, and the possibility of balance over the course of the adventure. If the actual fight with the vampire is short and sweet, that leaves a lot of room in the adventure for other types of extended conflict (such as finding its coffin, discovering its weaknesses, etc.)

 

[pemerton]

So, while you're right that exploration monsters can have these effects, they can also occur in things that are supposed to be conflicts but that aren't necessarily supposed to be combats.

Agreed. I was assuming that the "exploration" component of D&Dnext includes conflicts - eg dealing with traps, racing against time through underground passages, etc.

 

[howandwhy99]

I think complexity often times gets broken down into quantity of options. In terms of power it is actually better to have more options than fewer even if every option is rated at the same within a single situation. (I'm guessing combat here)

A more diverse quantity of options will increase that power even more. Hit point damage 7 ways is nice, but 7 consequences with only only being HP damage is more diverse and therefore more powerful. The benefit of diversity is the player has an easier job of accounting for a variety of challenges than someone who doesn't have diverse abilities. They can use that rigorously measured power effect in more situations, so they can be more flexibly powerful.

More complex classes are harder to play like more complex games. This is the drawback. However having no benefit whatsoever for that difficulty doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps the play difficulty could be a handicap for players and that is why the article claims parity? It is a longer road in terms of putting the pieces together to act more effectually, but ultimately having more options means awesome play will win out.

On the flip side, the simple class is reliably powerful in easy to remember ways leading to a different kind of satisfaction.

Well, yes and no.

Also, I agree with KM up there about the different varieties of monsters. Ravenloft is an awesome dungeon with a roaming boss fight somewhere in it. With the vampire's ability to escape and evade this fight could be had several times. Ultimately winning could amount to pounding a stake through his chest, which may be anti-climactic. The thing is, I would not go out of my way to make sure that final meeting is so by predetermining it. If it were to be a combat, it doesn't need to last 20 rounds and the stake pounding doesn't need to go on for 10 of them. OTOH, if your players said "we really prefer epic, cinematic BBEG fights" then build a whole set piece and make sure every element is included. It's just not the only satisfying way of playing.

 

[Andor]

The original article is wrong about one thing however, complexity cannot actually be balanced against simplicity.

Meaningful complexity that is. Meaningless complexity like "solve this sudoku to hit the monster" is meaningless. But if you actually have multiple options/effects within the game then you will also have emergent effects.

And that means that by definition you will have combinations that produce effects the game designers didn't foresee. That's what emergent complexity means. So if there is real complexity then there will emerge unforeseen corner cases where the Bards "Song of greasy slippers" combines with the Warlocks "Draconic Wind" to knock all the baddies prone, which wouldn't be so bad if the Book of long knives hadn't given Rogues a feat that let's them consider prone opponents as helpless and therefore coup-de-gras-able.

And if multi-classing lets one guy pull that combo off solo, then he is not balanced with a basic fighter no matter how much the fighter is swinging for.

 

[Hassassin]

As someone mentioned on the SoD thread, these sorts of monsters aren't part of the combat system at all. They're part of the exploriation mechanics.

They could make it explicit and list (or at least mention) them with traps and puzzles.

Those monsters should also have at least two levels/CRs listed - one for when you are prepared and the other for when you are not.