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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5303882" data-attributes="member: 18280">First off, Neonchameleon, good post overall.The wandering monster table does more than determine what monsters there are in a dungeon.  It allows some of the monsters to move throughout the complex without the GM having to track all of them individually, and it is a prompt to (1) keep the noise down, and (2) keep moving.I agree that wandering monsters should be tailored to the environment.In 4e, you may want to consider wandering monsters which are almost all minions, but which can alert and bring out the bigger guns.  That way, you can get the benefits of wandering monsters without facing the problem of extended combat times against secondary threats.  One or two wandering monsters can be "real threats", though, just to keep the players on their toes. Agreed.I prefer that poisons are rarely SoD.  Most poisons should be debilitating, or cause damage over a period of time, thus allowing something to be done.  Most poisons IRL are of that nature. By the RAW, you couldn't have the scene in The Hobbit where Bilbo rescues the dwarves from the spiders -- they would have failed their saves and died, rather than being weakened and sickened.  Likewise, Frodo's survival of Shelob's poisoning in LotR.I certainly believe that SoD is an appropriate mechanic for some types of monster abilities/game effects.  That does not make it the best mechanic for all monster abilities/game effects (or even all for which it has, in the past, been used).The idea that the Medusa's snakes can't be spotted from range is stupid.  That isn't a problem with SoD; that is a problem with the monster description in the RAW (though I'd like the full and exact quote, if anyone has their 1e MM handy)."SSSoD is broken because I can make an SSSoD monster that prevents you from doing anything between the saves" is a poor argument.  "SoD is broken because this Medusa is badly designed" is an equally poor argument. If it hasn't been answered before, it is because a single example where X doesn't work is insufficient to demonstrate that X is a mechanic with value.  Conversely, a single example of where X works well demonstrates that X is a mechanic with value.A thing doesn't need to have value in all situations to have value.  It doesn't even need to have value in most situations.  There are all sorts of specialty tools that my dad has (because he is a very good auto mechanic) that I do not own and, in general, do not need.  But I would be foolish indeed to imagine that they do not have value, or that my own auto mechanic doesn't require them to do valuable work for me.For example, earlier this year, I was visiting my parents when I had a rear wheel bearing go.  My dad and my older brother -- excellent mechanics both -- were able to replace it for me.  Even had I known what I was doing, I didn't own all the tools required to do that job well.Likewise, while I might not need or want SoD for a giant spider, that doesn't mean that I want Medusa to take at least three rounds to petrify someone. They went a little too far for my taste, but I agree overall.Killed?  Absolutely not.  Hostile to it?  I beg to differ.  There are many game changes in WotC-D&D that make a sandbox harder to run well than in previous editions.  But that is another topic, which should be forked if you wish to discuss that further. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" />For a moment, I thought you were being serious when you wrote that!<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" />Context, my friend.Imagine a game in which the natural world never has a "footprint".  The GM never mentions squirrels, or normal birds, or bunnies.  If a creature appears at all, it appears to attack the PCs.Into that world comes the WiSC.If the GM has never mentioned anything remotely resembing a normal animal before, that didn't directly pertain to the PCs in some way -- attacking them, being ridden by them, hauling their gear -- it is unlikely (at best) that the WiSC is going to fool anyone.Regularly using "footprints" -- for what is normal in the setting, for what creatures are there, for what environmental features exist -- is a key to good GMing.IMHO.  YMMV.RC</blockquote>

Verification