The New Design Philosophy?

[Vanye]

Hell, even identify went from 8 hours to cast to 1 hour from 3e to 3.5. I guess WOTC thought that was an undue burden too!?

Identify is one of those spells where everyone wants to benefit from it, but it's such a resource hog (that resource being time) that it sucks. 2nd Ed did best with the long duration (8 hrs casting time, but you could identify 1 property/level, as I recall), but lots of parties don't want to sit in the big baddies lair for three days while you try and identify all the items as worth the time.

A 1 hr casting time is much more manageable.

 

[Scribble]

I agree - it's what the monster does with those abilities that's memorable.Sorry, but I cut my teeth on "save or die," so that part of your argument goes nowhere with me. In 1e AD&D, a 1+1 HD large spider could kill your character outright with its poison - I still have no problem with that, and I don't care for how this was nerfed in 3e.

I've already covered how I feel about the CR system, so I'll refer you up-thread on that one.

I cut my teeth on those same monsters... And even then I thought that was kind of wonky. I just didn't think Run from Spiders was that great of a game. I agree with the "nerf." it allows low level characters to have a chance to do those heroic things without waiting for a lucky lotto pc that manages to survive...

In any case yeah, it IS what the monster does with it's abilities that is important. But I'm not going to let myself or my adventure ideas be locked into whatever is written in the MM!

Really, the only time I need the stats from that book is when the monster is in combat. Why the heck else would I need a collection of numbers and math problems???

If I wanted my BBEG to be a base Kobold that somehow managed to gain a crud load of followers that he uses to thwart the PC's attempts to find and defeat him, it doesn't make the Kobold a higher CR. It's only a problem with the CR system if you for some reason fail to give the PCs credit for the rest of the things they did to get there. The adventure may have been super tough, but the Kobold himself is a wuss, and a low CR. He surrounds himself with tough things to account for it sure, but he's still a wuss. The adventure as a whole, however, makes up for it.

 

[The Shaman]

I cut my teeth on those same monsters... And even then I thought that was kind of wonky. I just didn't think Run from Spiders was that great of a game. I agree with the "nerf." it allows low level characters to have a chance to do those heroic things without waiting for a lucky lotto pc that manages to survive...

And I think the danger that even a large spider presented offered an opportunity for the players to use creative tactics instead of expecting to go toe-to-toe with everything.

In any case yeah, it IS what the monster does with it's abilities that is important. But I'm not going to let myself or my adventure ideas be locked into whatever is written in the MM!

Really, the only time I need the stats from that book is when the monster is in combat. Why the heck else would I need a collection of numbers and math problems???

If I wanted my BBEG to be a base Kobold that somehow managed to gain a crud load of followers that he uses to thwart the PC's attempts to find and defeat him, it doesn't make the Kobold a higher CR. It's only a problem with the CR system if you for some reason fail to give the PCs credit for the rest of the things they did to get there. The adventure may have been super tough, but the Kobold himself is a wuss, and a low CR. He surrounds himself with tough things to account for it sure, but he's still a wuss. The adventure as a whole, however, makes up for it.

See, I find this a bit wonky - a base kobold gathering a collection of mininons strains my credulity. A kobold with a few bard levels and maxed Diplomacy ranks on the other hand...

Then again, I actually take the time to stat monsters and NPCs for just this reason. I like to have a handle on how the adversaries stack up against the adventurers mechanically, instead of waving my hands and shouting, "Plot device!"

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

And I think the danger that even a large spider presented offered an opportunity for the players to use creative tactics instead of expecting to go toe-to-toe with everything.

It also allowed the characters/players to experience some sense of growth and accomplishment. The 'Lol -- remember when we had to run from an orc!' comments after wiping out your first giant were a lot of fun, I thought.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

The old-style poison rules were on their own neither intrisically good nor bad. The wonkiness came in by tacking a very random death-dealing mechanic on top of a system for which it is practically a defining characteristic that a butterknife-wielding naked hero trapped in a blind alley could plausibly fight his way through 20 1st level thugs armed with crossbows and swords.

Adding a layer of phoney-baloney "realism" on top of a system intended to be unrealistic is just sloppy design. 5% chance of death from a gerbil-sized spider is not macho. It is laughable.

I am always game for playing with realistic mortality rates. But if that is desirable, then why are we even discussing D&D? There are plenty of other game systems better suited for the purpose.

When I play D&D, I am at the table to enjoy for what the D&D game system is good at.

 

[Lanefan]

What bothered me about the rust monster redux, and the main thing that I notice from the ogre mage overhaul, is that the general goal seems to be "turn everything into a melee encounter with variations" -- minimize the rust ability and up the melee, minimize the spell-like abilities and up the melee ... I'm waiting for a doppleganger who instead of shapeshifting just gets a racial bonus of +5 to bluff and sprouts Wolverine-esque claws once the jig is up.

I like melee -- there are few things that make me cheer like seeing "Great Cleave" in action -- but I very definitely don't want D&D to turn into the "wander from melee to melee and reset after every one" game. I want there to be times when my stuff is in danger, I want there to be times when my hit points are in danger, I want there to be times when my sanity is in danger.

Variety is the spice of life! And the spice of monster encounters.

And "minimizing blast radius" is probably the single worst thing you can do to anything in a game.

Agreed all round, here.

One or two points, from reading the thread:

Identify was designed as a time-consuming spell with the intent, I think, that it *not* be cast in the field...you wait till you're back in town sorting out your treasury, and cast it then. I also dislike the 3e nerfing where you only get one basic property of an item, and need a *6th-level* spell to do the job right (3.5 might have changed this again, I've no idea).

The idea of players preferring death over item loss reminds me of days of old when players preferred death over level loss...so level loss in 3e was greatly watered down. So was item loss, come to that, at least to some extent... For my part, I see items as a transient thing...you find 'em, you break 'em (sometimes with dire consequences), you find some more, and on you go.

Lanefan

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

A defining characteristic of the game (up until 3.5) had always been 'high level characters are gods among men, but there is still that possibility of getting your ass handed to you by certain things'. 'Certain things' could be a mage with 'disintegrate', a mindflayer that sucks your brain, etc.

In 1.x or 3.x, a 20th level butterknife wielding fighter still going to mow through the mooks. The question is, in the future will he have *anything* to fear?

 

[Scribble]

And I think the danger that even a large spider presented offered an opportunity for the players to use creative tactics instead of expecting to go toe-to-toe with everything.See, I find this a bit wonky - a base kobold gathering a collection of mininons strains my credulity. A kobold with a few bard levels and maxed Diplomacy ranks on the other hand... Then again, I actually take the time to stat monsters and NPCs for just this reason. I like to have a handle on how the adversaries stack up against the adventurers mechanically, instead of waving my hands and shouting, "Plot device!"

I have no problem with using creative tactics to get around it. But if something is an instant kill it should reward you as such...

As for the Kobold, I probably would too. I'm simply saying that just because in the MM the Kobold doesn't have Diplomacy or Bard powers, doesn't mean it can only ever be used to hold a short spear.

Monsters in the MM aren't real. They obviously exist in our imagination. The stats from the book are there simply for when your imagined thing needs to interact with the PCs imagined things. Aside from direct interaction that a monster is limited only by what your imagined concept wants it to do.

Hell maybe said Kobold just somehow managed to gain access to the right horde of gold, bought a few henchmen to deal with the everyday world, and no one knows it's a Kobold to begin with!

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

The idea of players preferring death over item loss reminds me of days of old when players preferred death over level loss...so level loss in 3e was greatly watered down. So was item loss, come to that, at least to some extent...

The thing (IME) that players hated about level-loss wasn't the lost XP, per se, since XP (like items) are an infinite resource. The thing that hurt was losing levels *relative to the rest of the party*.

I think for most things, permanent stat-drain could serve the same purpose that level-drain used to.

 

[Glyfair]

Hell maybe said Kobold just somehow managed to gain access to the right horde of gold, bought a few henchmen to deal with the everyday world, and no one knows it's a Kobold to begin with!

You do realize that kobold has been prophesized as leading the kobold tribe to the promised land? Of course, they follow him, even though he's a complete do-nothing (what the tribe doesn't know is that he'll lead them to their deaths, thus the "promised land").