Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Belen" data-source="post: 2969009" data-attributes="member: 1405">This is the problem with your argument.&nbsp; If you want an effective combat monkey, then you have plenty of monsters that you can use.&nbsp; The good thing about an Ogre Mage or Rust Monster is that they deviate from the norm.&nbsp; These are monsters that require the DM to plan something special.&nbsp; If you force them into a single &quot;mold&quot; then you're taking away a tool that helps a DM learn how to manage different encounters.&nbsp; Some monsters should force DM and players to think outside the box.The development philosophy at WOTC seems to believe that everything should be in the box, relate to the box, and sleep in the box.What we're seeing now is a redesign of creatures that were more effective when the box did not exist.&nbsp; In older editions, when wealth was not so tied into party CR, a rust monster (while painful) was less of an issue.&nbsp; The spells used by the Ogre Mage were also more effective.&nbsp; For instance, sleep was far more effective in 1/2e.&nbsp; It is a joke in 3.5 and I have yet to see a mage take sleep over other first level spells that can remain effective for a longer period of game time.Personally, I detest the homogenization that is occuring with 3e.&nbsp; I love the better rules, but I do not see why monsters cannot have special abilities that the PCs cannot have, or why spells cannot be cool and maybe take a few rounds to cast or have an RP negative effect to them.Hell, even identify went from 8 hours to cast to 1 hour from 3e to 3.5.&nbsp; I guess WOTC thought that was an undue burden too!?Monsters, spells, and abilities that are outside the box is fun.&nbsp; The new development philosophy is not fun.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Belen, post: 2969009, member: 1405"] This is the problem with your argument. If you want an effective combat monkey, then you have plenty of monsters that you can use. The good thing about an Ogre Mage or Rust Monster is that they deviate from the norm. These are monsters that require the DM to plan something special. If you force them into a single "mold" then you're taking away a tool that helps a DM learn how to manage different encounters. Some monsters should force DM and players to think outside the box. The development philosophy at WOTC seems to believe that everything should be in the box, relate to the box, and sleep in the box. What we're seeing now is a redesign of creatures that were more effective when the box did not exist. In older editions, when wealth was not so tied into party CR, a rust monster (while painful) was less of an issue. The spells used by the Ogre Mage were also more effective. For instance, sleep was far more effective in 1/2e. It is a joke in 3.5 and I have yet to see a mage take sleep over other first level spells that can remain effective for a longer period of game time. Personally, I detest the homogenization that is occuring with 3e. I love the better rules, but I do not see why monsters cannot have special abilities that the PCs cannot have, or why spells cannot be cool and maybe take a few rounds to cast or have an RP negative effect to them. 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!? Monsters, spells, and abilities that are outside the box is fun. The new development philosophy is not fun. [/QUOTE]

Verification