Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="slobster" data-source="post: 6004579" data-attributes="member: 6693711">I think he means that he finds the phrases &quot;3.x’s unhelpful vagueries and obsfucatory rules&quot; and &quot;4e’s clinical precision&quot; to be unhelpfully standoffish. Well, to be fair, that's how I see those phrases. He could have a different opinion.Regardless of whether your underlying point is correct or not, using phrasing like that makes it look like you are looking for a fight, not a conversation.To address your OP, I agree with some of your points and disagree with others. A lot of people have written a lot of good stuff about why a &quot;solo&quot; monster is more than just a monster with more hit points and more damaging attacks. Solo monsters need more actions. They need ways to resist action denial. They should have the ability to put the hurt on many PCs at once, without the ability to focus fire and absolutely shred one PC at will. They should be more complex than other monsters, because the GM has the ability to focus on the single creature in a solo fight. A creature designed for solo level complexity won't be a good fit when run in groups of 5, no matter the capabilities of the PCs opposing it, because that would put too great a load on the GM.On the other hand, I agree that minions can be replaced, in a flat math system, with enemies that are simply much lower level than the PCs. I also agree that magic weapons and armor should drop the magical bonuses to accuracy, especially if they aren't built in to the monster math (and they shouldn't be). Well, they can keep +1 accuracy and +2 accuracy weapons, but nothing larger. And an accuracy weapon should be no more common than a flaming weapon or a winged shield. No more mystical accuracy bonuses to every magic weapon.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="slobster, post: 6004579, member: 6693711"] I think he means that he finds the phrases "3.x’s unhelpful vagueries and obsfucatory rules" and "4e’s clinical precision" to be unhelpfully standoffish. Well, to be fair, that's how I see those phrases. He could have a different opinion. Regardless of whether your underlying point is correct or not, using phrasing like that makes it look like you are looking for a fight, not a conversation. To address your OP, I agree with some of your points and disagree with others. A lot of people have written a lot of good stuff about why a "solo" monster is more than just a monster with more hit points and more damaging attacks. Solo monsters need more actions. They need ways to resist action denial. They should have the ability to put the hurt on many PCs at once, without the ability to focus fire and absolutely shred one PC at will. They should be more complex than other monsters, because the GM has the ability to focus on the single creature in a solo fight. A creature designed for solo level complexity won't be a good fit when run in groups of 5, no matter the capabilities of the PCs opposing it, because that would put too great a load on the GM. On the other hand, I agree that minions can be replaced, in a flat math system, with enemies that are simply much lower level than the PCs. I also agree that magic weapons and armor should drop the magical bonuses to accuracy, especially if they aren't built in to the monster math (and they shouldn't be). Well, they can keep +1 accuracy and +2 accuracy weapons, but nothing larger. And an accuracy weapon should be no more common than a flaming weapon or a winged shield. No more mystical accuracy bonuses to every magic weapon. [/QUOTE]

Verification