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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 7005384" data-attributes="member: 6778044">Yep. And I do appreciate 4e from a game design perspective. Just don't like the game they designed as much as the editions that preceded it or 5e. Skill challenges were there, and have a purpose, and may or may not have met that purpose in the general eyes of the RPG/D&D playing public. They presented a more complex design approach to fix problems that our table didn't have. Skill challenges were designed in part to let everybody participate, and to have iterative steps to success, and to reduce reliance on a single skill so alternates can be used. So the first thing is up to the players to participate, if it's a complex task, or if there are logically alternative skills that can be used, then we'll go with it. We didn't need a complex new system for resolving skills. I've tried to design systems myself, and when it really came down to it, it was trying to make the mechanics more interesting, along with trying to build suspense through the mechanics. In the end we found that it was just another rule that pulls us out of what is interesting - the fiction.I like situations that require certain skills to succeed, and I prefer complex skilled to be trained only. If they want to get into a particular evil temple for some reason, and they don't have the skill or the magic to do it, then go get it and come back.I love Tomb of Horrors (and I'm curious to see how it fits the 5e design). If this is a world where adventurers exist, and you want your stuff to stay put when you're dead, then load up your resting place with deadly traps. You know, the place that is so legendary that nobody has ever returned. Guess what, I (as the DM) didn't design it just so you could be the fools that did return. If you want to be them, then you figure out how to do it. Or die like the rest of them. I'm not opposed to them fixing problems that a lot of players are having. But a lot of that can be descriptive and instructional text. Sometimes a mechanical fix is good. That the monster stat blocks focused heavily on combat wasn't really the problem, though. It was the multiple types of monsters that were created for each one to fill the different combat roles. The OP (and Mike Colville in his video) really liked monster design. I've seen other threads about how to modify dragons to make them more interesting in combat. That's part of what Mike's talking about in his video. The thing is, a red dragon doesn't exist in a world with green dragons just so they can be more interesting in combat. They didn't evolve into different creatures so they would have cool abilities that would make your combat more interesting, etc.Really, I'm not interested in the rules making combat interesting period. My games aren't designed around combat, we just need a way to adjudicate them when they happen. I like my players to think of combat as something to avoid if possible. It's not a "fun" thing in real life to be in a circumstance where there's a good chance you might be killed. Yes the rules need to support tactics, and the idea that some people are better than others, and that you have different weapons, etc.If I were an adventurer, I wouldn't be wandering around the world saying:"Man, I'm glad we survived those ogres, but wasn't it a bit boring this time? I mean, they acted just like ogres.""Yeah, I know what you mean, they weren't even that different from the hill giants. I'm kind of tired of clubs. Wouldn't it be great if they had javelins next time? Or giant crossbows?""Oh, oh. Wait. I know...breath weapons! Man that would be just frickin' cool! An ogre that breathes fire!"Monsters or creatures don't evolve just to be more interesting in combat. Dragons were an example, and while a given dragon might develop tactics to handle pesky dragon slayers, and might even learn spells specific to them, it won't suddenly evolve a new ability. Nor will they suddenly look up and say, "oh, we're in 4e now? OK, I get an aura power then - I'll burn everything within 25' of me. Oh, and if I get knocked to 50% hit points I'll get really mad and use my breath weapon again too. Every time." If that works with the lore in your world, hey no problem. Just not for me.I do like combat rules that allow you to model what you expect to see in combat. So being able to target somebody's head because they're stupid enough to be in plate without a helmet. Hell yeah!. Attempt to knock somebody out, blind them by throwing sand in their eyes, gang up on them. All yes. And sure, there are abilities that people will train to learn, to gain that advantage in combat. Most of the tactics would be for use against other human(oids). Although I can see that in a world where monsters exist certain tactics would exist to address particular problems. For example, if trolls or lycanthropes are a local problem, then tactics and training will focus on them (such as in Nesme). Tactics for dragon slaying? Since most people will never see one, much less actually consider trying to fight the thing if they did? Not so much. But, finding a group of heroes that specialize in it, and have developed their tactics and might be willing to train you? Sure. Of course, there's the Cult of the Dragon.This topic of this thread is that monster design in 4e is better than 5e, and the main point of contention is the options in combat. If you like your game to focus on a fight with an orc being different than a fight with a goblin, an evil elf, or a human, then maybe it is.But if you're like me, and find that maybe each of those creature might use different tactics, they don't need 5 different versions, nor abilities designed to make them more interesting in combat. You just play them differently. Flavor text is very helpful in that regard, although I don't care for much of the lore that's being added to creatures nowadays. Monsters such as displacer beasts, owlbears, griffons, etc. are easy enough. It's intelligent monsters, or those with cultures, that are more complicated. Having different sections of lore for each setting is one way to go, or less lore in the MM and sections fleshing out the lore for the monsters in setting books is another possibility. Segregating setting specific monsters into separate books. Lots of completely impractical options that I don't expect WotC to do. So for those I'll deal with going back to older editions or my own lore. It really only becomes problematic when the monster's abilities change to fit new lore.And I don't care if there isn't an orc, bear, or ogre build that doesn't challenge a party of four 9th-level characters. I mean I do, because I think that no matter how skilled of a hunter you are, if that bear (or lion) suddenly charges you, it's a scary (and potentially deadly) encounter (particularly if you are alone). But the problem with the bear, lion, or orc in 4e design was the design of the system itself. Because of the way the system scaled, and the focus on balance at all levels, you needed multiple versions of a monster. Bounded accuracy does a much better job at keeping creatures threatening against all levels, although the abilities do still get a bit out of control.From the character's point of view, it's all arrows, swords, and axes pointed in their general direction. Could be an orc, could be a goblin, maybe it's a human. But it's not really about whether it's more interesting to fight this than that. It's about whether you want to risk fighting that monster, or find an alternative. And if you fight it, what's the best way to engage without getting killed. Or maybe you didn't have a choice and you're just trying to escape. So from my perspective, 5e is better monster design. Like AD&D and others. I might quibble a bit about certain things (like how much damage a giant should do when hitting you with a small tree). And even in 5e I add and remove abilities that I think are inappropriate. For most creatures I'm far more accepting of abilities that can be learned. For example, a goblin's nimble escape.</blockquote>

Verification