Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
To update or not to update? That is the question.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="MrMyth" data-source="post: 5608083" data-attributes="member: 61155"><p>Really, with the original skill challenge rules, all the errata actually needed was a single footnote. They took that out <em>and </em>adjusted them downward, which led to the challenges being too trivial; they then later fixed that as well as boosted the upper end of the DCs to adjust for the higher skill checks possible from additional options added via supplements. But at launch, that one footnote was the only real problem.</p><p> </p><p>For the monsters... while I find the new ones an improvement (and maybe even <em>too </em>vicious), the originals worked well enough, even in my epic game. I had a party that was pretty optimized, so we were already used to needing encounters a few levels higher to challenge them. We never ran into PCs and NPCs missing each other - by Epic levels, especially with Expertise in the system, the strikers almost never missed at all, except against the sturdiest opponents (higher level elite soldiers, for example). Maybe it was different at mid-heroic through mid-paragon (I was a player during that portion of the campaign), but it never seemed as noticably a problem as it has since been made out to be. </p><p> </p><p>There were some disappointments, often with solos. I remember breaking out the Tarrasque and... never really having anyone too scared during the fight (aside from the initial emergence, and dropping one or two buildings on people during the fight.)</p><p> </p><p>On the other hand, it wasn't a completely pushover, as it had been when I busted it out at the end of my last 3rd Edition campaign, and it got taken out in the first action of the combat by a shapechanged caster with multiple full-round charging pouncing attacks. </p><p> </p><p>Still, as you say - experiences vary, and that is certainly true. But, at least in my case, I haven't found the base 4E rules as terrible as it might seem simply from looking at the errata. Some areas are serious fixes, but others are more minor tweaks. Which of course is its own question - would the 'middle ground' some prefer involve only making the serious fixes and not trying to perfectly fine tune the system? Maybe. For myself, I like them both, but I think it does make it seem like the initial system was more flawed than it actually was. </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Maybe... but I always felt the CR system itself was pretty dramatically flawed from the beginning, and never really got fixed. Particularly in the domain of the various rules for modifying monsters - whether advancing hit dice, adding class levels, or adding templates. Some really silly and absurd results would show up that, 'by the book', were supposed to be a certain CR. </p><p> </p><p>Once I realized the best approach was to dismiss the entire system and just play it by feel, my games became a lot more balanced. With 4E, I really can trust the numbers. Whether the initial ones or the current boosted damage, it is much easier - for me as a DM - to feel confident in an encounter being appropriate. </p><p> </p><p>Previously... well, I get that fights being hit or miss was an feature of the system to some folks, rather than a bug. But it was very frustrating as a DM to have such unpredictable encounters in the first place, and even more flawed guidelines on adjusted them to an appropriate level. And that was something that <em>never </em>was really addressed at all.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="MrMyth, post: 5608083, member: 61155"] Really, with the original skill challenge rules, all the errata actually needed was a single footnote. They took that out [I]and [/I]adjusted them downward, which led to the challenges being too trivial; they then later fixed that as well as boosted the upper end of the DCs to adjust for the higher skill checks possible from additional options added via supplements. But at launch, that one footnote was the only real problem. For the monsters... while I find the new ones an improvement (and maybe even [I]too [/I]vicious), the originals worked well enough, even in my epic game. I had a party that was pretty optimized, so we were already used to needing encounters a few levels higher to challenge them. We never ran into PCs and NPCs missing each other - by Epic levels, especially with Expertise in the system, the strikers almost never missed at all, except against the sturdiest opponents (higher level elite soldiers, for example). Maybe it was different at mid-heroic through mid-paragon (I was a player during that portion of the campaign), but it never seemed as noticably a problem as it has since been made out to be. There were some disappointments, often with solos. I remember breaking out the Tarrasque and... never really having anyone too scared during the fight (aside from the initial emergence, and dropping one or two buildings on people during the fight.) On the other hand, it wasn't a completely pushover, as it had been when I busted it out at the end of my last 3rd Edition campaign, and it got taken out in the first action of the combat by a shapechanged caster with multiple full-round charging pouncing attacks. Still, as you say - experiences vary, and that is certainly true. But, at least in my case, I haven't found the base 4E rules as terrible as it might seem simply from looking at the errata. Some areas are serious fixes, but others are more minor tweaks. Which of course is its own question - would the 'middle ground' some prefer involve only making the serious fixes and not trying to perfectly fine tune the system? Maybe. For myself, I like them both, but I think it does make it seem like the initial system was more flawed than it actually was. Maybe... but I always felt the CR system itself was pretty dramatically flawed from the beginning, and never really got fixed. Particularly in the domain of the various rules for modifying monsters - whether advancing hit dice, adding class levels, or adding templates. Some really silly and absurd results would show up that, 'by the book', were supposed to be a certain CR. Once I realized the best approach was to dismiss the entire system and just play it by feel, my games became a lot more balanced. With 4E, I really can trust the numbers. Whether the initial ones or the current boosted damage, it is much easier - for me as a DM - to feel confident in an encounter being appropriate. Previously... well, I get that fights being hit or miss was an feature of the system to some folks, rather than a bug. But it was very frustrating as a DM to have such unpredictable encounters in the first place, and even more flawed guidelines on adjusted them to an appropriate level. And that was something that [I]never [/I]was really addressed at all. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
To update or not to update? That is the question.
Top