Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Stalker0" data-source="post: 8287369" data-attributes="member: 5889">Oh I forgot the biggest changes of all.... monsters.A common critique of 5e is monsters as &quot;bags of hitpoints&quot;. There was a really cool design to later 4th edition monsters that was some of the baby that got thrown out with the bathwater.For example, the monster categories in 4e (solider, brute, artillery) were actually quite useful. 4e went in with the understanding that &quot;it takes a party to fight a party&quot;.... which is 100% correct. Any time you use less than a party against PCs you really have to compensate. 5e sort of notes that but it forgot some of the lessons learned. Also 4e monsters had much more interesting abilities in many cases, 5e monsters are just generic by comparison.Lastly, 4e had a lot of interesting traps and effects to just add to a fight. You can do that in 5e, but 4e better outlined it and showcased examples of it.So yeah....a good rework of monsters could be useful.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Stalker0, post: 8287369, member: 5889"] Oh I forgot the biggest changes of all.... monsters. A common critique of 5e is monsters as "bags of hitpoints". There was a really cool design to later 4th edition monsters that was some of the baby that got thrown out with the bathwater. For example, the monster categories in 4e (solider, brute, artillery) were actually quite useful. 4e went in with the understanding that "it takes a party to fight a party".... which is 100% correct. Any time you use less than a party against PCs you really have to compensate. 5e sort of notes that but it forgot some of the lessons learned. Also 4e monsters had much more interesting abilities in many cases, 5e monsters are just generic by comparison. Lastly, 4e had a lot of interesting traps and effects to just add to a fight. You can do that in 5e, but 4e better outlined it and showcased examples of it. So yeah....a good rework of monsters could be useful. [/QUOTE]

Verification