Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="KidSnide" data-source="post: 5964970" data-attributes="member: 54710">I agree with your insight that we should look to combat to improve SCs, but not your conclusion.&nbsp; The problem isn't that SC lack a damage die.&nbsp; The problem is that every SC monster is the same monster (and making matters worse, it's a solo).&nbsp; What makes a mechanically heavy system like 4e combat fun is that there are a wide variety of monsters with a variety of ways to defeat them.&nbsp; Any given party has a different set of strengths that compare differently to the strengths of an arbitrary encounter.&nbsp; Yes, there is a set of monster rules that all combats use, but the details of each encounter vary considerably.SCs need to be reforged along the same lines.&nbsp; We don't need a generic SC system, we need an SC framework to create chase SCs, infiltration SCs, persuasion SCs, clue finding / investigation SCs, traveling SCs, tracking SCs, ritual SCs, crafting/engineering SCs and the like.&nbsp; It is asking too much work from a DM to say &quot;here are generic SC rules -- go write a chase.&quot;&nbsp; The rules should say: &quot;here are a few generic chases -- go personalize yours.&quot;(And, much like a good solo monster, any SC needs to address the action economy by thinking about how many PCs are involved in the SC and how that impacts the math.)D&amp;D would be a much weaker game if, instead of a monster manual, WotC only provided a monster building system and 10-20 examples.&nbsp; That is essentially what they did for skill challenges.&nbsp; Nobody should be surprised that they were so often unsuccessful.-KS</blockquote>

[QUOTE="KidSnide, post: 5964970, member: 54710"] I agree with your insight that we should look to combat to improve SCs, but not your conclusion. The problem isn't that SC lack a damage die. The problem is that every SC monster is the same monster (and making matters worse, it's a solo). What makes a mechanically heavy system like 4e combat fun is that there are a wide variety of monsters with a variety of ways to defeat them. Any given party has a different set of strengths that compare differently to the strengths of an arbitrary encounter. Yes, there is a set of monster rules that all combats use, but the details of each encounter vary considerably. SCs need to be reforged along the same lines. We don't need a generic SC system, we need an SC framework to create chase SCs, infiltration SCs, persuasion SCs, clue finding / investigation SCs, traveling SCs, tracking SCs, ritual SCs, crafting/engineering SCs and the like. It is asking too much work from a DM to say "here are generic SC rules -- go write a chase." The rules should say: "here are a few generic chases -- go personalize yours." (And, much like a good solo monster, any SC needs to address the action economy by thinking about how many PCs are involved in the SC and how that impacts the math.) D&D would be a much weaker game if, instead of a monster manual, WotC only provided a monster building system and 10-20 examples. That is essentially what they did for skill challenges. Nobody should be surprised that they were so often unsuccessful. -KS [/QUOTE]

Verification