Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Someone" data-source="post: 5964717" data-attributes="member: 5656">The article is interesting and insightful, but I think it misses an additional level of divide which actually goes a bit beyond monster design. I agree that both approaches (the monster make sense in the game world / the monster makes a good challenge if the DM wants that approach to his adventure design) can be made compatible, but there are players and DMs who either want a more simulationist approach to design and other who precisely don't want that. The second group appreciate the freedom it gives to antagonist design, the first like the logical approach to the game world and how everything makes sense. Continuing with the Bob example, he may have stolen the power from an elemental lord; that's good enough for the second approach which for the sake of convenience and not with any intention of edition slapfight I'll call 4e approach. For them, Bob can be a solo with four times the hit points of a normal human and an AC of 35 while wearing non magical robes because that's the AC he needs so he's an acceptable challenge and nobody bats an eye.The other camp, which I'll name the 3e approach doesn't like that. How exactly does one steal power from an elemental lord, and can a PC do that? Is it a Elemental Lords' Power Thief prestige class? A Steal Power From Elemental Lords spell? What spell-like abilities does he need to get the AC I need so he's not Power Attacked into negatives in a single round? How many feats he's entitled to? And if Bob is a mage, you have some freedom on how many hit point does he have if you're geneous with his Con score and handwave an extra powerful False life spells or whatnot, but he won't have 4 times the hit points of a PC because that's not how the universe behaves.Both Bobs can have an interesting and consistent backstory and simultaneously work well as a combat challenge, but one approach isn't going to sit well with either group.</blockquote>

Verification