|
1 year ago ::
May 24, 2012 - 10:43AM
#31
|
|
|
Do people really make a lot of monsters for their games?
Just curious. I've never done it, once.
.
wow...really? its one of my favorite things about d&d
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 24, 2012 - 10:53AM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Feb 28, 2012
|
I'll have to voice my desire to see monsters handled a little closer to the 4e variant. The ease in which I could fiddle with monsters in 4e is one of the main reason I use it as my edition of choice for DM'ing. It just cuts down on time while allowing me to customize monsters\NPC's.
That being said it seems that the playtest materials as is are something of a rules light 3x Edition style so even if monsters are set up in the manner they are now it should be simpler to customize them than they have been in other legacy formats.
Still an advocate for the 4e style though.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 24, 2012 - 11:06AM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Aug 27, 2005
|
Huh. To everyone who made a lot of custom monsters, then, I have a question (and a theory):
Do you play a very RAW game, or did you houserule and interpret and retexture things, at your table?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 24, 2012 - 11:10AM
#34
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
The benefit of the stat block has no bearing on the actual ecology and fluff. That is a designers fault not a fault of the mechanics that the stat block represents. You are committing a logical fallacy here.
How did you came to conclusion I blame the mechanics that the stat block represented? I wasn't criticizing the mechanics - I criticized the bestiary monster entries as a whole. Yes, it was design and composition fault not mechanics.
The only error I made was use of 'and' at the begining of the last sentence, while I should put that sentence in a new paragraph.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 24, 2012 - 11:11AM
#35
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
Huh. To everyone who made a lot of custom monsters, then, I have a question (and a theory):
Do you play a very RAW game, or did you houserule and interpret and retexture things, at your table?
Depends on the campaign and the group. In general, if I was running an established setting (Mystara, Forgotten Realms, and Eberron were my favorites of those), I'd run a game with little to no houseruling. In a custom setting, especially with players who knew me and trusted me a lot, I'd fiddle with mechanics significantly more.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 24, 2012 - 11:15AM
#36
|
|
|
This is the worst part of D&DN.
I read though everything with my players and like most of it and decide to give it a try.
But when it come to bestiary sector? We decide to drop it altogetter and come back to 4e.
I have enough of 100+spells NPC and don't want to play it again in my lifetime.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 24, 2012 - 11:22AM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Feb 28, 2012
|
Huh. To everyone who made a lot of custom monsters, then, I have a question (and a theory):
Do you play a very RAW game, or did you houserule and interpret and retexture things, at your table?
Not a lot of houseruling but if you want a monster to have an extra little theme to them swapping an old power with one that fits that theme was easy. Or to craft an interesting NPC just create a "golem" of powers until it represents what you are looking for!
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 24, 2012 - 11:23AM
#38
|
Date Joined:
Nov 23, 2003
|
Huh. To everyone who made a lot of custom monsters, then, I have a question (and a theory):
Do you play a very RAW game, or did you houserule and interpret and retexture things, at your table?
I made monsters in both 3e and 4e. I made a LOT MORE monsters in 4e: it's almost not worth calling out as a separate step. Heck, I started doing it in real time at the table...
I had extensive 3e houserules. In 4e, I have basically just 2 (Lunge/Shift 1 as part of stand action, and "minions die with one hit. Damage is irrelevant"), although I have a few tweaks that aren't really worth being called houserules (math patch feats given for free)
"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 24, 2012 - 11:23AM
#39
|
|
|
Huh. To everyone who made a lot of custom monsters, then, I have a question (and a theory):
Do you play a very RAW game, or did you houserule and interpret and retexture things, at your table?
RAW game with minor math fix house rules but I ran custom adventures that needed monsters to fit what I needed. Plus it stopped any chance of meta by the players if I was not pulling things out of the MM every day.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 24, 2012 - 11:39AM
#40
|
|
|
No, just no. I am not going to have 3 books just to look up what one monster can do especially for spell casters.
What was wrong with 4e blocks?
Why do I have to look at the appendix for what a special ability does?
Why are you increasing my prep time?
Why do monsters have to follow the same rules as PC's? (ie same spells)
As a GM/DM of 25 years, I can safely say that 4E stat blocks were better. We have enough work running a module/adventure/campaign without needing to flip through books and prep each battle. Players control one character. The DM has enough on his plate to have to deal with dozens.
I have DM'd about as long as you and I have found that for most of the spells/abilities that monster use I could memorize. Maybe that's because I have only run 2nd edition for all this time (dabbled in 3 and 4, but didn't like them much). If you can't memorize that much can't you just use bookmarks for those spells or if like me you use the computer to put together your adventures use hyperlinks that take you to that spell?
|
|
|
