|
13 months ago ::
May 30, 2012 - 2:35PM
#41
|
Date Joined:
Oct 22, 2007
|
Yes, they're not going to throw all that good stuff away. There will, I'm sure, be 'themes' for monsters - Kobold Trapmasters, my favourite Kobold Slingers, Goblin Barbarians - all that will come back, but not yet...
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 30, 2012 - 3:34PM
#42
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2005
|
I have some mixed feelings.
- 4e monsters often got a little too funky. More than one special ability really isn't necessary, and the mechanics should be simple. Reactions in particular should be used extremely sparingly.
- 3e monsters were too simple. I'm okay with monsters differing only in HP, AC, and damage. I'm less okay when two monsters are virtually identical, especially when one is humanoid, one is a beast, and another idential one is an ooze.
- I felt like the orcs in the playtest were just about perfect, with one ability that was active and had a disadvantage as well as an advantage associated with it. That ability was critical to distinguish them from te hobgoblins.
"Edison didn't succeed the first time he invented Benjamin Franklin, either." Albert the Alligator, Walt Kelly's Pogo Sunday BookThe Core Coliseum: test out your 4e builds and fight to the death.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 30, 2012 - 5:09PM
#43
|
Date Joined:
Jul 13, 2011
|
There is another thing I loved about 4ed: the tactics spelled out by the developpers. But I would not like it the same way as it was presented. I would like more general indications. Exemple : Goblins can be some real cowards when they don't have the numerical advantage or a true leader behind them to force them to stay focused. If they have a thrown weapon or a ranged weapon, they will use it before they go into melee.
It is true that sometime the creature stat block was a burden since all I wanted was a single type of attack, and then I would just skip the rest, made improvised one, etc... But more than often, a single special or racial ability was all I needed. As a matter of fact, I loved the racial traits.
This is why I am glad I held onto my Dragon Magazines. They used to put out Ecology of a monster articles every 2-3 months. There is an old issue that had an article titled "the Mind of a Monster".
Sure not eveybody is intrested in that stuff but, it was great for those that did.
MY DM COMMITMENT
To insure that those who participate in any game that I adjudicate are having fun, staying engaged, maintaining focus, contributing to the story and becoming legendary.
"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules."
Gary Gygax
Thanks for that Gary, so now stop playing RAW games.
Member of the Progressive Front of Grognardia Suicide Squad
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 30, 2012 - 5:40PM
#44
|
Date Joined:
May 28, 2012
|
I have some mixed feelings.
- 4e monsters often got a little too funky. More than one special ability really isn't necessary, and the mechanics should be simple. Reactions in particular should be used extremely sparingly.
- 3e monsters were too simple. I'm okay with monsters differing only in HP, AC, and damage. I'm less okay when two monsters are virtually identical, especially when one is humanoid, one is a beast, and another idential one is an ooze.
- I felt like the orcs in the playtest were just about perfect, with one ability that was active and had a disadvantage as well as an advantage associated with it. That ability was critical to distinguish them from te hobgoblins.
I feel similarly. In past editions I figured most monsters were good for four actions. A hit, a special, and two misses. In DnDNext the miss rate seems a bit higher for everyone, so we're probably looking at a hit, a special, and three misses. We just need one extra neat trick per monster.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 31, 2012 - 1:10AM
#45
|
|
|
I have some mixed feelings.
- 4e monsters often got a little too funky. More than one special ability really isn't necessary, and the mechanics should be simple. Reactions in particular should be used extremely sparingly.
- 3e monsters were too simple. I'm okay with monsters differing only in HP, AC, and damage. I'm less okay when two monsters are virtually identical, especially when one is humanoid, one is a beast, and another idential one is an ooze.
- I felt like the orcs in the playtest were just about perfect, with one ability that was active and had a disadvantage as well as an advantage associated with it. That ability was critical to distinguish them from te hobgoblins.
I feel similarly. In past editions I figured most monsters were good for four actions. A hit, a special, and two misses. In DnDNext the miss rate seems a bit higher for everyone, so we're probably looking at a hit, a special, and three misses. We just need one extra neat trick per monster.
I'd go with two, that way they can differentiate themselves from each other. Note every goblin will play the same, etc...etc...
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 31, 2012 - 2:19AM
#46
|
Date Joined:
Mar 16, 2011
|
Yeah I agree, one or two special abilities per monster would seem about right to me. Some 4e ones were too complicated to run in a hectic game.
I would expect "bosses" to have a lot more, of course.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 31, 2012 - 3:35AM
#47
|
Date Joined:
Oct 27, 2009
|
I'm fine with the seething masses of goblinoids being similar and all their racial traits make them a tad more harrowing for the players. To me it would seem that a small subtle change to these monsters has made quite a difference already(compared to 1e/2e/3e). They are by no means bland and as other posters have said the simple addition of a handful of themes and or backgrounds as options could really spice things up.
Also slightly unrelated I think it would be handy to have a set of guidelines for the creation of themes and backgrounds in the DMG in order to let the DM personalize classes/npcs/monsters for their individual campaign. This would really keep the players guessing and keep monsters from becoming a set of defined statistics to be memorized verbatim.
Though I only ever played in one D&Dencounters game I was a fan of the monster presentation in 4e. I liked that there was actually some variety and differing roles for the encounters. This was much prefered to me than 3e where if you wanted to have a particular monster not be so run-of-the-mill you would give it some number of class levels, which, in the end proved to be much more time consuming than I liked to spend on encounter creation.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 31, 2012 - 8:56AM
#48
|
Date Joined:
Nov 11, 2007
|
At times it does seem the monsters are similar, but I think that is a case of this adventure more than the new rules. There is very little in the way of casters and healers for the monsters, which would change things considerably, and some of the monsters seem underpowered even to 1st level characters, but moster balance is not what we're supposed to be judging. My group found that the new advantage rules really helped out the kobolds and rats. If roleplayed right (using the tactics suggested), the monsters really can seem very different.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 31, 2012 - 9:27AM
#49
|
|
|
I'd be happy if they all had maybe one extra ability. I loved the kobolds swarm tactics  But I would like to see more 'templates' for each monster types. Personally I rather see a small set of monsters with 10 pages each then a huge set of monsters of few pages each. I would definetelly give an additional ability or two more to the 'chieftains' . I gave a cleave ability to the hobgoblin warlord and it made a world of difference, especially when I took down two PCs in one fell stroke 
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 31, 2012 - 1:33PM
#50
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2005
|
I would expect "bosses" to have a lot more, of course.
Excellent point. My players were pounding on that ogre for over a dozen rounds; an ability on a recharge (on a die roll or when bloodied, as 4e) would have gone a long way toward making that fight fun. Granted, they probably wouldn't have won, but then the ogre was way above their level anyway.
"Edison didn't succeed the first time he invented Benjamin Franklin, either." Albert the Alligator, Walt Kelly's Pogo Sunday BookThe Core Coliseum: test out your 4e builds and fight to the death.
|
|
|
