|
5 months ago ::
Dec 23, 2012 - 3:41PM
#491
|
Date Joined:
Aug 11, 2006
|
The fact that Polaris agrees with the OP makes this entire thread pointless.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 23, 2012 - 4:54PM
#492
|
|
|
I've played games where some monsters were ants and others immovable walls; encountering many of those aren't fun, and as DM I was restricted in monster choice to have them encounter things that could reasonable go either way, especially in 4e where parties could only mathematically fight things within 5 levels of themselves.
I'm fine with levels that give me more options even if my numbers don't get bigger.
I don't think lower level party members' ability to damage monsters makes combat slower.
I do identify with OP's #2-3, but if the fix means AC bloat to keep difficulty to hit functionally the same or HP bloat to make the more frequent hits mean less, count me out.
What if Martial Damage Dice could be spent for a bonus, not only damage? What problems come from that model?
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 23, 2012 - 6:24PM
#493
|
|
|
I've played games where some monsters were ants and others immovable walls; encountering many of those aren't fun, and as DM I was restricted in monster choice to have them encounter things that could reasonable go either way, especially in 4e where parties could only mathematically fight things within 5 levels of themselves.
I'm fine with levels that give me more options even if my numbers don't get bigger.
I don't think lower level party members' ability to damage monsters makes combat slower.
I do identify with OP's #2-3, but if the fix means AC bloat to keep difficulty to hit functionally the same or HP bloat to make the more frequent hits mean less, count me out.
What if Martial Damage Dice could be spent for a bonus, not only damage? What problems come from that model?
The problem is, as I've explained over and over, you don't actually get a longer usage out of monsters, by the time you can use monsters that are level -6 or more the amount you need to fill out the xp for the encounter means your party will die because the monsters damage output goes up geometrically for each monster added. If you go too low the combat will be meaningless and not use up any resources at all. Its actually worse than previous editions...
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 23, 2012 - 7:01PM
#494
|
|
|
Oh, I didn't say things were perfect now!  Neither of our DMs currently uses the budget rules very closely; things are a bit more random and need to be eyeballed. How far one can be outnumbered before the XP award is not worth the danger is harder to see than 4e's accuracy/AC drop-off because of greater variance in how many the outnumbered can take out in a round and the broader hit/miss variance of either group. Being killed due to a gang-up, in any case, makes more sense to me than people being nigh-invincible due to a gulf in experience or abstract power levels. I'll keep my eyes extra peeled for that issue on either side. 
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 23, 2012 - 7:55PM
#495
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
err, actually, this is one area where D&D actually does a better job of matching reality than more simulationist games. 2 knights in top notch plate harness with swords (would't be their first choice) will either wrestle or wail on each other, most hits do nothing, but some shake the other guy's head around, do a little bit of bruising through the plate/maille/padding etc.
Eventually one of them will colapse/be so exhausted/built up enough of a concussion that he can't really continue and the other guy will use his (tapered) sword (or a dagger) to poke through the visor/into armpit etc
huge reserve of hitpoints that get nickled and dimed away before a hit that is "fatal" mirrors this. Truth is that a man at arms in 15th C+ plate was more or less swordproof (in the sense of the sword actually cutting him). If you take "hit ac" as "was a good enough hit to have some effect" then it actually works suprisingly well.
The problem in D&D is that armor like plate doesn't increase hit points or damage reduction.
A spell like shocking grasp would basically make that armor useless. It's one of the reasons 3.5 had touch AC.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 23, 2012 - 7:59PM
#496
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2009
|
I've played games where some monsters were ants and others immovable walls; encountering many of those aren't fun, and as DM I was restricted in monster choice to have them encounter things that could reasonable go either way, especially in 4e where parties could only mathematically fight things within 5 levels of themselves.
I'm fine with levels that give me more options even if my numbers don't get bigger.
I don't think lower level party members' ability to damage monsters makes combat slower.
I do identify with OP's #2-3, but if the fix means AC bloat to keep difficulty to hit functionally the same or HP bloat to make the more frequent hits mean less, count me out.
What if Martial Damage Dice could be spent for a bonus, not only damage? What problems come from that model?
The problem is, as I've explained over and over, you don't actually get a longer usage out of monsters, by the time you can use monsters that are level -6 or more the amount you need to fill out the xp for the encounter means your party will die because the monsters damage output goes up geometrically for each monster added. If you go too low the combat will be meaningless and not use up any resources at all. Its actually worse than previous editions...
unless of course you mix enemies within the group there can be a group with 2 chimeras 2 displacer beasts 5 giant frogs and a roper. which is an encounter of average difficulty for 5 lever 10 characters. there is at least 5 level 1 monsters in that list. they may not be the principle monsters in the group but they are indeed in the list and aren't completely ignorable.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 23, 2012 - 8:31PM
#497
|
|
|
The problem in D&D is that armor like plate doesn't increase hit points or damage reduction.
A spell like shocking grasp would basically make that armor useless. It's one of the reasons 3.5 had touch AC.
Faraday Cage ;P
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 23, 2012 - 9:18PM
#498
|
|
|
I've played games where some monsters were ants and others immovable walls; encountering many of those aren't fun, and as DM I was restricted in monster choice to have them encounter things that could reasonable go either way, especially in 4e where parties could only mathematically fight things within 5 levels of themselves.
I'm fine with levels that give me more options even if my numbers don't get bigger.
I don't think lower level party members' ability to damage monsters makes combat slower.
I do identify with OP's #2-3, but if the fix means AC bloat to keep difficulty to hit functionally the same or HP bloat to make the more frequent hits mean less, count me out.
What if Martial Damage Dice could be spent for a bonus, not only damage? What problems come from that model?
The problem is, as I've explained over and over, you don't actually get a longer usage out of monsters, by the time you can use monsters that are level -6 or more the amount you need to fill out the xp for the encounter means your party will die because the monsters damage output goes up geometrically for each monster added. If you go too low the combat will be meaningless and not use up any resources at all. Its actually worse than previous editions...
unless of course you mix enemies within the group there can be a group with 2 chimeras 2 displacer beasts 5 giant frogs and a roper. which is an encounter of average difficulty for 5 lever 10 characters. there is at least 5 level 1 monsters in that list. they may not be the principle monsters in the group but they are indeed in the list and aren't completely ignorable.
You still run into problems because you either kill of the low levels too fast or they focus fire while you are taking out the at level monsters. In that case they get you with damage attrition. Also you could do this with any edition...
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 23, 2012 - 9:23PM
#499
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2009
|
I've played games where some monsters were ants and others immovable walls; encountering many of those aren't fun, and as DM I was restricted in monster choice to have them encounter things that could reasonable go either way, especially in 4e where parties could only mathematically fight things within 5 levels of themselves.
I'm fine with levels that give me more options even if my numbers don't get bigger.
I don't think lower level party members' ability to damage monsters makes combat slower.
I do identify with OP's #2-3, but if the fix means AC bloat to keep difficulty to hit functionally the same or HP bloat to make the more frequent hits mean less, count me out.
What if Martial Damage Dice could be spent for a bonus, not only damage? What problems come from that model?
The problem is, as I've explained over and over, you don't actually get a longer usage out of monsters, by the time you can use monsters that are level -6 or more the amount you need to fill out the xp for the encounter means your party will die because the monsters damage output goes up geometrically for each monster added. If you go too low the combat will be meaningless and not use up any resources at all. Its actually worse than previous editions...
unless of course you mix enemies within the group there can be a group with 2 chimeras 2 displacer beasts 5 giant frogs and a roper. which is an encounter of average difficulty for 5 lever 10 characters. there is at least 5 level 1 monsters in that list. they may not be the principle monsters in the group but they are indeed in the list and aren't completely ignorable.
You still run into problems because you either kill of the low levels too fast or they focus fire while you are taking out the at level monsters. In that case they get you with damage attrition. Also you could do this with any edition...
OH no a challening encounter where you need to make tactical decisions, and the lower level monsters aren't just chumps to be completely ignored. That is terrible.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 23, 2012 - 9:28PM
#500
|
|
|
I've played games where some monsters were ants and others immovable walls; encountering many of those aren't fun, and as DM I was restricted in monster choice to have them encounter things that could reasonable go either way, especially in 4e where parties could only mathematically fight things within 5 levels of themselves.
I'm fine with levels that give me more options even if my numbers don't get bigger.
I don't think lower level party members' ability to damage monsters makes combat slower.
I do identify with OP's #2-3, but if the fix means AC bloat to keep difficulty to hit functionally the same or HP bloat to make the more frequent hits mean less, count me out.
What if Martial Damage Dice could be spent for a bonus, not only damage? What problems come from that model?
The problem is, as I've explained over and over, you don't actually get a longer usage out of monsters, by the time you can use monsters that are level -6 or more the amount you need to fill out the xp for the encounter means your party will die because the monsters damage output goes up geometrically for each monster added. If you go too low the combat will be meaningless and not use up any resources at all. Its actually worse than previous editions...
unless of course you mix enemies within the group there can be a group with 2 chimeras 2 displacer beasts 5 giant frogs and a roper. which is an encounter of average difficulty for 5 lever 10 characters. there is at least 5 level 1 monsters in that list. they may not be the principle monsters in the group but they are indeed in the list and aren't completely ignorable.
You still run into problems because you either kill of the low levels too fast or they focus fire while you are taking out the at level monsters. In that case they get you with damage attrition. Also you could do this with any edition...
OH no a challenging encounter where you need to make tactical decisions, and the lower level monsters aren't just chumps to be completely ignored. That is terrible.
You mean like in every other edition?
|
|
|
