|
3 months ago ::
Feb 14, 2013 - 4:54AM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Sep 27, 2007
|
It has been stated above by others, but I really don't want to see monster hit point inflation. Nor do I want to have to roll reactive parries for monsters -- this is not Runequest. Adjust PC damage down!
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 14, 2013 - 4:07PM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Aug 26, 2002
|
Yeah, monster AC and hitpoints are way too low. AC is at the very least. I mean a troll is only AC 11? 11? An old lady with a broom could hit a troll every round.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 14, 2013 - 4:09PM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Aug 26, 2002
|
I ran another session last night and one of the encounters was and "average" encouter (using the XP suggestions from the encounter building section fo the DM Guidelines).
This particular session had 2 1st level fighters facing 6 goblins in one of the encounters. I rolled HP for the goblins and ended up with the following:
HP 6
HP 6
HP 6
HP 1
HP 5
HP 2
The combat lasted about 5 rounds (one of the fighters has "cleave" which shortened it), and each of the PCs lost 2 HP total by the time the combat was over.
They ended up leaving the last goblin (which unbeknownst to them was the 1 that started with 1 HP) alive for questioning, but would have easily killed him had they chosen to do so.
I know that there is a blurb in the opening of the Caves of Chaos document that says this playtest isn't a hard test of player vs. monster ability, but I still would expect there to be more damage to the PCs than a whopping total loss of 4 HP between them.
It wasn't that the goblins never rolled high enough to hit, it was the fact that the Parry skill reduced almost all of the damage from the goblins to nothing, while at the same time the MDD bonus on successful attacks from the players quickly ensured that the goblins were gone with 1 hit (or 2 at the very most).
We've been having fun, but the challenge level just doesn't feel right at this point.
See 1d8.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-evolution-o...
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 14, 2013 - 7:11PM
#34
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2011
|
I mean a troll is only AC 11? 11? An old lady with a broom could hit a troll every round.
Reading this and looking at your Avatar made me laugh (in a good way). I agree that AC for many monsters is too low.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 17, 2013 - 12:54PM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Mar 16, 2012
|
Personally I'm a big fan of the low AC values. Increase monster difficulty with higher HP, damage, and resistances/immunities.
Think epic battle sequences: the common guards, police, etc. can usually HIT the beast, it just usually shrugs it off or the attack passes right through (it's somewhat more dramatic IMO when you do hit and your attack fails than if you just can't hit, think vampire calmly looking down at the blade that skewered it, pulling it out, and laughing). Granted, variety is good, have some monsters with high AC low HP, but generally I like the new dynamic.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 17, 2013 - 7:55PM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2011
|
Personally I'm a big fan of the low AC values. Increase monster difficulty with higher HP, damage, and resistances/immunities.
Think epic battle sequences: the common guards, police, etc. can usually HIT the beast, it just usually shrugs it off or the attack passes right through (it's somewhat more dramatic IMO when you do hit and your attack fails than if you just can't hit, think vampire calmly looking down at the blade that skewered it, pulling it out, and laughing). Granted, variety is good, have some monsters with high AC low HP, but generally I like the new dynamic.
I agree with you, but I would like the ACs to reflect at least a little more toughness with creatures that are supposedly tougher. For example, a troll should have the equivilent of studded leather armor AC 13. With D&DNext, to make humanoids more difficult, the DM can give them better armor.
I also am beginning to like the new dynamic where PCs hit monsters more often. Last weekend, I played D&DNext and then right afterwards I played Pathfinder, and it was remarkable how different the games felt. In the D&DNext game, we were cruising through the encounters, but we felt like we were in combat and we could suffer if the dice went against us. The DM could certainly make encounters more difficult by throwing larger mobs or more damaging creatures at us (especially ones with area attacks), or giving the humanoids better equipment, etc. In the Pathfinder game, we slogged through encounters often missing attacks so even a 4 PC vs. 4 kobold encounter lasted 3+ rounds. I had more fun with the D&DNext game.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 18, 2013 - 3:58PM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Aug 11, 2004
|
If it has been acknowledged that the Martial characters do too much damage...
Get rid of the 5 to 20 bonus damage that they add on. I don't really know why that happened and then
there wasn't a similar treatment for the casters.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 20, 2013 - 4:19PM
#38
|
Date Joined:
Jan 21, 2004
|
To be honest, the majority of the 1e AC ranks (which were largely explained in 3e MM) would be fine in DDN, possibly adjusting most of them down by 1 if AC 18 or lower and by 2 if above 18, 3 if above 24, 4 if above 26, and capped at 25. So Lolth (AC-10 or AC30) and Asmodeus (AC-9 or AC29) would have AC25. I also don't agree that armour should have no effect on a monster's AC if they have natural armour. Wearing medium armour should increase a monster's AC by 1 and heavy armour by 2 (subject to dexterity and movement adjustmenmts).
I'm quite happy for some monsters to be very hard to hit if it forces PCs to think tactically of other ways to fight them. One adjustment I do approve of is giving the annis a better AC than a green hag. That always seemed an oddity to me.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 22, 2013 - 12:07PM
#39
|
|
|
Personally I'm a big fan of the low AC values. Increase monster difficulty with higher HP, damage, and resistances/immunities.
Think epic battle sequences: the common guards, police, etc. can usually HIT the beast, it just usually shrugs it off or the attack passes right through (it's somewhat more dramatic IMO when you do hit and your attack fails than if you just can't hit, think vampire calmly looking down at the blade that skewered it, pulling it out, and laughing). Granted, variety is good, have some monsters with high AC low HP, but generally I like the new dynamic.
I'm with Russetanan on the part about giving some monsters resistance to attacks. Expanding on the examples given I keep thinking that Orge's, Giants, and Dragons should shug off most physical attacks aka resistance to Slashing, piecing, and Bludgeoning damage. Feels right somehow. Sure you swing at one of those hulks and you'd never miss per say (really big target) but 1/2 of that damage just bounces off their thick hide and bones.
|
|
|
