ProsSteve |
ProsSteve wrote:Look up the conflex system on SCRIBD for an interesting alternative with the skill challenge.Conflex is a neat system, but bear in mind that it is very rules-heavy and mathy. It's not a simple system to run.
It's not necessary to do too much work. In 4e, unlike 3e, nobody is "the skill guy." Thus, nobody will really feel hurt if you don't use the skill system ever, for anything, because you're not neutering a major part of their class. Pretty much everyone gets the same number of skills and they're all very broad and vague, and no particular skill is routinely expected in a published adventure in the way, say, trapfinding/disarming were expected previously. If you run published adventures and handwave every skill test and skill challenge as a coinflip, the game is barely affected at all.
See I don't see the Conflex system that way, I see that the DM details the challenges,
Dwarven mine example - eg 'The way ahead is blocked and you'll need to clear it before you can continue or work out another way' Skill to deal either dungeoneering for best way to clear the blockage safely, Athletics alternative for the physical work maybe endurance or History or Dungeoneering to find another way round.Challenge two: 'the stairwells in the mines have fallen so you'll need to climb or find another route.' Athletics to climb or Dungeoneering.
Challenge three: creatures in the area could present a danger and a fight could draw more creatures, Perception check to start 'Sounds of unhuman creatures up ahead do you get the scouts to help you avoid them?'
I see it more of montage of the journey through long periods of this journey handled through skill challenges with encounters thrown in on regular basis rather than the DM doing up a complete map of Moria.
Paul Worthen RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32 |
Skill challenges as-written punish people for playing naturally, and that is why they are broken.
Can you explain this further? I'm not really sure what you mean by "playing naturally." If I'm running a skill challenge involving climbing a cliff, and the players roll athletics checks, isn't that playing naturally? Furthermore, if the players don't realize they are in a skill challenge, how can they be playing in an unnatural manner?
It seems to me that a good skill challenge should integrate seamlessly into the game. The players should be rolling skill checks, the checks should make sense, and the players probably aren't thinking about the metagame at all. Now, this is something I've yet to actually accomplish in-game, but I think that has more to do with my DM skills and struggling to adapt to the new system.
A Man In Black RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32 |
Can you explain this further? I'm not really sure what you mean by "playing naturally." If I'm running a skill challenge involving climbing a cliff, and the players roll athletics checks, isn't that playing naturally? Furthermore, if the players don't realize they are in a skill challenge, how can they be playing in an unnatural manner?
Which skill challenge system? They're all broken but they're broken in different ways.
As for not realizing that it's a skill challenge: at that point, there is no reason to use skill challenges at all. The whole point of skill challenges is that players are supposed to realize that there is a complex task and figure out the most efficient way each character contributes to that task. If the GM just assigns the target and makes each PC use a skill of the GM's choice, then you might as well just use straight skill rolls.
The whole idea of skill challenges is that they are puzzles that the players use their characters' abilities to solve, the same way that combat is a puzzle that the players use their characters' abilities to solve. If you hide the challenges from the players, then all of the complexity of the rules is completely useless and wasted.
ghettowedge |
Skill challenges as-written punish people for playing naturally, and that is why they are broken. Anecdotal evidence can't fix a mathematically broken system, no matter how many times you say sentences that are synonymous with "I don't think there's a problem" or "I don't see any problem."
Sorry, I wasn't trying to argue with you. I've seen the empirical evidence and trust it, but I just wanted to say that in practice skill challenges have worked for me and my groups. Maybe people, especially those new to the system, should play a few out and see if the broken math behind skill challenges is a problem in their game before they start worrying about them. I run them as written and skill challenges have done what they were intended to do, making 4e easier to DM for me.
Paul Worthen RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32 |
As for not realizing that it's a skill challenge: at that point, there is no reason to use skill challenges at all. The whole point of skill challenges is that players are supposed to realize that there is a complex task and figure out the most efficient way each character contributes to that task.
I'm going to disagree with you here. The point of a skill challenge is not for the players to realize anything. Skill Challenges exist to help the DM organize complex tasks into interesting, fun encounters. It also provides a framework in the game to reward players for taking part in non-combat encounters.
Whether the players realize it's a skill challenge or not is a metagame issue that your group can handle in many ways. I'm sure that some groups prefer to think about it as a big puzzle that they can figure out, but that takes everyone out of character, and I don't think that's a good fit for my group. I'm hoping that my skill challenges are more organic, and that the players handle them "in-character"
Matthew Koelbl |
I split the Skill Challenge discussion off to a new thread, since I think it was overwhelming the rest of the discussion: Split Thread: Skill Challenges
As for the original topic, my comments definitely echo many that have already been stated: It is easier to plan and design encounters, customize or create new monsters, and removes the need (mostly) to anticipate 'I Win' buttons that might instantly ruin an encounter.
One other element that I definitely like is that it does put power back into the hands of the DM - making it easier to adjust things as needed, rule on the fly, or add stuff into the games without players growing angry it isn't explicitly written up in a rulebook somewhere.
Laddie |
I split the Skill Challenge discussion off to a new thread, since I think it was overwhelming the rest of the discussion: Split Thread: Skill Challenges
Thanks. Opinions on whether or not the skill challenges work well, I think, is valid to the discussion, but the details do deserve their own discussion.
One other element that I definitely like is that it does put power back into the hands of the DM - making it easier to adjust things as needed, rule on the fly, or add stuff into the games without players growing angry it isn't explicitly written up in a rulebook somewhere.
Could we get some more examples of 'putting power back in the hands of the GM' from anybody? I'm interested in what exactly this means to different people whether it's adjudicating mechanics, narrative freedom, or defining game flavour.
Amael |
Well for me it feels pretty similar to my 3e games as far as playing goes, although there are some differences. But the main thing that I love about it is the ease of putting together an adventure. I use computer programs like word and photoshop to put together my adventures, and rely pretty heavily on the monster/encounter builder that wizards provides to find/edit/create monsters very quickly, with just a little reflavoring. Then copy/paste into my word doc for instant stat blocks.
So for me it takes the tedium out of getting the monsters and unique npcs created, which allows more time (I have only so much time I can spend writing, sadly) to write fluff, make maps, plot the PCs untimely demise, etc.
That said, I seemed to go thru a nervous breakdown planning 3e adventures above lv 9, as the PCs could pretty much spell/stomp their way out of a lot of things, and having to know everything that my PCs could do was just too time consuming to remember. So IMO 4e helped fix that so the PCs are easier to gauge as far as powerlevels and what would be a good challenge. On the downside a lot of the 4e "gamey" mechanics were difficult for my players to get over. But the last adventure I ran from scratch had them starting at lv 1, ran them thru a skill challenge without any of them even knowing it (till I told them at the end of the adventure), fought off hordes of undead, and had an epic ending in a old abbey as the hordes of zombies closed in. My players said it felt like 3e in spirit, and to me that was a win.
I think most of the issues have to do with the DM's/Players frame of mind/perception of the game.
Jeremy Mac Donald |
Could we get some more examples of 'putting power back in the hands of the GM' from anybody? I'm interested in what exactly this means to different people whether it's adjudicating mechanics, narrative freedom, or defining game flavour.
- Monsters often have aspects determined by DM fiat.
- NPCs exist to forward the DMs agenda and have whatever the DM wants them to have to do that.
ProsSteve |
Laddie wrote:
Could we get some more examples of 'putting power back in the hands of the GM' from anybody? I'm interested in what exactly this means to different people whether it's adjudicating mechanics, narrative freedom, or defining game flavour.- Monsters often have aspects determined by DM fiat.
- NPCs exist to forward the DMs agenda and have whatever the DM wants them to have to do that.
Once a DM has the base mechanics in his head he can customise existing monsters to the way he see's them in an encounter. For example I always thought that large or huge creatures when hitting something smaller should knock the thing backwards as part of the hit, now most of my large creature can do that at least once in a combat.
I use an STR VS FORT and if it hits does damage AND pushes the target a number of squares. You can make the encounter more interesting by including inclines and ditches that the character can be pushed into causing more damage(if your feeling cruel) or just inconvenience as they clamber out.
I figure Drow are agile so I often give them the ability to duck out of combat (slide 2 squares).
Previously all these options would require justification with feats and in combat rolls, now if the ability suites the style of encounter I just add it and so far it's not made the game worse but better.
Blazej |
Previously all these options would require justification with feats and in combat rolls, now if the ability suites the style of encounter I just add it and so far it's not made the game worse but better.
It is good that you are modifying monsters in encounters to improve that particular encounter, but, no matter what game I'm running for my group, I don't feel as if I can't just add an ability (without making the game worse). I haven't needed to use any justification in other games, or at least, I haven't needed anymore than what was necessary for 4th edition.
Laddie |
It is good that you are modifying monsters in encounters to improve that particular encounter, but, no matter what game I'm running for my group, I don't feel as if I can't just add an ability (without making the game worse). I haven't needed to use any justification in other games, or at least, I haven't needed anymore than what was necessary for 4th edition.
Ah, I hate to say this, but you kind of lost me with all the double negatives. Are you saying that you're having a harder time adjusting monsters because you're worried about breaking the balance?
Matthew Koelbl |
Blazej wrote:It is good that you are modifying monsters in encounters to improve that particular encounter, but, no matter what game I'm running for my group, I don't feel as if I can't just add an ability (without making the game worse). I haven't needed to use any justification in other games, or at least, I haven't needed anymore than what was necessary for 4th edition.Ah, I hate to say this, but you kind of lost me with all the double negatives. Are you saying that you're having a harder time adjusting monsters because you're worried about breaking the balance?
I think what he is saying - and I might be wrong - is that the ability to freely add new abilities to monsters isn't unique to 4E, and that he has felt able to do the same no matter what game or edition he might be running.
I definitely agree that a DM can do this no matter what game they are playing - at the same time, I do find that 4E is encouraging of such experimentation and alteration in a way that not every game is. For a good DM, this doesn't really matter - but it helps make newer DMs aware that monster design can be an art as much as a science, and not to feel restricted to formula alone when developing or altering monsters.
Blazej |
I think what he is saying - and I might be wrong - is that the ability to freely add new abilities to monsters isn't unique to 4E, and that he has felt able to do the same no matter what game or edition he might be running.
I definitely agree that a DM can do this no matter what game they are playing - at the same time, I do find that 4E is encouraging of such experimentation and alteration in a way that not every game is. For a good DM, this doesn't really matter - but it helps make newer DMs aware that monster design can be an art as much as a science, and not to feel restricted to formula alone when developing or altering monsters.
Yes, that is what I was trying to say. I do agree with your comments.
Laddie |
Matthew Koelbl wrote:Yes, that is what I was trying to say. I do agree with your comments.I think what he is saying - and I might be wrong - is that the ability to freely add new abilities to monsters isn't unique to 4E, and that he has felt able to do the same no matter what game or edition he might be running.
I definitely agree that a DM can do this no matter what game they are playing - at the same time, I do find that 4E is encouraging of such experimentation and alteration in a way that not every game is. For a good DM, this doesn't really matter - but it helps make newer DMs aware that monster design can be an art as much as a science, and not to feel restricted to formula alone when developing or altering monsters.
Ah, ok. Sorry I didn't get it at first, Blazej.
I agree, one of the main problems I have with point-based systems is how much exacting detail can be involved if you worry about it all adding up right when the system is designed to help customisation. It's good to have some nice templates and what to help ease new players and GMs into a system.
Stefan Hill |
Laddie wrote:
Could we get some more examples of 'putting power back in the hands of the GM' from anybody? I'm interested in what exactly this means to different people whether it's adjudicating mechanics, narrative freedom, or defining game flavour.- Monsters often have aspects determined by DM fiat.
- NPCs exist to forward the DMs agenda and have whatever the DM wants them to have to do that.
Yep. The disconnect between what PC's can do and what everyone else can do. Means you are never stuck trying to shoe-horn a bad guy into an exists class. Guidelines provided allow the creation of critters to challenge your players that don't end up with you players challenging you. Meaning cries of "but he can't that." It's not DM cheating which sometimes was the only way to solve a problem in the previous edition.
So in 4e DM's have regained the "power to surprise".
S.
Paul Worthen RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32 |
So in 4e DM's have regained the "power to surprise".
...also, the "power to be kind of lazy" when you write up the elements of your campaign. Monsters and NPCs don't have to follow the same rules as PCs, and thus you don't have players error-checking your work as you run through the game.
ProsSteve |
I definitely agree that a DM can do this no matter what game they are playing - at the same time, I do find that 4E is encouraging of such experimentation and alteration in a way that not every game is. For a good DM, this doesn't really matter - but it helps make newer DMs aware that monster design can be an art as much as a science, and not to feel restricted to formula alone when developing or altering monsters.
Totally agree with this statement, I've adjusted encounters in previous editions to improve the 'feel' of the encounter but 4th edition does scream that this is an option and easily accomplished.
So far I've not had any ill effects in my encounters from doing so and it is sooo easy to do I've found.
Hastur |
For me, 4e is easier to DM primarily because of two quite simple things:
1. Everyone's prep time is reduced, because creating a PC, an NPC, a monster, an encounter - creating everything is just easier, because there are less rules, the rules are more balanced, and also official electronic tools (kept up to date) that help out. This is a core strength of 4e - the complexity is, by and large, moved away from the away-from-table prep time, to the at-table gaming experience. As a DM, you can fairly easily bang out an interesting encounter, and know it will be about as expected. You don't need to create complex tactics before hand, or worry too much about how the PC's migh short-cut your design, as it's well balanced at all levels and really quite easy to make tactics up at the table. Because monsters are much simpler, you don't have to spend an age highlighting all the important little bits you tend to forget or miss in complex 3.x monsters.
2. The main complexities that remain in the game, namely managing combat, are very easily handed almost completely to the players to manage. The game pretty much encourages that, more so than previous editions. This keeps th players more involved in the game, and makes your job as a DM so much easier, so you spend less time keeping track of things, and more time adding interest to the game through colourful descriptions, interesting on-the-fly tactics, and so on. For example my players keep track of pretty much all the conditions they suffer from and inflict, as well as their marks and when they are marked. I write initiative on a board where we can all see it. So I pretty much just keep track of the monsters hit points, and keep the combat rounds flowing if anything bogs down. When it's my turn to do something with a monster, it's really quick, then when a PC is having their turn, I can pay attention and be thinking of my next move(s), any interrupts they might trigger, and so on.
I found that in 3.5, being DM was quite a tough, and sometimes frustrating experience, because the rules pretty much encouraged "anything a monster can do, so can a PC", and there were so many rules with poor balance you got a real mix of PC's ranging from hopeless to broken depending on the players ability as well as their desire to push the limits just because they can. So creating interesting, challenging campaigns was hard work, especially at higher levels, because if you just left the players to do their own thing invariably they ended up all over the place and a small number of PC's dominated the group. 4e is so much more collaborative, encouraging players to find synergies, that as DM I can leave it up to them to self-manage and know that they will end up with a good group that can have fun together, and I can just concentrate on creating interesting encounters and plot points for them.
Another thing is that with 3.5, it's pretty hard being a DM unless you know the rules really well - usually at least as well as your best player. The only exception is probably if you're using a more modern pre-made adventure with solid design, then run that as-written, leaning on your best and most trusted player(s) for help on complex rulings. With 4e, I don't think you really need to know the rules as much - especially as you should be handing most of the work to your players, so too you can easily have the players know the rules at least as well as you do and it will be all fine. Overall, the 4e rules are simpler anyway, especially as there's no complex spells, and the basic combat framework of "standard, move and minor" actions is simple, clean, and works really well. The main complexity is handling conditions and marks, but as I say, hand that to your players to manage, your game will be all the better for that.
To put it another way, with 3.5 I often felt like part of my job as DM was like herding cats, which is tiring and unrewarding. With 4e, as DM I can pretty much leave the players to self-manage, and simply concentrate on the creative parts of being the DM, the bits that make the game more than just a set of fights, but a memorable campaign with great flavour and collaborative stories.
Paul Worthen RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32 |
A big, big part of the easy factor is that everything you need to run an encounter is right there in the encounter writeup. The monster stat-blocks contain all the info you need to run the monsters, the trap stat-blocks contain all the info you need to run the trap, the terrain info is right there. You don't need to pull out other books or look anything up.
In 3.5, a big time-waster was monsters who had a long list of spell-like abilities. As a DM, you had to flip back into the PHB every time you wanted to use one of those abilities. An NPC mage was a nightmare to run, unless you had an encyclopedic knowledge of what every spell did. Then, if the monster had a magic item, then you needed to reference the DMG to find out what the magic item did. If it had some feat you weren't familiar with, you needed to look that up.
Stefan Hill |
Stefan Hill wrote:So in 4e DM's have regained the "power to surprise"....also, the "power to be kind of lazy" when you write up the elements of your campaign. Monsters and NPCs don't have to follow the same rules as PCs, and thus you don't have players error-checking your work as you run through the game.
power to not have to check you have exactly the right number of feats etc. Power to spend more time on the story and plot...
Laddie |
A big, big part of the easy factor is that everything you need to run an encounter is right there in the encounter writeup. The monster stat-blocks contain all the info you need to run the monsters, the trap stat-blocks contain all the info you need to run the trap, the terrain info is right there. You don't need to pull out other books or look anything up.
In 3.5, a big time-waster was monsters who had a long list of spell-like abilities. As a DM, you had to flip back into the PHB every time you wanted to use one of those abilities. An NPC mage was a nightmare to run, unless you had an encyclopedic knowledge of what every spell did. Then, if the monster had a magic item, then you needed to reference the DMG to find out what the magic item did. If it had some feat you weren't familiar with, you needed to look that up.
Ah, so you're saying it runs a lot easier because it's more effects-based?
ghettowedge |
Paul Worthen wrote:Ah, so you're saying it runs a lot easier because it's more effects-based?A big, big part of the easy factor is that everything you need to run an encounter is right there in the encounter writeup. The monster stat-blocks contain all the info you need to run the monsters, the trap stat-blocks contain all the info you need to run the trap, the terrain info is right there. You don't need to pull out other books or look anything up.
In 3.5, a big time-waster was monsters who had a long list of spell-like abilities. As a DM, you had to flip back into the PHB every time you wanted to use one of those abilities. An NPC mage was a nightmare to run, unless you had an encyclopedic knowledge of what every spell did. Then, if the monster had a magic item, then you needed to reference the DMG to find out what the magic item did. If it had some feat you weren't familiar with, you needed to look that up.
Not that it's effects-based, but that the details for everything a monster can do is in the stat-block.
Scott Betts |
Laddie wrote:Not that it's effects-based, but that the details for everything a monster can do is in the stat-block.Paul Worthen wrote:Ah, so you're saying it runs a lot easier because it's more effects-based?A big, big part of the easy factor is that everything you need to run an encounter is right there in the encounter writeup. The monster stat-blocks contain all the info you need to run the monsters, the trap stat-blocks contain all the info you need to run the trap, the terrain info is right there. You don't need to pull out other books or look anything up.
In 3.5, a big time-waster was monsters who had a long list of spell-like abilities. As a DM, you had to flip back into the PHB every time you wanted to use one of those abilities. An NPC mage was a nightmare to run, unless you had an encyclopedic knowledge of what every spell did. Then, if the monster had a magic item, then you needed to reference the DMG to find out what the magic item did. If it had some feat you weren't familiar with, you needed to look that up.
And the things that aren't there are the sort of things you don't need details for. If a monster needs to be able to do something that isn't in its stat block, he can just do it if you as the DM want him to!
amethal |
An NPC mage was a nightmare to run, unless you had an encyclopedic knowledge of what every spell did.
With hindsight, it didn't have to be that way.
You could design a 17th level 3.5 wizard with a couple of high level spells that he can effectively cast "at will", a couple of defensive spells that he can cast once per encounter if needed, a lot of personal buffs that he has already cast and are included in the stat block, and assume that the rest of his spells are "utility" spells that never come into play.
Its just not the way we used to think about designing NPCs - although there was an article in Dungeon by (I think) Monte Cook about how to make up saving throw bonuses and the like when creating NPCs quickly.
Of course, Dispel Magic (or Greater Dispel Magic, at that level) ground the game to a halt while you de-buffed the victim, but that is arguably a problem with the spell - which Pathfinder has hopefully fixed by limiting how much you dispel at once.
Paul Worthen RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32 |
Even designing an NPC in the fashion you describe takes a lot of time. It just shifts some of the time investment from at the table to prep work. I don't want to spend hours statting out each NPC in my game.
Anyway, I think we've hit on the following 'big points' of why 4e is easier to DM:
1. Mechanical elements fit into a simple framework, making them easier to create or modify.
2. Encounters are self-contained, which makes things easier at the table.
3. The DM is given more flexibility to do what he wants within the rules.
And that's really all there is to it!
ProsSteve |
You could design a 17th level 3.5 wizard with a couple of high level spells that he can effectively cast "at will", a couple of defensive spells that he can cast once per encounter if needed, a lot of personal buffs that he has already cast and are included in the stat block, and assume that the rest of his spells are "utility" spells that never come into play.
Monte Cook about how to make up saving throw bonuses and the like when creating NPCs quickly.
Your right, you could take those short cuts but effectively you have 4th Edition and Monte Cook was one of the main designers behind the system.
Before we went to 4th ed the group I'm with did try Monte Cooks book of Experimental Might which was an early tester for a lot of the basic mechanic for 4th ed.Jeremy Mac Donald |
Paul Worthen wrote:An NPC mage was a nightmare to run, unless you had an encyclopedic knowledge of what every spell did.With hindsight, it didn't have to be that way.
You could design a 17th level 3.5 wizard with a couple of high level spells that he can effectively cast "at will", a couple of defensive spells that he can cast once per encounter if needed, a lot of personal buffs that he has already cast and are included in the stat block, and assume that the rest of his spells are "utility" spells that never come into play.
Not really, well not if your using many of the supplements anyway. In this case your caster should be made out of buffs that he has already cast, emergency spells like feather fall, freedom of movement and invisibility purge as well as spells like Stay the Hand which one can do as an interrupt or swift action.
My experience was it was perfectly possible to have maybe 10 or 12 spells specifically around to be the main offensive spells of our caster and still use every slot for something that otherwise added to the casters potency.
Jeremy Mac Donald |
2. Encounters are self-contained, which makes things easier at the table.
I would not really word it this way. What your saying, I think, is that powers et al. are designed in such a manner that one nearly never has to go and look anything up.
What I thought you were saying here, until I looked over your recent posts, was that 4E has the delve format. Now 3.5 had the this format as well plus, as anyone who happens to convert 3.x material can attest, it does not really matter if you have that format or not. Its not hard to convert material from sources not made with the delve format to 4E.
Paul Worthen RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32 |
What I thought you were saying here, until I looked over your recent posts, was that 4E has the delve format.
I'm not familiar with the Delve format. Is that what's used in Dungeon Delve and equivalent books? How is it different from the normal way encounters are presented in 4e adventures?
Jeremy Mac Donald |
Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:What I thought you were saying here, until I looked over your recent posts, was that 4E has the delve format.I'm not familiar with the Delve format. Is that what's used in Dungeon Delve and equivalent books? How is it different from the normal way encounters are presented in 4e adventures?
Essentially the Delve format is a method for laying out encounters. Its meant to be extremely easy on the DM since every encounter has everything that one might need in a two page spread. Sometimes the format can get the whole encounter onto a single page and, occasionally, for large important encounters they let it spread beyond two pages but the goal is to have everything the DM needs set out in front of him without page flipping. Its extremely easy on the DM to run such an encounter because they really don't need to know anything else to pull it off.
However the design has some significant implications. To make it work everything has to remain frozen in this exact situation until the players 'trigger' the encounter. Hence its not really possible to have a dynamic adventure where enemies react to the players depending on what the players do or how the enemies perceive the threat.
Furthermore the way the design chops up adventures makes them hard to read and hard for the DM to process. What, in effect, is taking place is that the DM is trading ease of use in the actual encounters for broader understanding of the full environment and the plot line.
Personally I think the Delve concept has some place in an adventure but more often then not its best to go with a traditional format. I personally, when rewriting my conversion of Age of Worms, use the more traditional style presentation for everything except a handful of really big really high impact encounters. Those I create full on encounter write ups for and include things like a battle map and notes for terrain features and such. Even here I make no effort to keep things to just two pages as I feel that if one wants to go whole hog then there is no point in putting artificial word count limitations on the material.
Laddie |
Paul, thanks for the summary!
amethal wrote:You could design a 17th level 3.5 wizard with a couple of high level spells that he can effectively cast "at will", a couple of defensive spells that he can cast once per encounter if needed, a lot of personal buffs that he has already cast and are included in the stat block, and assume that the rest of his spells are "utility" spells that never come into play.
Monte Cook about how to make up saving throw bonuses and the like when creating NPCs quickly.Your right, you could take those short cuts but effectively you have 4th Edition and Monte Cook was one of the main designers behind the system.
Before we went to 4th ed the group I'm with did try Monte Cooks book of Experimental Might which was an early tester for a lot of the basic mechanic for 4th ed.
These are great examples that really dilute a lot of the edition warfare; that was the biggest reason I started this thread.
Scott Betts |
amethal wrote:You could design a 17th level 3.5 wizard with a couple of high level spells that he can effectively cast "at will", a couple of defensive spells that he can cast once per encounter if needed, a lot of personal buffs that he has already cast and are included in the stat block, and assume that the rest of his spells are "utility" spells that never come into play.
Monte Cook about how to make up saving throw bonuses and the like when creating NPCs quickly.Your right, you could take those short cuts but effectively you have 4th Edition and Monte Cook was one of the main designers behind the system.
Before we went to 4th ed the group I'm with did try Monte Cooks book of Experimental Might which was an early tester for a lot of the basic mechanic for 4th ed.
I'm pretty sure Monte Cook was not involved in the 4th Edition design process. I'm not positive, but I know he's not on the PHB credits. Do you have a source for this?
Laddie |
I'm pretty sure Monte Cook was not involved in the 4th Edition design process. I'm not positive, but I know he's not on the PHB credits. Do you have a source for this?
Prolly thinking of Mike Mearls who worked on Iron Heroes. 4E has a lot of Iron Heroes and Experimental Might DNA at any rate.
ProsSteve |
Scott Betts wrote:I'm pretty sure Monte Cook was not involved in the 4th Edition design process. I'm not positive, but I know he's not on the PHB credits. Do you have a source for this?Prolly thinking of Mike Mearls who worked on Iron Heroes. 4E has a lot of Iron Heroes and Experimental Might DNA at any rate.
Sorry yeah it was Mike Mearls and if you get a chance take a look, IT's definitely been used to influenced the final edition of 4th Ed.