RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One, I daresay 80% of these monsters are going to die as soon as they meet the PCs. What, other than keeping them more "realistic", is the point of non-combat statistics that can't be established in one or two paragraphs about said monster? Meaning, what mechanical abilities should they have that aren't combat related. Also, could you give me a few examples of where this is prevalent in 3.5 or Pathfinder?
Non-combat abilities on monsters give us an idea of what the monster is doing when the PCs aren't killing it. A monster with stone shape at will probably has treasure hidden inside the rock of its lair. A monster that can use major creation never wants for mundane physical objects. A monster with craft(poisons) and profession(cook) may be secretly poisoning the nobility with very specific combinations of foods such that only one person at the feast ate all the components to be poisoned. Noncombat abilities give me inspiration for plots, for why the PCs are after the monster.
Plus supposedly "noncombat" abilities can sometimes find use in combat. I once had a PC win a fight using meld into stone.
Some people supposedly looked at the list of SLAs of, say, a high CR demon and got overwhelmed. I look at that list and see all sorts of possibilities. I see a creature that exists in a world that has these abilities to survive and thrive. With 4e style monster blocks, I see a creature designed for the PCs to kill, not an inhabitant of the world.
Back to the original topic, I'd like to see a reduction in the Christmas tree effect. Tbh, I'd like to see magic items go back to their 1e/2e level of rarity. Permanent magic items should mean something, not just be things you sell in town so that you can buy or make what you really wanted. I'd like to see magic item creation be tougher, and not tied to wealth so I can, for example, give my PCs a castle without them selling it for cash to get more magic items.
Non-combat abilities on monsters give us an idea of what the monster is doing when the PCs aren't killing it. A monster with stone shape at will probably has treasure hidden inside the rock of its lair. A monster that can use major creation never wants for mundane physical objects. A monster with craft(poisons) and profession(cook) may be secretly poisoning the nobility with very specific combinations of foods such that only one person at the feast ate all the components to be poisoned. Noncombat abilities give me inspiration for plots, for why the PCs are after the monster.
I can understand the "inspiration" problem. If you're trying to construct an adventure, ideas for what monsters might be doing can help accomplish that. I think the 4e designers recognized this problem about a year after the game came out, and started releasing supplements that gave more background on the monsters (Monster Vault: Threats to the Nentir Vale being the best of the bunch). Still, I don't think that putting an assortment of clearly non-combat abilities into the stat block is the way to go. We moved away from that, and for good reason. Putting other special abilities in the write-up works fine, and so does assigning monsters rituals.
|
One thing I do like about 4E that reminds me of the old days, and that relates to the idea of non-combat abilities of monsters:
Monsters don't necessarily have to follow the rules for PCs when they are written up.
I definitely agree that this is a benefit to 4e, I like it, I like the "recharge" abilities, I like the quickness in design when creating them, and I like the "Surprise!" factor where you can create something within the rules, that's balanced to use against the players, but isn't what they're expecting and it's not easily dissected back to its "build" to give the (metagamer) players an insight into how to defeat it.
I hope this carries over to 5e.
One more thing I really want out of 5E...
Some really good suggestions for ruling on "ad-hoc" situations -
A lot of times we'll be playing and then a player gets some kind of crazy idea like: "I'm going to cast ray of frost at the chain that's holding up the chandeleir, and then Bill is going to shoot it with his bow to shatter it!" And you're thinking...uhhhh what do I roll for this? And if they manage to make the chandeleir fall, how much damage does it do?I would just like some general rules of how you can deal with these ad-hoc situations and still be fair. Maybe just some general rules on how to determine "armor class" based on how difficult you feel a shot is, how to guess at the hit points of inanimate objects, stuff like that.
I expect 5e will have something along the lines of 4e's page 42. It was pretty well-received.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One more thing I really want out of 5E...
Some really good suggestions for ruling on "ad-hoc" situations -
A lot of times we'll be playing and then a player gets some kind of crazy idea like: "I'm going to cast ray of frost at the chain that's holding up the chandeleir, and then Bill is going to shoot it with his bow to shatter it!" And you're thinking...uhhhh what do I roll for this? And if they manage to make the chandeleir fall, how much damage does it do?I would just like some general rules of how you can deal with these ad-hoc situations and still be fair. Maybe just some general rules on how to determine "armor class" based on how difficult you feel a shot is, how to guess at the hit points of inanimate objects, stuff like that.
There was a website that had a whole article on ad-hoc game situations with some really great advice on how to handle them.
But in the end, they are ad-hoc and there is almost no way to generalize them since they are by nature so random.
Some GMs are better at this than others. Some of the best advice I recall from that site was to err on the side of awesomeness.
One thing I do like about 4E that reminds me of the old days, and that relates to the idea of non-combat abilities of monsters:
Monsters don't necessarily have to follow the rules for PCs when they are written up.
I know most 4e fans LOVE this aspect of that edition.
Sadly, it's a game-breaker for me, and I suspect other 3.x/PF fans.
Back in the 1e days, I had a group of players that felt like it was an outright gimmic that a monster or NPC could do something that they could NEVER attain as a PC.
I'm in that Consistent Fantasy World camp. I like NPCs and Monsters having the same framework & building blocks for reasons like:
1. I'm learning one system vs. the PC's system and the Monster's system
2. That non-combat detail has created countless instances of in-game inspiration that would never have arisen if that info wasn't in their stat block.
3. Despite having the same creation rules set, NOTHING is stopping me from building a "Lite" version of a monster or NPC if I need/wish to do so.
Honestly, with tools like Hero Lab, it's easy to make higher-level detailed NPCs & monsters in minutes.
I'd be shocked if the 4e method didn't carry forward. However, that means I'll also be shocked if 5e turns out to be a game I'm interested in playing/running when it hits.
|
|
The first edition game tried to emulate a process described by the author, and that emulation has come to be called Vancian. I don't know if there is an accepted deffinition of all that would be under the term, Vancian.
To me, any system that limits the use of a power to a time duration, is in essence, Vancian (Healing used to take a day, in 4th edition it takes 5 minutes - this is a change only in the amount of "imaginary" time the DM keeps track of and when examined critically doesn't affect the game as it is played. You can have an encounter every five minutes for a game session that last three hours, working out four encounters, if you are good at the rules, or you can have an encounter every day, for a game...
I'm not sure there is any set/particular/definitive definition of "Vancian". But, to me, it's always had a certain "feel" to it that comes from the JV novels, and it's almost "pulp" in style. And it's not just the time duration, it's the set "packaging" of the spell, the naming convention, etc.
It's not absolute, but this is a good link:
To me, 4e doesn't have any real ties to the above, especially the JV fiction quoted to show the fluff behind the mechanic.
ymmv
|
|
One thing I do like about 4E that reminds me of the old days, and that relates to the idea of non-combat abilities of monsters:
Monsters don't necessarily have to follow the rules for PCs when they are written up.
I don't like the trend that began with 3E that suggests we have to have explanations for how a monster achieves its AC or hit points or special abilities. I don't need a "racial bonus" applied to a bugbear's hide and move silently "skills" to know it has a better chance to surprise opponents than most creatures. It's in the nature of bugbears.
When I design monsters I use the bare minimum of notation to get the idea down on paper.
That's again, one of the things I didn't like about 4E. Initially, it sounded cool, but I also feel that one of the worst things you can do in a game is to have NPC's get abilities that PC never can. Like your 14 attacks thing, this is just an example, but it pissed me off when I read the Cleric in the MM (or might have been that first adventure) that got that cool shadow blast power, but I never could. DM might allow it, what ever, but I still think that was one of the biggest mistakes of 4E. I do like a lot of the ideas about monster mechanics, specifically the recharge powers, and the fact that a lot of monsters got changed up slightly, so in a sense they where unexpected surprizes at times. Some innovations to monsters is one of the 2 things I really liked about 4E.
As for the short stat blocks and supersimplified upgrading/downgrading, honestly I liked the 3E version better. It was much more eligant, and also by catagorizing everything, allowed DM's to easily create things and have a good idea of their power level. I think that 4E's simpler version made for a lot of room for error or unexpected complications.
One thing I do like about 4E that reminds me of the old days, and that relates to the idea of non-combat abilities of monsters:
Monsters don't necessarily have to follow the rules for PCs when they are written up.
I don't like the trend that began with 3E that suggests we have to have explanations for how a monster achieves its AC or hit points or special abilities. I don't need a "racial bonus" applied to a bugbear's hide and move silently "skills" to know it has a better chance to surprise opponents than most creatures. It's in the nature of bugbears.
When I design monsters I use the bare minimum of notation to get the idea down on paper.
That's again, one of the things I didn't like about 4E. Initially, it sounded cool, but I also feel that one of the worst things you can do in a game is to have NPC's get abilities that PC never can. Like your 14 attacks thing, this is just an example, but it pissed me off when I read the Cleric in the MM (or might have been that first adventure) that got that cool shadow blast power, but I never could. DM might allow it, what ever, but I still think that was one of the biggest mistakes of 4E. I do like a lot of the ideas about monster mechanics, specifically the recharge powers, and the fact that a lot of monsters got changed up slightly, so in a sense they where unexpected surprizes at times. Some innovations to monsters is one of the 2 things I really liked about 4E.
As for the short stat blocks and supersimplified upgrading/downgrading, honestly I liked the 3E version better. It was much more eligant, and also by catagorizing everything, allowed DM's to easily create things and have a good idea of their power level. I think that 4E's simpler version made for a lot of room for error or unexpected complications.
I have to say that I completely disagree with that. I think NPCs definitely should be able to have access to abilities that PCs don't. That can allow a DM to create very interesting and mysterious NPCs, and the PCs and players will never be sure what to expect when they face their enemies. Even in 3.5 NPCs have abilities PCs can't get- take a look at a medusa. vampire or dragon (or pretty much any monster). A 3.5 dm can also easily give an NPCs some sort special ability that a PC wouldn't get. For example you a dm might decide that an evil fighter has been blessed by some dark entity with the ability to regenerate 20 hp per round, which is something that PC would never be able to do.
The problem with PCs being able to get all the weird abilities NPCs might get is that as a DM you have to deal with the effects of those abilities for an entire campaign (or at least until the PC loses the ability or leaves the campaign). The PCs only likely have to deal with them for an encounter (or maybe a round or two depending on how fast they put down their opponent). Consequently, you can give an NPC an ability that gives the flavour and teeth needed to create a challenging encounter but would be broken in the hands of a PC.
PCs and NPCs serve completely different functions and purposes in the game, so having them designed and built different makes total sense IMO.
It would also be very frustrating to run a game for a group of players that cried foul every time an NPC had access to some special ability that they couldn't get. It's not like there is any shortage of abilities that PCs can get access to in either 4E or 3E.
Non-combat abilities on monsters give us an idea of what the monster is doing when the PCs aren't killing it. A monster with stone shape at will probably has treasure hidden inside the rock of its lair. A monster that can use major creation never wants for mundane physical objects. A monster with craft(poisons) and profession(cook) may be secretly poisoning the nobility with very specific combinations of foods such that only one person at the feast ate all the components to be poisoned. Noncombat abilities give me inspiration for plots, for why the PCs are after the monster.Plus supposedly "noncombat" abilities can sometimes find use in combat. I once had a PC win a fight using meld into stone.
Sorry if this is blunt but that sounds more like a lack of imagination than an issue of mechanical problems with the system. I don't need Craft (Poison) in his stat-block to justify my Raksasha attempting to poison the king with homebrew stuff. I don't need mechanical representations to somehow justify anything I want my NPCs or monsters to do outside of combat. That is what my main problem was with 3E and something I similarily dismissed as complete straight-jacketing non-sense. Without those restrictions, I can craft whatever background or history or motive I want from my monsters without a direct mechanical aspect required for connection just because some rule says "hey, this guy BETTER have Craft if you want him to make stuff." Because that's a complete load of garbage. I'll do whatever I want with the flavor and information of my monsters. Your basically saying you want rules for fluff but just for fluff sake and I don't (won't!) buy it with 5E.
Some people supposedly looked at the list of SLAs of, say, a high CR demon and got overwhelmed. I look at that list and see all sorts of possibilities. I see a creature that exists in a world that has these abilities to survive and thrive. With 4e style monster blocks, I see a creature designed for the PCs to kill, not an inhabitant of the world.
Because his lack of 10 different Spell-Like Abilities? Again, wanting mechanical representation just because it's something he would have could easily be gained by just added them to this stat-block. Demons SLAs are 90% offensive and in no way make the creature more realisitc than if he had 5 of those SLAs. Again, I think this is another example of asking the rules to hold the player/DMs hand because we can't think of anything else. I don't need rules for that crap.
Back to the original topic, I'd like to see a reduction in the Christmas tree effect. Tbh, I'd like to see magic items go back to their 1e/2e level of rarity. Permanent magic items should mean something, not just be things you sell in town so that you can buy or make what you really wanted. I'd like to see magic item creation be tougher, and not tied to wealth so I can, for example, give my PCs a castle without them selling it for cash to get more magic items.
Here I totally agree with you, but I want them to take it a step further and completely abolish (or make it the alternative rule) of "+" enchantment bonuses. This aspect has ruled D&D for really, far too long. Instead, how about magic items that have interesting powers that doesn't exacerbate the numbers bloat that seem to happen with every campaign. Can't magical items just be a Cold Longsword or a Flaming truesteel Greatsword or a Mace of Disruption WITHOUT the comical "+1, +2, +3" BS that seems to go along with it? I just don't get any sort of excitement or OHHH-AHHH feeliing from a "+1 longsword" anymore.
I can get on board with all of that. However, I admit that I do find some of the 4E stat blocks a bit dull and lacking in flavour. I remember when they published Demogorgon's stat block for 3e in Savage Tide I was super stoked to check it out and send him up against the party in the big finale. When I saw the 4E stat block my reaction was, "meh". I found Orcus's 4E stat block particularly dull and uninspiring. I think they need need to shoot for some middle ground where the monster stat blocks are fairly easy to use, but still flavourful enough to get gm's and players excited about running them.
Non-combat abilities on monsters give us an idea of what the monster is doing when the PCs aren't killing it. A monster with stone shape at will probably has treasure hidden inside the rock of its lair. A monster that can use major creation never wants for mundane physical objects. A monster with craft(poisons) and profession(cook) may be secretly poisoning the nobility with very specific combinations of foods such that only one person at the feast ate all the components to be poisoned. Noncombat abilities give me inspiration for plots, for why the PCs are after the monster.Plus supposedly "noncombat" abilities can sometimes find use in combat. I once had a PC win a fight using meld into stone.
Sorry if this is blunt but that sounds more like a lack of imagination than an issue of mechanical problems with the system. I don't need Craft (Poison) in his stat-block to justify my Raksasha attempting to poison the king with homebrew stuff. I don't need mechanical representations to somehow justify anything I want my NPCs or monsters to do outside of combat. That is what my main problem was with 3E and something I similarily dismissed as complete straight-jacketing non-sense. Without those restrictions, I can craft whatever background or history or motive I want from my monsters without a direct mechanical aspect required for connection just because some rule says "hey, this guy BETTER have Craft if you want him to make stuff." Because that's a complete load of garbage. I'll do whatever I want with the flavor and information of my monsters. Your basically saying you want rules for fluff but just for fluff sake and I don't (won't!) buy it with 5E.
...
Some people supposedly looked at the list of SLAs of, say, a high CR demon and got overwhelmed. I look at that list and see all sorts of possibilities. I see a creature that exists in a world that has these abilities to survive and thrive. With 4e style monster blocks, I see a
That's again, one of the things I didn't like about 4E. Initially, it sounded cool, but I also feel that one of the worst things you can do in a game is to have NPC's get abilities that PC never can. Like your 14 attacks thing, this is just an example, but it pissed me off when I read the Cleric in the MM (or might have been that first adventure) that got that cool shadow blast power, but I never could. DM might allow it, what ever, but I still think that was one of the biggest mistakes of 4E.
I'm in the camp of thinking it was one of 4e's most important, most welcome changes.
|
That's again, one of the things I didn't like about 4E. Initially, it sounded cool, but I also feel that one of the worst things you can do in a game is to have NPC's get abilities that PC never can. Like your 14 attacks thing, this is just an example, but it pissed me off when I read the Cleric in the MM (or might have been that first adventure) that got that cool shadow blast power, but I never could. DM might allow it, what ever, but I still think that was one of the biggest mistakes of 4E.I'm in the camp of thinking it was one of 4e's most important, most welcome changes.
Yeah I agree, didn't see a problem with monsters doing all sorts of cool stuff players didn't do. I mean at our table we would jokingly ask why enemies always had really cool powers, "Oh right, I just ate 2d8 + 8 AND I'm slowed?...why can't I do that?!" but never broke the game for us.
|
|
That's again, one of the things I didn't like about 4E. Initially, it sounded cool, but I also feel that one of the worst things you can do in a game is to have NPC's get abilities that PC never can. Like your 14 attacks thing, this is just an example, but it pissed me off when I read the Cleric in the MM (or might have been that first adventure) that got that cool shadow blast power, but I never could. DM might allow it, what ever, but I still think that was one of the biggest mistakes of 4E.I'm in the camp of thinking it was one of 4e's most important, most welcome changes.Yeah I agree, didn't see a problem with monsters doing all sorts of cool stuff players didn't do. I mean at our table we would jokingly ask why enemies always had really cool powers, "Oh right, I just ate 2d8 + 8 AND I'm slowed?...why can't I do that?!" but never broke the game for us.
I'd say, for my group at least, it was a welcomed change and an improvement.
Why would you build a Hydra as you would a human NPC? Why not let it be monstrous and do stuff no human being can do?
Even an "Evil Cultist" isn't a Player Class, so let them do Evilly Cultisty things--Indiana Jones couldn't suck someone's heart out of their chest, yet seeing the Evil Bad Guy do it didn't ruin the movie (it was already ruined for many other reasons). Let BBEGs do unique/unexpected/different things. Building all your enemies as you would a PC just mirrors the PC classes, and that's not as unique since the players understand how the PC classes work, what they can do, and how to defeat them.
As a GM, I liked being able to create monsters or NPC Baddies with "monster" powers that the PCs didn't have. The rules allowed you to make them balanced, but still interesting. And, it was an overall simpler and easier process than I'd expected.
But why isn't evil cultist a player class? I did play a party of evil cultists once and it was the best campaign I ever had.
There will be plenty of people being able to tell of their great campaigns as monsters.
|
|
But why isn't evil cultist a player class? I did play a party of evil cultists once and it was the best campaign I ever had.
There will be plenty of people being able to tell of their great campaigns as monsters.
Because, especially in the metagame sense, it's hard to surprise players that aren't new to the game. Most of my fellow players and GMs know the MM inside and out, and if you create baddies using the same formulas as PCs, then it's all the easier to know what the Evil Cultist can and cannot do.
But, if you build the Evil Cultist as a Monster, instead of an NPC, then he can be free to be an "Evil Cultist (Monster)" instead of an "Evil Cultist (Cleric)".
He/She can have "monstrous" powers the (jaded) players aren't expecting, and it's acceptable since it's built as a "monster". If you build an "Evil Cultist" as an NPC Cleric, then all the players know what to expect.
Plus, as a DM, it's a lot easier to whip up a Monster on the fly than it is to stat out a Cleric and build it the way you need to in order to get to "Evil Cultist".
Why does the Evil Cultist (Monster) have a Necrotic Burst that slows and weakens the players? Because it's a monster--and that's as far as the mechanics needs to go. Getting an Evil Cultist Cleric to have that same ability would take a lot of wrangling, and may not even prove possible.
In 4e monster creation, I can create anything I can imagine quickly and easily, and without really having to worry about "how it got there" in terms of Feat Trees, Spell Lists, etc. Yet, as long as I follow the basic rules, it's still going to be balanced (and fun!) to play against.
It really is one of the DM's Delights in 4e, especially compared to the slog of creating BBEGs in 3.X
ymmv
+1 to that.
The trick is getting the critters to feel flavourful, balanced and exiting to encounter without them feeling too "gamey" (ie. part of the world and story, not just a critter in a game). The gamey aspect mainly comes into play due to the way 4E powers are structured, which is my main complaint about 4E. The standardized conditions and way powers all function and such makes the rules clear and easy to manage, but the tracking of effects gets cumbersome, and the powers all start of feel very formulaic. It also gets repetitive (and IMO a little silly) when say you are fighting a bunch of orcs and each one of them takes a free attack at you when you drop it to 0, due to it's racial power.
Furthermore, the 4E monsters have virtually no fluff to go with their powers. Each power has a name and the mechanics of the ability with nothing to describe it. From those two things it is up to the gm to infer or make up the fluff of what the critter is actually doing in the context of the world when he uses the power. With many powers that is easy enough, but I found that there were many instances where I was left scratching my head trying to figure out/guess what a certain power is actually supposed to do beyond mechanics. Heck, even the players had this problem sometimes with their PCs' powers. I had a player running a Seeker, and I had no idea what his character was supposed to be doing much of the time. All I knew was the mechanics (okay, so you shot an arrow and now all the monsters in this area are slowed? WTF?). I hate that class because I don't get it worldwise (I know it's something about primal spirits and archery).
Is it too much to ask for monsters and characters to have abilities that are fun, interesting, balanced, easy to run, and fit seamlessly into the narrative of the world and story without feeling too gamey? That would be an admirable goal for 5E to achieve.
But why isn't evil cultist a player class? I did play a party of evil cultists once and it was the best campaign I ever had.
There will be plenty of people being able to tell of their great campaigns as monsters.Because, especially in the metagame sense, it's hard to surprise players that aren't new to the game. Most of my fellow players and GMs know the MM inside and out, and if you create baddies using the same formulas as PCs, then it's all the easier to know what the Evil Cultist can and cannot do.
But, if you build the Evil Cultist as a Monster, instead of an NPC, then he can be free to be an "Evil Cultist (Monster)" instead of an "Evil Cultist (Cleric)".
He/She can have "monstrous" powers the (jaded) players aren't expecting, and it's acceptable since it's built as a "monster". If you build an "Evil Cultist" as an NPC Cleric, then all the players know what to expect.
Plus, as a DM, it's a lot easier to whip up a Monster on the fly than it is to stat out a Cleric and build it the way you need to in order to get to "Evil Cultist".
Why does the Evil Cultist (Monster) have a Necrotic Burst that slows and weakens the players? Because it's a monster--and that's as far as the mechanics needs to go. Getting an Evil Cultist Cleric to have that same ability would take a lot of wrangling, and may not even prove possible.
In 4e monster creation, I can create anything I can imagine quickly and easily, and without really having to worry about "how it got there" in terms of Feat Trees, Spell Lists, etc. Yet, as long as I follow the basic rules, it's still going to be balanced (and fun!) to play against.
It really is one of the DM's Delights in 4e, especially compared to the slog of creating BBEGs in 3.X
ymmv
|
|
+1 to that.
The trick is getting the critters to feel flavourful, balanced and exiting to encounter without them feeling too "gamey" (ie. part of the world and story, not just a critter in a game). The gamey aspect mainly comes into play due to the way 4E powers are structured, which is my main complaint about 4E. The standardized conditions and way powers all function and such makes the rules clear and easy to manage, but the tracking of effects gets cumbersome, and the powers all start of feel very formulaic. It also gets repetitive (and IMO a little silly) when say you are fighting a bunch of orcs and each one of them takes a free attack at you when you drop it to 0, due to it's racial power.
Furthermore, the 4E monsters have virtually no fluff to go with their powers. Each power has a name and the mechanics of the ability with nothing to describe it. From those two things it is up to the gm to infer or make up the fluff of what the critter is actually doing in the context of the world when he uses the power. With many powers that is easy enough, but I found that there were many instances where I was left scratching my head trying to figure out/guess what a certain power is actually supposed to do beyond mechanics. Heck, even the players had this problem sometimes with their PCs' powers. I had a player running a Seeker, and I had no idea what his character was supposed to be doing much of the time. All I knew was the mechanics (okay, so you shot an arrow and now all the monsters in this area are slowed? WTF?). I hate that class because I don't get it worldwise (I know it's something about primal spirits and archery).
Is it too much to ask for monsters and characters to have abilities that are fun, interesting, balanced, easy to run, and fit seamlessly into the narrative of the world and story without feeling too gamey? That would be an admirable goal for 5E to achieve.
I think the "fluff mechanic" is the failure of most of 4e system. As DM you do have to do a lot of the mental gymnastics to spin their power-effects into something imaginative in the narrative description, but it can be done. The Seeker's primal arrow shot might summon ghostly primal forces that grasp at the monsters in the area, or maybe it makes the ground shift and tremble beneath their feet, or it makes the grass spring to life and grab their ankles--it's not in the system, but it can be added if your game cares about such things.
Unfortunately, it's my experience in 4e that most 4e players don't really care. It's (as detractors often say) more mechanical/miniatures battle than immersive story/narrative fiction
One element I would like is for it to be pretty hard to die and extremely hard to return from the dead. Especially in campaign play. I hate when you get to the high levels of a campaign and the pcs have all died multiple times, been raised and are back again.
When you die it should be game over, but equally there should be lots of wriggle room before death. Lots of 'near death but recovered' etc. I know it's not a big mechanical difference but flavor wise when a person dies they die.
|
|
one of the worst things you can do in a game is to have NPC's get abilities that PC never can.
I'm in the camp of thinking it was one of 4e's most important, most welcome changes.
I like it on Monsters. I like not having to go through a complex building process for NPCs.
I don't like it when the NPC cleric has in the monster manual has a unique power* that player clerics can't ever get. If its a boss at the end of a module with a name and a personality, maybe. If he's the typical example of an NPC cleric, then I dont like it.
*I dont mind if the math for the stats doesnt quite work out as a PCs does, or if he lacks feats, or if you give him /keywords/ instead of skill ranks, or if the number of skill ranks doesnt fit what a PC can have, but I want the "class abilities" to match.
Well, Demogorgon and Orcus really need more in their stat blocks. Some personality type monsters should have them. I like the way the Deities & Demigods gave us class levels for the gods. It gives a DM a way to know what a party can expect should they encounter a personality in the game.
Of course, that's another way of saying certain monsters are effectively NPCs. :P
This: And I dont just want that for named Boss Monsters. Monsters who are intelligent enough to have PC class levels should often have more detail than they had in 4e. The Succubus should have a long lasting charm. Satyrs should have their flutes. Etc. Those supernatural abilities that make sense for them to have out of combat should be fleshed out. You dont have to fill up a page with mundane crap that you painstakingly wrought ala 3e, but if it makes sense to include it, include it. Don't cut it out just because its less combatty.
Again, I dont care if we "short-form" the numbers, like NPCs in say: Cinematic Unisystem. Thats great. youre cutting out the crap you dont need. Instead of a paragraph of ecology on the page of a monster, 3/4 of the page could be ecology+art. Ditch the things you don't need. Don't ditch iconic abilities, or the things you realistically might need.
One element I would like is for it to be pretty hard to die and extremely hard to return from the dead. Especially in campaign play. I hate when you get to the high levels of a campaign and the pcs have all died multiple times, been raised and are back again.
Are you speaking as a player, or as a DM?
When you die it should be game over,
Out of curiosity, why?
One element I would like is for it to be pretty hard to die and extremely hard to return from the dead. Especially in campaign play. I hate when you get to the high levels of a campaign and the pcs have all died multiple times, been raised and are back again.Are you speaking as a player, or as a DM?
When you die it should be game over,Out of curiosity, why?
Both, but most often as a DM.
In my experience if there is no actual risk of a character not surviving to the end of a game then the sense of accomplishment in getting to the end of a 'dangerous' dungeon or campaign is significantly lessened. IMO having the thing that can finally stop a character be Death would be my preference.
If the rules made it that you could be beaten to a pulp, knocked unconscious, drowned etc etc - then magically healed and rejuvenated because you were not quite dead. I would prefer it. Give the player all the chances you want. Just don't say he is dead. I realize it may be semantics in a game mechanic sense but to me cheapening death by having it be something you can recover from as a result of a spell from a mid level cleric. Make death matter. (btw this isn't a deal breaker for me I once ran a 15+ year ad&d campaign where one pc had his deaths reached over 20)
Both, but most often as a DM.
This is the sort of mindset I hear often from DMs, and very rarely from players. Players like being able to hold onto the character they invested themselves in. Some DMs enjoy killing characters, but I don't think a lot of them stop to really consider whether that improves their game, and whether it's something that the players appreciate.
In my experience if there is no actual risk of a character not surviving to the end of a game then the sense of accomplishment in getting to the end of a 'dangerous' dungeon or campaign is significantly lessened.
In my experience that's usually come about through the threat of the TPK. Which, mind you, is ideally an empty threat - you want to give your players the impression that they're in real danger of all dying, but play your side of the table skillfully enough that you can ensure they make it through the adventure (assuming they're not being bumbling idiots and making every wrong move possible). After all, if everyone dies and the adventure ends, no one will be having fun.
If the rules made it that you could be beaten to a pulp, knocked unconscious, drowned etc etc - then magically healed and rejuvenated because you were not quite dead. I would prefer it. Give the player all the chances you want. Just don't say he is dead.
Why can't you just do that already? Rename "Raise Dead" to "Revive Fallen" or something along those lines, and describe any wound that might be fatal as simply being nearly fatal.
|
|
I can see that.
You could always up the components for the spell. Perhaps require a ritual sacrifice of sufficient power.
You want to bring Bob the cleric back, and he's level 12, you need to knock out a CR 12 creature, drag it back, and ritually sacrifice it for Bob to get back up.
Personally I'm more bothered by the fact that killing a player is less of a big deal than making him lose his stuff. Your gear is too important, because you need top notch gear that gets exponentially expensive.
If a player dies by being shot to death, and falling into a volcano, and the players resurrect him, its a much bigger deal that he lost his gear than it is that he died. You likely cant replace his gear due to expense.
He's now either permanently behind the WBL of the rest of the party by several levels worth of stuff (forever) and is weak for his level, or the whole party takes a hit, as they generously reequip him out of their own pockets, or they give him far more than an even share of the treasure. (As a player I would not want to do either of those - One time I whacked a character because he was too stupid to save for his own resurrection, and he lied to me about paying back his resurrection debt. - Yes. If resurrecting you comes out of my pocket, I am now your loanshark.)
Personally I'm more bothered by the fact that killing a player is less of a big deal than making him lose his stuff. Your gear is too important, because you need top notch gear that gets exponentially expensive.
It's also pretty important that you're, y'know, alive.
The only difference is that ways exist for you to return from death. There are no straightforward (and remotely cost-effective) ways to return destroyed magic items to "life".
If a party member loses all his gear, chances are the party can outfit him in at least passable gear at the next available opportunity. It won't necessarily be level-appropriate gear, but he'll be able to get by. If he had stayed dead, however, he'd be significantly less effective.
The point being: Gear isn't more important than your character. It's just much easier to return a person to life than it is to un-melt their equipment. Provide a way to repair totally destroyed gear, and you'll find this issue disappear as well.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Better art conception/direction!
I hated what they did with Tieflings, they looked like cave-men with the prominent brow their horns gave them.
Make non-human races really non-human! Dragonborn and Shardminds and whathaveyou were too much 'reskinned humans' and not enough 'bipedal dragon/living crystal'. See breasts on both races, and shardminds having crystalline hair and noses and whatnot. I have enough flavors of 'human' with elves, dwarves, etc, give me something weirder, more alien.
I thought the Genasi's crystalline hair looked pretty terrible as well.
|
|
The point being: Gear isn't more important than your character. It's just much easier to return a person to life than it is to un-melt their equipment. Provide a way to repair totally destroyed gear, and you'll find this issue disappear as well.
My point was: Character death is easy to fix, loss of gear or destruction of gear is not - and making due with the replacement gear may be permanently crippling from then on.
As for a way to quickly reclaim the gear? All I can think of is Arcane Marking all your stuff and taking the time to hunt it all back down via scrying/teleportation tricks. If its not marked, I cant think of any non-verisimilitude-breaking-way to approach the problem, besides the obvious: Make weapons not scale up so much, so theyre replaced fairly easily.
In the process, WBL becomes obsolete, and the wealth you get can go to luxuries instead of necessities in gear. Which, in my opinion, is an improvement.
But some people want the super godawesome magic swords where you can pass it to a level 1 character and he can use it to competently slay level 12 monsters by himself.
Better art conception/direction!
I hated what they did with Tieflings, they looked like cave-men with the prominent brow their horns gave them.
Make non-human races really non-human! Dragonborn and Shardminds and whathaveyou were too much 'reskinned humans' and not enough 'bipedal dragon/living crystal'. See breasts on both races, and shardminds having crystalline hair and noses and whatnot. I have enough flavors of 'human' with elves, dwarves, etc, give me something weirder, more alien.
I thought the Genasi's crystalline hair looked pretty terrible as well.
I didnt like some of the art direction either.
I have a whole thread about it at ENWorld.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-horizons-upcoming-edition-d-d/316447-no-mo re-reptiles-boobs-6.html#post5778022
Apparently there are female gamers who get offended if you try to make the animal people more animal and less chick in a skintight latex suit.
I never had a real problem with the tieflings and dragonborn. I just pretend shardminds don't exist.
Better art conception/direction!
I hated what they did with Tieflings, they looked like cave-men with the prominent brow their horns gave them.
Make non-human races really non-human! Dragonborn and Shardminds and whathaveyou were too much 'reskinned humans' and not enough 'bipedal dragon/living crystal'. See breasts on both races, and shardminds having crystalline hair and noses and whatnot. I have enough flavors of 'human' with elves, dwarves, etc, give me something weirder, more alien.
I thought the Genasi's crystalline hair looked pretty terrible as well.
I've seen situations where a player would rather bring in a new character than raise a beloved old character (particularly at higher levels) because they know with the new character they will be able to pick out a bunch of new gear that will perfectly optimize their new build.
I personally believe that in general magic items should be something earned during play, not something you get to start with. Consequently, I much prefer the inherent bonuses rules because then you could have a character die and the player could bring in a new character with no magic items, and he would still be plenty viable.
The point being: Gear isn't more important than your character. It's just much easier to return a person to life than it is to un-melt their equipment. Provide a way to repair totally destroyed gear, and you'll find this issue disappear as well.My point was: Character death is easy to fix, loss of gear or destruction of gear is not - and making due with the replacement gear may be permanently crippling from then on.
As for a way to quickly reclaim the gear? All I can think of is Arcane Marking all your stuff and taking the time to hunt it all back down via scrying/teleportation tricks. If its not marked, I cant think of any non-verisimilitude-breaking-way to approach the problem, besides the obvious: Make weapons not scale up so much, so theyre replaced fairly easily.
In the process, WBL becomes obsolete, and the wealth you get can go to luxuries instead of necessities in gear. Which, in my opinion, is an improvement.
But some people want the super godawesome magic swords where you can pass it to a level 1 character and he can use it to competently slay level 12 monsters by himself.
Better art conception/direction!
I hated what they did with Tieflings, they looked like cave-men with the prominent brow their horns gave them.
Make non-human races really non-human! Dragonborn and Shardminds and whathaveyou were too much 'reskinned humans' and not enough 'bipedal dragon/living crystal'. See breasts on both races, and shardminds having crystalline hair and noses and whatnot. I have enough flavors of 'human' with elves, dwarves, etc, give me something weirder, more alien.
I thought the Genasi's crystalline hair looked pretty terrible as well.
I didnt like some of the art direction either.
I have a whole thread about it at ENWorld....
Well our last 4E campaign ended in a TPK (a fight with a dracoliche), and although it wasn't the ideal way to end the campaign, it didn't prove to be a big problem. The TPK didn't happen until the very end of the session (so timing is important), and next session we were still gaming (new campaigns). In fact, in our current campaign there have been some major in world consequences for the last group having failed their mission, and the players are enjoying seeing what those are.
IMO a TPKs being a problem is over rated. That being said, you don't want them happening on a regular basis. I've had two in the 20 or so years that I've been dming, along with a bunch of near TPKs.
Both, but most often as a DM.This is the sort of mindset I hear often from DMs, and very rarely from players. Players like being able to hold onto the character they invested themselves in. Some DMs enjoy killing characters, but I don't think a lot of them stop to really consider whether that improves their game, and whether it's something that the players appreciate.
In my experience if there is no actual risk of a character not surviving to the end of a game then the sense of accomplishment in getting to the end of a 'dangerous' dungeon or campaign is significantly lessened.In my experience that's usually come about through the threat of the TPK. Which, mind you, is ideally an empty threat - you want to give your players the impression that they're in real danger of all dying, but play your side of the table skillfully enough that you can ensure they make it through the adventure (assuming they're not being bumbling idiots and making every wrong move possible). After all, if everyone dies and the adventure ends, no one will be having fun.
If the rules made it that you could be beaten to a pulp, knocked unconscious, drowned etc etc - then magically healed and rejuvenated because you were not quite dead. I would prefer it. Give the player all the chances you want. Just don't say he is dead.Why can't you just do that already? Rename "Raise Dead" to "Revive Fallen" or something along those lines, and describe any wound that might be fatal as simply being nearly fatal.
Personally I'm more bothered by the fact that killing a player is less of a big deal than making him lose his stuff. Your gear is too important, because you need top notch gear that gets exponentially expensive.
I've been playing in a 4E Dark Sun game using the inherent bonus system. Magic items are completely optional. My Mul Gladiator is perfectly effective at level 11 with just an obsidian axe. I really wish it were that easy to run a low magic item Patgfinder game.
|
|
Back to the 5e Wishlist:
I'd like to see an evolving game world instead of a static on that's only ever changed each edition (ex: Forgotten Realms from 3.X to 4e).
I'd like each AP/Module to have "impact" so that things are changed on the small scale, but cumulatively add up to a world that is different (significantly) if you play through them all.
I think that a game needs to be "organically dynamic" (for lack of a better description). Establish the core of the world and its "pillars" but then set everything else up that's peripheral to those core elements with an eye on changing them in the future.
Even WoW sort of did this with each Expansion, though much of it was subtle and/or only affected the end-game--until Cataclysm, which completely changed the majority of the game world.
I think a dynamic RPG should be similar. Build the world, expand on it, slowly alter it, but then have modules/campaigns that lead up to and involve/include truly world-changing events. Let the PCs shape the world--sort of like in Dragon Age II or Skyrim, where there are vague references to "The Hero of (Past Game Event)" within the new game.
Plus, you could embed "fluff" into the modules so that it is a part of the (novel) fiction but also directly ties into changes in the game world in case you don't read anything else.
Make both the modules and the novels part of the evolving landscape of the world instead of the game world being static and the fiction taking place within, but not directly affecting the world the players see.
That seems like the sort of thing that is up to the dm and players. It really has nothing to do with the game system, especially since D&D isn't built around a single setting like some other rpgs are.
Back to the 5e Wishlist:I'd like to see an evolving game world instead of a static on that's only ever changed each edition (ex: Forgotten Realms from 3.X to 4e).
I'd like each AP/Module to have "impact" so that things are changed on the small scale, but cumulatively add up to a world that is different (significantly) if you play through them all.
I think that a game needs to be "organically dynamic" (for lack of a better description). Establish the core of the world and its "pillars" but then set everything else up that's peripheral to those core elements with an eye on changing them in the future.
Even WoW sort of did this with each Expansion, though much of it was subtle and/or only affected the end-game--until Cataclysm, which completely changed the majority of the game world.
I think a dynamic RPG should be similar. Build the world, expand on it, slowly alter it, but then have modules/campaigns that lead up to and involve/include truly world-changing events. Let the PCs shape the world--sort of like in Dragon Age II or Skyrim, where there are vague references to "The Hero of (Past Game Event)" within the new game.
Plus, you could embed "fluff" into the modules so that it is a part of the (novel) fiction but also directly ties into changes in the game world in case you don't read anything else.
Make both the modules and the novels part of the evolving landscape of the world instead of the game world being static and the fiction taking place within, but not directly affecting the world the players see.
|
|
I guess what I'm saying is that I'd like to see the official modules for each world actually link and build upon each other and culminate in some sort of evolving world campaign.
Something like Earthdawn's official (though uncompleted under FASA) "Prelude to War"/"Barsaive at War"/"Barsaive in Chaos" story arc.
In this case it would be separate campaign arcs for each world/setting (of whichever ones D&D goes forward with).
That seems like the sort of thing that is up to the dm and players. It really has nothing to do with the game system, especially since D&D isn't built around a single setting like some other rpgs are.
|
|
Just personal preference, but I'd like to see the name be "Dungeons & Dragons", period.
If it has to be be there, put 'Fifth Edition' under it (in small print similar to AD&D 2e), if "D&D Next" is their internal name for it, fine.
But, if they want to unite fans of all editions, then just call it...D&D...hearken back to the game's roots, don't highlight the fact that it's yet another round of flush-the-last-and-buy-the-new.
I kinda want them to make it class-less. Yep.
Just personal preference, but I'd like to see the name be "Dungeons & Dragons", period.
Like they did with 4e? No, seriously.
http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/files/2010/01/28cejvc-782x1024.jpg|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Sorry if this is blunt but that sounds more like a lack of imagination than an issue of mechanical problems with the system. I don't need Craft (Poison) in his stat-block to justify my Raksasha attempting to poison the king with homebrew stuff. I don't need mechanical representations to somehow justify anything I want my NPCs or monsters to do outside of combat. That is what my main problem was with 3E and something I similarily dismissed as complete straight-jacketing non-sense. Without those restrictions, I can craft whatever background or history or motive I want from my monsters without a direct mechanical aspect required for connection just because some rule says "hey, this guy BETTER have Craft if you want him to make stuff." Because that's a complete load of garbage. I'll do whatever I want with the flavor and information of my monsters. Your basically saying you want rules for fluff but just for fluff sake and I don't (won't!) buy it with 5E.
We seem to have some diametrically opposed views on game design. I want those abilities described in the monsters exactly because I don't want to have to do that work myself. I'd rather spend my valuable free time elsewhere, not in finishing up the design work of monsters that otherwise are just game pieces. When I look in a 4e monster book I see pieces intended to be fought and killed by PCs, not creatures that live in a world. Maybe that makes me lazy and unimaginative but I'm very comfortable with my gaming style. This is one of the reasons my group won't play 4e and they will have to change it if they want us back.
Because his lack of 10 different Spell-Like Abilities? Again, wanting mechanical representation just because it's something he would have could easily be gained by just added them to this stat-block. Demons SLAs are 90% offensive and in no way make the creature more realisitc than if he had 5 of those SLAs. Again, I think this is another example of asking the rules to hold the player/DMs hand because we can't think of anything else. I don't need rules for that crap.
I want rules for that crap. Not all fiends are for combat, some are better suited to scheming. From my point of view once the PCs start fighting the succubus her plan is already ruined.
Here I totally agree with you, but I want them to take it a step further and completely abolish (or make it the alternative rule) of "+" enchantment bonuses. This aspect has ruled D&D for really, far too long. Instead, how about magic items that have interesting powers that doesn't exacerbate the numbers bloat that seem to happen with every campaign. Can't magical items just be a Cold Longsword or a Flaming truesteel Greatsword or a Mace of Disruption WITHOUT the comical "+1, +2, +3" BS that seems to go along with it? I just don't get any sort of excitement or OHHH-AHHH feeliing from a "+1 longsword" anymore.
I could get behind this, but if you go this route how do you mechanically make a weapon that is more accurate and damaging? or armor that is more protective? Basically, +# type weapons and armor aren't sexy, but they are functional at making wepaons and armor better at what weapons and armor do.
Speaking of monsters, another thing I want is for PCs to scale in such a way that they can still fight lower level foes and not have it be strange. I want my PCs to fear an ogre at level 2 yet at level 10 be able to meet that same ogre and bat it aside like a fly. This makes the PCs feel that their advancement really matters. It really bothered me in 4e that a 20th level character's attack might fail to one hit kill a level 1 kobold foe.
Sorry if this is blunt but that sounds more like a lack of imagination than an issue of mechanical problems with the system. I don't need Craft (Poison) in his stat-block to justify my Raksasha attempting to poison the king with homebrew stuff. I don't need mechanical representations to somehow justify anything I want my NPCs or monsters to do outside of combat. That is what my main problem was with 3E and something I similarily dismissed as complete straight-jacketing non-sense. Without those restrictions, I can craft whatever background or history or motive I want from my monsters without a direct mechanical aspect required for connection just because some rule says "hey, this guy BETTER have Craft if you want him to make stuff." Because that's a complete load of garbage. I'll do whatever I want with the flavor and information of my monsters. Your basically saying you want rules for fluff but just for fluff sake and I don't (won't!) buy it with 5E.We seem to have some diametrically opposed views on game design. I want those abilities described in the monsters exactly because I don't want to have to do that work myself. I'd rather spend my valuable free time elsewhere, not in finishing up the design work of monsters that otherwise are just game pieces. When I look in a 4e monster book I see pieces intended to be fought and killed by PCs, not creatures that live in a world. Maybe that makes me lazy and unimaginative but I'm very comfortable with my gaming style. This is one of the reasons my group won't play 4e and they will have to change it if they want us back.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on this topic. I don't mind flavor information. Something like "A Raksasha often uses poison on his blades" sort of description which intices a DM to say "Hmmm, poison eh?" but not force that monster to have those aspects explicidly stated on the monster block. For one, this makes the monster blocks become bigger and bigger with more and more information to accunt for IF you want it simpler. Second, these options might and have taken away from other areas that make the monster more effective at it's intended goal. But that's from a Monster build like PC rule problem than just adding more stuff in.
Because his lack of 10 different Spell-Like Abilities? Again, wanting mechanical representation just because it's something he would have could easily be gained by just added them to this stat-block. Demons SLAs are 90% offensive and in no way make the creature more realisitc than if he had 5 of those SLAs. Again, I think this is another example of asking the rules to hold the player/DMs hand because we can't think of anything else. I don't need rules for that crap.
I want rules for that crap. Not all fiends are for combat, some are better suited to scheming. From my point of view once the PCs start fighting the succubus her plan is already ruined.
Are speaking "rules" as in a requirment with formulated mechanics or are we talking about "noted in the stat-block"? Like above, I don't see why the Succubus wouldn't have made special plans and her stat-block is a last resort to the situation. Basically, what I see is a lack of description from the designers part. More info about the whos/why/hows of monsters and not specifically stuff listed in their combat block. I could get on board with more description and flavor and not so much mechanical representation of information what they can do in battle.
Here I totally agree with you, but I want them to take it a step further and completely abolish (or make it the alternative rule) of "+" enchantment bonuses. This aspect has ruled D&D for really, far too long. Instead, how about magic items that have interesting powers that doesn't exacerbate the numbers bloat that seem to happen with every campaign. Can't magical items just be a Cold Longsword or a Flaming truesteel Greatsword or a Mace of Disruption WITHOUT the comical "+1, +2, +3" BS that seems to go along with it? I just don't get any sort of excitement or OHHH-AHHH feeliing from a "+1 longsword" anymore.
I could get behind this, but if you go this route how do you mechanically make a weapon that is more accurate and damaging? or armor that is more protective? Basically, +# type weapons and armor aren't sexy, but they are functional at making wepaons and armor better at what weapons and armor do.Speaking of monsters, another thing I want is for PCs to scale in such a way that they can still fight lower level foes and not have it be strange. I want my PCs to fear an ogre at level 2 yet at level 10 be able to meet that same ogre and bat it aside like a fly. This makes the PCs feel that their advancement really matters. It really bothered me in 4e that a 20th level character's attack might fail to one hit kill a level 1 kobold foe.
The armor could incrase in density (DR perhaps), in deflection (% vs. ranged weapons/spells), or special maigcal benefits (shadow, ignore crits). There doesn't specifically NEED to be "+" to them because this increases everyone requirement to hit and more "+" bloat.
As for monsters, A 20th level PC SHOULD be able to kill a 1st level Kobold on a roll of 2 or better and often does in 4E. What your seeing is the creation of monsters of above level that are Kobolds but they usually stop about low heroic tier (like 8th or 9th level). Besides, I like the idea of Trolls being scary regardless of level, because they are and should always be.
|
Get rid of 5'-step, slides, slips, slight bumps, and other micro-managed events during a combat.
I don't mind there being a way to move the enemy around during combat, but it should be easy to adjudicate, and not automatically successful.
I've seen too many Powers that boldly declare "Deal X damage and move opponent back 2 squares", and thought "Shouldn't that be dependent on the opposing expertise, size and Str of the combatants?".Conversely, there are creatures who should be good at combat maneuvers, who are hampered by a restrictive mechanic, eg a giant octopus can only hold one victim, unless it takes a -20 to its checks. o_0?
Go back to defining a round as about 1 minute would help.
I think you'll be in the minority there. The one-minute round is one of the first things to be house-ruled away from 1E/2E, by every group I've ever known.
You only have to drive past the pubs at chucking out time to see real fights that last seconds. A reversion to the 1-minute round would just leave victors standing around puzzled for most of that minute.|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
As for monsters, A 20th level PC SHOULD be able to kill a 1st level Kobold on a roll of 2 or better and often does in 4E. What your seeing is the creation of monsters of above level that are Kobolds but they usually stop about low heroic tier (like 8th or 9th level). Besides, I like the idea of Trolls being scary regardless of level, because they are and should always be.
I'm thinking of situations like a first level kobold foe having 26 hp and an 18th level attack power doing 4d6 damage. It'll probably kill the kobold after bonuses...probably. I'm just hoping that damage scales better because the high-level attacks in 4e did not impress me. Everything seemed to get even more hp and even less damage.
Don't touch my dragon mooving halfling warlord, lest he shoves you one square away and causes the oversized dragonborn over there to smack you!
Ryric: The problem was noticed and supposedly ammended in Monster Vaults and MM 3 (I haven't tried that much). First two MMs were indeed criticised for creatures havng too many HP an too weak attacks, making the fights drag (I heard - not seen it myself though - about solos going to bloodied via total encounter and daily power expenditure and then having to wade through the other half of the HP mire with at-will powers).