| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I found 4E to be similar to AD&D in spirit. But I never met anyone who agreed with me, so no - I don't think it was supposed to be. I think that was just how I played it.
You aren't the only one. I know of several who have that same opinion.
I'm mostly dismayed at how much play testing and development went into 5th and that the final result is so underwhelming.on the other hand, to those of who use it, its drips with flavour, ideas and great art. Gone is the ridiculous superhero art of PFI was going to comment on how I liked the Monster Manual like many of the monsters that I wouldn't have expected to be in a primary Monster Manual, how I enjoy the way many of the powers were built (that aren't just advantage or disadvantage) like the medusa's gaze or how goblins are naturally good at running and hiding with a small bit, but I stopped after seeing this.
Pen & Paper RPGs, where one can't exclaim their love for one game without taking a shot at another.
This is another one of my own opinions.
From what I saw, they had a key concept in mind. It didn't matter HOW MUCH feedback they got that was against it, that key idea did not change. Part of that idea was what eventually morphed into bonded accuracy, along with several other items in regards to the core mechanics.
There were several things in the forums discussing the rules that showed an overwhelming desire for certain things...but when you look at what happened it was as if this feedback was blatantly ignored in surveys, forums, and questionnaires.
I think if they had actually listened more to the feedback instead of what they wanted to absolutely have in it, we'd have gotten a game that was more a blend of 3e and 4e than something new that came out of their beta. I mean, point blank, those who were involved were all 3e and 4e players as the majority, and they were all trying to push their ideas from each of those respective editions.
If they actually had listened and changed it accordingly, it would have been a pure blend of 3e and 4e without any of this limited stuff of +6 total over 20 levels as a bonus...or skills being handled like they are. They literally made up the rules and asked how people liked them. They took no advice on what NEW rules to implement. Instead, they just removed rules that they saw an overwhelming majority disliking...but otherwise, making up their own rules instead of taking suggestions of what others were suggesting, at least if you looked at the forums and the actual rules that were being suggested.
It SHOULD have been something that looked a lot like PF but with a LOT of 4e stuff in there (maybe the defenses as 4e instead of saves...or with the HP boosters, or a second wind for all classes...or other items). That is if what was being discussed would have been reflected in their actual rules and utilized to actually create the rules, rather than only delete the stuff a huge number of people didn't like and discard the rest of the feedback in favor of their own rules they were writing in house.
I actually think PAIZO is more responsive to the feedback then what I saw with WotC...
Personal opinion of course.
I never played BECMI, I'd always just assumed it was the same as AD&D. What are the differences, do you think?
Hmmm, well, when you play the Basic and Expert rules as the core and the rest as optional, it didn't have as many rules as AD&D. The abilities had different statistics (more similar to what you see in D&D now, rather than what AD&D had), and the classes were somewhat different.
You had the four main classes (Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard) along with some proto prestige classes (Druid, Paladin, Knight, Avenger) and a similar Monk class (Mystic) and races as class (so if you were an elf, that was also your class, same with Dwarf and Halfling).
There were no player classes for Half Elf, Half Orc, or Gnome.
Classes started with similar XP requirements in the lower levels, but at the higher levels advanced almost two times as quickly. Also, the number of spells gained per level were different among spellcasters between BECMI and AD&D (for example, Clerics didn't have any spells at first level in BECMI, whereas they started with spellcasting abilities in AD&D).
One you tossed in the companion set (you didn't have to use the rules) you got an optional skill and weaponmastery system much different than AD&D as well as a mass combat system that was far different (but one of the best ones I've ever seen in regards to mass combat in an rpg).
Elves were basically Fighter/Magic Users and were capped at 10th level. Dwarfs were basically fighters capped at 12th. Halflings were Fighters capped at 8th. They all had a few extra abilities in addition, but were similar. They could use a wish to gain one extra level...but that wasn't defined in it's abilities they gained (for instance, did elves suddenly gain spells equivalent of an 11th level caster?).
Races stopped gaining special abilities once capped, but unlike AD&D continued to be able to grow in combat ability, or the ability to hit other creatures. This was ranked in an alphabetical scale instead of a numerical level.
Classes had a max level of 36 for the most part (I think the max level for a mystic was 16th, I could look it up but am too lazy to get my books out right now).
Overall the systems were easily cross compatible, but when you looked at them in detail, there were numerous differences.
The biggest change however, that was the most notable is if you went beyond level 36 and became an immortal. Unlike AD&D (That I know of) there were rules for playing the immortal game with new levels and ranks which you gained experience to get through (you basically started as a low level character again, but this time as a low level immortal). In fact, it was almost a completely different game once you went onto the Immortals set. The rest of BECMI was probably easily cross compatible with AD&D...Immortals...IN MY OPINION...was not.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly don't think it would have been a good idea to make 5th edition similar to Pathfinder/3rd edition with 4th edition elements. I am glad they didn't listen to the people who wanted that. If people want another 3rd edition, just go to Pathfinder. Want some 4th edition elements to go along with it? Very easy to incorporate them into it.
yep, it is different enough from all other editions to be a different game, but still has that d20 feel
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I found 4E to be similar to AD&D in spirit. But I never met anyone who agreed with me, so no - I don't think it was supposed to be. I think that was just how I played it.You aren't the only one. I know of several who have that same opinion.
I too have seen this before from quite a few people in the online community.
I'm mostly dismayed at how much play testing and development went into 5th and that the final result is so underwhelming.on the other hand, to those of who use it, its drips with flavour, ideas and great art. Gone is the ridiculous superhero art of PFI was going to comment on how I liked the Monster Manual like many of the monsters that I wouldn't have expected to be in a primary Monster Manual, how I enjoy the way many of the powers were built (that aren't just advantage or disadvantage) like the medusa's gaze or how goblins are naturally good at running and hiding with a small bit, but I stopped after seeing this.
Pen & Paper RPGs, where one can't exclaim their love for one game without taking a shot at another.
This is another one of my own opinions.
From what I saw, they had a key concept in mind. It didn't matter HOW MUCH feedback they got that was against it, that key idea did not change. Part of that idea was what eventually morphed into bonded accuracy, along with several other items in regards to the core mechanics.
I'm just not sure the online community is that much of a significant portion of players for the game, at least from a polling perspective or as any sort of gauge on things like mechanics. Sure, things like Damage-on-a-Miss was a contentious issue but was this representative of the community on the whole or just those specific people? It's hard to say IMO because it's a topic that I've ONLY ever seen argued on Forums and not real life. Same thing with topics like healing, powers, spell-per-day, Liner Fighter/Quadratic Wizard, 5-Min work days, etc.
I think the designers received the best information they could and that it correlated, to a degree, what they were already going with. And in all honesty just because a group of people (say, 3e fans for example) play and love 3E or PF doesn't necessarily mean they like things such as save-or-die spells, wealth-by-level, or the deluge of Feats and Prestige Classes.
You mention Bounded Accuracy and I think that's probably one of the BEST innovations for the edition. Even though I enjoy playing v3.5 and Pathfinder and 4E one of the biggest problems I had when looking at those systems is the ridiculous height the numbers reach. I do NOT NEED a Fighter with +45/+40/+35 attack modifiers that deals 70s, 80s, or 100s of points of damage or AC to reach the 50+ to feel "Epic". I feel it was done because someone back in the 3.0 system creation thought "Oh, higher numbers means I can feel BIGGER and BADDER!" and all I felt it did was put an arbitrary and fictitious strain on class and monster design. Monsters in the CR 18 - 20 range just got Natural Armor +20 because the Fighter got +18 to 20 BAB.
Not only that but it completely removed these characters (and monsters) from the "commoners" of the settings. Even when reading novels like the Forgotten Realms epic heroes had flaws and could be felled by things like common weapons and people. In v3.5 I can make a 12th level Fighter that literally just sits on the ground why 9 orcs beat on him and they'll only damage him 5% of the time. That's just moronic.
There were several things in the forums discussing the rules that showed an overwhelming desire for certain things...but when you look at what happened it was as if this feedback was blatantly ignored in surveys, forums, and questionnaires.
Again, forum communities are not indicative of the overall attitude towards the edition, let alone specific mechanics. Going from what Mearls stated, it appeared from looking at the forums the community was "divided" however when looking at the survey data there was a lot more things the player base had or wanted in common.
I think if they had actually listened more to the feedback instead of what they wanted to absolutely have in it, we'd have gotten a game that was more a blend of 3e and 4e than something new that came out of their beta. I mean, point blank, those who were involved were all 3e and 4e players as the majority, and they were all trying to push their ideas from each of those respective editions.
Its funny you say this because I see a certain amount of people saying there's too much 4E (or insert the edition you didn't like here____) among community posters here, and in other places. TO me I think that means they did something right. Besides "powers" there's a LOT of 4E design in this edition. There's also quite a bit of 3E elements in the game as well, even looking at the books one could jump to the notion that it "feels" like 3E.
If they actually had listened and changed it accordingly, it would have been a pure blend of 3e and 4e without any of this limited stuff of +6 total over 20 levels as a bonus...or skills being handled like they are.
Perhaps the majority of people who play and like 3E/4E actually think +20 over 20 levels (or the silliness of the BAB system) was not only unnecessary but perhaps even disliked? Further, I've seen a LOT of people complain about skill ranks and points and how the classes were really deprived of points in both 3E and Pathfinder. The fighter getting 2 per level? Really? That's pretty terrible. I'm glad they got rid of points and I really hope they don't show up again in a WotC D&D system. This isn't GURPS.
They literally made up the rules and asked how people liked them. They took no advice on what NEW rules to implement. Instead, they just removed rules that they saw an overwhelming majority disliking...but otherwise, making up their own rules instead of taking suggestions of what others were suggesting, at least if you looked at the forums and the actual rules that were being suggested.
Well yeah but the rules changed pretty significantly as the process progressed over two years. I still have the very first playtest packet where there were only pre-generated characters. BOY do they look different than ones you can make now with the PHB. The rules, the idea about powers and feats and terminology all changing. The change to the classes and races are ALL different. And it was predominantly due to the feedback from playtesters. If people didn't playtest it and give feedback, why should their preferences be catered to?
It SHOULD have been something that looked a lot like PF but with a LOT of 4e stuff in there (maybe the defenses as 4e instead of saves...or with the HP boosters, or a second wind for all classes...or other items). That is if what was being discussed would have been reflected in their actual rules and utilized to actually create the rules, rather than only delete the stuff a huge number of people didn't like and discard the rest of the feedback in favor of their own rules they were writing in house.I'm glad it doesn't look anything like Pathfinder. For one, we already HAVE Pathfinder, and for free to boot. Why would I shell out hundreds of dollars for a system that only has some 4E-stuff bolted onto a d20/SRD system. No thanks, I don't need to pay money for that and I think a lot of others would feel the same. On the other hand, 5E looks like they took ideas and philosophy from a variety of editions to make their system. It has 4E-isms in there along with 3E-isms and 2E-isms, and 1e-isms.
I actually think PAIZO is more responsive to the feedback then what I saw with WotC...
Personal opinion of course.
How can any of us really know? We saw the surveys and we saw the results. The community is just one aspect of the equation. I think WotC knows the numbers better and wrote their rules accordingly. Sure, the designers had an agenda and idea going into 5E and I think they used survey feedback to tweak these ideas into the form the designers and players both wanted. I can only say that the overall feedback from Amazon reviews and the community (here and on other sites) is generally positive and receptive of this edition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Much of my friends' suggestions and critiques have been made into the final edition.
I'm not saying that my friends are the sole responsible of the final product, just that some people do have the impression that their input was taken into account.
I honestly don't think it would have been a good idea to make 5th edition similar to Pathfinder/3rd edition with 4th edition elements. I am glad they didn't listen to the people who wanted that. If people want another 3rd edition, just go to Pathfinder. Want some 4th edition elements to go along with it? Very easy to incorporate them into it.
Agreed.
I dislike 3.X/Pathfinder and 4E, so I would have had ZERO interest in 5E if it was just a slight revision (or unholy amalgam) of those systems. 5E is still not what I really want (healing is WAY too easy, I hate the powerful, spammable cantrips and "recharging" powers after short rests) but I like it better than those other systems I mentioned as it simplified feats and skills to allow some customization but not requiring a player to master page after page of rules to make a decent character.
For me, simpler is always better and 5E is a step back to a simpler game (which seems to irk a lot of folks). I'm sure that WotC will add expansion books to increase the options in the future but the base game is at least reasonably palatable to me in its level of complexity.
In a recent podcast, Mike Mearls said they were expecting people to want the game complex, and found to their surprise that simpler was preferred over and over again.
D&D has a much broader audience than any single given group– just because it didn't go how you (the editorial "you" not any specific person in this thread) or anyone you know didn't care for, doesn't mean it didn't go in a way that lots of people were asking for.
Even 4E was more feedback-driven than people tend to think it was: the main difference is 4E was based on a smaller subset of players (primarily organized play), while 5E casts a much wider net.
(Podcast in question can be found here: http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/interviews/dmg-design )
-The Gneech
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I often think the designers say "open playtest" and the participants hear "collaborative design". It seems to me that quite often, both Paizo and WotC are criticised for not listening to the community where the publisher says:
"We're toying with this concept, how does it work out at the table?"
and a fan answers:
"I think you should do this instead".
So..once again, 5E sucks because it isn't Pathfinder. Or 3E. Or something.
Wow, man. Editions wars have gotten really lazy.
I'm looking forward to getting into 5e and trying to put together a group. My PF group has no interest in playing anything different, so I'm starting over if I want to play 5e. Oh well.
I often think the designers say "open playtest" and the participants hear "collaborative design". It seems to me that quite often, both Paizo and WotC are criticised for not listening to the community where the publisher says:
"We're toying with this concept, how does it work out at the table?"
and a fan answers:
"I think you should do this instead".
Or rather:
"Cater to my exist specifications or your product is FAIL."
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't played much 5e but to me what looks like a difference in style of game between 5e & pathfinder is that pathfinder seems to suit the epic adventure path style of game and 5e a more sandbox style.
A pathfinder adventure path often involves events which are essentially a way to gain levels to allow you to trouble a BBEG. The difference between a 3rd and a 15th level character is enormous. So adventure design tends to lean towards a linear adventure progression. You don't want the 4th level characters stumbling into the 9th level adventure because that's a TPK waiting to happen. So you fight goblins, then ghouls, then ogres, then giants etc you don't want to meet a couple of giants when you should be fighting ghouls!
5e seems to have a less steep improvement curve, meaning that at 4th level if you wander into the 9th level dungeon you can survive ( probably only long enough to get out). So this means you can make the world a bit more sandboxy, let the players find their own way. Now maybe this will just lead to the players having a false sense of their ability to defeat a big threat.
Now that I look back on it when 3.0 came out I started running essentially much more linear adventure path style campaigns. I like the story element of the game anyway. Maybe now I will try a bit more sandbox.
Like I said I admit I haven't had much experience with 5e but that's my thoughts .
I haven't played much 5e but to me what looks like a difference in style of game between 5e & pathfinder is that pathfinder seems to suit the epic adventure path style of game and 5e a more sandbox style.
A pathfinder adventure path often involves events which are essentially a way to gain levels to allow you to trouble a BBEG. The difference between a 3rd and a 15th level character is enormous. So adventure design tends to lean towards a linear adventure progression. You don't want the 4th level characters stumbling into the 9th level adventure because that's a TPK waiting to happen. So you fight goblins, then ghouls, then ogres, then giants etc you don't want to meet a couple of giants when you should be fighting ghouls!
5e seems to have a less steep improvement curve, meaning that at 4th level if you wander into the 9th level dungeon you can survive ( probably only long enough to get out). So this means you can make the world a bit more sandboxy, let the players find their own way. Now maybe this will just lead to the players having a false sense of their ability to defeat a big threat.
Now that I look back on it when 3.0 came out I started running essentially much more linear adventure path style campaigns. I like the story element of the game anyway. Maybe now I will try a bit more sandbox.
Like I said I admit I haven't had much experience with 5e but that's my thoughts .
Some really good observations. My games are (unconsciously) forming in exactly the way that you mention. You can throw "unbalanced" encounters at the PCs and they have a fairly decent chance to at least escape!
I haven't played much 5e but to me what looks like a difference in style of game between 5e & pathfinder is that pathfinder seems to suit the epic adventure path style of game and 5e a more sandbox style.
A pathfinder adventure path often involves events which are essentially a way to gain levels to allow you to trouble a BBEG. The difference between a 3rd and a 15th level character is enormous. So adventure design tends to lean towards a linear adventure progression. You don't want the 4th level characters stumbling into the 9th level adventure because that's a TPK waiting to happen. So you fight goblins, then ghouls, then ogres, then giants etc you don't want to meet a couple of giants when you should be fighting ghouls!
5e seems to have a less steep improvement curve, meaning that at 4th level if you wander into the 9th level dungeon you can survive ( probably only long enough to get out). So this means you can make the world a bit more sandboxy, let the players find their own way. Now maybe this will just lead to the players having a false sense of their ability to defeat a big threat.
Now that I look back on it when 3.0 came out I started running essentially much more linear adventure path style campaigns. I like the story element of the game anyway. Maybe now I will try a bit more sandbox.
Like I said I admit I haven't had much experience with 5e but that's my thoughts .
While I generally agree with your statement, 3E/Pathfinder/4E leading it to be more adventure-path based, it doesn't necessarily have to be. I'm not entirely sure where the notion came from that these editions push for level-appropriate encounters all the time? Perhaps it's because most 3E/PF/4E adventures have a level range and going off that specific path is uncharted and thus, DMs don't normally allow for that and go a more rail road element. I've certainly done my fair share of sandbox style games with both 3E and 4E and the Players generally know venturing into territories that have significantly difficult threats are going to result in their quick deaths.
Maybe I'm wrong about how 5e will play out.
Maybe my perception of 3e/pathfinder is coloured by most campaigns I have been in or run in the last 14 years being adventure paths ( I ran a converted Night Below from 2000-2006 before Paizo started producing them). Maybe it's partly because most published adventure paths seem to use the "to help the party be tough enough to face the next encounter have them beat up this side quest" trope. Or maybe because when we played 3e we went up levels so much faster than when we played 1e so if you met a threat that was too tough a legitimate solution was to leave it alone, go up a few levels, then come back & kill it.
I guess in the 1e games I ran it felt like a bad guy was almost like a terrain feature. Everyone knew the evil summoner lived in the hills which are infested by ogres - but he had lived there for years and no-one could do anything about it except thwart his plots when he sent his minions into the kingdom. In 3e he would be a threat for about 2 months until the party hit 10th level.
But this is probably more a speed of levelling up effect, and it doesn't really look like the default speed of levelling up has changed so this will still be a feature. It does look like numbers matter a lot more. So if a tribe of orcs rules an area it will be tougher to just run them out when you reach 8th level.
I guess I am looking forward to more intractable foes in the campaign world that aren't uber level.
How do other perceive it will play out compared to pathfinder?
Werecorpse, I think Bounded Accuracy will help in the department of keeping monsters relevant to higher level characters.
Werecorpse, I think Bounded Accuracy will help in the department of keeping monsters relevant to higher level characters.
Kind of does but AoEs and the PC power level and copious amounts of healing negates it. I have used 40 Kobolds on PCs at elvel 8 and 40 hobgoblins at level 12. They can get a few hits in but are mostly bait for level 3 spells.
Depleting PC spells and then hitting them with stuff that matters kind of works.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Werecorpse, I think Bounded Accuracy will help in the department of keeping monsters relevant to higher level characters.Kind of does but AoEs and the PC power level and copious amounts of healing negates it. I have used 40 Kobolds on PCs at elvel 8 and 40 hobgoblins at level 12. They can get a few hits in but are mostly bait for level 3 spells.
Depleting PC spells and then hitting them with stuff that matters kind of works.
That's exactly how the system is supposed to work. 40 Kobolds and other mediocre monsters need to be in larger numbers to be a significant threat otherwise we get 3E's and 4E's syndrome of being able to sit down on the ground and let the monsters attacking you, only hitting 5% of the time, which is moronic and stupid yet works RAW.
Just look back at Lord of the Rings where they enter the Mines of Moria: Do you think a group of nine 10th level v3.5, Pathfinder, or 4E D&D characters would've even blinked an eye at the goblins running down the walls towards them in that scene? Nope, they would've laughed as the Fighter greater cleaved / Encounter-Daily powered to his hearts content, the Wizard would've been dropping 20' areas of goblins on whim with fireball, scorching burst, or a myriad of other AoE spells, and everyone else would be killing 2-3 goblins per turn all the while the Goblins would've all had approx. 5% chance to hit them. At least with 5th Edition such a scene is particular fearsome to adventuring parties of most levels barring heroes ramped up with magical gear (something not inherent with the system math).
Even at 5%, with Orc Archers...with 2000 Orc archers firing per turn = 100 hits. Better have protection from Missiles on...
Than in 3.5 if you really think they need a wake up call, let there be a Sergeant for every few, with a Lt over him, and a Capt over a few of them.
Make the Sergeant a 3rd level, the LT's a 5th level, and the Capt a 7th level. With 2000 (or maybe 10000 Orcs), with a Capt every 100 Orcs...that's 20 7th level types of Orcs to deal with...Even a 10th level party might have that get hoary real quick.
Backed up with thousands of Orcs...even at 10th level in PF, I'd run.
And then the kicker, the Cave Troll...and even worse...the Balrog.
With more lethal systems, the characters would have never even gotten out of the burial/last stand room.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And with a horde of those types of numbers, where are all the dead bodies landing? In a pile around the heroes. This pile will start to hamper their movements, eventually even collapsing onto them and pinning them down, making them an easy target for a called shot or a coup de grace, since they cannot move to avoid it. But that would require a DM that does not just give the players infinite maneuvering and weapon-swinging room during a fight.
Werecorpse, I think Bounded Accuracy will help in the department of keeping monsters relevant to higher level characters.Kind of does but AoEs and the PC power level and copious amounts of healing negates it. I have used 40 Kobolds on PCs at elvel 8 and 40 hobgoblins at level 12. They can get a few hits in but are mostly bait for level 3 spells.
Depleting PC spells and then hitting them with stuff that matters kind of works.
This is an interesting result, I would have thought they would be a decent threat in 5e, especially with their ranged attacks and pack tactics/martial advantage. I can certainly understand AoE being a crucial part of such an encounter. I hadn't really picked up that 5e allowed copious in combat healing.
Was this against 4pcs?
I guess some of my assumptions may turn out to be incorrect.
I'm very much liking the setup of 5e, for many of the reasons noted. The ability scores having a cap without magical aid, and even then havign a cap is nice. I also love the feat or ability score bump decision. I think they did a great job with the MM, giving even the "weakest" of creatures a feel like they will be dangerous for many levels, and the big baddies some coool abilities, such as the great dragon's ability to auto-save x amount of times per day.
Maybe I'm one of the few that actually likes the fact that the number aren't as rediculously high as they were in 3.x/PF.
I just got the 5e DMG, and I must say I am pretty impressed with it. It details the planes really well, and gives options on efffects of spending time there. it also has a cool section on option al rules the DM can put in for flavor. It looks really nice.
Hopefully this is the direction the edition goes in, and shies away from piling on classes, and just enhances backgrounds and maybe some archtypes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I purchased Rise of Tiamat and have completed a read through. I recall some folks not being happy with how Tiamat's stats were presented, I believe that they thought that her combat abilities were boring. Personally I was pleased with the way that she was presented, and I believe that her stats bring in some of the sensibilities of both 1e and 4e. Monster creation in 1e as some have mentioned is not structured with the same subsystem as PC character building, and I always found that to be a feature and not a bug. Why would a giant centipede or wyvern use the same rules as a small humanoid creature? Just like in nature species are different and not evenly distributed. I also think the 4e sensibilities that a monster is only "on screen" for a short while so it only needs to do what it can do is a good thing. I know as a GM I have been pretty intimidated by high level spell casting monsters with 20-25 spells in their spell lists, but also is that monster really going to cast magic missile or faerie fire?
So, yeah, colour me pleased by how the 5e monsters are turning out so far.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also really like the 5E monsters. I did not enjoy stating up 3/3.5E monsters. I felt like I was making a character which can be fun once in a while for the BBEG, but it ends up being a giant time sink when you have to do it all the time.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
The big problem with previous edition monsters is how they used feats, and you had to know all the feats involved. Getting rid of monster feats is a very good things.
The big problem with previous edition monsters is how they used feats, and you had to know all the feats involved. Getting rid of monster feats is a very good things.
Yes, I'm more and more in favour of asymmetrical systems.
But it did seem like it could've been tricky in 4e (& onwards) to create monsters with their own abilities and correctly judge them in comparison with the players strength. For (completely off the top of my head) example giving a Cthonian an extra slap attack & breath weapon per turn.
At least in a more modular symmetrical system there are values for the abilities, hence why it takes so much longer to fit them all together.
But it did seem like it could've been tricky in 4e (& onwards) to create monsters with their own abilities and correctly judge them in comparison with the players strength. For (completely off the top of my head) example giving a Cthonian an extra slap attack & breath weapon per turn.
At least in a more modular symmetrical system there are values for the abilities, hence why it takes so much longer to fit them all together.
Symmetrical is easier to balance for sure, and easily allows translation between PCs and NPCs (including monsters), but options and complexity for players usually means complexity for monsters (i.e. the DM's job).
Yeah, so in an asymmetrical model it would be nice to have a supplement with a list of possible options for creatures attacks/abilities. Of course simple but powerful options that a PC couldn't have.
Werecorpse, I think Bounded Accuracy will help in the department of keeping monsters relevant to higher level characters.Kind of does but AoEs and the PC power level and copious amounts of healing negates it. I have used 40 Kobolds on PCs at elvel 8 and 40 hobgoblins at level 12. They can get a few hits in but are mostly bait for level 3 spells.
Depleting PC spells and then hitting them with stuff that matters kind of works.
This is an interesting result, I would have thought they would be a decent threat in 5e, especially with their ranged attacks and pack tactics/martial advantage. I can certainly understand AoE being a crucial part of such an encounter. I hadn't really picked up that 5e allowed copious in combat healing.
Was this against 4pcs?
I guess some of my assumptions may turn out to be incorrect.
This looks like it is as designed. The idea if I remember is that lower level creatures in 5e would become the equivalent of what minions were in 4e. Minions in 4e were creatures with one hit point that basically always died with one hit or an AoE. They came in higher level versions though so they could still threaten to hit and do some damage to higher level PCs.
If you used a couple of AoEs on a group of 40 kobolds and the DM had them grouped close together you should be able to fry them all at level 8. Hobgoblins really don't have many more HPs than kobolds. A fireball spell should kill a hobgoblin or kobold even on a passed save.
Yeah, so in an asymmetrical model it would be nice to have a supplement with a list of possible options for creatures attacks/abilities. Of course simple but powerful options that a PC couldn't have.
There's a whole list of that in the 5th edition DMG, from what I have heard. Every monster ability is given in a 2 page or so table. No point value or anything like that is listed, but all the abilities that a monster in the MM has, is listed there, with the name of the monster that has it next to the ability name.
The big problem with previous edition monsters is how they used feats, and you had to know all the feats involved. Getting rid of monster feats is a very good things.
I get around that very easily with PF monsters. I simply didn't worry about the feats, skill points, or anything else that didn't seem relevant to that monster or NPC, assuming that they have those things, but they aren't relevant to the encounter I am planning. If they ended up needing those things later, I can slap them on quickly enough. I personally much prefer that they have the same chassis as the PCs rather than having to learn an entirely different list of abilities and rules than the what I already have to learn to understand the PCs. Just because they have the same basic framework doesn't mean you have to fill in every single detail to the same degree and the number stats are easy enough to manipulate while using the framework as a guideline. I haven't seen 5E's monsters but I will take PF's approach over 4E's any day.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Creature abilities in 4E and D&D:Next sort of replace the need for feats IMO. An Orc doesn't need Power Attack, he could simply have a line that says "-5 to Attack, add an additional +10 to the damage roll" or to illustrate Lightning Reflexes "The Orc has advantage when making Dexterity saving throws."
An endless list of feats based on HD isn't required (and good riddance).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Creature abilities in 4E and D&D:Next sort of replace the need for feats IMO. An Orc doesn't need Power Attack, he could simply have a line that says "-5 to Attack, add an additional +10 to the damage roll" or to illustrate Lightning Reflexes "The Orc has advantage when making Dexterity saving throws."
An endless list of feats based on HD isn't required (and good riddance).
I totally agree. I'd much rather have a built-in "effect" than have to build charamonsters.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Creature abilities in 4E and D&D:Next sort of replace the need for feats IMO. An Orc doesn't need Power Attack, he could simply have a line that says "-5 to Attack, add an additional +10 to the damage roll" or to illustrate Lightning Reflexes "The Orc has advantage when making Dexterity saving throws."
An endless list of feats based on HD isn't required (and good riddance).
Except for those of us who find "advantage" and "disadvantage" limiting and boring as watching paint dry. The Ork needs power attack so the effect of it scales with the BAB of the Ork.
Monsters built like PCs level the playing field for both the players and GM. It also gives the GM opportunity to build some really cool mosnters!
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Ork needs power attack so the effect of it scales with the BAB of the Ork.
Which does NOT require a feat. It's just a bonus to damage, combined with a penalty to hit. Nothing about that inherently requires it to come from a feat, except for your obsessive need to chain 5e to 3.x restrictions.
Monsters built like PCs level the playing field for both the players and GM. It also gives the GM opportunity to build some really cool mosnters!
Know what else gives the DM the opportunity to build some really cool monsters? Unshackling him from the overly restrictive "rules" that govern monster creation under 3.x/PFRPG.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except for those of us who find "advantage" and "disadvantage" limiting and boring as watching paint dry.Creature abilities in 4E and D&D:Next sort of replace the need for feats IMO. An Orc doesn't need Power Attack, he could simply have a line that says "-5 to Attack, add an additional +10 to the damage roll" or to illustrate Lightning Reflexes "The Orc has advantage when making Dexterity saving throws."
An endless list of feats based on HD isn't required (and good riddance).
I don't think those people should play 5E. Nor should 5E designers put much thought into catering to those peoples preferences.
The ubiquitous (dis)advantage horse has bolted, don't you think?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Monsters built like PCs level the playing field for both the players and GM. It also gives the GM opportunity to build some really cool monsters!
I was wrong about this before, by the way having now got the DMG.
Contrary to what I said earlier, although many monsters are not built using PC rules, it is expected that DMs will sometimes use the players handbook rules to construct enemies. (So you can beef up the Orc that way, if you wish, though you don't have to - you can just use a monster ability from the monster manual, all of which are listed in the DMG).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's something that David Bowles doesn't seem to be getting. The default is that you don't have to use the PC creation rules for monsters. That doesn't mean you can't use a portion of those rules if you want to. If you think a monster should have Power Attack.....give it Power Attack!
Monster creation isn't shackled to the PC rules, but it also isn't shackled away from them either.
Monsters built like PCs level the playing field for both the players and GM. It also gives the GM opportunity to build some really cool monsters!I was wrong about this before, by the way having now got the DMG.
Contrary to what I said earlier, although many monsters are not built using PC rules, it is expected that DMs will sometimes use the players handbook rules to construct enemies. (So you can beef up the Orc that way, if you wish, though you don't have to - you can just use a monster ability from the monster manual, all of which are listed in the DMG).
Although even when adding in class levels the monster still builds by different rules. For example you don't use the class hit point dice.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It just seems more if the usual " why is 5E not a rehash of Pathfinder". I bought 5E because it was not the same as Pathfinder. I even bought some used 2E for the same reason. One of the strengths of 4E that 5E has is how both editions handle monsters, it's just so much easier to run a encounter in both. With Parhfinder their is so much to remember sometimes. Espcislly at higher levels.
At this point I think no matter what anyone says David will find some fault with 5E. Their is simply no pleasing some members of the hobby. I'm not saying everyone hasn't like 5E. At a certain point one has to question why they bought it in the first place. It's not like the development process was a closed affair. It's like when Wotc said that 4E would be different and some in the hobby were Shocked and surprised.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think those people should play 5E. Nor should 5E designers put much thought into catering to those peoples preferences.
Seconded. There is a point where the designers can try to cater to everyone or focus on what the core fans want. As in some cases no matter what some in the hobby simply will not be satisfied imo.
