|
MonsterEnvy posted:Could you give me several examples of monsters you dislike. 36D20 (Just kidding! I love that unplayable horde advantage made it into the final game.)
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 02:04 |
|
|
The thing with homebrew in 4e is that it IS more difficult outside of monsters (and sorta with monsters) for three reasons. 1) 4e wasn't a lazy game. Every class had a plethora of powers built around pushing a specific theme. In 3e 90% of the time classes were either a BAB, some saves, and two or three abilities, or just 'USES SPELLS ROM THIS SPELLCASTER.' Homebrewing a class in 4e meant you actually had to put thought and effort into it. This slid away a bit when Mearls unleashed the disastrous Essentials, but even those classes had utility powers. 2) The game as transparent. You could very EASILY see what you were doing, which meant there was pressure to do it right. In 3e it was super easy to gently caress up and never notice or care, because the system could be so goddamn impenetrable. 3) See how it was easy to gently caress up in 3e? Here's the thing: the developers hosed up nonstop. There was no balance at any point - which meant you didn't have to care about balance when just homebrewing poo poo as you went. But with 4e, not only was it easy to see if you hosed up, but it would immediately become pronounced in any comparison to the rest of the game. In short, homebrew in 4e is more difficult because 4e expects you to give a poo poo. Remember when Frank Trollman tried to prove 4e was a babby game for babbies and made his own class to show how easy it was, and it was such a piece of poo poo that he ended up backtracking and stated that it was actually proof that 4e was just too needlessly complicated and impossible to understand before finally just pretending it never happened?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:That's because you have been going out of your way to hate them. Could you give me several examples of monsters you dislike. (On the Int Devourer I understand why people dislike it.) Sure. From what I've seen 5E monsters fall into one of a couple categories. 1) Monsters that are just boring to fight with nothing or nearly nothing special to them whatsoever. This includes Bandits, Cultists, and Guards from the HotDQ online supplement. The one special mechanical thing that makes a Cultist (of the Dragon) unique? They get advantage on saving throws against being charmed or frightened. Most PCs won't ever actually interact with that, and so mechanically those are all basically interchangeable mooks wearing different weapons and armor. Hey, the bandits and guards have 2hp more than the cultists, though! 2) I'd add to this pile monsters that they tried to make interesting, but failed. Kobolds, for example, have that Pack Tactics feature. But the reality is that because of the way 5E opportunity attacks work, there isn't really a make-sure-the-kobolds-don't-gang-up-on-me mini-game you can play. There's no interesting tangle of melee positions the party assumes in an effort to keep the kobolds from getting advantage, because frankly it's pretty much impossible to avoid an ally ending up with two kobolds next to them if that's where the kobolds want to be, unless you're fighting in a 5' wide corridor. Similarly, Orcs, from the online DM basic rules. The one special thing orcs get is the somewhat-hilariously named Aggressive, which lets them take a bonus action to move their speed towards an enemy they can see. I get the idea behind this - orcs charge at you faster than you'd expect, eager to get in combat. But ironically, the far most effective use of this mechanic is for orcs to use one action to Disengage to run away from your Fighter and then take a bonus action to move towards the wizard. It doesn't really paint them as bloodthirsty berserkers capable of going toe-to-toe with a guy in full plate through sheer ferocity, which is how I imagine orcs at their best. It paints them as crafty, slippery dudes who can quickly go for your back lines, which is not what I think of when think of orcs. 3) Monsters that are "interesting to fight" largely because they gently caress over the PCs in some respect (usually the martial characters, but not exclusively). First of all, resistance to nonmagical weapons is loving everywhere, which is just dumb. Out of the MM previews released, the Bone Devil, Cambion, Clay Golem, Fire Snake, Intellect Devourer, Sphinx, Tarrasque, etc. are all immune/resistant to nonmagical weapons. By default, your fighter is dealing half damage (or no damage) from the get go on a bunch of the monster previews they've shown us. There doesn't seem to be any particular rationale for why this would be the case - the loving Red Dragon strikes me as a pretty badass dude and isn't resistant to normal weaponry? But I guess they just decided to go with it. But wait, there's more! The cornerstone of every martial class in combat is the ability to take extra attacks with the Attack action. That's literally most of what makes a Fighter better at attacking than, say, a Cleric. And quite a few monster mechanics shown thus far actively penalize that or take it away. The Fire Drake and Salamander, the Stone Golem, etc. Conversely, there are very few rewarding or fun mechanics for martial characters. There's far less vulnerability than there is resistance - I'm not sure why, since that seems like a clear opportunity to have a very cool "CUT OFF THEIR HEADS, ITS THE ONLY WAY TO KILL THEM" moment where all the melee characters break out their shortswords and go apeshit on some zombie snakes or whatever. There aren't any inventive mechanics that reward martial characters for hitting things a bunch of times in one turn, beyond the amount of damage they deal. "But the reward is the damage!" is maybe what you're thinking, but that makes for boring, flavorless encounters. Admittedly I think this is less of an issue with monsters that are immune/resistant to spells, because plenty of spells actually create things (Wall of Stone, etc) or buff allies (Bless, etc). So when you're a caster faced with a magic-immune monster, it's not as impactful as a melee who suddenly realizes that an adamantite weapon was actually critical if he wanted to participate in this encounter beyond standing in front of the golem and taking the Dodge action every turn. 4) Now, credit where it's due: there are some monsters that I do like. Their Red Dragon preview with the lair actions, for example, will make a great encounter. There are some aspects that are a little confusing (there's just the one lair actions section for a bunch of different Red Dragon types - so what, a young red dragon has just as badass a lair as an ancient red dragon?) but it's great. The problem is that categories 1-3 are much larger than category 4. So yeah, an awful lot of stuff I dislike and only some things I like. (Sorry for the giant post, I just wanted to be clear that I don't think this is a problem with one or two poorly designed monsters, it's some overarching problems with the way they appear to be building monsters in general.) branar fucked around with this message at 02:13 on Sep 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
branar posted:Sure. From what I've seen 5E monsters fall into one of a couple categories. Well the Bandits and Cultists are just normal humans. They are templates that can be added to a race to make them cooler. The rest of your post makes good points. I don't entirely agree with them, but I get it. In other news that we don't need to argue about Wizards has released it's Monsters by CR index http://dnd.wizards.com/products/tabletop-games/rpg-products/monster-manual. Along with the note that this index is included with the DMG along with guidance on designing adventures and monsters.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:The thing with homebrew in 4e is that it IS more difficult outside of monsters (and sorta with monsters) for three reasons. Yeah, I actually found 4e to be a much more interesting game to homebrew for than 3e. It's hard to get your head around at first, but once you understand the structure and space of the game it's a breeze to design for- you just think of you want you want something to do, translate that into mechanics and then adjust for level/tier. Going back to 3e or Pathfinder was just horrible because everything is so loose and floaty. And 5e seems like even more of a pain. Class was definitely the hardest thing to make in 4e, but for the most part whatever you were making didn't need to be its own class. Most things could be rolled under other classes- my personal rule of thumb is that it should only be its own class if you can honestly see it supporting a bunch of seriously different character builds/archetypes, and there's not a whole lot of those concepts left.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
branar posted:3) Monsters that are "interesting to fight" largely because they gently caress over the PCs in some respect (usually the martial characters, but not exclusively). Ok most of those I could see some (bad) arguments for, by the hell does a loving CLAY golem have resistance to non magical weapons. Its made of clay, hit it with a warhammer or a maul and it should freaking shatter, even a sword should badly crack and chip it. If anything it should have a bashing vulnerability. edit: Actually because its a golem you could make it so that taking x amount of bashing damage exposes the rune/holy script controlling it. Once it's exposed any character may make a grapple check to instantly kill the golem. Boom instant enamy that rewards you for fighting it in melee. Or do D&D golems not work like that I forget. Vorpal Cat fucked around with this message at 02:39 on Sep 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
Vorpal Cat posted:Ok most of those I could see some (bad) arguments for, by the hell does a loving CLAY golem have resistance to non magical weapons. Its made of clay, hit it with a warhammer or a maul and it should freaking shatter, even a sword should badly crack and chip it. If anything it should have a bashing vulnerability. They used to even more difficult to hurt. Along with almost total magic immunity the Clay Golem could only be harmed with blunt weapons. I would translate that in a vulnerability to Bludgeoning damage. (So a bludgeoning weapon would do normal damage while a magic bludgeoning one would do double.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
Sage Genesis posted:But the staggered release feels so delightfully D&D! Remember how we couldn't play 3e for months after it was "released" at first? Clearly that's something we needed again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
Now dont get me wrong. I liked 4e lots. But the thing is, it was a bit too good at what it did. I never felt the urge to spindle, fold, and mutilate the system, All that desire to twist the system instead ended up in designing better and more effective characters, and then trying to fold a compelling backstory around those characters, none of which was ever relevant in L5R. But the thing is, lots of "features" in 4e came across as bugs to long established players. for instance, powers were so heavily built around combat encounters, it meant that there were no powers (or very few) powers that could actually affect the game world. There wasnt really much support for sandboxy play. Now, Im sure someone is going to tell me all about their awesome sandbox game, but i can assure you that you were the exception, not the rule.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
Sage Genesis posted:The original statement was about giving guns to martials... what you describe is something quite different. Edit: and i mean starting at level 1. Oh yeah, reminds me of another issue with 4e - Gold became this critical resource for upgrading your character, which meant you couldnt spend it on cool poo poo like castles, hirelings, and heck, other adventuring parities to do your dirty work for you. ascendance fucked around with this message at 03:00 on Sep 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
ascendance posted:Now, Im sure someone is going to tell me all about their awesome sandbox game, but i can assure you that you were the exception, not the rule. "And thus I declare myself VICTOR OF THIS THREAD"
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
How am I supposed to try whatever I like in a game without express permission from the writers!?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:"And thus I declare myself VICTOR OF THIS THREAD"
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
ascendance posted:for instance, powers were so heavily built around combat encounters, it meant that there were no powers (or very few) powers that could actually affect the game world. There wasnt really much support for sandboxy play. drat, guy. I don't know what it's like to game with players born without imagination, but I don't like what I've heard so far.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
Really Pants posted:How am I supposed to try whatever I like in a game without express permission from the writers!?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
branar posted:There's no interesting tangle of melee positions the party assumes in an effort to keep the kobolds from getting advantage, because frankly it's pretty much impossible to avoid an ally ending up with two kobolds next to them if that's where the kobolds want to be, unless you're fighting in a 5' wide corridor. Basically when combat got serious, the game quickly turned into playing Go by committee because you had so many possibilities and decisions to optimize on. It sucks because all the little fighting details they attached to everything in the MM was really rich and flavorful. I'm probably going to find and salvage as many of those as I can for when I run 5e. Honestly I think there's a market for making a gaming supplement that gives simple-to-follow markov chains for monster types that the DM can use to distinguish different tactics and temperaments of enemy opponents.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
ascendance posted:A game heavily incentivizes a certain style and method of play, especially in an organized play environment, Color me shocked when people dont stray too far from the marked path. gently caress those plebs enjoying the content as laid out by the designers, right? who do they think they are
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
ascendance posted:other adventuring parities to do your dirty work for you. You know you've got a really good and fun game when you find yourself spending game resources to avoid playing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
^^^To be fair that's basically how a lot of f2p games work.ascendance posted:i'm not declaring myself the victor of anything. We're all losers here, because we are all just bitching about how lovely a particular game is, rather than how we can use it to have more fun. Hey man, "I preemptively declare your counterpoints invalid" is a masterstroke. I'm gonna have to remember that for later. Also I love "the problem with 4E is that it was just too well designed, I didn't feel the need to houserule it at all!" I too hate it when consumer goods work the way they're supposed to without me having to fix them myself, solidarity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
moths posted:drat, guy. I don't know what it's like to game with players born without imagination, but I don't like what I've heard so far.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
Bhaal posted:I agree with you but wanted to say that the shift/slide mechanic and flanking definitions are what accounted for about 75% of combat slowdown in our 4e games and while that style of play has its place I don't think I'll miss it. What it should have done was create the feeling of a mad and frenetic melee, but instead always turned into slow and orchestrated waltz because if I shift here and then slide him there then that will get the cleric OUT of flanking for at least one turn and their caster is now set up for our rogue but next turn he could get piled on so maybe if instead YOU shift here on your turn then I'll shift here instead and slide that person over there and that way.... The mobility free for all of 5e is really one of its best features. Edit: because gently caress wizards. I think thats the one thing we can all agree on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:^^^To be fair that's basically how a lot of f2p games work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
ascendance posted:Oh yeah, reminds me of another issue with 4e - Gold became this critical resource for upgrading your character, which meant you couldnt spend it on cool poo poo like castles, hirelings, and heck, other adventuring parities to do your dirty work for you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
Really Pants posted:You know you've got a really good and fun game when you find yourself spending game resources to avoid playing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
ascendance posted:4e kind of ignores one of the best features of BECMI - that maybe, after a certain point, your character might want to do something other than go into dungeons and look for bigger and bigger numbers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
ascendance posted:i'm saying it works very well in one particular way. The issue is, its not the way i want. And it clearly wasn't the way the vast Pathfinder community wanted it to work either. But hey, gently caress them all, they're all just grogs, right? It's cool for a game to not be to your tastes but it is kind of ridiculous to say "this game sets out to do something and does it too well, ugh." That's the sort of "problem" more games could stand. Houserulability is a drastically overrated metric too many people judge RPGs by. If I want a different experience then I'll play a different game, not try hammering a square peg into a round hole. Not every Pathfinder fan is a slavering grognard but Paizo very clearly courted grogs hard and built themselves up a community out of "We're the real D&D!" so I would, in fact, say that Paizo is at least partly responsible for how toxic and lovely things became. I don't begrudge them at all for identifying and filling a need, that was pretty canny of them and gently caress it, if playing 3.5 redux brings people joy then more power to'em, but I don't have to be impressed with how they went about it and I don't think it's a wild coincidence that a lot of diehard Paizo flagwavers have lovely opinions about how to play pretend-elf.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 03:21
|
|
|
ascendance posted:4e kind of ignores one of the best features of BECMI - that maybe, after a certain point, your character might want to do something other than go into dungeons and look for bigger and bigger numbers. Why should there need to be mechanics for not going out and adventuring when 75% to 90% of the game previously focused on that?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 03:21
|
|
|
ascendance posted:4e kind of ignores one of the best features of BECMI - that maybe, after a certain point, your character might want to do something other than go into dungeons and look for bigger and bigger numbers. so do all the other editions 
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
ascendance posted:But the thing is, lots of "features" in 4e came across as bugs to long established players. for instance, powers were so heavily built around combat encounters, it meant that there were no powers (or very few) powers that could actually affect the game world. There wasnt really much support for sandboxy play. (E: On second thought, you have the third part down pat already. That part about no or few powers that could "affect the game world"? Yeah, that's some poo poo made up whole cloth.) Littlefinger fucked around with this message at 03:25 on Sep 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
FMguru posted:The defining characteristic of Dungeons and Dragons is the part where you stop going into Dungeons and fighting Dragons? Hmm, yes, I see, please tell me more. Yes. You missed the part where you live the American frontier dream and found your own nascent microstate after ethnically cleansing your domain of the filthy natives
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
Really Pants posted:so do all the other editions And we wonder why there is an OSR.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
ascendance posted:i'm saying it works very well in one particular way. The issue is, its not the way i want. And it clearly wasn't the way the vast Pathfinder community wanted it to work either. But hey, gently caress them all, they're all just grogs, right? to quote yourself: Now, Im sure
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:Why should there need to be mechanics for not going out and adventuring when 75% to 90% of the game previously focused on that? Because having a castle and an army to put in it is pretty sweet. Because gaining that stuff gave high level warriors and rogues their own sort of narrative power alongside the crazy high level magic. Because D&D hasn't just been about dungeon crawling since Dragons of Despair came out. Mind you, getting rid of that stuff wasn't a 4E sin. It was a WotC sin that began with 3E.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
BECMI realized that the scaling breaks down around level 10 or so, and gives you different things to do instead of playing regular D&D. Go... transfer yourself to a different 3 dimensions and convince cavemen you're a god, or something. Go nuts. 4e sorta kinda a little bit made the scaling keep working all the way up to epic levels, so you don't NEED to stop interacting with the core rules. 3.x's scaling derails around level 5, but it just doubles down and keeps piling broken mechanics onto broken mechanics, so that hopefully you don't understand the mess enough to notice what a mess it's become.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
Littlefinger posted:Let me tell you about keywords and rituals. Let me introduce you to the wonderful world of skill checks. Let me acquaint you with the curious concept of making poo poo up. Rituals purposely didnt let you do crazy poo poo like summoning up a vast army of undead, or manufacture permanent items, or do any other kind of crazy game breaking poo poo. Edit: This is also why I'd like to like 13th Age more, but don't. ascendance fucked around with this message at 03:33 on Sep 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
Oh, so the lamentations about characters no longer being able to ~affect the game world~, in a surprising twist, turn out to be code for "I can no longer break the game over my knee and/or live out my inane nerd fantasies"? Well, boo hoo hoo. Oh, by the way, you are still just making poo poo up, this time about what rituals were not able to do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
Littlefinger posted:Oh, so the lamentations about characters no longer being able to ~affect the game world~, in a surprising twist, turn out to be code for "I can no longer break the game over my knee and/or live out my inane nerd fantasies"? Well, boo hoo hoo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
ascendance posted:I take it you're going by the general ruling of rituals let you do whatever DM fiat desires, rather than checking the list of rituals on D&D wiki, which I just did. your argument still seems to consist of "Rituals don't let me break the game mechanics, therefore bad"
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
I notice I'm not going into the 4e thread and making GBS threads all over it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 02:04 |
|
|
The 4E thread seems pretty happy to discuss 4E's shortcomings in detail actually. Like, a lot of the fundamental dissatisfaction here with Next is that Next is better than 3E when people wanted something that was better than 4E.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 03:50
|
|