The Glade 4.0

**Dunno where else to post this. But for anyone interested, there is some really cool info in here. And I am going to completely ignore any "4e sucks, 3.5 is better" posts.**

So I am going to start DMing a game for some friends. I was building a solo monster for them to eventually meet up with. I like the idea of solo monsters. But based off of 4e mechanics, I began to realize they had some flaws. The two biggest ones that I saw were:

1. The solo monster is far too easy to lock down. If the party stacks a bunch of "Enemy is stunned until the end of your next turn" powers, you just trivialized your epic, end-of-the-story-arc encounter.
2. Solo monsters are single targets, which means that strikers shine like rock stars against them. But Controllers are left to sit on the bench and feel practically useless.

I found a well thought-out write-up made by a guy who also liked the idea of solo monsters but proposed several changes to them (and rules for doing so) to make them a worthy challenge as well as make everyone in the party (controllers included) feel like they contributed equally to taking the beast down.

It's worth a read.

http://community.wizards.com/pluisjen/b ... _creatures

_________________
Les Zombis et les Loups-Garous!

DR requiring use of some sort of controller magic or something, (so the *strikers* can do their thing and "can't be stunned"

Ez Pz.

Also, 4e sucks.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

4e sucks, 3.5 is better.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Saga is better than them all!!!

_________________
Los Angeles Kings 2014 Stanley Cup Champions

"I love this **** team right here."
-Jonathan Quick

2nd Edition is even better...

Wargames forever! You guys and your silly "one person per player, so you can actually 'express' their motivations" crap.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

2nd ed Advanced Boo Ya!

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

2nd Ed was fun, but extremely limiting. Wanted to be a non-human paladin or Monk? 2nd Ed says you can suck it's eggs. And I hope you didn't want to be anything but an elf, half-elf, or human when you wanted to play your ranger. Love the idea of multi-classing, but you want to play a human? Buzz! Sorry, dual-classing only. New to D&D? Have fun with your learning curve!

3rd edition, I also enjoyed and played for years. It was a fun and decent system. My biggest beef with it is how much "Power Creep" it had. Every new book seemed to break the game even further than the last. Players could make some extreme prima donna munchkins (as I call them) unless there was an overabundance of house rules to keep them in check.

I enjoy optimizing characters, but not to the point of bending the rules into a pretzel. I personally get far more enjoyment beating a game by it's own official rules (both in P&P and video games). If I ever do something that seems a bit much, I will research it (usually afterwards at home, as I hate people slowing down the game) and if I find I was wrong and what I did shouldn't have worked that way, I will bring it up to the DM and make a mental note of it. The problem with power creeping, is that forces DMs to make more and more house rules to keep it in check. My love for beating a game at it's own rules is somewhat diminished because of this because there is far too many conflicts and second guessing going on.

If people like 3rd or 2nd over 4th, that's fine. They're in their right. But in my eyes, and as the type of player I am, 3rd is too broken, and 2nd is too limiting, for me to enjoy.

I understand it's ironic that I talk about getting enjoyment from beating a game by it's own rules and here I am proposing a houserule for a solo monster. But this is one of the rare few I can justify, as it's not enabling a player to become godlike or taking away his godlike power; it's to enable a party to have a climactic, challenging, and rewarding experience. It is a change to bring the monster inline with it's intended design.

_________________
Les Zombis et les Loups-Garous!

I think you are going to have a tough time justifying this one. If the problems with single monsters are as endemic as you (and the posting you reference) state, then perhaps you are incorrect? What are the designers' statements on the topic?

_________________

Pun Pun requires no pretzels.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

They fixed all that crap with optional rules and players option books.

Before we descend too far into the bickering and arguing over editions and their worth, I think it should bear mentioning that there is a very good reason why the game requires a Dungeon Master, and not a Dungeon Adjudicator or a Dungeon First-Among-Equals, or a Dungeon Bill's-The-Guy-Who-Wanted-To-Run-This-Week, etc. Someone has to be in charge and make the tough decisions of what is and is not possible in the game. While the books (and this is version agnostic) provide you with a set of rules that somebody thinks you should be able to do, this should not be taken as carte blanche to do it. It is physically possible to go over Niagra Falls in a barrel, but it's probably not a good idea. On the flip side, simply because someone else has not explained to you how they think you can do something, does not mean you can't do it. But in order to make it happen, the DM needs to have a thorough understanding of the underpinnings of the system, and come up with a way to make it work. Bear in mind I am speaking of developing within the defined system, and not of trying to correct a perceived flaw.

_________________