Plot teams have been building their repertoire of eighth edition support documents and plot documents for over ten years. The good news is that almost all campaign documents, modules and even monster stats will be usable in 9th edition with only a very limited number of updates. This is a largely editorial post, by that I mean that these changes are things that I recommend, but they are hardly necessary for good gameplay.
1. Carrier attacks should be converted to the lesser variant.: This seems simple enough, the goal of a carrier attack on a monster is mostly crowd control. The lesser variant allows for that but also allows the effected player to get back into the fight more quickly. I am going to playtest this out with some friends once this abysmal snow goes away but I am pretty sure that the fight will feel faster paced with lesser carriers. Obviously on the big bad monsters it may still make sense to have the normal version of the carrier. I kind of wish there was a middle one too, like a one minute effect but that may increase complexity too much.
2. Slays must be closely monitored: In the past character level monsters have almost always been allowed to purchase slays and parrys with impunity. I put limits on the number of deaths and high level damage spells that went into town but never slays, because they were mostly used as parrys. With the advent of the 100 point slay, slays should be calculated as take down magic, possibly with the same weight as a death spell. The reasoning for this is fairly plain, slays now have a greater impact on game balance, this is not a bad thing, it is just different. Thought should also be given to removing the slay portion of the skill on lesser monster cards leaving only the parry. Burst damage is definitely the most dangerous damage in the game and you must use it judiciously.
3. Encounters should be time limited: With the changes that have been made to circle of power and imprison, simple mod encounters should probably be scaled to last for less than 10 minutes. This will allow for those spells to still be useful in a defensive capacity while increasing the impact of the longer, more dangerous modules. All modules should be scaled using a damage over time paradigm, meaning that the bursts of damage should be taken into account when resets are assigned to NPCs. This is important because even low level cantrip healers now have access to useful healing pools. Only burst damage and takedowns will make a module challenging and we always limit takedowns because they just are not that much fun.
These are just a few ideas that have been rolling around in my brain since I started planning my season for this year. Comments? Suggestions? You can tell me if I am wrong, I will listen...
I disagree about slays to a certain extent. Mainly, I think that monsters with Parries are less fun than monsters with Slays so if a monster has only one, it should be the slay. A slay that lands will probably drop someone, but unlike a death spell or other status take out, getting someone back up from it is not terribly difficult.
ReplyDeleteThe thing about NPC Parries, however, is that they are usually used against PC Slays. PC Slays are extremely limited and it can really suck to have your limited tmies per day skill negated. It's like when a spell is resisted, except that casters have far more spells than fighter have slays. And it's even worse if you have, say, a templar using one of his two slays. I think it makes for more player fun and a more engaging combat to have NPCs using slays, sometimes dropping a PC, who then gets healed up, etc then for the NPC to Parry a PC's cool moment.
Now, clearly, a whole different paradigm exists for "boss" monsters, but that's my general view of NPC slays and parries.
On another note, did you see the advice for staff document? Several of us were working on it in a google doc prior to resigning. It's extremely informal and totally incomplete, but it has at least some thoughts on stuff for staff to consider as they switch to 9th edition. I believe it is in the same post that they put the new rulebook in on the national forums.
No I did not but I will take a lok at it.
ReplyDeleteAs a note, we at LARP Ohio have always been fans of lesser parries as a monster stat.
ReplyDeleteI believe Tim was directing his argument at the 20 body orcs we have at our chapter that run in, slay you and die. They weren't fun when they were slaying at 32, and they won't be fun slaying at 100. But based on monster level, that should be a lesser parry instead of a parry anyways.
I assume by lesser parry you mean the same thing I do when I write it: A parry you can only use on a regular attack but not against an actual slay? In which case I'm all about them. At that point they're a way to effectively increase monster body without decreasing spell damage effectiveness.
ReplyDeleteCorrect. The Dan Comstock Lesser Parry
ReplyDeleteAlthough I don’t have the game-design experience that Mickey does, I present an alternate viewpoint.
ReplyDeleteI admit that as a caster I have more spells than a fighter has slays, but my total damage/healing output is limited, whereas a fighter’s is practically infinite. That means when I bust out a Death/Banish/Destruction/what-have-you, I’m expending a notable chunk of a finite resource. It happens, inevitably, that one of those great spells gets resisted, but honestly, I still feel good when it happens. I know that an enemy only has a certain number of resists, so when it has to use one to avoid my attack I know that I’m putting the hurt on it, even if the spell doesn’t go through. I imagine it like an old side-scroller, one of the ones where you have to shoot a boss-monster’s armor until it falls off, exposing the creamy nougat center.
All that to say, I certainly don’t mind when monsters roll out with parries/resists, and I definitely prefer it to monsters having increased damage-dealing capacity.
I think it's a matter of balancing viewpoints. Part of statting and encoutner design is mathematical and part of it is about cool moments (there are lots of other parts, but these are two most relevent for this discussion). So the math side says that 100 damage is a small fraction of total output of a fighter. But the cool moment side says that the fighter can only make this awesome finishing move attack 5 times a day so if he's fighting some random unnamed mook, let him succeed and feel like he's Conan for a few moments before the next goblin shows up even if negating the slay is not a huge issue math-wise.
ReplyDeleteAnd as an added point, each one of your spells costs 5/6 build at most. The least expensive slay is twice that. And the fact that fighters can keep swinging damage is actually a detriment to slay. Why would I pick up slays which get parried, when I can just swing more damage?
ReplyDeleteAnd remember, Boss fights are always an exception. I don't mind getting parried in a boss fight, just like you don't mind getting resisted. It's when a random, continuously spawning monster resists/parries that it becomes frustrating. That's what returns are made for.
OK, that all makes sense. The comments section of this blog is a continual education.
ReplyDeleteHopefully the articles too... I know what you mean though, we have had some good discussions recently.
ReplyDeleteSorry Tim, I figured since the express purpose of the posts is educational that it went without saying. You speak the truth regarding the articles.
ReplyDeleteCarrier - I agree with Tim that they can be combat killers, and so much math - ayayay. In initial discussion for 8th Edition we talked about removing them, but it was bonked. I like the idea of "Lesser Carriers" a good deal, and can't wait to hear your thoughts after playtest Tim.
ReplyDeleteSlays - I agree with Mickey that NPCs with Slays are much better for gameplay than NPCs with Parries. Also, I would still send lower level monsters out with lower valued Slays (i.e. "Lesser" Slays for 20, 30, 40 points, etc.)
Time Limited Encounters - I like it conceptually, just not sure how really important it is. I have always found myself on the other side, wishing that the effects were shorter lasting. I have never planned a 1-hour combat encounter (except for wave battles, of course), and they happen most times because an NPC hits someone with a Line Of Sight or 1 Hour spell and the party has no way to free them. That blows...anyway, as always I'm interested to hear other takes on it.
Personally, I really hate the mechanics for Carrier Attacks. They add clunky wording onto damage calls and involve "combat algebra" which is always a pain in the ass. Several years ago I proposed an idea to completely remove Carriers and replace them with a limited number of effect-strikes on each monster instead, but it was shouted down on the forums. If the intention is to represent that a Ghoul's necromantic aura can freeze you in place, or that a spider's venomous bite can nauseate you, why not give them "Spell strike Paralyze" and "Poison strike Nausea" respectively instead of combining them with regular melee damage. The mechanical effect and story concept are still there, just much easier to mentally process.
ReplyDeleteThe slay thing was not meant to imply that slays should never be used. I like slays on monster, now that I think about it I agree that parrys are pretty irritating as well, returns are better. Lesser slays, I see no problem with that, I mean they are monster skills right? Monsters can have skills that are not explicitly listed in the rules as long as the effects and damage types remain the same, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteWhen I rewrote the slay/assassinate playtest and then incorporated it into the rulebook it was always with the understanding that staff should throw out smaller, or bigger on rare occasion, slays.
ReplyDeleteSounds like something that should be added to that staffing guide, (assuming that anyone is still working on it!)
ReplyDeleteWe stopped working on it when the shit went down.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I figured.
ReplyDelete"Slays - I agree with Mickey that NPCs with Slays are much better for gameplay than NPCs with Parries. Also, I would still send lower level monsters out with lower valued Slays (i.e. "Lesser" Slays for 20, 30, 40 points, etc.)"
ReplyDelete"Lesser slays, I see no problem with that, I mean they are monster skills right?"
Or all slays could be 10x profs and you wouldn't have a problem :P
As mentioned in another post, we don't want slays/assassinate to be the only skills in the game where a lower level character's build is worth less than a higher level character's build.
ReplyDelete@omegacow - did you read my mind?!?!?! LOL...
ReplyDeleteAs for Slays, straight damage is my preferred way - best change in the book, in my nsho.