I'd much prefer if (generic) adversaries have a pool of abilities that make sense and which ones each instance gets varies. As such you know what something *might* be able to do, but you don't exactly know what exactly they are able to do. The bigger the pool the more interesting the combinations possible of course.
BlackDragon: What a great idea!
And yep, a mere tweak to hp or str isn't enough. Also, I agree with you on simple categories of a certain critter, but I reckon Bearhug didn't mean "weakling", "average" and "champion" to be some sort of subtypes of critter, it was rather a way of arguing for variation within types of monsters.
Stabbey: True, in most cases it should be fairly obvious that the opponents are strong, but I wouldn't like to see some red colouring, for instance, for higher-level baddies or some level number when I mouse over them. I'd much prefer to find out for myself if the monsters are too bad-ass for me own good. That's a handholding that has been a bit too prevalent in CRPGs post year 2000.
I also recall fun memories in CRPGs, where opponents seemed to be weak and generic, but then they turned out to be real beasts or even demi-gods, heh.
