4e / GSL Why I think you should try 4e (renamed)

[Jack99]

Originally Posted by jgbrowning

Correct. All monsters/NPCs of X have an AC of Y+(12-16).



joe b.

Technically, that's the guideline. Nothing in the rule forbids you to go outside that range. Then again, rumour has it that Mearls, Wyatt, Heinsoo and Collins all have ninja-suits and are not afraid to use them, so you never know.

[Brother MacLaren]

Originally Posted by Rechan

"The guards are proportionate to our level, so we'd get no help from them" is as metagame as "the guards are higher level than us, so they can help us".

It's not metagaming if it's based on in-game experiences. "Remember how the guards tripped and disarmed the barbarian in 2 seconds when he refused to surrender his axe on entering the city? And how they spotted our invisible rogue sneaking out of the shop? Well now that we're on good terms with them, we could use that kind of talent on this mission."

Originally Posted by Rechan

By the basis of the story?

Right, and part of the story is established characters or creatures providing a benchmark. If the tribe of stone giants needs front-line melee help, and we have a rough in-game idea of how strong stone giants are, we can expect we're in for a real challenge. If the prisoner escaped from under the guard of Callastian the Ranger Lord, then we can judge there's magic involved or he's a sneak of unparalleled skill. If the portal to the Abyss is resisting the attempts of the archmage Gunthley to close it, then we aren't going to have much luck with the direct approach.

In a more "tailored" game, none of this matters. Players expect that if the DM puts a challenge in front of them, they are to face it. In a more "status quo" game, including many sandbox games, that is not the case. PCs are expected to decide on their own whether or not to confront a challenge based on their best understanding of the nature and difficulty of the challenge.

[EroGaki]

Originally Posted by AllisterH

Um, aren't you arguing FOR 4e here. Certainly as a DM, 4e is looking way more attractive

As a DM, all I'm seeing is more headaches using the pre 4e approach as now I have to explain "WHY" for pretty much everything....

"Ok, I have to give him a super high DEX but wait that now affects his other stats such as initative, skills and reflex save..."

"ok, maybe I'll just say he is wearing a really good pair of Bracers of armour, but now the PCs have it and the wizard isn't hittable at all"

"ok, I'll use say a prestige class...ah, hell, now Johnny asking about it"

Why is it wrong for a DM to want to say

"Ok, I want my 10th level party to fight Blackbeard's crew - here's what the AC and to hit needs to be"?

Korgoth, seriously, pre 4e, did nobody do this? Was I the only DM that did this before 4e actually gave guidelines.

I have a problem with this. I may be in the minority, but just deciding "I want the pirate to have an AC of 21" and not backing it up feels like cheating.

I've DM'd my fair share of games, and I know firsthand the headache it can cause, especially in situations like the pirate, but I don't like bending the rules to that extent; I like to play the same game and use the same rules as the player. If a player asked me how it is possible for a bare-chested pirate to have a high AC, I would like to actually be capable of answering within the rules of the game. Basically, I tend to dislike using the DM Card and saying "because I said so."

That's not saying that some special abilities/powers/pacts that the PC's don't have acess to can't be invented; it is a magical world after all. I'm just saying that the players are bound to the rules of the game; the DM should be too.

As a player, I would feel cheated if my DM did this. But then, I guess that's why I don't play 4E; I like both DM and players being on the same page rules wise.

[Fifth Element]

Originally Posted by BryonD

I am stating that if you take all the people who say they couldn't handle 3E, that it was to difficult for them to DM, that these people as a group will not be as good at DMing as people who had no problem with it.

I completely agree that tastes differ and that has no bearing on skill in any slight way.

But there are plenty of people who feel free to go on and on about their own inability to deal with 3E. It was to hard for them. They say so.
If half a group of people say the fast pitch cage is to hard to hit, then I assume that the guys who can hit the fast pitch are better at hitting. If they all go to the slow pitch cage they may all be able to hit. But I'll bet you good odds that the guys who were hitting the fast pitches are doing a better job of driving the slow pitches where they want them to go.

The problem with this is that there's no objective definition of being a "good DM". You might have a guy who develops wonderful plots and interesting characterizations, makes his own high-quality, useful player handouts, etc, etc, but sucks at math, making 3.X, particularly at higher levels, hard for him to DM. Is this guy not a "good DM"? I don't think that's fair to say.

Conversely, you can have a guy who's a real rules master, and can handle all kinds of spell-like effects being in place at one time, and run multiple monsters without confusion, but otherwise sucks as a DM. He has no trouble with 3.X, but if you ask his players whether he's a "good DM" you'd probably get a mixed response.

[Kamikaze Midget]

Nor do the numbers mean anything to me. I just don't care what method was used to create the 21. All I care about is whether it's proportionate or not.

I'd describe him as parrying or dodging.

To me, explaining the why of an AC is like explaining the why of hitpoints. Regardless of his AC, how can this barechested guy of X level take Y damage before dieing? Why can he fight the same way at max HP as he does at 1 HP? To answer all these questions, we create abstract explanations of hit points. So why is AC different?

It isn't different. The why of HP is important to me, too.

[Derren]

Originally Posted by Brother MacLaren

In a more "tailored" game, none of this matters. Players expect that if the DM puts a challenge in front of them, they are to face it.

And thats exactly how 4E works. Because of the abstraction there is no way for the players to know how hard or dangerous something is beforehand, short of metagaming, anyway. So instead, everything is exactly so dangerous that it is a challenge for the PCs, not more, not less, no matter if that kind of challenge the enemy provides makes sense.

And god beware when NPCs fight as allies of the PCs in a battle against minions. Is the presence of the PCs already enough to downgrade a monster to minion status? Or does the monster has normal HP against the NPC and is only a minion when the PCs attack him?

[Rechan]

Originally Posted by KM

It isn't different. The why of HP is important to me, too.

I really don't know how to respond to that.

[Ariosto]

The orcs are assumed to have an existence "off-screen" that is much the same as their existence "on-screen."

There's a critical difference. The amount of "stage management" and "cast management" a Game Operations Director is apparently expected to do in 4E is not everyone's cup of tea.

This particular stew of "story telling" and "war game" elements seems to me pretty half-baked for a human-moderated game. As I mentioned earlier, my gut tells me that it's probably a dead end -- but I could be wrong!

[Jack99]

Originally Posted by Derren

And thats exactly how 4E works. Because of the abstraction there is no way for the players to know how hard or dangerous something is beforehand, short of metagaming, anyway. So instead, everything is exactly so dangerous that it is a challenge for the PCs, not more, not less, no matter if that kind of challenge the enemy provides makes sense.

Regarding this, 4e works exactly like the DM wants, just like every other edition of D&D.

[Fifth Element]

Originally Posted by EroGaki

I have a problem with this. I may be in the minority, but just deciding "I want the pirate to have an AC of 21" and not backing it up feels like cheating.

This has always been a part of D&D, I think. Before 3E, monsters just had an AC, with no details of the how the number came to be.

In 3E, the situation really didn't change much. Despite the fact that monsters had the components of their AC spelled out, there was a giant fudge factor that allowed you to effectively assign the AC you wanted: the natural armour bonus. Need your monster to have a higher AC to challenge a party of the appropriate level? Easy, add a few points of natural armour.

This goes away if you build your monster/NPC just using class levels, but that's a lot of work if you do it for every NPC.

[Imaro]

Originally Posted by AllisterH

*looks at previous editions monsters* Given that there's nothing preventing in narrative for the 4e monster to be descirbed as sneaky in plot, I see the additional ability as a win for 4e. Seriously, at least now a player not only hears how "kobolds are sneaky" but in combat they are "sneaky"

(Personally, I don't consider them sneaky, but shifty. Sneaky is more the gnomes "fade away when hit" ability)

I never said I considered previous editions as "narrative" based games either, my point was that 4e isn't a game prioritized on a narrative playstyle first... I mean couldn't I just as easily stick a level of rogue on a kobold in 3.x... now he's even more sneaky than in 4e. Does that make 3.x "narrative"?

Re: Yeah I guess a kobold is more "shiffty" ... but again with abstract mechanics what does that even mean?

[Derren]

Originally Posted by Jack99

Regarding this, 4e works exactly like the DM wants, just like every other edition of D&D.

No, 4E works exactly how the 4E rulebooks say it does. That the DM can deviate from that ruling doesn't change that.

[Oni]

Originally Posted by Korgoth

The second problem was something like what someone might call "simulationist", though I hate that term... it was the fact that the semantic content or "skin" of the opponent was totally arbitrary. For example, shirtless boxers who hit for the same damage as armed foes and have AC of an armored man. A pirate in a shirt and pants who had an AC of 21... even though my elf with the 20 Dex and the magic armor only managed a 20.

Why did the unarmored pirate have an AC of 21? So an appropriate-level striker would have to roll a 10 or better to hit him, obviously. So it's basically Elder Scrolls: Oblivion or something where the whole world scales with the party.

To me, that sucks the life and interest out of the campaign world. If a pirate in a poet shirt and leather pants has an AC 21 just because of math, and if street toughs have 60 hit points just because of math, and everything is just so just because of math, then by all means, karma police arrest this man. Because it's the equivalent of someone taking a belt sander to my imagination.

See now something like this doesn't bother me in slightest. I feel like a lot of people get hung up on the idea that the rules must somehow be the physics of the game world, rather than just a means to facilitate play. Why does the pirate lord have a high AC? Because it's more interesting than being able to smear him in one shot because he's not wearing plate. The rules were meant to service the story, not the other way around. If anything it would have been nice if that had extended to the PC's more (i.e. things like their AC were more tied to their concept and dramatic convention than their equipment).

[Fifth Element]

Originally Posted by Derren

And thats exactly how 4E works. Because of the abstraction there is no way for the players to know how hard or dangerous something is beforehand, short of metagaming, anyway. So instead, everything is exactly so dangerous that it is a challenge for the PCs, not more, not less, no matter if that kind of challenge the enemy provides makes sense.

Yes, because monsters were never grouped by approximate difficulty level in any version of D&D before 4E.

Originally Posted by Derren

And god beware when NPCs fight as allies of the PCs in a battle against minions. Is the presence of the PCs already enough to downgrade a monster to minion status? Or does the monster has normal HP against the NPC and is only a minion when the PCs attack him?

Your mastery of the 4E system is showing.

[Fifth Element]

Originally Posted by Derren

No, 4E works exactly how the 4E rulebooks say it does. That the DM can deviate from that ruling doesn't change that.

Again, how is this different from all other editions of D&D?

[EroGaki]

Originally Posted by Fifth Element

This has always been a part of D&D, I think. Before 3E, monsters just had an AC, with no details of the how the number came to be.

In 3E, the situation really didn't change much. Despite the fact that monsters had the components of their AC spelled out, there was a giant fudge factor that allowed you to effectively assign the AC you wanted: the natural armour bonus. Need your monster to have a higher AC to challenge a party of the appropriate level? Easy, add a few points of natural armour.

This goes away if you build your monster/NPC just using class levels, but that's a lot of work if you do it for every NPC.

True, however the big difference is that with the bare-chested pirate, there is no explanation other than "I wanted it that way." If a human pirate isn't wearing armor or using magic, and doesn't have some fancy prestige class, then I would call foul.

However, I have no problem with DM Fiat if there is an actual explanation to it; maybe the pirate has an obscure template or prestige class. Perhaps the human pirate isn't human at all. Who knows? The point being, if you want to have a bare-chested pirate with a high AC, use the rules presented, even if you have to make up something new. Don't just hand wave it with your mystical DM powers, that stinks of cheating a laziness, IMO.

Originally Posted by Derren

No, 4E works exactly how the 4E rulebooks say it does. That the DM can deviate from that ruling doesn't change that.

This. Thank you.

[Derren]

Originally Posted by Fifth Element

Again, how is this different from all other editions of D&D?

They worked according their own rule books, not according to the 4E one.

I don't really understand what you intend with this question as I was replying to Jacks "4E works however the DM wants it to".
The ability to houserule doesn't change the rules of the game. They are a concious decision of not following the rules in certain cases.

[AllisterH]

Originally Posted by EroGaki

I have a problem with this. I may be in the minority, but just deciding "I want the pirate to have an AC of 21" and not backing it up feels like cheating.

Technically, there's no cheating here with the pirate. A PC can achieve that type of AC barechested by simply levelling. Given that historically, everything else in D&D has levelled (attacks and saves), the only difference is that 4e put AC on the same system.

4E half-levelling aspect always seemed to me like a natural outgrowth of the previous editions where everything else levelled.

Surely others wondered why AC yet saves levelled in earlier edition?

Originally Posted by EroGaki

That's not saying that some special abilities/powers/pacts that the PC's don't have acess to can't be invented; it is a magical world after all. I'm just saying that the players are bound to the rules of the game; the DM should be too.

.

THIS I think is why there _MIGHT_ (and I empathize "might") be more 4e DMs than 3e.

It's one thing for the players to have to worry about their special abilites (they only have one thing to deal with), a DM certainly shouldn't be foreced to play the same game, because frankly, he isn't playing the same game.

re: Sandbox game
Actually, there's nothing preventing a DM from using 4e in a sandbox manner. Just like BryonD mentions that people put limitations on 3e where there aren't any, I believe people do the same with 4e.

I tend to find 4e slighlt better for sandbox games myself anyway since

a) unless you REALLY, REALLY jump levels (we're talking at least a tier and a half here), the game is not "rocket tag" which as an aspect I think is totally against the sandbox nature of gaming

b) running away is actually effective.

I'm not sure why 3e's system where "he who wins initative just plain wins" and "you'll be dead before you even get two moves away" is conducive to sandbox play. As a player, wouldn't the latter method actually stop you form exploring the world since anything just slightly above you level is a potential TPK??

I know in certain MMORPGs/RPGs that allow for "go anywhere", people don't explore areas since a random battle WILL kill you dead unless you can outrun the beastie

[Fifth Element]

Originally Posted by EroGaki

True, however the big difference is that with the bare-chested pirate, there is no explanation other than "I wanted it that way." If a human pirate isn't wearing armor or using magic, and doesn't have some fancy prestige class, then I would call foul.

So give him a reason. A ridiculous Dex score. A special dodge bonus. An environmental bonus. If you want to have a reason, you devise a reason. (As you yourself suggest in the bit below

Originally Posted by EroGaki

However, I have no problem with DM Fiat if there is an actual explanation to it; maybe the pirate has an obscure template or prestige class. Perhaps the human pirate isn't human at all. Who knows? The point being, if you want to have a bare-chested pirate with a high AC, use the rules presented, even if you have to make up something new. Don't just hand wave it with your mystical DM powers, that stinks of cheating a laziness, IMO.

I think you're arguing semantics. If you have to make up something new to get the AC desired, that's the very same thing as just deciding what the AC is.

[catsclaw227]

Originally Posted by BryonD

Even more on the particular point, the pirate's level is defined not by the pirate, but by the party.

Actually, the pirate's level could be because that is what is listed in the MM. Just like 1e or 3e. For example, your Human Pirate is a Level 9 monster in the MM2.

Sometimes, it is defined by the party, but not all the time. And, back in 1e, I often adjusted monster level and HP to enhance the story or provide a challenge to the PCs. Did you?

Originally Posted by BryonD

And why should everything's AC go up with level?

Because at a higher level, you are just plain BETTER at things. Like dodging swords and axes.

The 9th level Pirate has become very good at dodging swords and stuff, especially without armor. His level says he is plain BETTER at it than the 1st level Pirate Thug would be (his AC is 14).