-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Even more Mike Mearls
- Thread starter MerricB
- Start date
Mortellan
Explorer
Fifth Element said:
Yeah but if one of his reasons doesn't hold up then the whole argument should fail just like if you were on trial. So not to belabor the topic too much, leaving DR out of armor but leaving it for monsters is essentially hypocritical when you acknowledge ALL the design issues Mearls mentioned.
Fifth Element
Legend
This is game design, not a trial. All they need is one good reason not to use something in order to not use it. He has several arguments against it; he only needs one good one.Mortellan said:
They've also been clear on the reasons for using different rules for PCs and monsters as well; nothing hypocritical about it. It's simply a design decision.
The Little Raven
First Post
Mortellan said:
But the argument against the reason failed, because that argument by 3catcircus was "it's not an extra step," and in fact, it is.
And no, it isn't hypocritical. Check the definition of the word. The politician that swears about family values, and is found cheating on his wife... that's a hypocrite. Having a specific design philosophy of "monsters are used for difference purposes than player characters, and thus use different rules to fill their role" is not even in the same ballpark... hell, it's not even the same sport as hypocrisy.
RigaMortus2
First Post
MerricB said:
1) Even without Sunder, you can still attack/damage/break items that are important to the plot. In fact, if you are attacking anything other than a sword or shield which is being wielded in someone's hand, it isn't even Sundering.
2) There are rules for repairing weapons/shields that were broken, so nothing is permanently lost with Sunder. Maybe the magic in the weapon, but that can get re-enchanted.
3) The only bad point to Sunder, which is mainly just bad for the PCs, is it destroyes potential loot. It is either an enemy doing it to them, and they lose their weapon, or it is them doing it to an enemy, which after the enemy is dead, that is one less item that is salvageable. Still, I don't see this a major problem. Sunder is always a choice.
4) I hope he is not suggesting that you will no longer be able to sunder an opponent's weapon in 4E.
3catcircus said:
While I understand your point, I also don't use Sunder in my games (or at least very, VERY rarely). And I'd rather something I'm going to use more often take its space in the book, space which sells at a pretty high premium. Why bother wasting it on rules most people are going to end up ignoring because of MAD scenarios or over-complication?
Mortellan said:
Because its an explicit special power of said monster, and not a standard affect you'll see every time a character takes damage? Really though, I think this goes to the idea of some rules and abilities being ok for monsters, but completely borking the game as a PC ability. DR is ok in small doses, but if everyone has it, it becomes unhinged.
Shieldhaven
Explorer
Mortellan-
The reasons behind a dissimilar design philosophy between PCs and NPCs might make more sense if stated in terms of what the designer, GM, and players actually want to see happen in the game.
That is to say, everyone wants to see the PCs win a percentage of the time that their numbers alone would not justify. They want the PCs to feature in every single fight that occurs in the campaign. They don't want the same to be true of the NPCs. In fact, it is entirely acceptable if the NPCs lose every single time, so long as some of those losses are a little closer than others. A single NPC with its particular power set might only appear in one fight in the entire campaign. Fights in player-versus-environment fights aren't fair, no matter what the game. (Only MMOs can generally get away with making them unfair in favor of the NPCs, though.)
NPCs also don't experience downtime between fights, in general, since the vast majority of monsters show up on camera once and die horribly in fewer than 60 seconds (10 combat rounds) of doing so. Having a monster heal 10 hit points per round automagically might work for those ten rounds of combat, since players can easily crank out enough damage to put him down. In a player, on the other hand, that means that within 1-2 minutes of the end of every fight, they'd be fully healed and ready to go, since most players would not accept fast healing that shut off once combat was over.
Haven
The reasons behind a dissimilar design philosophy between PCs and NPCs might make more sense if stated in terms of what the designer, GM, and players actually want to see happen in the game.
That is to say, everyone wants to see the PCs win a percentage of the time that their numbers alone would not justify. They want the PCs to feature in every single fight that occurs in the campaign. They don't want the same to be true of the NPCs. In fact, it is entirely acceptable if the NPCs lose every single time, so long as some of those losses are a little closer than others. A single NPC with its particular power set might only appear in one fight in the entire campaign. Fights in player-versus-environment fights aren't fair, no matter what the game. (Only MMOs can generally get away with making them unfair in favor of the NPCs, though.)
NPCs also don't experience downtime between fights, in general, since the vast majority of monsters show up on camera once and die horribly in fewer than 60 seconds (10 combat rounds) of doing so. Having a monster heal 10 hit points per round automagically might work for those ten rounds of combat, since players can easily crank out enough damage to put him down. In a player, on the other hand, that means that within 1-2 minutes of the end of every fight, they'd be fully healed and ready to go, since most players would not accept fast healing that shut off once combat was over.
Haven
Shieldhaven
Explorer
RigaMortus2-
It's true that there are rules for repairing gear. Once you get into restoring the magical qualities of repaired gear, though, you're talking about having the PCs leave the dungeon and return to town for a few days. It's actually even worse than the wizard running out of spells, because that's a delay of 8 in-game hours at most, and you can rest in some dungeons.
Your point #3 confuses me. You state, quite correctly, that Sunder is only bad for PCs. It is bad for them when they use it and it is bad for them when they get hit with it. I definitely agree that there is almost no time in which Sundering is a good idea for a player. (Even when fighting a mook who doesn't have a valuable weapon, it is still bad for the PC, because he's wasting time that he could be using to hack his opponent to pieces.) We draw very different conclusions from this, however. I think that this means Sundering should be changed or abandoned as a mechanic, since it's a "heads I win, tails you lose" sort of situation.
But you also state that "Sunder is always a choice." That's half true. PCs have a choice to use (and even invest feats in) Sunder mechanics. They don't have a choice to avoid receiving Sundering attacks, though. There are also relatively few things they can do to improve their resistance to such attacks, as ever-higher enhancement bonuses on their weapons improve its resistance to damage by only a marginal amount. It represents not only a choice the player didn't make, but a choice for which they are unable to compensate.
My feeling on this topic is sufficiently different that I agree with several of your statements on the topic but draw diametrically opposed conclusions from them.
Haven
It's true that there are rules for repairing gear. Once you get into restoring the magical qualities of repaired gear, though, you're talking about having the PCs leave the dungeon and return to town for a few days. It's actually even worse than the wizard running out of spells, because that's a delay of 8 in-game hours at most, and you can rest in some dungeons.
Your point #3 confuses me. You state, quite correctly, that Sunder is only bad for PCs. It is bad for them when they use it and it is bad for them when they get hit with it. I definitely agree that there is almost no time in which Sundering is a good idea for a player. (Even when fighting a mook who doesn't have a valuable weapon, it is still bad for the PC, because he's wasting time that he could be using to hack his opponent to pieces.) We draw very different conclusions from this, however. I think that this means Sundering should be changed or abandoned as a mechanic, since it's a "heads I win, tails you lose" sort of situation.
But you also state that "Sunder is always a choice." That's half true. PCs have a choice to use (and even invest feats in) Sunder mechanics. They don't have a choice to avoid receiving Sundering attacks, though. There are also relatively few things they can do to improve their resistance to such attacks, as ever-higher enhancement bonuses on their weapons improve its resistance to damage by only a marginal amount. It represents not only a choice the player didn't make, but a choice for which they are unable to compensate.
My feeling on this topic is sufficiently different that I agree with several of your statements on the topic but draw diametrically opposed conclusions from them.
Haven
Similar Threads
