Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
How to deal with high AC PCs
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6044116" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>Me and my players.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Encounters that are less boring and/or less contrived.</p><p></p><p>Not remotely true. I will assert with some confidence that no regular poster on ENworld has more system mastery with Rolemaster than I do - I GMed it for 20 years, and some of my players were hardcore rules people (PBM game winners, two Austrasian M:tG champions, etc). That doesn't mean I didn't change some rules. There are some aspects of Rolemaster, such as the Evil Cleric Dark Channels spell list, and the Sorcerer Flesh Destruction spell list, that are just broken (I assume in those two cases on the assumption that only NPCs will use them).</p><p></p><p>One <em>indicator</em> of rules mastery is understanding the effect that the rules are having on a game, and deciding whether or not you like it. And, if you don't, ascertaining how the rule can be changed to end the problem.</p><p></p><p>There's a difference between "can't handle" and "doesn't want to handle". If the game throws up essentially rock/paper/scissor options for encounter building - eg the PC wins unless the encounter includes a dominator or hold-er, in which case the GM wins - that's not an issue of "can't handle". It's an issue of "how can I change the rules to help guarantee more interesting encounters".</p><p></p><p>How do you know? What's your measure for broken? For me, one measure for a rule being problematic is that it produces unhappy play experience.</p><p></p><p>Here's another example from Rolemaster: the Intuitions spell, which gives visions of what will happen in the immediate future if you take a certain action. At mid-to-high levels it is trivial to get effectively at will access to that spell (either from spell points or items). Which has the result that the players don't have their PCs do anything without casting Intuitions first. It also gives rise to strange corner case rules, like what effect is had on the vision if someone who you will interact with in the immediate future is under scrying protection.</p><p></p><p>Is this spell broken? I think it is - I banned it from my RM games. The current line editor doesn't - he has written sections in rulebooks (eg The Mentalism Companion) explaining in detail how it works.</p><p></p><p>Stacking has always been an issue in D&D. 4e is much stricter on stacking than 3E/PF, but still has problems - eg some people think the "item bonus to damage" magic items are a problem for the game, because they crowd out other more interesting items from those slots.</p><p></p><p>There's nothing unreasonable about someone judging that the magic AC stacking rules create an option for ACs to go to high, and changing them back to their AD&D equivalents. As I mentioned upthread, the game doesn't <em>mandate</em> that PCs have magic bonuses to AC in all the stacking categories, which is to say that the game appears to assume that your PC will play fine even if you have fewer AC items and more other sorts of items. So changing the stacking rules in the way I've described shouldn't cause any mechanical malfunction.</p><p></p><p>Maybe they made a mistake. It's not as if D&D, just like most other RPGs, doesn't have a long history of design mistakes having been made!</p><p></p><p>It doesn't strike me as having anything to do with open-ended design. We're talking here about the game maths, not the game scope. If the game permitted you to reduce your PC's hit points as a trade for increasing your PC's armour class - or vice versa - it would be mathematically more open-ended, but I don't see any reason to think that would make it a better game.</p><p></p><p>And I don't understand the ingame aspect either. What is the difference between a luck bonus, a sacred bonus and a deflection bonus to AC, as far as the fiction is concerned? How do the gods protect you, other than by deflecting attacks. (I guess they could make you tougher, but then that would be an enhancement bonus!) And how does luck help you, other than turning hits into misses by deflecting them?</p><p></p><p>As for stacking enhancement bonuses, how come an item that enhances my skin stacks with an item that enhances my metal shirt stacks with an item that enhances my shield but doesn't stack with an item that enhances my hair (it protects me from head strikes!) or my vest (it interposes <em>another</em> layer of magic between my metal shirt and my skin) or whatever else is fictionally conceivable but mechanically forbidden?</p><p></p><p>I think I know the answer. My best guess is that the various bonus categories were invented keeping in mind primarily <em>spells</em>, and a desire to preserve the traditional stacking rules for spells like Bless, Prayer, Barkskin etc, plus the traditions around weapons, armour and shields, and the implications of allowing the new bonus descriptors to be extended to permanent magic items and be stacked simply weren't thought through.</p><p></p><p>Whether or not one likes the game that results is of course a matter of taste. You may condone it as much as you like, but that doesn't show that the OP - whose tastes may differ from yours - doesn't have a reason to change the stacking rules.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6044116, member: 42582"] Me and my players. Encounters that are less boring and/or less contrived. Not remotely true. I will assert with some confidence that no regular poster on ENworld has more system mastery with Rolemaster than I do - I GMed it for 20 years, and some of my players were hardcore rules people (PBM game winners, two Austrasian M:tG champions, etc). That doesn't mean I didn't change some rules. There are some aspects of Rolemaster, such as the Evil Cleric Dark Channels spell list, and the Sorcerer Flesh Destruction spell list, that are just broken (I assume in those two cases on the assumption that only NPCs will use them). One [I]indicator[/I] of rules mastery is understanding the effect that the rules are having on a game, and deciding whether or not you like it. And, if you don't, ascertaining how the rule can be changed to end the problem. There's a difference between "can't handle" and "doesn't want to handle". If the game throws up essentially rock/paper/scissor options for encounter building - eg the PC wins unless the encounter includes a dominator or hold-er, in which case the GM wins - that's not an issue of "can't handle". It's an issue of "how can I change the rules to help guarantee more interesting encounters". How do you know? What's your measure for broken? For me, one measure for a rule being problematic is that it produces unhappy play experience. Here's another example from Rolemaster: the Intuitions spell, which gives visions of what will happen in the immediate future if you take a certain action. At mid-to-high levels it is trivial to get effectively at will access to that spell (either from spell points or items). Which has the result that the players don't have their PCs do anything without casting Intuitions first. It also gives rise to strange corner case rules, like what effect is had on the vision if someone who you will interact with in the immediate future is under scrying protection. Is this spell broken? I think it is - I banned it from my RM games. The current line editor doesn't - he has written sections in rulebooks (eg The Mentalism Companion) explaining in detail how it works. Stacking has always been an issue in D&D. 4e is much stricter on stacking than 3E/PF, but still has problems - eg some people think the "item bonus to damage" magic items are a problem for the game, because they crowd out other more interesting items from those slots. There's nothing unreasonable about someone judging that the magic AC stacking rules create an option for ACs to go to high, and changing them back to their AD&D equivalents. As I mentioned upthread, the game doesn't [I]mandate[/I] that PCs have magic bonuses to AC in all the stacking categories, which is to say that the game appears to assume that your PC will play fine even if you have fewer AC items and more other sorts of items. So changing the stacking rules in the way I've described shouldn't cause any mechanical malfunction. Maybe they made a mistake. It's not as if D&D, just like most other RPGs, doesn't have a long history of design mistakes having been made! It doesn't strike me as having anything to do with open-ended design. We're talking here about the game maths, not the game scope. If the game permitted you to reduce your PC's hit points as a trade for increasing your PC's armour class - or vice versa - it would be mathematically more open-ended, but I don't see any reason to think that would make it a better game. And I don't understand the ingame aspect either. What is the difference between a luck bonus, a sacred bonus and a deflection bonus to AC, as far as the fiction is concerned? How do the gods protect you, other than by deflecting attacks. (I guess they could make you tougher, but then that would be an enhancement bonus!) And how does luck help you, other than turning hits into misses by deflecting them? As for stacking enhancement bonuses, how come an item that enhances my skin stacks with an item that enhances my metal shirt stacks with an item that enhances my shield but doesn't stack with an item that enhances my hair (it protects me from head strikes!) or my vest (it interposes [I]another[/I] layer of magic between my metal shirt and my skin) or whatever else is fictionally conceivable but mechanically forbidden? I think I know the answer. My best guess is that the various bonus categories were invented keeping in mind primarily [I]spells[/I], and a desire to preserve the traditional stacking rules for spells like Bless, Prayer, Barkskin etc, plus the traditions around weapons, armour and shields, and the implications of allowing the new bonus descriptors to be extended to permanent magic items and be stacked simply weren't thought through. Whether or not one likes the game that results is of course a matter of taste. You may condone it as much as you like, but that doesn't show that the OP - whose tastes may differ from yours - doesn't have a reason to change the stacking rules. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
How to deal with high AC PCs
Top