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="Empirate" data-source="post: 6044173" data-attributes="member: 78958"><p>I can get behind your stance on this, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], now that you present it in a little more differentiated way. If I understand correctly, your point is: if you as a DM get the feeling that a certain rule is causing a problem in your game, why not just go ahead and change the rule? As a long-standing DM I must admit I do this all the time.</p><p></p><p>However, that is not the only approach I think can work. Changing a rule in a complex mechanic environment like that presented by D&D always strikes me as a last resort - the consequences are far-reaching and will affect aspects of your game you might not think about at the time of changing the rule in question.</p><p></p><p>One thing I like to do before applying rules changes, especially if they nerf a particular player's preference in building his character, destroying part of the rules fundament on which that player is relying, is look at my own expectations: why am I having a problem with this rule? Is it because I have certain expectations that are frustrated by it, or is it because the rule causes 'objectively' undesirable effects? Are my expectations thoroughly 'justified', and in what ways do they conflict with the expectations of my players? Is there really a rules 'problem', in the sense of everybody having less fun due to this rule, or am I the only one feeling less than good about it?</p><p></p><p>In other words, I'd think long and hard about what other aspects of my game I can change before I'd change a rule that a) might be there for a good reason, and b) at least one of my players is depending on for (part of) their fun.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I<em> think </em>the stacking rules in general shouldn't cause a game real problems at all. They <em>can </em>be used to create certain unbalanced effects, if a lot of investment is made. But other parts of D&D are much more prone to this (save-or-die/save-or-suck mechanisms, everything fooling around with the action economy, the openendedness of high-level magic, planar anything).</p><p></p><p>Your point of "there's a difference between 'can't handle' and 'doesn't want to handle'" is a convincing one - in general. But in my personal opinion the stacking rules, or high-AC PCs for that matter, ought to be handle-able without breaking a sweat really. Not wanting to handle them is therefore purely a matter of personal preference. The OP asked for our help in handling a perceived problem, so I assume s/he <em>wants </em>to handle it, not handwave it out of existence.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Empirate, post: 6044173, member: 78958"] I can get behind your stance on this, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], now that you present it in a little more differentiated way. If I understand correctly, your point is: if you as a DM get the feeling that a certain rule is causing a problem in your game, why not just go ahead and change the rule? As a long-standing DM I must admit I do this all the time. However, that is not the only approach I think can work. Changing a rule in a complex mechanic environment like that presented by D&D always strikes me as a last resort - the consequences are far-reaching and will affect aspects of your game you might not think about at the time of changing the rule in question. One thing I like to do before applying rules changes, especially if they nerf a particular player's preference in building his character, destroying part of the rules fundament on which that player is relying, is look at my own expectations: why am I having a problem with this rule? Is it because I have certain expectations that are frustrated by it, or is it because the rule causes 'objectively' undesirable effects? Are my expectations thoroughly 'justified', and in what ways do they conflict with the expectations of my players? Is there really a rules 'problem', in the sense of everybody having less fun due to this rule, or am I the only one feeling less than good about it? In other words, I'd think long and hard about what other aspects of my game I can change before I'd change a rule that a) might be there for a good reason, and b) at least one of my players is depending on for (part of) their fun. I[I] think [/I]the stacking rules in general shouldn't cause a game real problems at all. They [I]can [/I]be used to create certain unbalanced effects, if a lot of investment is made. But other parts of D&D are much more prone to this (save-or-die/save-or-suck mechanisms, everything fooling around with the action economy, the openendedness of high-level magic, planar anything). Your point of "there's a difference between 'can't handle' and 'doesn't want to handle'" is a convincing one - in general. But in my personal opinion the stacking rules, or high-AC PCs for that matter, ought to be handle-able without breaking a sweat really. Not wanting to handle them is therefore purely a matter of personal preference. The OP asked for our help in handling a perceived problem, so I assume s/he [I]wants [/I]to handle it, not handwave it out of existence. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
How to deal with high AC PCs
Top