So we might mess up, so what? Forked Thread: Fudging the Numbers in 3ed

[Cadfan]

For me this again makes me wonder why I am paying to have an incomplete game, IMO in more ways than one,.

Its worth reminding everyone once again that "DM judgment" is a valid system for resolving things in an RPG. I think this forum's D&D focus sometimes obscures that fact. The DM is a tool the game can use to resolve things. Using this tool instead of a written rule does not make a game "incomplete."

I don't know how much that really affects your conversation, since I kind of feel like your discussion of completeness is a red herring in the first place- it seems like what you're really discussing is the degree of abstraction a game should use, and how easily you can or cannot add that specification back in to 4e.

All I can say on that is that its easier to add in details when you've been told the mechanical baseline by the designers than it is to add in details when you have not been told the mechanical baseline by the designers. Of course, after eight years of playing 3e, I already know the mechanical baselines- and you probably do too. So that doesn't speak to us personally.

when I have a pretty complete one and know it well enough to tweak it to my desires. YMMV of course.

That's an entirely different question. If you don't like the newer system better, then you probably shouldn't buy it. Like I mentioned above- there are a lot of small innovations in 4e (openly providing the DM with a "behind the stats" take on the game and advice on how to use it) that are of little to no use to someone who has, through experience, trial, and error, already learned the "behind the stats" take on 3e and how to use it at the table.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I don't really like that ruling above...it's clunky feeling to me and adds an extra roll to get an extra roll... when I'd rather keep it simple. YMMV of course.

Page 42... it's always page 42...

In this case, it was not page 42.

We rarely use p.42 of the DMG. We still play mostly "RAW" without rulings or improvisation. Sometimes I wish people would try a little more. It's nice to know that there is a robust system in place I can rely on if some player tries something fancy.

You know I don't know if you were part of a multi-page thread that got into th discussion of just how ambiguous page 42 is, but really Mearls or JW need to write a free article explaining exactly when it should be used. I don't think it fits in this situation for most people. There is a rule for escaping the web... I just don't like it, but by changing it to include strength as a bonus, first am I using a new DC as listed on table 42? Also am I now throwing more importance into an attribute than it should have ( there is also an argument for certain skills when going down this route as well.)? And finally which saves should now get bonuses from an attribute, which shouldn't and how does this affect ovrerall balance. Just things I'm pondering.

Balance wise, it is a simple matter of opportunity cost. If you spend a standard action to get a new save, this is a standard action you couldn't use to deal possibly a [W] of damage or more (and even a melee focused Fighter mobilized in a Web can try that - get a Javelin and mark a sucker!)

Emphasis mine on final point... Be honest though, would the "incompleteness" be a boon if you had never DM'd before? Are you often drawing from your knowledge of 3e/3.5 to make ad-hoc rulings and fill in those blank spaces? For me this again makes me wonder why I am paying to have an incomplete game, IMO in more ways than one, when I have a pretty complete one and know it well enough to tweak it to my desires. YMMV of course.

Easier in this sense was not easy to come up with a ruling, but easy to decide that I can/should make a ruling instead of just following RAW. Now that I have the complete core rulebooks, I still know that where to turn if I try to improvise something.