Why I think you should try 4e (renamed)

[jgbrowning]

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.

IMO, the seminal difference between 4e and the prior incarnations of D&D is this: In 4e The world exists based upon the PCs interactions. (For example: In this type of role-playing minions make sense. The power of a creature is viewed only in relation to the PCs powers.)

The earlier editions of D&D believed this: The world exists and the PCs interact with it. (For example: In this type of role-playing minions do not make sense. Each creature has power based upon it's place in the world, regardless of the power of the PCs.)

Both types of play can be a lot of fun, but they are entirely different ways of viewing a role-playing game and, I believe, this is the primary reason for the dissatisfaction many of the the D&D audience has with 4e. The basic assumption of what type of role-playing game D&D is changed.

joe b.

 

[AllisterH]

When I make a pirate that is a challenge for a 10th level party there is a reason in the story that the pirate is a challenge.

That is the difference.

The world is full of things that are much stronger and much weaker than the party and their power is not in any way a function of the party.

Again, the world is designed to be the world and then the players take on the role of their characters dealing with that. The world does not constantly morph to be a mathematically appropriate challenge.

Ok, I'm getting confused.

Why is it wrong that pirates are considered a 10th level encounter in terms of world design -a.k.a suitable for the end adventure of an heroic tier party?

I mean, is there a design document that states you can't have pirates higher than 1st level? Not being snarky or anything but I'm not seeing why this is considered "bad game mechanic"

 

[Brother MacLaren]

How is this different in 4E?

It's different for exactly the reason you describe:

It is not. Its a minion, but if it faces a town beggar armed with a rock, that poor beggar will be skewered in no time. A minion will be a minion to a PC but that same minion may change to a full monster to an NPC or any other monster.

It's all relative, get it?

Yes, I get it. That was my POINT, that minions are not "exactly the same" as 1-HD monsters in earlier editions. One is relative, one is not.

 

[BryonD]

I wasn't defending the point. While I rate 3.x to be the worst edition of D&D I certainly do not think it was poisoning anything. In fact, it did great things for the game and for a lot of people, I just happened to be in the minority that didn't find it optimal for my style/taste/personal preferences.

Well, the point was central to my response.

Regarding the quality DM, let's not go there, because it sounds to me that you are implying that DM's who like 4e and thought DM'ing 3.x was a chore are not good DM's.

Nope. I am not implying anything to do with "like".
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.

 

[Rechan]

not assume that they are some kind of Schroedinger's Guards that vary in power depending on what the plot demands.

"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".

If the game rules are NOT the reality of the world, then on what basis are PCs supposed to evaluate events?

By the basis of the story?

I shouldn't have to ask "So what level is this NPC?" to get the idea of how powerful he is. He's as powerful as the DM says he is. He might be a weakling but be able to blow a hole in a mountain. If the DM tells me that, then I accept it.

 

[Fifth Element]

As Mustrum_Ridcully decribed, in the system being discussed the AC is selected to adapt to the party, and then a veneer of pirate is piled on top. Pull of the cover and slap on an anti-paladin. It doesn't matter because the framework isn't based on what the guy is.

The system doesn't care that he's a "pirate", no. It does care that he's, say, a skirmisher. The anti-paladin would be, maybe, a soldier. You're oversimplifying the system. AC does scale with level, but you seem to be arguing that all monsters/NPCs of level X have an AC of Y.

 

[catsclaw227]

Any minion is a balloon or a pinata not a monster. Minions are constructed ego generation machines so that PC's have something to mow through quickly so that controllers can feel like they are making a meaningful contribution to the party.

Sigworthy.

This is absurd. The designers at WOTC did not design the minion so that it can stroke the egos of players or PCs. They represent the mooks of the world that come in waves (like so many movies, books, etc) and the heroes mow through them.

Do you honestly believe it was made to help the poor poor egos of players with controller PCs?

Gimme a break...

 

[Jack99]

Well, the point was central to my response.


Nope. I am not implying anything to do with "like".
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.

Thanks for clarifying that. But for the record, baseball analogies are lost on me. I am European and over here, only the girls play something similar (softball) and it's even less popular than curling is (which means very little ).

 

[AllisterH]

Well, the point was central to my response.


Nope. I am not implying anything to do with "like".
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.

Personally, I never thought 3.x was hard to DM. Time-consuming and not worth the effort given the amount of effort put into it.

I thought it was more concerned with "must follow the rules even though they are pointless".

Ok, let's get back to the 10th level pirate. Is there anything intriniscally wrong with having a 10th level pirate?

If we're doing this in 3e, how would YOU do it BryonD? (or is pirates not a suitable challenge for 10th level PCs?)

If anyone else would like to do it for pre 3e, I would like to see how it is done (I've been gaming since 1e and DMing since 2e and personally, I always did it like 4e so my method in 2e/3e breaks the rules)

 

[jgbrowning]

The system doesn't care that he's a "pirate", no. It does care that he's, say, a skirmisher. The anti-paladin would be, maybe, a soldier. You're oversimplifying the system. AC does scale with level, but you seem to be arguing that all monsters/NPCs of level X have an AC of Y.

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



joe b.