Why I think you should try 4e (renamed)

[Brother MacLaren]

When fighting the pirate, the characters have no idea whether he has a prestige class that gives him an AC bonus, since that's a game mechanic, not an in-game thing.

But from the character's point of view, the pirate has some ridiculously effective parrying skills. They don't know it as a "feat" or "prestige class" but they can recognize that his technique is amazing. And perhaps one lightly-armored character might want to learn Bonetti's Defense as well. I suppose you could tell them that was Bonetti they just killed, so they'll have to invent their own style.

 

[Oni]

True, however the big difference is that with the bare-chested pirate, there is no explanation other than "I wanted it that way." If a human pirate isn't wearing armor or using magic, and doesn't have some fancy prestige class, then I would call foul.

However, I have no problem with DM Fiat if there is an actual explanation to it; maybe the pirate has an obscure template or prestige class. Perhaps the human pirate isn't human at all. Who knows? The point being, if you want to have a bare-chested pirate with a high AC, use the rules presented, even if you have to make up something new. Don't just hand wave it with your mystical DM powers, that stinks of cheating a laziness, IMO.

Does this mean that DM's can't invent their own PrC's and template and the like, because that is essentially the same as because I said so. I mean really what's the difference between "because I said so" and "because he has the bare-chested pirate template"? Why make the DM jump through hoops to do what he's going to do anyway? I frankly don't understand how a DM can cheat in a game where he make up any mechanical content he wants anyway. When players start playing the gotcha game on the DM and demanding to know the mechanical minutia behind every little thing there is a serious problem IMHO.

 

[catsclaw227]

There's a critical difference. The amount of "stage management" and "cast management" a Game Operations Director is apparently expected to do in 4E is not everyone's cup of tea.

This particular stew of "story telling" and "war game" elements seems to me pretty half-baked for a human-moderated game. As I mentioned earlier, my gut tells me that it's probably a dead end -- but I could be wrong!

You know, it is OK to call people that run 4e games Dungeon Masters. You don't have to be snarky about it.

True, however the big difference is that with the bare-chested pirate, there is no explanation other than "I wanted it that way." If a human pirate isn't wearing armor or using magic, and doesn't have some fancy prestige class, then I would call foul.

But remember, in 4e (and in 1e, 2e) the NPCs and monsters are not built with the same mechanics as the PCs. It's not a foreign concept and one, quite frankly, that caters more to my old-school style of DMing.

You can't call foul if the rules state that it's way things are.

I have a problem with this. I may be in the minority, but just deciding "I want the pirate to have an AC of 21" and not backing it up feels like cheating.

I've DM'd my fair share of games, and I know firsthand the headache it can cause, especially in situations like the pirate, but I don't like bending the rules to that extent; I like to play the same game and use the same rules as the player. If a player asked me how it is possible for a bare-chested pirate to have a high AC, I would like to actually be capable of answering within the rules of the game. Basically, I tend to dislike using the DM Card and saying "because I said so."

Again, this is a 3.x mentality and is simply a different paradigm than 4e, as well as 1e and 2e.

As a player, I would feel cheated if my DM did this. But then, I guess that's why I don't play 4E; I like both DM and players being on the same page rules wise.

In 3.x there was the presumption that if an NPC or Monster has it or can do it, then a PC should as well. Some editions of D&D don't adhere to this paradigm, but if that's what you prefer, then 3.x is the game for you, for sure.

 

[Imaro]

I'm just saying it's effectively the same thing. If you create a dread pirate prestige class and give it a special dodge bonus to AC, that's effectively the same as just giving the thing a higher AC. As DM, you have purview to create new stuff like this, so you effectively have the purview to simply increase an NPC's AC.

When fighting the pirate, the characters have no idea whether he has a prestige class that gives him an AC bonus, since that's a game mechanic, not an in-game thing.

It's not the same thing, because once you create the "Dread Pirate" prestige class... a PC can now, by meeting the requirements of said PrC, attain the same bonus.

 

[Fifth Element]

But from the character's point of view, the pirate has some ridiculously effective parrying skills. They don't know it as a "feat" or "prestige class" but they can recognize that his technique is amazing. And perhaps one lightly-armored character might want to learn Bonetti's Defense as well. I suppose you could tell them that was Bonetti they just killed, so they'll have to invent their own style.

Well yes, description of the AC in-game is rather different than defending the mechanical construction of the AC.

 

[Fifth Element]

I mean really what's the difference between "because I said so" and "because he has the bare-chested pirate template"? Why make the DM jump through hoops to do what he's going to do anyway? I frankly don't understand how a DM can cheat in a game where he make up any mechanical content he wants anyway.

This is precisely my point, expressed in a better way.

 

[EroGaki]

I'm just saying it's effectively the same thing. If you create a dread pirate prestige class and give it a special dodge bonus to AC, that's effectively the same as just giving the thing a higher AC. As DM, you have purview to create new stuff like this, so you effectively have the purview to simply increase an NPC's AC.

When fighting the pirate, the characters have no idea whether he has a prestige class that gives him an AC bonus, since that's a game mechanic, not an in-game thing.

The only difference is that if a Dread Pirate prestige class was created, it would *possibly* have an impact outside of that lone encounter. Was the pirate the only such example of the prestige class? Perhaps there is an entire organization of them. And what if one the PC's wants to become one?

If you just hand-wave it aside, and the PC's have questions, or they desire to somehow gain said benefit (be it prestige class or something else) what will you say? Besides "no, I say you can't. The end."

Listen, I'm not arguing against a DM's purview. All I'm saying is that they should work within the system. The same system that the players play in.

 

[Fifth Element]

It's not the same thing, because once you create the "Dread Pirate" prestige class... a PC can now, by meeting the requirements of said PrC, attain the same bonus.

And if you make one of the requirements "Must have been born and raised among the Pirates of the Iron Coast?", can any PC dip into the PrC for the AC? Which you can do, since you're the DM and you have control over entrance to prestige classes and any other mechanic you devise.

 

[Fifth Element]

The only difference is that if a Dread Pirate prestige class was created, it would *possibly* have an impact outside of that lone encounter. Was the pirate the only such example of the prestige class? Perhaps there is an entire organization of them. And what if one the PC's wants to become one?

If you just hand-wave it aside, and the PC's have questions, or they desire to somehow gain said benefit (be it prestige class or something else) what will you say? Besides "no, I say you can't. The end."

Listen, I'm not arguing against a DM's purview. All I'm saying is that they should work within the system. The same system that the players play in.

Sure, but I'm saying that a DM has enough work to do without having to worry about justifying an NPC's AC to his players. If questions arise, perhaps then mechanics can be developed. I don't see a reason to invent mechanics until they're actually needed.

 

[AllisterH]

Agreed, for the most part. I notice that when the rules tend to be disregarded for the sake of facilitating play, it happens from behind the screen. Players rarely get to play bare-chested pirates with high AC's by virtue of interesting concept. If a PC runs around with no armor on in D&D, he gets pasted. Why should DM's be the only ones who get license to disregard the rules?

Hold on a minute...We've been talking about a 10th level unarmoured human with an AC of 21 as if it was something "4e doesn't allow PCs to match NPCs"

That's not hard to do in 4e as a PC.

10th level buck naked human PC started with a 20 DEX.

10 + 5 (from level) + 6 (from 22 dex - two stat point increases) = 21 AC.

(anyone care to check my math?)

Is this another one of those "make a point but exaggerate the problem significantly"