Do you consider 4e D&D "newbie teeball"?

[JoeGKushner]

Yes. Sometimes 3 or 4 times a round. As soon as one of the extremely powergamed characters says "I hit AC 35" and I say "Miss", they immediately say "WHAT? I hit 35. There's no way that missed. How did it get that?"

My own experiences aren't that bad but I've had GMing running monsters with AC's in the mid 30's because the group was so well built and they have no magic items, no armor, etc... He just made them that AC to provide us a challenge. Beated giving them all bracers and rings and other defensive items but as everything is supposed to be built around the same venue, I know I and other players were pissed that we had these long running fights with ninjas whose ACs were 30 "just because".

 

[SteveC]

Yes. Sometimes 3 or 4 times a round. As soon as one of the extremely powergamed characters says "I hit AC 35" and I say "Miss", they immediately say "WHAT? I hit 35. There's no way that missed. How did it get that?"

And then I have to say "Well, it is a creature who started with a +12 natural armor. Then it got a template that adds a +2 deflection bonus. It is wearing +3 Fullplate designed for its size. Then it gets +1 from Dex."

Then they say "Wow...I can't believe you cheesed up the monster by adding a template and giving it custom +3 armor. Most of the monsters we fighter have around AC 25. It's a full 11 points higher than usual."

Because, if I'm off by one point, they'll notice. They'll call me on it. After all, the only way the game is fun for them and for me is if we play "fair". If the rules let you make something, it's fair. If it's just made up, then they might as well not play. After all, it's easy to beat them if you can arbitrarily make a monster AC 36. It's hard if they have to follow a set of rules to get to AC 36. At least, that's how they look at it. Or how they did look at it in 3.5e.

Now, in 4e, I simply say "It's a level 10 monster, it has appropriate defenses for it's level. There's no rules for what AC it can have. This one is higher than normal."

Pretty much this. I won't say that my players are this critical, but they all really understand the rules and have an encyclopedic knowledge of monster stats. As a result, if things do go outside the lines, they'll know about it.

Beyond that, what happens when your group sends a dispel magic over at your "made up on the fly" creature? How does that affect its stats. My group also had a spell from (I believe...it's been a while) the Spell Compendium that did damage to you for each spell that was currently affecting you. So I had to keep track of the number and kind of buff spells that I gave my creatures pretty much all the time.

In 4E, I can design much more to taste.

I know a lot of people must read a post like this and say "what the heck?" but if you say that you're likely not playing with a lot of "system mastery" type players. They do exist, and in my group's case are some of the best friends and roleplayers you'd ever want to meet.

 

[JoeGKushner]

So we are going to start putting words in each other's mouths now that have nothing to do with the other's actual point?

I don't see how a new edition after nearly a decade run shows that you are right. If anything it disputes you.

How am I putting words in your mouth? This seems to indicate that no new edition can compare to a game that's been out a decade whereas I see it as WoTC listening to what players have been saying for, well, a decade and customizing the game to their taste.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

RE: Edition Wars

The Edition Wars go beyond simple dislike. If people were just stating preferences or the lack thereof, it wouldn't escalate into an Edition War. Things escalate when the concept of "The One True D&D" gets added into the mix, upon either side. This can come from snark, passive aggression, implication, or whatever else and is rarely stated openly. It can also come from misunderstandings, as for example when someone says that 4E does something better and another person takes this as insulting 3E, hence inserting the concept of "One True D&D" by the person reading the post, as opposed to the poster.

 

[Theroc]

Have your players in 3e really asked in the middle of a game how the monsters got their AC numbers?

I sorta did this once in a PbP. My level 5 Warlock(/Cleric/Binder gestalt) missed a touch attack on a final roll of 25(Modifiers included). I had no idea touch AC could get that high on a character at this level, and was concerned that if I couldn't with hit that (which took at least a 17 or so roll) as a touch attack, how we'd hit at all with regular attacks.

I hadn't precisely said, "Show me your numbers, I think you're cheating" I was just surprised at the high AC, and wondered if the DM had forgotten the 'Touch' portion of the attack. Granted, Play by Post is slower paced and comments/questions like this can be tossed in without killing the pace/mood as much.

 

[Oryan77]

For me, I found that this, combined with the fact that it took me a good 2 or 3 hours to make that creature optimized enough to survive against powergamers, only to have it survive 2 rounds of combat made it not worth it to follow the rules. I don't like breaking the rules. I figure the rules are there for a reason. So I follow them. I just gave up DMing in 3.5e.

So do "powergamers" not exist in 4e? You don't need to worry about making sure a 4e adventure is challenging to every PC of the same level?

Wouldn't the way to go about making an adventure be for the writer to assume the PCs are "normal" PCs built with the "average" builds provided from the core books? Then leave it up to the DMs to adjust things depending how many optional books & rules he has allowed in the game? I can't imagine creating adventures with the goal in mind to make it balanced for every type of PC...that would be a nightmare. It's the DMs choice to use more options. If he chooses to go down that route, then it should be his responsibility to make adjustments.

Now if this isn't even an issue in 4e, that's good. But is it not an issue because there aren't as many options yet? Could a writer like yourself be in the same boat as you were during 3e several years from now when there are more character options for 4e? Or are the rules setup where this just can't happen and players are unable to powergame now?

I only used the 4e PHB to make my PC. I'm no powergamer, but it was obvious that I could in no way powergame a PC by using only the PHB. But I have never read any of the new 4e sourcebooks.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

After all, the only way the game is fun for them and for me is if we play "fair". If the rules let you make something, it's fair. If it's just made up, then they might as well not play. After all, it's easy to beat them if you can arbitrarily make a monster AC 36.

I don't play D&D as a competition between myself and the players, so that definitely skews my perception a little bit.

In my game, the intent is for everyone to have fun, DM and players. It's a cooperative play style.

Now, in 4e, I simply say "It's a level 10 monster, it has appropriate defenses for it's level."

And in 3e, you absolutely positively cannot say, "It has appropriate defenses to challenge you guys."

Of course this demonstrates the true genius of 4e "design:" the explicit permission to ignore the rules. Which you can only get from 4e. But definitely not 3e.

Ignoring the rules when they exist <> strength of the system.

Ignoring the rules when they don't exist = strength of the system.

I know a lot of people must read a post like this and say "what the heck?"

Nooooo.....

but if you say that you're likely not playing with a lot of "system mastery" type players.

Ergo, the only possible solution is to move to a system that is explicit about the fact that there is no system to object to.

Let me put this in a way that is free of edition bias:

When your players say to you, "How did that ogre get a 23 AC?" the correct response (regardless of system) is, "I gave it an AC appropriate to challenge you all."

And when the players ask, "But how did you specifically arrive at 23 AC?" your answer (again, regardless of edition) should either be,

1) "Based on my experience with the system, 23 AC seemed right."

or

2) "I looked it up on a table."

#2 is not truly non-edition specific, as the complaint is that 3e contains no such table.

This oversight, of course, was rectified in 4e: If you lack the experience, now you have a table.

 

[AllisterH]

For me anyway, it's not even the crunch in the DMG that impressed me about 4e.

It's the fact that 4e actually teaches a player HOW to be a DM and is the best DMG ever for doing this. I don't know why this gets ignored but this to me is 4e's true accomplishment.

 

[Umbran]

Really? Snark is against the forum rules?

Since you asked...

Not like you didn't know, but "snark" is a combination of "snide" and "remark". Snide, as in "maliciously derogatory". If you're getting malicious and derogatory, you may well be in violation of the board rules. Like most things, it is all a matter of degree.

It is also quite clearly counterproductive. Snark is not about exchanging information - we all know that snarkiness never convinces the other guy. It is about looking clever, superior, and gaining psychological advantage. When snark enters, real exchange of opinions and ideas stops, and arguments start. Snark is thus actively counter to the core purpose of EN World.

So really, against the rules or not, we need it kind of like we need extra holes in our heads.

 

[BryonD]

I don't see how a new edition after nearly a decade run shows that you are right. If anything it disputes you.

How am I putting words in your mouth? This seems to indicate that no new edition can compare to a game that's been out a decade whereas I see it as WoTC listening to what players have been saying for, well, a decade and customizing the game to their taste.

How in the world do you get that
it says that?
All it says is that the game lived and was enjoyed for a full life. Which disputes your prior claim. It in no way whatsoever says that no game can compare to it and trying to force that bizarre spin onto it is putting words in to my mouth.