D&D 4E 4e -- Is The World Made Of Cheese?

[silentounce]

... did you just compare rules lawyers to pedophiles?

No, I did not. And I shouldn't have to explain why.

If I were to say comparing apples to oranges is like comparing airplanes to automobiles, would you then accuse me of comparing oranges to automobiles?

Or perhaps:
Saying that dragonborn females should have breasts is like saying that dwarven females shouldn't have beards.
In what way was I comparing breasts to beards, or dragonborn to dwarves?

 

[Pistonrager]

Off topic: no, you changed the comparison. you were comparing source of problem and problem with another source of problem and problem.

source: rules & children
problem: rules lawyers & pedophiles

apples to oranges AND airplanes to automobiles are direct object comparisons it's not the same type of comparison.

 

[silentounce]

Off topic: no, you changed the comparison. you were comparing source of problem and problem with another source of problem and problem.

source: rules & children
problem: rules lawyers & pedophiles

apples to oranges AND airplanes to automobiles are direct object comparisons it's not the same type of comparison.

This is my last response on this, I don't want to drag it out any longer. I would have taken it to PMs but I don't have a paid account.

I was comparing one absurd statement with another to show that the first was absurd. I was comparing the act of placing the blame on one thing. I wasn't comparing the blame. Sheesh, this is hard to explain, you should just be able to read it. I didn't say that one was the source of the other, in fact, I was trying to show that that relationship doesn't exist. The key word was blaming. I said "Blaming... is like blaming...." Obviously you can see that the comparison involves the act of placing the blame.

Here's another example:
Blaming the waiter for your burnt food is like blaming the mailman for a "Dear John" letter.
That is obviously not a comparison of a waiter and a mailman. It is a comparison of the blames you are placing on them for something that is not their fault. I can't think of another way to put it. Well, at least I got my point across.

 

[hong]

You know, it's okay to compare rules lawyers to pedophiles. Really.

 

[Lizard]

So the reason the rule wasn't included, and why it needs to stay out unless a DM wants it in, is because the 3.X system did not seem to support the power of DM fiat. 4.0 does, and I like it better because of it.

3.5 DMG, Page 6:
"...you're the final arbiter of rules within the game. Good players will always recognize you have absolute authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook."

If a DM is going to be bullied by rules lawyers, he will be if there are any rules at all, and whatever 4e is, rules-lite it ain't. If there aren't Hardness rules to bitch about, there's still hit points, and the same player who would exploit the 3x rules will exploit the 4e rules. ("I don't think that's a 'large' statue. It shouldn't have that many hit points. We should have broken it by now.")

I feel the LACK of rules empowers the whiners more, because everything becomes an argument between their "interpretation" of the world and the DMs.

Really, though, the answer to rules lawyers is simple: The door's on your left.

 

[Xanaqui]

Trying to carve your way through walls as a matter of course is very odd indeed.

I guess your players never decided to make counter-dungeons under the existing dungeon, eh?

 

[eleran]

You know, it's okay to compare rules lawyers to pedophiles. Really.

Rules lawyers should not be allowed to live within 200 yards of schools.

 

[hong]

Rules lawyers should not be allowed to live within 200 yards 120 squares of schools.

FIF4E

 

[Hussar]

At the end of the day, it really boils down to this:

What did the hardness rules bring to the table? Not to DM's world building efforts, because, quite frankly, I don't think the game should care about that. I want the game to concentrate on what's happening at the table.

So, hardness in 3.5 was pretty much entirely bypassed by about 5th level. Either it was bypassed by Adamantine Spoons or Power Attack. Hardness rarely came up in play, unless you had a player who liked Improved Sunder (and wasn't adverse to being pelted by dice after destroying treasure).

What do we actually lose by taking hardness out of the equation? The whole "tunnel under the walls" thing is still viable through skill checks. The terminator style golem smashing through walls is still viable. The "smash the idol before Cthulu gets here" works in play.

What did we lose?

 

[SteveC]

At the end of the day, it really boils down to this:

What did the hardness rules bring to the table? Not to DM's world building efforts, because, quite frankly, I don't think the game should care about that. I want the game to concentrate on what's happening at the table.

So, hardness in 3.5 was pretty much entirely bypassed by about 5th level. Either it was bypassed by Adamantine Spoons or Power Attack. Hardness rarely came up in play, unless you had a player who liked Improved Sunder (and wasn't adverse to being pelted by dice after destroying treasure).

What do we actually lose by taking hardness out of the equation? The whole "tunnel under the walls" thing is still viable through skill checks. The terminator style golem smashing through walls is still viable. The "smash the idol before Cthulu gets here" works in play.

What did we lose?

It's simple: we lost the real, official rules on how difficult it is to break things. The groups that I run used these rules all the time, and they didn't always have weapons to bypass hardness. My current 3.5 Shackled City campaign has me working with breaking and destroying objects just about every session.

I can make up the rules, or use those from the previous edition, but why should I have to? The first time I run a new edition, I always do a run-through using the RAW, and I know that my players will find this change either exploitable or annoying and we'll all end up thinking it was a silly thing to remove.

But that all misses the point. The rules were in the game, and now they're gone. What did we gain by taking them out? The DMG is significantly shorter than the other books, so there is no doubt that there was room to keep this table in the game. There was a conscious decision made to remove these rules, so what was behind it?

I'll say this a second time: where was the outcry on the hardness rules in 3X to begin with? There wasn't any!

--Steve