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

[hong]

^ This. The discrepancy between object toughness and monster toughness is something you can't ignore, if you do actually want destroyable objects in fights as a matter of course.

 

[Pistonrager]

Wow... this thread is still getting posts?

Ok, my 2 cents....

If your M.O. is to Bash thru walls instead of walking around a dungeon. Fine. There are no rules for it past a certain point. Because it becomes a physical impossibility for players. If I remember correctly someone put a DC 35 strength check to break a 3 foot thick stone wall. So... a natural 20 with a 40 strength... if you think you'll need rules that go farther than that your thinking about how walls get break.

Attacking walls with weapons? That's just ridiculous. If I was your DM I'd let you do that and if it wasn't a maul of the titans it would break or get jammed in the wall where it wouldn't come out till you spend several hours carefully removing it with the proper tools, and if you tried to just yank it out it'd break.

I have no problem with hacking your way though a wooden door, or kicking it down, but stone and metal walls or doors? Blade stuck in door haft bent or splintered.

In a fantasy game I think it's important to keep the fantasy elements and the mundane elements separate. Sure magic can blow a hole thru a wall, but that's magic.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

(There was the time when a gnome monk with admantine knuckle-dusters pummeled a dwarf-made stone bridge into rubble, but the guy running that game was a very good example of a bad DM.)

That actually sounds really awesome.

 

[Drakmar]

From my point of view 4e seems to have gone down a more heroic path. Therefore I think I am going to apply the WWCD rule. Or the What Would Conan Do. If I think that Conan would bash down a wall with his bare hands then by jimity, so can the characters.

If I feel that they are getting a bit silly about it.. I might add rules, like object resist all, or weapon damage etc. Heck I might break their hands if they fail a Con check (so Conan could smash through the wall for longer than a wizard).

I tend to moderate my game based on the level of saneness of my players and also whether or not THEY want to play a stupid fun game or a smart fun game.

 

[Chris Stalis]

[P]resenting the choice of "The world is made of cheese" vs. "Just house rule it" is, frankly, bad game design, unless someone can articulate WHY hardness had to be removed -- something I notice no one here has done. No one has come forth with a horror story about how their entire campaign crashed to the ground because of hardness. No one had said "We never attack objects in our game, the hardness rules are just too complicated". No one's said why this change is good, needed, or beneficial, just that "You can ignore it if you don't like it."

Believe it or not, I actually have a horror story that is not derived from the hardness rules, per se, but the copious list of rules, charts and tables displayed in the DMG & PHB.

During my time at college, I introduced a group of about 8 people to D&D in 2004, and DMed for them till summer 2005. After a bit of transition, one of the people I introduced took 5 of us on for a group in early 2006, and served for DM in 3 campaigns spanning 2006 to 2008 here, with breaks and lulls forcing each campaign to only exist for so long.

At the start of his career, I would have rated the DM rather highly. For the most part, he was imaginative and new how to run a fun game. We were all happy with how it ended, and he moved on to his next campaign. I had to step out for much of it, but I made it back in around the 1/2 to 2/3 mark. Unfortunately, I noticed my friend's style of DMing had changed.

The problem was that one of the players, a good friend of everyone in the group, had turned into a rules lawyer since I last played, and a min-maxing rules lawyer at that. He was specifically playing a Dancing Dervish that was capable of producing 200+ damage a round, all through legal avenues open to 3.5 characters. His constant argument for allowing this (and what caused the DM to lock up over time) was that it was "by the rules".

As time progressed, this player increasingly bullied the DM with the rules book. If something didn't make sense, entire hour long arguments and discussions could ensue regarding spell or action taken. The longer this went on, the less the DM was willing to fudge or just play loose and fast because he knew that he would have be able to point to the book for anything he ever did. This eventually led to a gaming environment where +9 to +12 total stat bonuses were required for playing, PCs would come very close to dying after a single bad roll, and the entire session grinded to a halt when there was a misinterpertation in the rules.

Now, I realize some will criticize me and my friends for not doing more to stop this ruleslawyer, either by discussion or exclusion. This was touchy, though, as we were all close friends and several were roommates. Discussion was used a few times, but produced few results. Exclusion was unsatisfying because we wanted to do something as a group, so kicking him out was never a viable option. So we kept playing, muddled along, and just dealt with it.

Still, this brings me to my point: it MUST be supported by the rules that the DM has absolute authority, even over the rules themselves. Every table, every chart, every description of ability and effect does not add to but detracts from the power of the DM because they provide opportunity for the players to say "no, you're wrong". Sure, the DM can hammer away with fiat, but unless the characters expect fiat to routinely trump, the gaming mood suffers. So, for that reason alone, the hardness table needed to go. Otherwise, a player could just point to it and you can't do too much to stop them, even if this particular course of action destroys the story.

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.

 

[silentounce]

Wow... this thread is still getting posts?

Ok, my 2 cents....

If your M.O. is to Bash thru walls instead of walking around a dungeon. Fine. There are no rules for it past a certain point. Because it becomes a physical impossibility for players. If I remember correctly someone put a DC 35 strength check to break a 3 foot thick stone wall. So... a natural 20 with a 40 strength... if you think you'll need rules that go farther than that your thinking about how walls get break.

Attacking walls with weapons? That's just ridiculous. If I was your DM I'd let you do that and if it wasn't a maul of the titans it would break or get jammed in the wall where it wouldn't come out till you spend several hours carefully removing it with the proper tools, and if you tried to just yank it out it'd break.

I have no problem with hacking your way though a wooden door, or kicking it down, but stone and metal walls or doors? Blade stuck in door haft bent or splintered.

In a fantasy game I think it's important to keep the fantasy elements and the mundane elements separate. Sure magic can blow a hole thru a wall, but that's magic.

You know, hardness rules aren't just for hacking at walls with swords. They could use magical attacks as well, you know? You even seemed to point it out. And, actually, given things hardness flat out prevents characters from hacking at walls with swords effectively while providing a means to determine other powers' effects on them.

I really don't see why ask for a small Hardness table, or the like is such a bad thing. Is it absolutely necessary? Of course not.

Still, this brings me to my point: it MUST be supported by the rules that the DM has absolute authority, even over the rules themselves. Every table, every chart, every description of ability and effect does not add to but detracts from the power of the DM because they provide opportunity for the players to say "no, you're wrong". Sure, the DM can hammer away with fiat, but unless the characters expect fiat to routinely trump, the gaming mood suffers. So, for that reason alone, the hardness table needed to go. Otherwise, a player could just point to it and you can't do too much to stop them, even if this particular course of action destroys the story.

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.

This is why I long for the days when the players never even looked at the DMG, or cared for that matter. Although, I disagree with your general premise that less rules = less complaing/rules lawyering by annoying players. A DM always has the power to say no regardless of what the rules say. Typically, that only upsets the annoying rules lawyering players. Why let them bully you, it takes the fun away from everyone else. I'd rather piss of one guy, friend or not, than let him piss off everybody. I guess 5.0 will contain no rules and that will be the best system then, right? Where do you draw the line?

Blaming the rules for the existence of rules lawyers is like blaming children for the existence of pedophiles.

 

[Pistonrager]

You know, hardness rules aren't just for hacking at walls with swords. They could use magical attacks as well, you know?

yes, I do. that kind of damage also did less to items...I don't have the book with me but I believe is was half damage and then hardness that applied... so you had to do twice it's hardness just to hurt it... and by the time you could do that to and item worth breaking, you could use a spell to just break it without worrying about it's hit points..

 

[theNater]

There is a finite amount of space in the books.

Things that come up very often, like "can I kill the monster" get multiple chapters.

Things that come up fairly often, like "can I break down the door" get a page or so.

Things that come up fairly rarely, like "can I tunnel into the keep" get a sentence, usually indicating that it's up to the DM.

Things that come up very rarely, like "can I start a purple worm ranch" are not mentioned.



As for the claims that hardness is absent, "hardness" comes into play in two places: the object destruction rules(objects made of harder materials have more hit points) and the wall destruction rules(objects made of harder materials require a higher DC to break through). It is not explicitly referenced, but that doesn't mean it's not there.

The answer to "can I bash through the stone wall with my fists" can be given as either "no, because you can't do a meaningful amount of hit point damage compared to its total before becoming exhausted" or "no, because the DC to break through it is higher than you can achieve, even with a 20 on the die." That's if "no, because it's made of stone and you have soft and fleshy fists" is not acceptable.

 

[hong]

Blaming the rules for the existence of rules lawyers is like blaming children for the existence of pedophiles.

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

 

[Pistonrager]

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

I think he did.

That's a heck of a thing to say. Like blaming wife beating on her not being in the kitchen... ah... comparing stupid crap to really serious stuff is fun.

Blaming the rules for the existence of rules lawyers is like blaming speculator for the price of oil. hmm... that ones not as fun.