Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Primal" data-source="post: 4106172" data-attributes="member: 30678">And I could give any monsters those same "unique" abilities in 3E, too. However, I think this sort of exception-based mechanics in a highly gamist system is awkward. First of all, as has been pointed out on many threads, it requires a lot DM "judgement calls" and houseruling -- often on the fly. I see it as a step backwards towards AD&D (my group had *tons* of houserules and we were glad as we got rid of them in 3E). It also requires a very good understanding of the system and balance, which only comes with experience (so new DMs may be struggling with 4E a lot more than they would have with 3E). And, as it has also been ponted out on several threads, the players may be interested in or irritated at these "unique" abilities -- they may want you to explain them in mechanical terms (such as the 'Meat Shield'-ability or those of the Assassin Mearls described) or their characters to have them. In the latter case you have to deny them or to houserule that ability into a Feat. Or what if the PCs want to use those "entangling" pots thrown by Kobold Warslingers? What is the 'prof. number' (attack bonus) with them? Or reserach how they could turn their bodies into water? Should you allow that? How would you explain it in game mechanics? I would noy buy any "Well, uh, it's kind of unique magic thing..."-type of stuff from my DM. Here's the thing: 4E may let you tinker with a lot of stuff, but this requires both experience and a whole lot creative effort (which is really no different, in my opinion, how things work in 3E). I'm sure that DMG and MM have a lot of space devoted to just that, but this sort of creativity and the ability to improvise (and houserule) on the fly takes time to develop (e.g. Should this innkeeper have the 'Hurl Tankards within the Common Room'-special attack or is it outright silly? Should the armorsmith have 'Hammer Smash'-ability and/or 'Throw Anvil'?). It's especially hard to develop a sense of understanding, because some NPCs and PCs work under different rules than the rest. Personally, I'd be all fine with these 'exception-based' abilities if we were talking about a Trait- or Quality-based system with PC abilities and talents freely defined or even improvised by the players as well (e.g. 'Strong as an ox +3' or 'Crimson Cut +5'). To me this sort of weird mix of very "crunchy" and clear-cut mechanics (which the PCs operate under) and a combination of freely-developed stuff and clear-cut mechanics (which the NPCs and monsters operate under) results in a confusing and problematic experience. Not to mention that it shatters my Sense of Disbelief. It feels like trying to combine some aspects of the Shadow of Yesterday with Riddle of Steel (alright, perhaps an exaggeration, but you get the point). Conspiracy of Shadows actually manages to do that surprisingly well, but then again, the system works the same way for everyone.  I wonder if less creative and experienced DMs find 4E *any* easier to run than 3E?</blockquote>

Verification