Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 4131440" data-attributes="member: 4937">Except it doesn't say that exactly.&nbsp; It says, &quot;The system was designed with the following assumptions...&nbsp; On average the following should happen...&nbsp; Encounters should normally span this range of CR...&quot; and so forth.&nbsp; Those are guidelines.Oh good grief.&nbsp; Clearly encounter design is not nearly as tightly as specified as say the rules for resolving combat.&nbsp; In theory a DM has the option of designing new spells or weapons (and it should be noted that he has only guidelines for this), but he is expected to engage in some sort of encounter design and given very broad latitude in doing so.&nbsp; I certainly haven't been praising the 4E team for constraining DM options, just explaining them better.95% of all statistics are invented on the spot.Analogies really aren't your strong point.&nbsp; Extending a loose intentionally humorous analogy way past its intended use doesn't prove a point.&nbsp; So let's dispense with them a while.&nbsp; It isn't like a blender at all.It's like telling me that the new encounter system lets me do things that my system could already do, but that now more detailed examples and better guidelines will be provided.&nbsp; That's what its like.&nbsp; My point is to the extent that the examples are useful and the guidelines better, they'll largely apply to 3rd edition as well - which is why the 4e DMG might be the only 4e book I buy.Those that actually understand the difference, don't get sneered at.&nbsp; In fact, no one gets sneered at until they make a point of sneering at me.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 4131440, member: 4937"] Except it doesn't say that exactly. It says, "The system was designed with the following assumptions... On average the following should happen... Encounters should normally span this range of CR..." and so forth. Those are guidelines. Oh good grief. Clearly encounter design is not nearly as tightly as specified as say the rules for resolving combat. In theory a DM has the option of designing new spells or weapons (and it should be noted that he has only guidelines for this), but he is expected to engage in some sort of encounter design and given very broad latitude in doing so. I certainly haven't been praising the 4E team for constraining DM options, just explaining them better. 95% of all statistics are invented on the spot. Analogies really aren't your strong point. Extending a loose intentionally humorous analogy way past its intended use doesn't prove a point. So let's dispense with them a while. It isn't like a blender at all. It's like telling me that the new encounter system lets me do things that my system could already do, but that now more detailed examples and better guidelines will be provided. That's what its like. My point is to the extent that the examples are useful and the guidelines better, they'll largely apply to 3rd edition as well - which is why the 4e DMG might be the only 4e book I buy. Those that actually understand the difference, don't get sneered at. In fact, no one gets sneered at until they make a point of sneering at me. [/QUOTE]

Verification