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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Zustiur" data-source="post: 4699002" data-attributes="member: 1544">Yep. No argument from me on that. Both methods work. They come from a different mindset, and encourage a different mindset.In my opinion 4E encourages DMs to make up the stats of the monsters to be balanced first, and then put a description on top. On the other hand 3E and earlier editions encourage DMs to create an interesting creature, and assign stats that make sense based on that creature's features in the story, because it's impossible to make a perfectly balanced creature, so you may as well have the rules for the creature make sense instead.Sounds like your DM was applying 4E principles. This creature is supposed to last for 8 rounds, so I'll ensure that happens. Regardless of the fact that killing him in 2 rounds would have been more fun.I think you got the lesson slightly wrong. People have more fun when things aren't changed in ways they don't understand or agree with.Also be careful of changing things on the fly.A similar example from my 4E group:We just fought a small bunch of undead, and went in to our normal post-battle clean up mode. How much XP, how much treasure etc, and moved on. Starting the next battle I went to use my encounter power, but the DM disallowed it because we hadn't declared a short rest. Despite the fact we'd never had to declare one after any previous combat.Your DM changed things mid game, the same as mine did. Both made the same mistake. Yours also made the mistake of altering the rules in a way you couldn't follow - the bad guy you fought should never have been able to have that many HP, even if he'd had it from the start of the fight instead of gaining HP as it went. Your DM ignored the mechanics of the game that you had all agreed to play by (ie the ruleset).Regarding the Con based staff attack: [sarcasm]I hope there's going to be a feat that lets a 20 Str fighter fire his crossbow with his strength instead of Dex! Or better yet, fling Strength based magic missiles around (since that's a basic attack also). Otherwise it wouldn't be balanced [/sarcasm]You just described 4E. It doesn't matter how much I try to alter things as a player, I'm always going to come back to that 60% average you were talking about earlier. Actually it takes the same length of time because the encounter version is intended to deal the same damage as the repeated at will version.Actually... I don't think the rules cover that.If the fighter loses his weapon he gets to punch instead. But there's no instance I can think of where the wizard can't cast magic missile, because there are no components. There are statuses which state 'take no actions', that achieves it, but otherwise... tying and gagging a wizard doesn't stop him because magic missile 'just happens'.Yep. Now try to explain it using Con. I can't.</blockquote>

Verification