Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ruleslawyer" data-source="post: 4037562" data-attributes="member: 1757">Not to nitpick, but this quote is really not an example of DM fiat. In fact, using the guidelines for DCs, defenses, etc. *is* following the rules 100%; it's just that the rules used to build monsters are different from the rules used to build PCs. They're still rules, though.It seems to me that rather than encouraging DM fiat, 4e may be using the rules more *efficiently* than 3e. IMO, rules in RPGs exist to create a consistent set of expectations for the players; a player can know that if his character does X, then Y result will occur with Z probability. 3e did this well. However, it added a layer of complexity by requesting the DM to follow rules that had no effect in terms of creating a consistent set of player expectations, because the players had no access to the effect of those rules in play. When a PC party in my game faces an aboleth Psi7/Sav5, they have no way of knowing what its powers and stats are, much less any way of knowing how I got there. The idea that I have to build this monster like a player would his PC is, IMO, pretty absurd. Now, if I have the monster do something to break a rule which is transparent to the player (for example, it full attacks, moves, and then full attacks again), I'd better have a good explanation of why (at least to myself), but 4e doesn't seem to be ditching that idea.</blockquote>