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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 6144355" data-attributes="member: 5143">I mostly agree except for maybe this point.  I think that there's a difference between "rules" and general practices.  The damage per level guidelines are just that...guidelines.  There's certainly no rules in 4e that say you CAN'T have an enemy do 500 points of damage in an attack if you want them to.  On the other hand, that damage would be completely out of line with what other monsters do.  There's guidelines in the book that help the DM estimate how much damage monsters should do based on their level.  Within those rules it does say that you can have some variation, however.I know the rules much better than our DM does.  I DM my own game.  I certainly wouldn't think twice about doubling the damage of a monster if I wanted it to be especially dangerous.  However, I know the rules well enough to know there's a good reason that damage is at the recommended levels.  It helps form a piece of the house of cards that is the math of 4e D&D.  Disturbing that math can cause unexpected side effects.  Like killing 2 people with one attack when you don't mean to.I think you only get a really good sense of how the pieces of the rules fit together to form a cohesive whole by reading the entirety of the rules and having some experience playing the various classes so you know how all their powers work.  Our DM hasn't done that.  So, he doesn't know what happens when you change one number.My point is, I don't think the gap is as wide as you say it is.  It isn't a different game.  It's Jim expecting things based on what is done elsewhere in the rules.  He expects that he gets a choice to be brought back to life because Raise Dead says you do.  He believe this creates a precedence that means ALL effects that bring people back to life MUST ask the person's permission.  Jim says that every trap in the book makes an attack roll against a defense to hit.  That's the way traps work.  Our DM isn't aware of this precedent so whenever he makes up new rituals or traps, he just makes things up off the top of his head without the existing rules as a guideline.Though, I don't think anyone would say that any DM who made up a new ritual, power, monster or trap was playing an entirely different game than they were.</blockquote>

Verification