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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6144801" data-attributes="member: 42582">As far as I can tell you are talking about the encounter budget guidelines. As I said upthread:I've never seen anyone advising 4e players to disregard the level-appropriate DC numbers, defences, bonuses, damage numbers etc. In fact, the most common single bit of advice I've seen in relation to 4e is the reply to someone expressing concers about grind, namely, stop using above-level soldier monsters!If you build a notionally 1st level monster but give it 20 AC, +9 vs AC for 4d10 hp of damage plus grab with an escape DC of 30, in what sense is it a 1st level monster anymore? 1st level, in 4e, doesn't have any meaning except by reference to the mecanical parameters that it establishes. In the case of a 1st lvl monster, that would be AC somewhere in the vicinity of 15 (say 12-18 as a feasible range), attack bonus around +6 vs AC, damage somewhere beteween 2d4+1 (75% standard damage) and 4d6+2 (200% standard damage, but in that case probably no rider effects) and an escape DC of 12 (Medium DC) or thereabouts.This is quite separate from the issue of encounter budgets.As [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] and [MENTION=5143]Majoru Oakheart[/MENTION] have indicated, they depart from these numbers, but neither said they ignore them. For instance, I'm guessing that they think about new damage values in relation to them (eg my PCs are super-optimisers for damage, so I'm going to double the damage output of all my monsters). Another common anti-grind measure is similar (halve monster hit points, double monster damage).Yes, I think there is an objective difference between encounter building budget guidlines, and level-appropriate DC/bonus/damage guidelines. The first basically serve a pacing function. The second are much more important, and set out the fundamental architecture within which the game's action resolution has been built. That's why they have been errata-ed multiple times (DCs in the DMG, DMG2 and Essentials, and damaeg in MM3): because the designers misunderstood their own architecture first time round!Who disagrees with that? But obviously if most of the time you are ignoring the numbers, then you wasted the money you paid to purchase them! Good RPG design is about coming up with numbers, and systems that use those numbers, which will fairly reliably produce good gaming sessions. Again, maybe you don't think players are entitled to good sessions. I do, though - hence I think that designers (whom the players are paying, after all) are under an obligation to try and come up with decent numbers and decent systems; and GMs who disregard the system that everyone thought they were using an make up their own numbers and their own systems are under some obligation to try and come up with decent ones.What does 150 hp of damage simulate? Or 1000 hp? Or 10 hp? They're just numbers. They don't have any meaning until they're applied to particular PCs. Was the GM trying to simulate an unstoppable blast of light and energy that would kill all in it's path? Apparently not, as he got a surprise when the PCs died!I don't think the notion of simulation has much utility in analysing this particular episode of play.</blockquote>

Verification