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: 6162576" data-attributes="member: 5143">I think this might be splitting hairs.  In football, there are only 11 players on the field.  The rules don't just say "it's a bad idea to have a different number", they say only 11 are allowed at one time.In a similar way, the rules of 4e say not to set the DC of a tightrope to either 10 or 30.  They have the DC for a tightrope listed(25 since it is less than 6 inches wide and 30 if the tightrope is unstable).  If I set the DC to 10 in my game, you better bet one of my players will call me on it and I'll have to explain my reasoning and they'll likely reject that reasoning and insist I follow the rules.My players like the rules because it gives them a central point of reference that we all agree to abide by and even the DM is bound to.  They like the rules specifically because it prevents me from setting the DC at 50 just to screw them and prevents me from setting it at DC 10 and softballing it for them.Also, there is a good reason not to suddenly give a monster a power.  Possible story/flavor reasons.  But also it likely makes the monster too powerful for its level.  Messing with these things can cause major problems in fights.  Even WOTC didn't know how to do it properly as was evident about the discussion we had in a Q&A panel a couple of years ago at GenCon where Mike Mearls said he was trying to find a solution to monsters with stuns being much more powerful than monsters without them.  Plus, also the reverse problem where stuns were more useful against Solos than they were against other monsters.  In the end he said they were likely just going to be "more careful" than they had been in the past about putting stun powers on monsters.I honestly don't see any difference in the way that the Athletics skill for climb and Climb in 3e are presented.  Both give you a list of DCs.  The numbers are slightly different, but other than that, they both tell you what the DCs are to accomplish tasks.  4e lists less examples, so I suppose that gives a DM slightly more leeway, but they are really close to one another.Unless you mean statements in the books that say you can change the rules at any time.  In which case both 3e and 4e have these statements.  This is one area of the game that as far as I can tell stayed exactly the same between 3e and 4e.I see the changes in 4e to be akin to "Here are some well balanced and working set pieces and processes.  We provided a lot less of them than 3e because we promise this time thought went into balancing them.  As the DM, we expect you decide HOW and WHEN to use these set pieces and processes but to leave the pieces/processes themselves unchanged and preferably not to add any new ones because it's a complex process that requires an entire team to balance."Some players really like the fact that they can rely on the pieces and processes NOT to change.  Which allows a solid foundation to play a game.  However, since the DM is expected NOT to mess with these things and it is so difficult to mess with them without causing the house of cards to fall down, it essentially takes the DMs ability to mess with them away.  Which reduces DM authority.Then again, I believe that DM authority had already been taken away BY 3e in the first place.  DMs haven't really had it since 2e.</blockquote>

Verification