Mearls on Balance in D&D

[Quasqueton]

The Book of Iron Might/Iron Heroes approach can be summed up as: anyone can pull off a fancy trick, but feats are available to make fancy tricks easier or more effective if you want to really excel.

Like sunder, disarm, grapple, trip and their Improved X feats?

Anyone can bluff, hide, ride, etc. But those who take ranks in the skills, and have the ability scores to give bonuses will be better at them.

Quasqueton

 

[Greg K]

Like sunder, disarm, grapple, trip and their Improved X feats?

Quasqueton

Things like throw sand in the eyes, stun an opponent, disable a limb, inflict ability score penalties- all without needing a feat.

 

[MerricB]

Things like throw sand in the eyes, stun an opponent, disable a limb, inflict ability score penalties- all without needing a feat.

Ah... you mean cast spells. All without training.

 

[Greg K]

Ah... you mean cast spells. All without training.

Well, there are to hit penalities. Plus, there are additional penalties. One might open themselves up to AoAs from either their target or everyone around them, suffer an AC penalty, etc.

Btw, anyone curious should check out montecook.com. There is cheat sheat which shows how to build maneuvers as well as a web enhancment containing eighteen prebuilt sample maneuvers.

 

[Aaron L]

I've played in several games like that too. Many of them using 3.0 or 3.5 rules. As I said above, I don't buy the notion that more comprehensive rules is somehow a protection from bad DMing.

Not really anything is protection against a bad DM. But more comprehensive rules are very nice for a DM who has his heart in the right place but isn't really very masterful at it (which category I place myself in.)

 

[Odysseus]

Back to the original quote
Mike Mearls:
"The one thing I learned is the importance of balance in designing character options. I can't create an NPC or monster that can reliable hit the dinosaur pet without almost automatically hitting everyone else. Putting the DM into the position of challenging one PC or the rest of the party makes for a bad game. It's something that high level play makes all the more obvious."

Whats he on about here. Limiting character builds? And why, becasue he's had trouble hitting one cohort character. If a monster having trouble hitting a PC , I'd switch tactics to something that would effect the PC.

 

[hong]

Back to the original quote
Mike Mearls:
"The one thing I learned is the importance of balance in designing character options. I can't create an NPC or monster that can reliable hit the dinosaur pet without almost automatically hitting everyone else. Putting the DM into the position of challenging one PC or the rest of the party makes for a bad game. It's something that high level play makes all the more obvious."

Whats he on about here. Limiting character builds? And why, becasue he's had trouble hitting one cohort character. If a monster having trouble hitting a PC , I'd switch tactics to something that would effect the PC.

Rock-paper-scissors is boring.

 

[Silver Moon]

Last night's game was a great example of where party balance would have helped. The foe was a mechanical dragon (Dungeon Magazine module "Unchained") with 120 Hit Points. Of the six characters one was 2nd level, three were 7th level, one 8th level and one 16th level. The 2nd level one participated but was almost killed while the 16th level single-handedly took out the dragon's two main attacks then put over 100 points of damage into it. The players all had fun but I think that a balanced party would have helped. Interestingly enough though, the higher-level character suffered the most as she lost her familiar at the end of the battle.

 

[Hussar]

Suppose a player is allowed to use an INT check to determine if they solve a dragon's riddle. Whatever the outcome, it's certain that the player doesn't derive any enjoyment from the act of solving the riddle, because they don't actually solve it. Which is bad if they like riddles.

That's all I'm talking about re: processes and outcomes.

And even with hiding, I certainly enjoy 'telling the DM I'm hiding behind a barrel" more than just rolling a Hide check. In the same way I prefer to cook up my own lies when I try to bluff an NPC. I enjoy creating as many of the solutions as I can myself, and abstracting away only what really needs to be abstracted. Like all the hitting and the burning and such

On the Int check. There's something to not forget here though. That Int check actually forces the player to play the character in front of him. Something I heartily agree with. I dislike the idea that adventures should be about me and not my character. If my PC is a 6 Int orc barbarian, I probably shouldn't be answering riddles. OTOH, if my PC is a 400 year old elf with a 22 Int, then I probably could answer most riddles posed to me without really trying.

The problem is, in real life, I'm neither of these. At what point should I be able to simply ignore my character sheet and get the pleasure of answering the riddle?

On the second point of telling the DM stuff - there's absolutely nothing stopping you. In fact, using the hide skill, considering you must have total cover relative to the observer in order to hide in the first place, "I hide behind the barrel" should be something you say to the DM. "I hide in shadows" isn't going to cut it if you are under observation.

The same goes for the Bluff skill. You HAVE TO cook up your own lies in order to use the skill. You have to tell the NPC something in order to bluff him. Otherwise, there's nothing for the NPC to believe. "I bluff the guard to let me pass" is not legal by RAW. Bravo, you're playing the game as it is intended to be played.

 

[Hussar]

This may be true of the current edition, but simply is not true of past editions.

Whoops, I said T Foster back there and I meant Gentlegamer. Got my names mixed up.