Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 7526114" data-attributes="member: 957">So far so good.&nbsp; well that was good while it lasted.But you are moving the goalposts here.&nbsp; I certainly run game where high levels characters routinely revisit places they have been when they were much lower level.&nbsp; The setting is still the same setting.&nbsp; I find it bothersome that this seems not only unlikely, but undesirable.&nbsp; &nbsp; They certainly go to fantastic and challenging places.&nbsp; But they also find high challenges coming to them.&nbsp; Go back and read the posts being made when I joined this thread.&nbsp; I have not said that the burned out shack or its doors *should* be a challenge.&nbsp; But it is perfectly ok to be fighting a serious challenge in the vicinity of a door which remains trivial.&nbsp; To me this is beneath comment.&nbsp; But you have expressly stated that this isn't the way you do it.&nbsp; And the 4E DMG RAW supports you.&nbsp; &nbsp; Therefore I am expressing opposition to that approach.&nbsp; Asked and answered.There are three rolls.&nbsp; Roll 1 and 3 are in absolute and clear terms stated as a function of the character.&nbsp; &nbsp; The check to &quot;get a hold and swing to&quot; (monster X) is a function of character level.&nbsp; It pays zero attention to what (Monster x) is.&nbsp; Roll 2 is the kicking of (monster x) and it is against the Fort of that monster.&nbsp; This is where Orcus would be harder than the ogre.&nbsp; They wrote that very clearly.&nbsp; If they meant for the monster to be part of roll #1 then they would obviously have used the same language.&nbsp; They didn't.&nbsp; They used the character level because they intended it that way.OK, so 4E is now funneling my options.&nbsp; I choose to play a game that doesn't do this.And, again *you* are missing the larger point.&nbsp; The &quot;larger point&quot; is the 4E that could have been.&nbsp; There is one big elephant in the room here of why 4E alienated people. I don't care that you love playing your game your way.&nbsp; That is no issues to me and wonderful that you have that option.&nbsp;&nbsp; There are reasons to reject this play and a game which was more open-minded about varying play styles could have been much more successful.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BryonD, post: 7526114, member: 957"] So far so good. well that was good while it lasted. But you are moving the goalposts here. I certainly run game where high levels characters routinely revisit places they have been when they were much lower level. The setting is still the same setting. I find it bothersome that this seems not only unlikely, but undesirable. They certainly go to fantastic and challenging places. But they also find high challenges coming to them. Go back and read the posts being made when I joined this thread. I have not said that the burned out shack or its doors *should* be a challenge. But it is perfectly ok to be fighting a serious challenge in the vicinity of a door which remains trivial. To me this is beneath comment. But you have expressly stated that this isn't the way you do it. And the 4E DMG RAW supports you. Therefore I am expressing opposition to that approach. Asked and answered. There are three rolls. Roll 1 and 3 are in absolute and clear terms stated as a function of the character. The check to "get a hold and swing to" (monster X) is a function of character level. It pays zero attention to what (Monster x) is. Roll 2 is the kicking of (monster x) and it is against the Fort of that monster. This is where Orcus would be harder than the ogre. They wrote that very clearly. If they meant for the monster to be part of roll #1 then they would obviously have used the same language. They didn't. They used the character level because they intended it that way. OK, so 4E is now funneling my options. I choose to play a game that doesn't do this. And, again *you* are missing the larger point. The "larger point" is the 4E that could have been. There is one big elephant in the room here of why 4E alienated people. I don't care that you love playing your game your way. That is no issues to me and wonderful that you have that option. There are reasons to reject this play and a game which was more open-minded about varying play styles could have been much more successful. [/QUOTE]

Verification