Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="herrozerro" data-source="post: 5888470" data-attributes="member: 86211">Personally im against the 3e method, is much too complicated and only serves to hamper a DMs ability to create a game.I would rather give a level 1 wizard some cool abilities to fight the party rather then have to wait to spring a level 7 monstrocity of feats and class levels just to get that cool idea to work.An I have had in my games disconnects with my players on monster vs PC rules, but each time we sit down and talk it out.&nbsp; the most recent i can remember was the mounted rules, in 4e monsters if they are considered a credable threat still act separately.&nbsp; So for instance a wizard riding a manticore both creatures would have actions.THis upset my cavalier player who cried foul that his mount had to share his actions.&nbsp; which got a few more player going ... Hmm yeah why cant we have full actions for our mounts.&nbsp; I just told them the straight truth, that if they were gonig to have mounts with full actions i would have to start counting them as at least half PCs for encounter building purposes, you can just add +6 more rounds of actions and expect the game to function as normal.Was it a meta reason?&nbsp; Yes.&nbsp; But it's for the betterment of the game.Much like the PCs gaining NPC powers.&nbsp; If a player wanted to learn a specific power that a monster wielded in a fight, I would first consider the method that the NPC aquired the power, if its just a fighting style or a spell aquired form a book, i'd let the player attempt to learn it.&nbsp; following the rules for regular power assignment.if it's a racial ability or some kind of unlearnable thing most likely not.my point is that sometimes PCs and NPC IMO need to play by different rules.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="herrozerro, post: 5888470, member: 86211"] Personally im against the 3e method, is much too complicated and only serves to hamper a DMs ability to create a game. I would rather give a level 1 wizard some cool abilities to fight the party rather then have to wait to spring a level 7 monstrocity of feats and class levels just to get that cool idea to work. An I have had in my games disconnects with my players on monster vs PC rules, but each time we sit down and talk it out. the most recent i can remember was the mounted rules, in 4e monsters if they are considered a credable threat still act separately. So for instance a wizard riding a manticore both creatures would have actions. THis upset my cavalier player who cried foul that his mount had to share his actions. which got a few more player going ... Hmm yeah why cant we have full actions for our mounts. I just told them the straight truth, that if they were gonig to have mounts with full actions i would have to start counting them as at least half PCs for encounter building purposes, you can just add +6 more rounds of actions and expect the game to function as normal. Was it a meta reason? Yes. But it's for the betterment of the game. Much like the PCs gaining NPC powers. If a player wanted to learn a specific power that a monster wielded in a fight, I would first consider the method that the NPC aquired the power, if its just a fighting style or a spell aquired form a book, i'd let the player attempt to learn it. following the rules for regular power assignment. if it's a racial ability or some kind of unlearnable thing most likely not. my point is that sometimes PCs and NPC IMO need to play by different rules. [/QUOTE]

Verification