NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5472189" data-attributes="member: 22779">But, this isn't true.  That's the whole problem in a nutshell.  Your second case is actually factually false.  Nothing in the skill challenge make-up actually states this.  For one, you can adjudicate that a success counts as more than one success, for another, all of the DM advice in 4e says that simply tallying up numbers is BORING and shouldn't be done.If you want to pull a SC out of context and ignore the rest of the DMG, fine.  But, let's actually discuss facts.  BryonD talked up thread about how an armored knight and a bare chested pirate would have the same defenses if they are the same CR.  That is false.An armored knight would be a soldier and a bare chested pirate would be a skirmisher.  Different hit points, different defenses, different capabilities, even though they would have the same CR.  Even within a given CR, different creatures of the same type (soldier, artillery, etc) will have different defenses and hit points and capabilities, although, to be fair, they'll be close.Pretty much exactly the same way that two similar creatures in earlier editions would have very similar stats - an orc and a goblin aren't too far apart.  Why?  Because the in game narrative is more believable?  Maybe.  Or could it be that game designers, looking at two similar monsters, give them similar stats because they are similar challenges?Chicken or the egg?To me, the only difference between the 4e decision process and earlier editions is that the decision process is transparent.  We KNOW why a CR X creature has Y defenses - it's spelled out very clearly in the monster creation rules.  There's a reason why monster creation rules in earlier editions were so opaque - most of the decision processes were not transparent.  They were based a lot on, "Well, an ogre is about this big, we need something between an ogre and a giant, well, let's make a troll fit that spot."There's no narrative reason why an troll is bigger than an ogre and smaller than a giant.  A troll is there because you need a big, tough bruiser for PC's to beat on that fits in the 5th level character range.Now, I'm sure there are monsters out there that were created in the other direction - let's figure out a fictional background for the monster and then make mechanics for it.  Sure.  But, most of the time, those mechanics are going to be informed by the design space around that monster, not by the narrative.Thus, medusas gazes are savable.  Unlike the narrative, you can have staring contests with D&D medusas.  Because it's a mechanical construct, not for narrative purposes.</blockquote>

Verification