Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 6006551" data-attributes="member: 7635">Agreed, and it probably is 4e's greatest design flaw as a game*. 4e presented a lot of rules, and told you to make up the fluff that went along with it. Even with things like knocking ochre jellies prone or martial dailies, the biggest offender was the DC system. I have no idea why a door in a level 1 dungeon is DC 13, while one in a level 8 dungeon is DC 20 other than to account for 1/2 level math. In 3e, if I want a more solid door, I look at the table for the different types of doors and select the one that either makes the most sense or makes the best adventure. In 4e, I select the level of the challenge to set the DC and then justify why its that high. Is it adamantine? Is it superior dwarven craftsmanship? No answer is given, so I get to pick one or it goes un-explained and the PCs wonder why its getting harder to bash down doors in the new dungeon.From a DM's perspective, I'd rather the rules try to model the game's reality than have to justify their existence. Put another way, I'd rather look up an adamantine door and see its bash DC is 26 than look up a level 8 challenge, see the door DC should be 26, and have to decide that its adamantine. The former feels consistent, the latter arbitrary.* That is, taken on its whole against other RPGs. Against other forms of D&D, I can count a number of greater failings, but that's neither here nor there.</blockquote>