Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Skyscraper" data-source="post: 5689472" data-attributes="member: 48518">I'd most probably indeed use a soldier to represent a knight. The problem I see with using a higher level soldier to represent a knight on which I want a higher AC is of course that all other defenses go up simultaneously.I guess what I'm saying is that it's OK to play with the math, as long as you do it with some measure of understanding. In days of old (read: 1E), I used to prepare large-scale battles with fighters having widely varying ACs, hit points and damage output. And it worked.It's possible in 4E to change the math, as long as you're aware of what you're doing. There is no strict obligation to follow the monster creation rules by the letter. But one must be alert that if he increases an opponent's AC, it might result in the dreaded grind (which happens occasionally anyway). In general, if you give more to the opponents, the fight is tougher; and vice versa. I stayed true to the math for a while (I've DMed quite a bit), and now I feel comfortable in toying with it. I'm starting to introduce magic items with stronger powers for my PCs to find, I'll plug a standard monster with 150% HPs because he's an important bad guy, but I didn't feel his role justified using an elite, I use a low-magic setting (though some of my magic items are more powerful), I modify defenses to fit the creature's flavor such as a high AC, a very low Fortitude or Will (my dumb hill giant had a ridicilously hittable Will defense - the PCs quickly picked up on it and used this weakness to some measure of success), etc...As a DM I find it unsatisfying that all NPC fighters (e.g. soldiers) of a same level have about the same number of hit points (CON or STR will vary the HPs slightly), the same AC, etc.. I like that different creatures be different mechanically. I like for the PCs to look an opponent and have an idea of what type of attack might work. I just played in a game where a dumb-looking, full-plate armored elite orog (I think he was an elite anyway, maybe a lower level solo) had high defenses all around. It's not forbidden to have such a creature of course, but as a player you end up thinking all of your attacks are the same anyway. I like for spells to be efficient because the wizard is capable of targetting creatures that he realizes are weak-willed or clumsy; just like I like that the weapon-using classes are pretty confident that they have more likelihood of success attacking a leather-armored opponent than a full-plate and large shield opponent. (Of course, some exceptions exist and the occasional leather-armored opponent will end up being extraordinarily agile.) If you stick to core 4E rules however, if you design a soldier of a given level, that soldier will have a set AC value notwithstanding what equipment he wears. Equipment is flavor.Edit: oh and about XP... We can't be slaves to them, it's OK to modify monsters and wing XPs to some extent. A DM can vary XP anyway to represent quest awards and the like. So following a very strict XP chart is not that important. But if you feel it is, then sure, increasing XPs for a tougher opponent and vice versa, why not.I know many people refuse this kind of approach categorically. You know what? Don't tell your players. Have fun playing, dish out XPs every few sessions to represent game advancement (i.e. game advancement is my free-form reward that replaces quest awards, i.e. if the players end up doing 3 RP-only sessions with no battle and no real quest accomplished but everyone had fun and it pushed the story in a fun direction, for me the purpose of the game is fully accomplished and XPs will be awarded equally to everyone) and creatures killed, and everyone is happy.I like having some "oh this guy is tough" comment, who cares about the math? I have to care as a DM to avoid TPKs or fights that are too easy; but for the players, the mechanics need to be invisible, and I want them to think in-character instead of metagaming according to strict, predictable 4E rules. I understand that some players don't like this style, I'm just sharing my approach.</blockquote>

Verification