What was so bad about DMing 3x?

[Kahuna Burger]

I suspect that with regards to 4e, even if a DM does not have Climb stats written down for a specific monster, the DM will be able to determine it without just making something up. But this is a playstyle preference, and completely subjective. If one needs to know that Monster X has a +32 climb check from 18 ranks, +2 synergy, +4 racial, +4 items, +2 sacred bonus, +2 miscellaneous, that's a valid way to play. But objectively, that's very complex. So it's possible there might be simpler ways of reaching a similar result, without necessarily invoking rule 0 or DM fiat (which, by the way, are also valid ways of playing.)

Well, the main way I can the detailed version being useful is if a PC wants to do a targeted dispell to disrupt the monster's climbing attempt. Does it do anything? If you know why a monster has certain abilities, then changing the circumstances those abilities are used in (anti magic, dex or str reduction, etc) is straightforward. If you only have the total, it's fiat alone (and as a DM, I don't always enjoy too much fiat - I feel bound by whether my decision will help or hurt a PC right then more than the abstract judgement call I could make if I chose before it became an issue.)

It's like if a monster stat block only listed the end AC total and not what it came from. If I don't know how much of it is armor, I don't know what the effect on his AC is if a PC gets in a good rusting grasp spell, do I? The more building blocks I have of a monster, the more easily I can respond to a strategy that chips at those blocks rather than jsut wacking the end result - and I like block chipping combats.

 

[HeinorNY]

Except when you want to use the monster for something else than combat. Then those things are important. Or when the monster is supposed to be a combat encounter but the PCs don't fight but do something else (maybe implementing a complicated plan of how to defeat the monster without combat).

Sure, for the average "kick in the door hack & slay" group this won't happen often, but when the players want d&d to be something more than diablo on paper having the same rules for NPCs than for PCs is important.

I completely agree.

Ahem... "Don't let rules replace good DMing skills"- Monte Cook

 

[Novem5er]

I'll give a real easy example of why DMing 3.5 is tough work:

Look at the 3.5 MM entry for the Derro. Unless you have a photographic memory, you must open a total of 3 books to understand and use this CR2 monster.

1. The MM itself
2. The PHB for the "Sound Burst" spell (which all Derro have)
3. The DMG for monstrous spider poison (that Derro use)

So just to see if I want to use this particular monster, I have to spread 3 hard back books open before me to gather all the info needed at once. Pain in the rear... especially for a CR 2 monster.

Now, the way that the CR system is designed, a single Derro is a good fight for a party of 4 2nd level characters. Yet, the Derro has like 11 hp? 14hp? Sure, IF the Derro is hidden, jumps out and does a BackStab (with poison), and then Sound Bursts the remaining party... I guess that would be a good fight. Once. And only if the Derro rolled good on everything, and even then he'd only last another round before it went down.

Again, it's a lot of work to look up and use a simple CR 2 monster who wont live 2 rounds on his own. Let's not even get into adding PC classes with level appropriate magic gear...

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I'll give a real easy example of why DMing 3.5 is tough work:

Look at the 3.5 MM entry for the Derro. Unless you have a photographic memory, you must open a total of 3 books to understand and use this CR2 monster.

1. The MM itself
2. The PHB for the "Sound Burst" spell (which all Derro have)
3. The DMG for monstrous spider poison (that Derro use)

I agree that this is sucky. One of the many reasons I love the hypertext srd, but it's not always an option to do all prep at my computer.

 

[Greg K]

Ahem... "Don't let rules replace good DMing skills"- Monte Cook

Of course, it depends whether or not you think having skill rank rules replaces good DMing. I see a place for them, but I generally use them only for reoccurring pcs. Non-reoccuring NPCs, I just consider what skills they might have and give them ranks based on whether or not I think they would have a skill and how good they would be at the said skill, but I do it during prep so I am prepared.

 

[jaer]

I can see the complaint of high level breakdown, but I feel that way as a player too, so it didn't figure into my assessment of the "fun to play, sucks to DM" comments.

I can feel the breakdown as a player, too. The difference is, when I DM, I feel it is my job to lessen this breakdown as much as possible. It falls on me to balance thinks and to set up an adventure that is balanced and challenging. Players don't need to worry about balance.

if this was for player in my game ...prob 2 hour max...less if i didnt want tio hurt em 2 bad. i controll classes and prestige classes in my game..i dont see why it has to be anything fancy. u know what powers and spells your player have its easy from there . your hurting yourself by trying to do to much why use 4 classes when one works well. why use cr3 mosters if u dont have to or want to i dont get it . most the prob i see is omg i must use every single book i own every time. i must allow players to use every broken feat and magic item they want . alot of prob is solved by saying no sometimes.

I, on the other hand, let me players use just about anything (except the Book of Exalted Deeds...that's fairly broken). I let buy most gear they want...they are 15th lvl and are the some of their kingdom's most valuable defenders. They aren't the most powerful people around, but they are up there.

I do this because being overly restrictive keeps my players from exploring the characters they want to play. I admit it would probably take less time to review rules, spells, feats, and what not before a game a rule whether my players can and can't use them, but I dislike being that involved in controlling what my players can pick. I have, for the first time ever, a psion. I told the player that if a power came up that was too broken, it would be nixed. I did not take the time to read the book and judge which powers might be thus and kill them before hand. It's only come up once, thank goodness.

I could save myself a lot of trouble by narrowing the choices, but that creates a whole different problem: my player's enjoyability, and that is the most important thing.

I do take from a lot of books (and magazines) everytime. Not because I have some masochistic desire to take from everywhere, but because as I flip through the MMs, I think "used that two sessions ago," "saving that for next campaign...hehehe," "used that last campaign...no way they don't remember what that's about," "doesn't fit, doesn't fit, hate that one, doesn't fit...," "eh, that wouldn't survive half a round against these guys," "this thing has Mordenkainen's Disjunction and Implosion 1/day and it's CR 12? WTH?"

In a more easily customizable D&D DM environment (which WotC keeps saying 4e is), this desire for variety will be easier to manage.

 

[Kraydak]

Okay, try this. Create an evil NPC party that can stand up to a Codzilla, Batman wizard, a poucing Barbarian, and <insert most broken skill monkey here>. Use at least one prestige per NPC and have at least one of them be a CR 3+ Monster with class levels. If possible, give one of them an animal companion to ride and use the combat riding feats. Have another one fly around a lot. Everyone is level 17th. Tell me how long you take to plan it all out.

I really don't understand complaints like this. DnD makes NPC creation easy if you let it: use single-classed characters if possible *for the character concept*, if not, *never* use more than 1 PrC and *always* use the obvious PrC entry. Note as your 3e library increases, the odds of there being an "off-the-shelf" base-class that fits the NPC's concept approaches unity.

Remember, optimization is a game for *players*, who want to wring every last ounce of power out of a set level character. The DM can always deal with the fact that, say, the Fighter class is weak by... adding a level or 3. No need to break the rules or try to fit in 3 different PrCs. The DM almost never has to optimize, so I feel that the constraints listed above are unfair. The fact that you *can* make your life complicated doesn't mean that the potential complication counts against 3e.

 

[HeinorNY]

I see a place for them, but I generally use them only for reoccurring pcs. Non-reoccuring NPCs, I just consider what skills they might have and give them ranks based on whether or not I think they would have a skill and how good they would be at the said skill, but I do it during prep so I am prepared.

Exactly, make up what you need, when you need it. Welcome to 4E.

 

[Minicol]

What is so bad about DMing 3x, and do you enjoy DMing other systems but not that one? Help me out, because 4e to me is introducing a system I don't like to fix a "problem" I'd never heard of.

Apart from the usual problem players, strictly nothing.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Except when you want to use the monster for something else than combat. Then those things are important. Or when the monster is supposed to be a combat encounter but the PCs don't fight but do something else (maybe implementing a complicated plan of how to defeat the monster without combat).

These things don't need to be in the statblock in order to be there, ready for the DM to use.