Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 5619163" data-attributes="member: 22424">I agree.When this was first discussed, I was very much opposed to having PCs use different rules. I'll now quite freely admit that I was badly wrong about this.While there's a certain elegance I can admire in making the rules symmetric like that, the simple truth is that the DM doesn't need anywhere near as much information on each monster as the players need on their characters, and providing that information simply led to a huge amount of preparation.(At least, to do it 'right'. There are many shortcuts the DM can use. Problem is, if he uses them, and only preps what he needs, then he's not really using the same rules for both. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> )They didn't lie, they failed. Or maybe they didn't even fail - the "inherent bonuses" optional rule removes any need for magic items, the "big six" was reduced to a "big three", and there's generally much less reliance on magic items.IOW, I think you're wrong about this. (Now, if you'd complained that 4e magic items are boring...)Yes, I agree absolutely.Rituals were a brilliant idea, and I'm absolutely gutted they were never allowed to reach their full potential, and that they've been de-emphasised in Essentials.I agree, with the caveat that neither did any previous editions. It's just that the breakpoints are in different places. (Sadly, for me, some of those places in 4e are quite intolerable.)Um, really? In any previous edition, if the DM flat refuses to allow you to attack an object, just how can you force him?4e takes some inspiration from video games. It takes some inspiration from board games. It takes some inspiration from miniature games. In some of these cases, I would consider this to be a mistake (it doesn't seem wise to try to compete with WoW by aping the things WoW does better; better instead to focus on the things WoW can't offer). But as a whole, I simply don't accept that 4e is video-gamey, board-gamey, or whatever. (Some groups can, of course, play it that way, but that's their choice.)You probably use a number close to that for their other attacks. Or use the table on Page 42 of the DMG for inspiration for a value that's "about right". And that's about it - it's quite simple, it does work, and it gives generally good, usable, and fun results.As for "breaking the game", it really doesn't. Don't your party have ranged attacks? The striker? The controller? Failing that, if they literally have no means to strike back, then they need to run, find cover, or find a way to change the battlefield... just like in the real world. It's a sucky situation to be in, to be sure, but it hardly breaks the game. (Unless, of course, you as the DM just wants to deliberately wipe out the party for whatever reason. In which case it's a DMing flaw rather than the game - pretty much any game allows you to pull the unwinnable combat on the PCs.)One final thought: I'm not particularly a fan of 4e, and I'm not keen on having to defend it. But, really...</blockquote>

Verification