Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Windjammer" data-source="post: 4524225" data-attributes="member: 60075">Again, that's a mindset I find laudable, but I see no evidence in the RAW for it. Appealing to the stat block's simplicity doesn't tell either way. And, as I said, I find it telling that the p.42 in the DMG is solely designed to cater for "actions" of the PC "the rules don't cover". Ah, here lies the source of the trouble. Where 3E erred on the side of covering every tedious bit of the game by the same rule mechanics, this leading to an extreme quantative inflation of rules, 4E is hard to digest because it provides rules only for combat, leaving the remainder of the game not integrated into the core mechanic; or, to put it otherwise, leaving the relation the remainder of the game bears to that "core part" unclear and up to the DM. I had never understood and grokked that until I read <a href="http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=213317&postcount=1" target="_blank"> this mind-blowing review of 4E</a>, which really sold me on 4E. You see, 4E critics are right that 4E is in a sense about "combat only": it only provides rigid mechanical rules for combat. (Note how much this argument relies on the 3E mentality of "if it's not codified in the rules, it's not in the game.") Every other aspect of the game is entirely left for the DM to administer, skill challenges being a case in point. Now that's what makes 4E liberating to DM. But I also find this design approach a pain in the back, since the complete separation of those two "halves" of the game - combat and non-combat - causes a high level of arbitrarity (and hence, of arbitration on my part) when I retroactively insert new elements into the game. Because the relation of those new elements to the mechanically defined "core (skirmish) game" isn't just left uncodified (which is a blessing, compared to 3E), I'm not given any sort of guideline whatsoever. To be honest, I think a great amount of DMs will be discouraged by this complete shift of responsibility from 3E to 4E. 1E, to mention another creature, was much better in that regard, in that its core mechanics was much more general in approach, so when you added rules you didn't feel you altered the tone of the game. With 4E it definitely feels that way - I arbitrarily stick arbitrary elements onto the game as written. And it's here that I find this type of response to the problem I raised (with Graz'zt limited teleport ability) deeply unsatisfactory. I raised a problem about the RAW, because simply that's the only common ground we'll ever get on a board to discuss the merits and demerits of an edition. So to bring in "but you can forego/delete/arbitrarily add on to the RAW" isn't a defense of the RAW in my book. Not by a long shot.Good point there. It would be nice, though, if this aspect of the game were mentioned in the entries of the respective "monster" or "demon" or what have you. See above: 4E's disintegration of what happens on the battle map and what happens off the battle map is both a blessing and an obstacle.</blockquote>

Verification