Why I think you should try 4e (renamed)

[Imaro]

*looks at previous editions monsters* Given that there's nothing preventing in narrative for the 4e monster to be descirbed as sneaky in plot, I see the additional ability as a win for 4e. Seriously, at least now a player not only hears how "kobolds are sneaky" but in combat they are "sneaky"

(Personally, I don't consider them sneaky, but shifty. Sneaky is more the gnomes "fade away when hit" ability)

I never said I considered previous editions as "narrative" based games either, my point was that 4e isn't a game prioritized on a narrative playstyle first... I mean couldn't I just as easily stick a level of rogue on a kobold in 3.x... now he's even more sneaky than in 4e. Does that make 3.x "narrative"?

Re: Yeah I guess a kobold is more "shiffty" ... but again with abstract mechanics what does that even mean?

 

[Derren]

Regarding this, 4e works exactly like the DM wants, just like every other edition of D&D.

No, 4E works exactly how the 4E rulebooks say it does. That the DM can deviate from that ruling doesn't change that.

 

[Oni]

The second problem was something like what someone might call "simulationist", though I hate that term... it was the fact that the semantic content or "skin" of the opponent was totally arbitrary. For example, shirtless boxers who hit for the same damage as armed foes and have AC of an armored man. A pirate in a shirt and pants who had an AC of 21... even though my elf with the 20 Dex and the magic armor only managed a 20.

Why did the unarmored pirate have an AC of 21? So an appropriate-level striker would have to roll a 10 or better to hit him, obviously. So it's basically Elder Scrolls: Oblivion or something where the whole world scales with the party.

To me, that sucks the life and interest out of the campaign world. If a pirate in a poet shirt and leather pants has an AC 21 just because of math, and if street toughs have 60 hit points just because of math, and everything is just so just because of math, then by all means, karma police arrest this man. Because it's the equivalent of someone taking a belt sander to my imagination.

See now something like this doesn't bother me in slightest. I feel like a lot of people get hung up on the idea that the rules must somehow be the physics of the game world, rather than just a means to facilitate play. Why does the pirate lord have a high AC? Because it's more interesting than being able to smear him in one shot because he's not wearing plate. The rules were meant to service the story, not the other way around. If anything it would have been nice if that had extended to the PC's more (i.e. things like their AC were more tied to their concept and dramatic convention than their equipment).

 

[Fifth Element]

And thats exactly how 4E works. Because of the abstraction there is no way for the players to know how hard or dangerous something is beforehand, short of metagaming, anyway. So instead, everything is exactly so dangerous that it is a challenge for the PCs, not more, not less, no matter if that kind of challenge the enemy provides makes sense.

Yes, because monsters were never grouped by approximate difficulty level in any version of D&D before 4E.

And god beware when NPCs fight as allies of the PCs in a battle against minions. Is the presence of the PCs already enough to downgrade a monster to minion status? Or does the monster has normal HP against the NPC and is only a minion when the PCs attack him?

Your mastery of the 4E system is showing.

 

[Fifth Element]

No, 4E works exactly how the 4E rulebooks say it does. That the DM can deviate from that ruling doesn't change that.

Again, how is this different from all other editions of D&D?

 

[EroGaki]

This has always been a part of D&D, I think. Before 3E, monsters just had an AC, with no details of the how the number came to be.

In 3E, the situation really didn't change much. Despite the fact that monsters had the components of their AC spelled out, there was a giant fudge factor that allowed you to effectively assign the AC you wanted: the natural armour bonus. Need your monster to have a higher AC to challenge a party of the appropriate level? Easy, add a few points of natural armour.

This goes away if you build your monster/NPC just using class levels, but that's a lot of work if you do it for every NPC.

True, however the big difference is that with the bare-chested pirate, there is no explanation other than "I wanted it that way." If a human pirate isn't wearing armor or using magic, and doesn't have some fancy prestige class, then I would call foul.

However, I have no problem with DM Fiat if there is an actual explanation to it; maybe the pirate has an obscure template or prestige class. Perhaps the human pirate isn't human at all. Who knows? The point being, if you want to have a bare-chested pirate with a high AC, use the rules presented, even if you have to make up something new. Don't just hand wave it with your mystical DM powers, that stinks of cheating a laziness, IMO.

No, 4E works exactly how the 4E rulebooks say it does. That the DM can deviate from that ruling doesn't change that.

This. Thank you.

 

[Derren]

Again, how is this different from all other editions of D&D?

They worked according their own rule books, not according to the 4E one.

I don't really understand what you intend with this question as I was replying to Jacks "4E works however the DM wants it to".
The ability to houserule doesn't change the rules of the game. They are a concious decision of not following the rules in certain cases.

 

[AllisterH]

I have a problem with this. I may be in the minority, but just deciding "I want the pirate to have an AC of 21" and not backing it up feels like cheating.

Technically, there's no cheating here with the pirate. A PC can achieve that type of AC barechested by simply levelling. Given that historically, everything else in D&D has levelled (attacks and saves), the only difference is that 4e put AC on the same system.

4E half-levelling aspect always seemed to me like a natural outgrowth of the previous editions where everything else levelled.

Surely others wondered why AC yet saves levelled in earlier edition?

That's not saying that some special abilities/powers/pacts that the PC's don't have acess to can't be invented; it is a magical world after all. I'm just saying that the players are bound to the rules of the game; the DM should be too.

.

THIS I think is why there _MIGHT_ (and I empathize "might") be more 4e DMs than 3e.

It's one thing for the players to have to worry about their special abilites (they only have one thing to deal with), a DM certainly shouldn't be foreced to play the same game, because frankly, he isn't playing the same game.

re: Sandbox game
Actually, there's nothing preventing a DM from using 4e in a sandbox manner. Just like BryonD mentions that people put limitations on 3e where there aren't any, I believe people do the same with 4e.

I tend to find 4e slighlt better for sandbox games myself anyway since

a) unless you REALLY, REALLY jump levels (we're talking at least a tier and a half here), the game is not "rocket tag" which as an aspect I think is totally against the sandbox nature of gaming

b) running away is actually effective.

I'm not sure why 3e's system where "he who wins initative just plain wins" and "you'll be dead before you even get two moves away" is conducive to sandbox play. As a player, wouldn't the latter method actually stop you form exploring the world since anything just slightly above you level is a potential TPK??

I know in certain MMORPGs/RPGs that allow for "go anywhere", people don't explore areas since a random battle WILL kill you dead unless you can outrun the beastie

 

[Fifth Element]

True, however the big difference is that with the bare-chested pirate, there is no explanation other than "I wanted it that way." If a human pirate isn't wearing armor or using magic, and doesn't have some fancy prestige class, then I would call foul.

So give him a reason. A ridiculous Dex score. A special dodge bonus. An environmental bonus. If you want to have a reason, you devise a reason. (As you yourself suggest in the bit below

However, I have no problem with DM Fiat if there is an actual explanation to it; maybe the pirate has an obscure template or prestige class. Perhaps the human pirate isn't human at all. Who knows? The point being, if you want to have a bare-chested pirate with a high AC, use the rules presented, even if you have to make up something new. Don't just hand wave it with your mystical DM powers, that stinks of cheating a laziness, IMO.

I think you're arguing semantics. If you have to make up something new to get the AC desired, that's the very same thing as just deciding what the AC is.

 

[catsclaw227]

Even more on the particular point, the pirate's level is defined not by the pirate, but by the party.

Actually, the pirate's level could be because that is what is listed in the MM. Just like 1e or 3e. For example, your Human Pirate is a Level 9 monster in the MM2.

Sometimes, it is defined by the party, but not all the time. And, back in 1e, I often adjusted monster level and HP to enhance the story or provide a challenge to the PCs. Did you?

And why should everything's AC go up with level?

Because at a higher level, you are just plain BETTER at things. Like dodging swords and axes.

The 9th level Pirate has become very good at dodging swords and stuff, especially without armor. His level says he is plain BETTER at it than the 1st level Pirate Thug would be (his AC is 14).