Why I think you should try 4e (renamed)

[AllisterH]

See right here is the disconnect. For you creating a PrC wasn't enjoyable in a reward vs. work way...I understand that, but for others it was interesting and even enjoyable. Now my question is what exactly stopped you from handwaving bonuses in 3.x? Yet the people who wanted a detailed system were also satisfied.

In 4e the detailed system is to basically handwave, with a couple of guidelines. It only caters to those who wanted to and could have handwaved all along and not really to those who enjoyed using specific mechanics to build things.

Heh...you do realize that the same is true for 4e right?

There _IS_ a detailed "build the monster as a PC" in the DMG.

I think the difference is the "DEFAULT" situation is that in 4e, you handwave the situation whereas in 3e, the DEFAULT is "here are the rules".

 

[Imaro]

Not no difference. Effectively no difference, in the sense that you can get the desired result by inventing a mechanic to reach it.

But many posters have shown you the effective difference and you choose to ignore it. I really don't know what else to say, but there is certainly an effective difference to the game/campaign/adventure/etc. between assigning an arbitrary AC bonus to an NPC and doing so through a PrC. How much of that effective difference that is actually leveraged in the game is up to the DM and players.

 

[Imaro]

Heh...you do realize that the same is true for 4e right?

There _IS_ a detailed "build the monster as a PC" in the DMG.

I think the difference is the "DEFAULT" situation is that in 4e, you handwave the situation whereas in 3e, the DEFAULT is "here are the rules".

I thought we were talking about PrC's or 4e's equivalent with Paragon Paths. Is there even a section in the 4e DMG that touches on creating your own PP's?

 

[Fifth Element]

But many posters have shown you the effective difference and you choose to ignore it. I really don't know what else to say, but there is certainly an effective difference to the game/campaign/adventure/etc. between assigning an arbitrary AC bonus to an NPC and doing so through a PrC. How much of that effective difference that is actually leveraged in the game is up to the DM and players.

Fine, effective mechanical difference. Better?

I thought I was fairly clear above when I discussed the side benefits of full development of the new mechanic, but that sometimes if you can't spend the time doing that and just handwave it instead, it's not cheating.

 

[Glyfair]

For us (I'll be bold enough to presume speak for the group here), kobolds are NOT something that should be threatening high level characters. Kobolds occupy the mindspace of "weak low level challenge", and for them to fill some other space other than as an oddity (such as the kobold sorcerer lich in Bastion/Dragonwing's Villains) is to define something that is not a kobold.

I can see this. They do sort of fill that niche in 4E (as far as I remember they hold the low to mid heroic tier as threats). However, I know at least one friend who object to kobolds not dying in a single blow and your solution would work for him. However, that is completely up to the DM to give that feel.

 

[Oni]

...but it often seems 4e fans can't understand why you would want to do all that work... or why you would want a detailed system that facilitates it?

That inability to understand the other perspective cuts both ways my friend.

The flip side to that is you can always hand-wave something so how does said system stop those who were going to handwave anyway. Yet a system of handwaving certainly imposes restrictions on those who want a more detailed formula.

The problem is one of expectation. The people that favor rules heavy systems for instance have an expectation that the DM does all this work and can show the math for anything he throws at the party. When you start handwaving you're longer playing a game where the rules are the physics of the game world and then along comes the gotcha game. So yes, I think a system where you have to justify every little thing does put shackles on one's ability to handwave without harming the expectation of the players.

 

[AllisterH]

I thought we were talking about PrC's or 4e's equivalent with Paragon Paths. Is there even a section in the 4e DMG that touches on creating your own PP's?

Wait, what?

I thought we were talking about the AC of monsters being "random".

I honestly think there's two different things we're arguing about.

Erogaki pointed out that one of the few things he likes about 4e is the half-level nature of the game whereas BryondD hates it as he sees it as arbitary.

Again, there are guidelines based on role and the PCs generally when they hit the same level will have an AC around the same as the monsters.

The guidelines in the DMG simply eliminate the in-between steps that the PCs use since the DM doesn't need it (IMO of course).

For example, while quite possible for a 10th level AC of 31, the DMG and the MM certainly doesn't recommend it....

 

[Imaro]

That inability to understand the other perspective cuts both ways my friend.

I guess I'll agree here, even though I have seen more 3.x fans concede that 4e is easier to DM and they could understand why some would like it as opposed to 4e fans who have stated they understand why some might want more complexity within their gaming system.

The problem is one of expectation. The people that favor rules heavy systems for instance have an expectation that the DM does all this work and can show the math for anything he throws at the party. When you start handwaving you're longer playing a game where the rules are the physics of the game world and then along comes the gotcha game. So yes, I think a system where you have to justify every little thing does put shackles on one's ability to handwave without harming the expectation of the players.

But rule 0 exists in 3.x and 4e. So any one who feels the way you've stated is self-imposing this restriction upon themselves. I mean I can even be upfront with my players and tell them I will be fudging certain things, it's a player/DM trust thing. Now again where does one go for the system fiddling and mechanic building systems they enjoyed with 3.x in 4e?

 

[Imaro]

Wait, what?

I thought we were talking about the AC of monsters being "random".

I honestly think there's two different things we're arguing about.

Erogaki pointed out that one of the few things he likes about 4e is the half-level nature of the game whereas BryondD hates it as he sees it as arbitary.

Again, there are guidelines based on role and the PCs generally when they hit the same level will have an AC around the same as the monsters.

The guidelines in the DMG simply eliminate the in-between steps that the PCs use since the DM doesn't need it (IMO of course).

For example, while quite possible for a 10th level AC of 31, the DMG and the MM certainly doesn't recommend it....

Hmm. I was more so focusing on the ways one went about assigning said bonuses to things in 3.x and 4e ( with PrC's vs. arbitrary bonus assignment as the focus) as well as the disadvantages and advantages, depending on what one enjoys, of both methods. So I guess were kind of discussing the same thing... but also not.

 

[Korgoth]

I think KamikazeMidget and ByronD in particular have both had some good responses so far. I also prefer that the numbers reflect the semantic content of the world, rather than being wholly independent of the "skin" the DM chooses to apply.

Why is it wrong for a DM to want to say

"Ok, I want my 10th level party to fight Blackbeard's crew - here's what the AC and to hit needs to be"?

Korgoth, seriously, pre 4e, did nobody do this? Was I the only DM that did this before 4e actually gave guidelines.

I think what is said about the NPCs and monsters has to be meaningful in some way, or else I'm not interested. I don't see the descriptions as interchangeable skins... to me that's actually patronizing to the players. Like "OK now I'm just telling you this cool bit of fluff to spice up the game; I say you're fighting pirates but really it would be the same if I said you were fighting giant battlemechs or rabid fur seals."

For example, in next Monday's game of Empire of the Petal Throne (OD&D rules), the party will probably meet a barbaric warrior cult that lives in the jungle (in fact, they live in the ruined temple complex that the party just leased back in the big city). These warriors wear two things: a helmet shaped like the flaming bat creature they worship, and a loincloth. They go into battle naked to show their loyalty to the Fire Bat.

Now, their loyalty to the Fire Bat means something: it means they're AC 9.

Of course, they're "fanatics" in the literal meaning of the term (see also "fane"). So they won't run away. Their leader is pretty buff, like level 6 or 7 (not looking at my notes right now). But he's AC 9... he's a naked dude. Maybe he can cope with the party, and maybe they can cope with him. Who knows? Many of my encounters are not automatically hostile, but these boys are. I enjoy the fact that I have no idea what the party will do or how things will turn out.

As to your example of Blackbeard's pirates: it really depends on what you mean for them to be. If you mean for them to be super-dextrous and adept at parrying with the cutlass, give them some bonuses... but you should tell the players something like "These guys are uniformly agile and experts with a unique fighting style!" So let them treat the cutlass as a shield, and give them whatever bonus you would give someone for a good Dex (-1 in OD&D, making them AC 7; -3 or -4 in AD&D, making them perhaps AC 6 or AC 5). But don't just set something completely arbitrary and treat it like it's normal.

The rules and rulings (the latter more important than the former) together constitute a language that the DM is using to tell the players about the world that they're exploring. So strange and unique things can and should happen (this is fantasy!), but you don't want to put yourself in the position of talking out both sides of your mouth.

To put it another way: why not have your 1st level PCs fight a Titan? Here's a Titan for you:
Titan AC 9, Move 15', HD 1, HP 4, Att 1, Dmg 1d3.

In fact, your 1st level party could fight a bunch of Titans. They would become locally famous because they killed like 20 Titans their first time out of the village. Or Dragons. Or time-traveling German Panther tanks. Or if you want to keep things down to earth, why not use the above stat line for a bunch of black knights that attack the town? Then the PCs can slay a whole bunch of evil knights. Though I suggest using Titans because if you use black knights the PCs will want to harvest their armor.