Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 4861709" data-attributes="member: 957">But this is despite the narrative.&nbsp; His armor class is based on making the combat mechanics work.&nbsp; It is all about &quot;the math&quot;.If it was about the narrative then his AC should be what his ability and equipment provide.&nbsp; If he is supposed to be a challenge to the party then there should be some in story reason that he is a challenge.&nbsp; A plate clad anti-paladin, bare chested pirate, and thick scaled lizard man are all completely different from a narrative point of view.&nbsp; But the mechanics of 4E throw that out the window so that the math works.In 3E a monk gets AC bonuses purely from level and can be a high AC without armor.&nbsp; But the concept drives that.&nbsp; The pirate isn't a pirate.&nbsp; The pirate is a &quot;threat to the PCs&quot; within the &quot;game mechanics&quot;.The anti-paladin isn't an anti-paladin.&nbsp; The anti-paladin is a &quot;threat to the PCs&quot; within the &quot;game mechanics&quot;.The lizard man isn't a lizard man.&nbsp; The lizard man is a &quot;threat to the PCs&quot; within the &quot;game mechanics&quot;.There is a window of variability.&nbsp; And of course there are variations in &quot;special&quot; features.&nbsp; But everything remains constrained to this small space of mathematically approved conflict resolution.&nbsp; Yes, you can role play the pirate vastly differently than the anti-paladin.&nbsp; So can I.&nbsp; But I don't buy games for the role play.&nbsp; Me and my friends provide that.&nbsp; I pay money for good game systems that mechanically realize anti-paladins as anti-paladins and pirates as pirates.&nbsp; I want the rules to put making the pirate be a pirate up front and center.&nbsp; Making fun and challenging encounters is easy, just give me the pieces that model the elements they are expected to.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BryonD, post: 4861709, member: 957"] But this is despite the narrative. His armor class is based on making the combat mechanics work. It is all about "the math". If it was about the narrative then his AC should be what his ability and equipment provide. If he is supposed to be a challenge to the party then there should be some in story reason that he is a challenge. A plate clad anti-paladin, bare chested pirate, and thick scaled lizard man are all completely different from a narrative point of view. But the mechanics of 4E throw that out the window so that the math works. In 3E a monk gets AC bonuses purely from level and can be a high AC without armor. But the concept drives that. The pirate isn't a pirate. The pirate is a "threat to the PCs" within the "game mechanics". The anti-paladin isn't an anti-paladin. The anti-paladin is a "threat to the PCs" within the "game mechanics". The lizard man isn't a lizard man. The lizard man is a "threat to the PCs" within the "game mechanics". There is a window of variability. And of course there are variations in "special" features. But everything remains constrained to this small space of mathematically approved conflict resolution. Yes, you can role play the pirate vastly differently than the anti-paladin. So can I. But I don't buy games for the role play. Me and my friends provide that. I pay money for good game systems that mechanically realize anti-paladins as anti-paladins and pirates as pirates. I want the rules to put making the pirate be a pirate up front and center. Making fun and challenging encounters is easy, just give me the pieces that model the elements they are expected to. [/QUOTE]

Verification