Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="D'karr" data-source="post: 4928991" data-attributes="member: 336">This is exactly the type of stuff that I want the designers to stay out of.&nbsp; As soon as some designer puts an &quot;official&quot; table in a book they begin to&nbsp; handcuff the DM.&nbsp; That is one of the main reasons I hated DCs for specific effects of skills in 3e.&nbsp; A DC15 to tumble away from an opponent without provoking?&nbsp; A DC 25 to tumble through the opponents square?&nbsp; Shouldn't the skill of the opponent count for something?I want my players to attempt the stunts, but the situation and the DM are what should dictate whether they have a chance or not.&nbsp; A table that quantifies each effect and gives it an &quot;in stone&quot; chance removes the freedom the DM currently has.If a player wants to attempt to blind the ogre, the DM currently can decide if it is doable or not.&nbsp; As soon as a table gets put in the book then the DM starts to become beholden to the book.Page 42 gives some good guidelines, an example, and then provides a scalable table for the stuff that mechanically is more difficult to adjudicate (damage).&nbsp; The effects are left entirely up to the DM.The DM can already use the existing powers to determine what a stunt should be able to do and how feasible it is.&nbsp; You attempt to push an opponent 1 square, look at Tide of Iron.&nbsp; You attempt to push multiple opponent, look at Thunder Wave.&nbsp; As the DM becomes more experienced he doesn't have to rely on looking at existing powers anymore.&nbsp; He will have a better feel for his game.And that is where these things should stay, within the purview of each individual DM.Each effect already has a description that gives the DM a pretty good idea of how &quot;powerful&quot; a specific effect can be.&nbsp; Restrained is more powerful than immobilized, Stunned is more powerful than Dazed, etc.&nbsp; So with that the DM can make some pretty accurate ad-hoc judgements.I'm glad 4e got away from spelling everything out for the DM.&nbsp; I hope it stays that way.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="D'karr, post: 4928991, member: 336"] This is exactly the type of stuff that I want the designers to stay out of. As soon as some designer puts an "official" table in a book they begin to handcuff the DM. That is one of the main reasons I hated DCs for specific effects of skills in 3e. A DC15 to tumble away from an opponent without provoking? A DC 25 to tumble through the opponents square? Shouldn't the skill of the opponent count for something? I want my players to attempt the stunts, but the situation and the DM are what should dictate whether they have a chance or not. A table that quantifies each effect and gives it an "in stone" chance removes the freedom the DM currently has. If a player wants to attempt to blind the ogre, the DM currently can decide if it is doable or not. As soon as a table gets put in the book then the DM starts to become beholden to the book. Page 42 gives some good guidelines, an example, and then provides a scalable table for the stuff that mechanically is more difficult to adjudicate (damage). The effects are left entirely up to the DM. The DM can already use the existing powers to determine what a stunt should be able to do and how feasible it is. You attempt to push an opponent 1 square, look at Tide of Iron. You attempt to push multiple opponent, look at Thunder Wave. As the DM becomes more experienced he doesn't have to rely on looking at existing powers anymore. He will have a better feel for his game. And that is where these things should stay, within the purview of each individual DM. Each effect already has a description that gives the DM a pretty good idea of how "powerful" a specific effect can be. Restrained is more powerful than immobilized, Stunned is more powerful than Dazed, etc. So with that the DM can make some pretty accurate ad-hoc judgements. I'm glad 4e got away from spelling everything out for the DM. I hope it stays that way. [/QUOTE]

Verification