The Gaming Den

Ignoring the tax code aspect for a moment, because you are correct that it can get tedious, I feel that constructing foes in such a way grounds them and the players in the game world.

If a 3e Kobold Sorcerer has Spell Focus, Craft Tchochkie, or Edward's Escapable Forcecage you know he learned that shit from somewhere. Even if the players don't have those abilities, or even knew they existed, they feel attainable.

In 4e, monsters are "just because." It doesn't matter how similar they seem to you, that elf archer monster is different from your elf ranger "just because." "Just because" was a crappy answer to things when I was 5, and it's still a crappy answer today.

RandomCasualty2 wrote: I like the approach of 4E where you aren't especially concerned about dumpster diving to make monsters, you just make the monster you fucking want and get on with your life. You're more worried about "will this kill my party?" rather than "lets see, what splatbooks do I need to make a shaman/barbarian work?"

As a DM I just don't like to get bogged down in that tedium.

Hmm, if only 4ed (PHP didnt finish it, didnt got the next book) wouldnt read so borring, somebody (maybe) around here (myself included) would want to try it once...

Honestly my greatest critic for 4ed is, how could they write something this dull/boring.

Korwin wrote:Hmm, if only 4ed (PHP didnt finish it, didnt got the next book) wouldnt read so borring, somebody (maybe) around here (myself included) would want to try it once...

Honestly my greatest critic for 4ed is, how could they write something this dull/boring.

I tried it once. It didn't play any better than it read. I mean, it was a pretty good time, because I played with a pretty cool group. And the system was both new and forgiving, so it could be explored as a goal in itself.

In the end, though, I think we would have had more fun with any number of other games.

violence in the media wrote:If a 3e Kobold Sorcerer has Spell Focus, Craft Tchochkie, or Edward's Escapable Forcecage you know he learned that shit from somewhere.

I try not to think about where PCs or NPCs 'learned' things, because mechanically they picked up xp somehow, and then one day they woke up knowing how to speak Roman.

MartinHarper wrote:

violence in the media wrote:If a 3e Kobold Sorcerer has Spell Focus, Craft Tchochkie, or Edward's Escapable Forcecage you know he learned that shit from somewhere.

I try not to think about where PCs or NPCs 'learned' things, because mechanically they picked up xp somehow, and then one day they woke up knowing how to speak Roman.

The idea is that it is a real ability in world, and if you want to learn it too you can do that.

*le sigh*

What this board needs is to simply stop the idiocy in constantly rehashing (or even responding to) the 4e sucks argument. I understand that this thread was supposed to be that (props to PR for trying to summarize everything in one place) but it is just the same people posting the same things over and over again in a futile effort to refute the latest wave of fanbois or sockpupperts or whatever the fuck these people are.

Anyone that actually has an open mind will read what has already been written and say something constructive or innovative enough to catch our attention - you know, they will actually like, have a fucking point or unique thought or something (ref my first post here where I did just that out of a sign of respect for the community here). Unfortunately, what is posted is just a bullshit rehash of the same tired arguments that run on for 4-9 pages and then die out until the next generation of eggs hatch and the new posters begin the cycle over again.

To the long-term memebers here: In my opinion, you are all generally far too smart to waste your time saying the same thing over and over again unless you are in it strictly to be trolled or for the lols/smiting/entertainment/whatever, in which more power to you I guess.

To the most recently hatched brood of 4e apologetics: Read every 4e post here and say then something no other 4e defender has said before. Come up with something unique and innovative and make people think you have a point. Innovate.

/sigh

Lich-Loved wrote:*le sigh*

What this board needs is to simply stop the idiocy in constantly rehashing (or even responding to) the 4e sucks argument. I understand that this thread was supposed to be that (props to PR for trying to summarize everything in one place) but it is just the same people posting the same things over and over again in a futile effort to refute the latest wave of fanbois or sockpupperts or whatever the fuck these people are.

Anyone that actually has an open mind will read what has already been written and say something constructive or innovative enough to catch our attention - you know, they will actually like, have a fucking point or unique thought or something (ref my first post here where I did just that out of a sign of respect for the community here). Unfortunately, what is posted is just a bullshit rehash of the same tired arguments that run on for 4-9 pages and then die out until the next generation of eggs hatch and the new posters begin the cycle over again.

To the long-term memebers here: In my opinion, you are all generally far too smart to waste your time saying the same thing over and over again unless you are in it strictly to be trolled or for the lols/smiting/entertainment/whatever, in which more power to you I guess.

To the most recently hatched brood of 4e apologetics: Read every 4e post here and say then something no other 4e defender has said before. Come up with something unique and innovative and make people think you have a point. Innovate.

/sigh

Serious QFT. I was waiting for just such a statement from someone, and I'm glad someone has finally made it.

Just as a general principle:

http://www.flamewarriors.com/warriorsht ... cranus.htm + http://www.flamewarriors.com/warriorsht ... butter.htm = Thread Flooding

Lich-Loved wrote:Unfortunately, what is posted is just a bullshit rehash of the same tired arguments that run on for 4-9 pages

There are gems occasionally, like Kaelik's excellent post in the previous 4e thread on why Chapter 1 of the DMG sucks.

RandomCasualty2 wrote:

FatR wrote: Banning two 9-th level spells isn't even a fucking houserule. Because you don't even fucking need to actually houserule anything if you play a homebrew or even Eberron - you can just say that said spells are unknown/unaccessible and 3-4 creatures that grant wishes do not exist in your cosmology. What you do is not "attacking weak points" it is nitpicking.

No that's a houserule. Because wizards can research any spell they want with their two free spells per level. You can make it so that scrolls of astral projection aren't sold if you want (for whatever reason), but you can't say that astral projection doesn't exist.

I disagree, I feel that a Gm should have the full rights to say that the spell X or Y don't exist at all in his campaign/game world and that you can't research it, exactly as he can say that you can't have a decanter of endless water in a Dark Sun game.

To add to it, I don't think it count as a house ruling when a GM say what is and isn't available in his campaign, including, but not being limited to, spells, magic items, feats, prestige classes, monsters and even certain class/race or multiclass combinations, it is all part and parcel of the DM's job of world builder.

Where house rules start and a DM's customizing ends is a touchy issue.

violence in the media wrote:Ignoring the tax code aspect for a moment, because you are correct that it can get tedious, I feel that constructing foes in such a way grounds them and the players in the game world.

If a 3e Kobold Sorcerer has Spell Focus, Craft Tchochkie, or Edward's Escapable Forcecage you know he learned that shit from somewhere. Even if the players don't have those abilities, or even knew they existed, they feel attainable.

For the most part, I honestly don't care that much. TV shows and books tend to have magicians with vastly different magic. In fact, you rarely, if ever see spellcasters use the same magic against each other. And really, nobody makes a big deal about it. I'm actually alright with kobold magic being different from human magic.

Honestly you rarely see fantasy work where elven magic, human magic, dragon magic and fae magic is all the same. I just don't have a problem with different people using different kinds of magic.

In 4e, monsters are "just because." It doesn't matter how similar they seem to you, that elf archer monster is different from your elf ranger "just because."

That's true. But so what?

If it saves your DM prep time and lets him create better less linear adventures and design encounters on the fly, isn't it worth that? One thing I hated about the 3.5 system was that it forced you to railroad. You literally could not create an NPC encounter fast beyond like 3rd level. So pretty much, you were forced to just railroad the fuck out of people, because there was no way you could keep up with people not following the train tracks when you had to deal with all that tax code.

Divorcing the game from the tax code was a good thing. Honestly IMO, one of the better ideas to come out of 4E.

Really, do you honestly lose anything if your enemies cast a spell that's similar to fireball, but actually isn't fireball?

Really I found the 3E style, "Every wizard is the same" to be pretty boring. It didn't even matter what race he was. A wizard was a wizard. elf, dwarf, kobold, hobgoblin. Didn't even matter. They all spammed color spray or glitterdust or whatever based on what level they were.

I actually like the idea that facing off against the goblins might be a totally different game than facing off against the trolls. 4E failed in the execution, but that's not to say the idea doesn't have merit.

Honestly you rarely see fantasy work where elven magic, human magic, dragon magic and fae magic is all the same. I just don't have a problem with different people using different kinds of magic.

I actually like the idea that facing off against the goblins might be a totally different game than facing off against the trolls. 4E failed in the execution, but that's not to say the idea doesn't have merit.

That's because the authors of these works are fucking lazy.

It's been my experience that when people introduce new kinds of power sources into a work when there's a functional source around the corner, it's to pull some kind of deus ex machina. Spiritbending anyone? Or how about Frog natural energy?

Now, I don't have a problem with the idea of there being separate magic categories. But let's get real here--while the game does have something from magical segregation, it gains nothing from having 'dragon magic' or 'fairy magic' or 'troll magic' that operates differently from the basic rules of how magic work.

Introducing some kind of new magic where no one knows how the rules work doesn't make it feel original or mysterious. It makes it feel contrived. Now theoretically, you could avoid this issue by detailing the schools of thought ahead of time but let's get real here. No one wants to learn more than one source of magic. D&D and Shadowrun's magic systems are old as dirt and a lot of people still aren't 100% sure how it works.

I thought in 4ed all works the same RC?
Fighter use the same mechanic like Wizards. etc, et nauseum.

One of the reason its boring. Yeah 4ed might have some pearls in the mud, but far in between.
And arbitarium isnt one of those pearls.

RandomCasualty2 wrote:I just don't have a problem with different people using different kinds of magic.

I dont have a problem with that either, but if I am playing an elven mage or an fae mage i want to use those magic rules.
Where again is that in 4ed? We are talking about 4ed, or dont we?

We're not playing in the 90s anymore. There is the internet, and given the tendency of many players to post their characters and other works for everyone to see there's a multitude of NPCs pre-generated for you.

Not to mention that for quick and dirt encounters you can use online NPC generators that spit out NPCs in seconds, down to feat and skills. Not optimized, of course, but one can usually modify them rather quickly - or simply run through a few until one finds one that fits.

RandomCasualty2 wrote:For the most part, I honestly don't care that much. TV shows and books tend to have magicians with vastly different magic. In fact, you rarely, if ever see spellcasters use the same magic against each other. And really, nobody makes a big deal about it. I'm actually alright with kobold magic being different from human magic.

Honestly you rarely see fantasy work where elven magic, human magic, dragon magic and fae magic is all the same. I just don't have a problem with different people using different kinds of magic.

See, I just view that as lazy. I get irritated when Sailor Moon uses the Disguise Pen for one episode and then forgets about it or loses it because the authors don't want to deal with the reality of her having it. I have a WTF reaction when Hermione spouts off some inexplicable rule about magic being unable to create lunch, just because Rowling doesn't want wizards to be immune to hunger.

I don't mind elf, dragon, and fae magic being different as long as they conform to some themes and there's a point to the separation. If elves cast Embers of the Bonfire, dragons toss Firey Heart of the Wyrm, and Fae weave Burn of Love's Longing and all of those spells do 10d6 Fire damage in a 20' radius--why did you waste your time writing that and waste mine remembering it?

In 4e, monsters are "just because." It doesn't matter how similar they seem to you, that elf archer monster is different from your elf ranger "just because."

That's true. But so what?

If it saves your DM prep time and lets him create better less linear adventures and design encounters on the fly, isn't it worth that? One thing I hated about the 3.5 system was that it forced you to railroad. You literally could not create an NPC encounter fast beyond like 3rd level. So pretty much, you were forced to just railroad the fuck out of people, because there was no way you could keep up with people not following the train tracks when you had to deal with all that tax code.

Not really. And are you really bitching about the loss of arbitrary random encounters? The old 1e and 2e standbys of the inexplicably wandering owlbear in the orc fortress? Cutting that random shit out of the game is a far cry from sticking people on rails. And, at least tactically speaking, on-the-fly encounters tend to be a whole lot less satisfying than ones the DM put some forethought into. So, if the tax code saves me from pointless, shitty encounters, I'm all for it.

Divorcing the game from the tax code was a good thing. Honestly IMO, one of the better ideas to come out of 4E.

Really, do you honestly lose anything if your enemies cast a spell that's similar to fireball, but actually isn't fireball?

You really do, because you can't be sure about how anything in the world works. If the enemy fireball is better than my fireball, I want to learn it. If the enemy version sucks ass, I want to teach my version to my followers to increase their effectiveness. "Elf magic" is usually just a euphemism for "I'm going to make shit up without any thought beyond what I want magic to do right this moment."

Really I found the 3E style, "Every wizard is the same" to be pretty boring. It didn't even matter what race he was. A wizard was a wizard. elf, dwarf, kobold, hobgoblin. Didn't even matter. They all spammed color spray or glitterdust or whatever based on what level they were.

I actually like the idea that facing off against the goblins might be a totally different game than facing off against the trolls. 4E failed in the execution, but that's not to say the idea doesn't have merit.

Beyond the effects of your mass, gravity doesn't care if you're an elf, dwarf, or orc, why should magic be different? I liked that Color Spray didn't pick up special qualities because you we a tragically-hip tiefling or whatever.

How is facing off against goblins not different from facing off against trolls? For that matter, do you complain that a Hill Giant is just a bigger, level-appropriate Ogre?

Fuchs wrote:We're not playing in the 90s anymore. There is the internet, and given the tendency of many players to post their characters and other works for everyone to see there's a multitude of NPCs pre-generated for you.

But honestly. You never find the NPC you really want. Because in play you're just tossing a description out there probably, and not doing a stat block. I honestly don't know what the stat block of the merchant's bodyguards are. But I may describe them as a hulking half orc warrior with a falchion and a drow wizard with a glowing staff. The PCs hear that he's specialized in enchantment from some research they did.

Now, if I need to find that, I have to find a stat block fro that, otherwise it's a total bust. So I need to find a half orc scimitar user and a drow wizard with a magic staff who specializes in enchantment, and within the right level range for the party to make a challenging encounter.

Not to mention that for quick and dirt encounters you can use online NPC generators that spit out NPCs in seconds, down to feat and skills. Not optimized, of course, but one can usually modify them rather quickly - or simply run through a few until one finds one that fits.

Not optimized kinda tosses it out as far as usefulness. If your PCs are powergamers, which mine are. I need deadly optimized NPCs and the shit that the random generators toss out is garbage that's not even powerful enough for its own CR. And at that point, what the fuck is the point? Seriously any NPC generator that doesn't use CR first is garbage. As a DM, when I'm designing an encounter I want to start with CR.

4E lets you create such NPCs in short order, because I start with the CR (renamed monster level) and expand from there. Yeah 4E's system could use some improvements, like a way to better assign monster abilities. But the basic principle is really nice.

violence in the media wrote: See, I just view that as lazy. I get irritated when Sailor Moon uses the Disguise Pen for one episode and then forgets about it or loses it because the authors don't want to deal with the reality of her having it. I have a WTF reaction when Hermione spouts off some inexplicable rule about magic being unable to create lunch, just because Rowling doesn't want wizards to be immune to hunger.

That has really nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Arbitrary restrictions or magic that people forget is something else entirely. Though on a side note, I don't really have a problem with arbitrary restrictions on what magic can't do. In fact, that's probably a good idea.

I don't mind elf, dragon, and fae magic being different as long as they conform to some themes and there's a point to the separation. If elves cast Embers of the Bonfire, dragons toss Firey Heart of the Wyrm, and Fae weave Burn of Love's Longing and all of those spells do 10d6 Fire damage in a 20' radius--why did you waste your time writing that and waste mine remembering it?

Well hopefully you make them somehow different so they feel different. 4E had the problem of not doing that, so you honestly didn't care what the attack was, because it all felt the same.

But in an ideal system everyone's magic works differently to the point that you see that in game.

Not really. And are you really bitching about the loss of arbitrary random encounters?

No I'm bitching about the fact that your PCs can decide to attack an NPC the DM didn't plan on them attacking and suddenly the game grinds to a fucking halt. The DM probably didn't prepare for your PCs to go jump the Red Wizard of Thay selling magic items. The guy is basically just a random vendor, and the DM figures he exists only as a conversation NPC. Of course, your PCs have better ideas. You want to jump that fucker.

So you tell the DM you want to attack. Full stop. The DM doesn't have any statblocks and fuck man, generating a mid to high level wizard takes fucking forever, especially because you know the PC wizard is going to want to loot the spellbook too. If you do that, the session will be half gone justwaiting for the DM to create that encounter. So yeah, guess you can't do that unless you want to be a total dick and flush the entire game session down the toilet.

So what do you do? You can only go places the DM has already written up.

Back on the rails people!

If you can't create encounters on the fly, then you cannot by definition do anything beyond what the DM has prepared.

You really do, because you can't be sure about how anything in the world works. If the enemy fireball is better than my fireball, I want to learn it.

It's like your cleric seeing a wizard cast a spell like gaseous form and saying "I want to learn that."

Well tough shit bro, you're a cleric and that's not on your list.

I mean there's really no reason you couldn't have a blue magic multiclassing feat in 4E that lets you swap one of your powers for a monster power of the same level or less.

So whether you want to go with the hardass approach or have some mechanic for learning those powers, it really doesn't matter. Personally I like the hardass approach a bit more there simply because it doesn't turn the MM into a dumpster diving expedition (which honestly never ends well).

Generally monster shit won't be as good as what your PCs can do anyway. I don't really see many 4E players arguing that they'd rather be a hill giant than a dragonborn fighter of the same level.

How is facing off against goblins not different from facing off against trolls? For that matter, do you complain that a Hill Giant is just a bigger, level-appropriate Ogre?

Yes actually a do. I hated the fact in 3.5 that all the bruisers were basically the same fucking monster. Seriously, giants, ogres, minotaurs... fucking boring. Nothing even remotely interesting besides full attack, full attack, full attack.

Dude, fuck that shit.

At the very least 4E tried to give these monsters area attacks, or marks or something beyond the regular 3.5 melee monster bullshit. In 3.5 you really had only two kinds of melee monsters. The full attack bruiser and the grappler. That's it. And it was incredibly dull.

A tenth level NPC wizard takes ten minutes to stat. Fifteen if he's heavy on constant buffs. Tops.

RandomCasualty2 wrote:

violence in the media wrote: See, I just view that as lazy. I get irritated when Sailor Moon uses the Disguise Pen for one episode and then forgets about it or loses it because the authors don't want to deal with the reality of her having it. I have a WTF reaction when Hermione spouts off some inexplicable rule about magic being unable to create lunch, just because Rowling doesn't want wizards to be immune to hunger.

That has really nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Arbitrary restrictions or magic that people forget is something else entirely. Though on a side note, I don't really have a problem with arbitrary restrictions on what magic can't do. In fact, that's probably a good idea.

I was using those examples as illustrative of what I feel happens too often when magic is lazily implemented. Arbitrary resrictions are fine as long as they're consistent and make some sort of internal sense. Something like "Magic cannot create food" leads to a lot of stupid Q&A where people try and find out the limits and workarounds to the restriction.

Well hopefully you make them somehow different so they feel different. 4E had the problem of not doing that, so you honestly didn't care what the attack was, because it all felt the same.

But in an ideal system everyone's magic works differently to the point that you see that in game.

How do you mean work differently? Are we talking about simply not having powers overlap, like the differences between a Necromancer, an Enchantress, and an Evoker? Or are we talking about using different mechanical systems, like the differences between Wizards, Binders, Truenamers, and Psionicists? I'm just trying to get an idea of what the differences between a Charm effect thrown down by a dragon vs. a fae should be in your mind.

No I'm bitching about the fact that your PCs can decide to attack an NPC the DM didn't plan on them attacking and suddenly the game grinds to a fucking halt. The DM probably didn't prepare for your PCs to go jump the Red Wizard of Thay selling magic items. The guy is basically just a random vendor, and the DM figures he exists only as a conversation NPC. Of course, your PCs have better ideas. You want to jump that fucker.

So you tell the DM you want to attack. Full stop. The DM doesn't have any statblocks and fuck man, generating a mid to high level wizard takes fucking forever, especially because you know the PC wizard is going to want to loot the spellbook too. If you do that, the session will be half gone justwaiting for the DM to create that encounter. So yeah, guess you can't do that unless you want to be a total dick and flush the entire game session down the toilet.

So what do you do? You can only go places the DM has already written up.

Back on the rails people!

If you can't create encounters on the fly, then you cannot by definition do anything beyond what the DM has prepared.

You know, no preparation is ever wasted. You can eventually use everythng you make somewhere. If this guy's just a random vendor, why does he have to be a level appropriate challenge? Why haven't you, as a DM, figured out in advance how magic item merchants thwart theft and assault? If you didn't start the party off at such a high level, how the hell did they get there without you developing some sense of what the fuck they might do in a variety of situations? Is being anticipatory of their courses of action considered keeping the party on the rails to you?

You really seem to be arguing that the DM should be able to put zero prepatory effort into the game, and that just doesn't sit well with me.

It's like your cleric seeing a wizard cast a spell like gaseous form and saying "I want to learn that."

Well tough shit bro, you're a cleric and that's not on your list.

What, people can't multiclass (build viability aside) in your game? There's no way that there could be a prestige class, or item, or feat, or domain that would grant such an ability? Said cleric can't go out and become a vampire?

I mean there's really no reason you couldn't have a blue magic multiclassing feat in 4E that lets you swap one of your powers for a monster power of the same level or less.

So whether you want to go with the hardass approach or have some mechanic for learning those powers, it really doesn't matter. Personally I like the hardass approach a bit more there simply because it doesn't turn the MM into a dumpster diving expedition (which honestly never ends well).

Why does there need to be a PC/monster divide? Can you really not include a Hobgoblin or Mind Flayer in a party with a Human or Dwarf? Can you not include further information in monster descriptions detailing why they haven't taken over the world yet, given powers that would be wildly unbalanced in a PC's hands? Further, if a power wouldn't be balanced in a PC's hands, why are you including it in the game at all? Someone will figure out a way to access that power.

Yes actually a do. I hated the fact in 3.5 that all the bruisers were basically the same fucking monster. Seriously, giants, ogres, minotaurs... fucking boring. Nothing even remotely interesting besides full attack, full attack, full attack.

Dude, fuck that shit.

At the very least 4E tried to give these monsters area attacks, or marks or something beyond the regular 3.5 melee monster bullshit. In 3.5 you really had only two kinds of melee monsters. The full attack bruiser and the grappler. That's it. And it was incredibly dull.

Good point. I always did wonder why big monsters couldn't make sweeping attacks against everything 2 sizes smaller and in melee range of them. Or automatically cause knockback and send enemies flying. Or crush the shit out of something by virtue of weighing 40,000 lbs.

violence in the media wrote: How do you mean work differently? Are we talking about simply not having powers overlap, like the differences between a Necromancer, an Enchantress, and an Evoker? Or are we talking about using different mechanical systems, like the differences between Wizards, Binders, Truenamers, and Psionicists? I'm just trying to get an idea of what the differences between a Charm effect thrown down by a dragon vs. a fae should be in your mind.

Well I don't really think you want something that's totally alien in terms of systems. It's okay to have the same basic resource management system like 4E, but I want to see effects like.

Fae Charm: This requires the fae to actually touch you (and sometimes kiss you), and is incredibly potent and difficult to remove/resist. It is limited by the fact that it only works on beings of the opposite sex. Also, a fey can only charm a limited number of people at a time (usually one).

Dragon Charm: This enchantment magic acts on pretty much anyone and is partially based around a fear effect. Rather than actually make people truly like you, It brings great respect and awe (think the Majesty effect for Vampiric presence in oWoD). Dragon charms work on anything with a mind that can see the dragon, making it effective crowd control. There is no amount of people you can have dragon charmed, but it fades fast after the dragon is out of sight. Dragon charms however are pretty weak over all, and can be rather easily removed by experienced people.

You know, no preparation is ever wasted. You can eventually use everythng you make somewhere. If this guy's just a random vendor, why does he have to be a level appropriate challenge? Why haven't you, as a DM, figured out in advance how magic item merchants thwart theft and assault? If you didn't start the party off at such a high level, how the hell did they get there without you developing some sense of what the fuck they might do in a variety of situations? Is being anticipatory of their courses of action considered keeping the party on the rails to you?

You're never going to anticipate every series of circumstances as a DM. So the whole "you'll never be unprepared" is a bullshit argument. At some point, you will be surprised. The players will go off the rails, and you absolutely need to be able to come up with encounters on the fly that you can do.

You really seem to be arguing that the DM should be able to put zero prepatory effort into the game, and that just doesn't sit well with me.

No, not at all. But I am saying that the DM needs to be able to generate encounters on the fly. No DM is ever going to stat up every single NPC the PCs will ever meet. Sometimes you expect the duke to just give the PCs a quest and dont' expect them to try to kill him. But some PC starts shit you didn't expect and combat breaks out.

The game can't come to a grinding halt because that happens. And mid-level 3.5 can really do that. Once the PCs start attacking the duke and his guards. You need to come up with a bunch of shit on the fly. Because as a DM you're going to have to wing it eventually, especially at high levels where your PCs can literally teleport anywhere. Even if you are ridiculousyl well prepared, you can't be *that* well prepared.

Why does there need to be a PC/monster divide?

Because creating PCs takes a long time (or at least it should take a long time if you want to create interesting PCs, which I think most of us do). Creating NPCs on the other hand needs to be fast, otherwise you are stuck on rails.

It's mostly the demands of speed. The system cannot be both fast and detailed.

There is nothing wrong with an unexpected encounter not being an optimized level-appropriate combat. Not every damn merchant or duke has to become a minmaxed wizard just because the PCs decide to attack. I would feel railroaded if no matter what I did or attacked I would be facing a challengeing fight.

The PCs go after the red wizard merchant? Pick a wizard from your file, or have the NPC generator spit something out and run with it.

Fuchs wrote:There is nothing wrong with an unexpected encounter not being an optimized level-appropriate combat. Not every damn merchant or duke has to become a minmaxed wizard just because the PCs decide to attack. I would feel railroaded if no matter what I did or attacked I would be facing a challengeing fight.

Well, while not every encounter should be deadly, I still want a tool to pick the encounter difficulty I want. If I want an easy encounter, I need to be able to make that. If I want a hard encounter, I want to be able to make that too.

I don't want to be stuck with : Well whatever the NPC generator spits out, I have to go with, because the NPC generation method is so fucking awful and slow, I have no other options. As a DM that's very unappealing to me, because I can't create the world I want to. The rules are actually working against me, not with me. That's bad, and it's also poor game design.

4E at the very least does a nice job of designing encounters on the fly. You can literally make a lot of monsters/NPCs with just those two tables out of the DMG that detail monster stats by role. And that's actually a big improvement over 3E.

Now, while I see the desire to make NPCs and PCs use the same system, speed and adaptability is a much bigger concern. I'll take playability over verisimilitude any day of the week.

I agree that 4e is better than 3e, but let's not oversell it. If I make a monster quickly based only on the table in the DMG, I won't get a very flavourful and satisfying monster. The generated monsters only vary in two things: level and role.

A better system would have a pluggable chassis, whereby you pick defences from one list, at-will attacks from a second list, encounter powers from a third, and quirks from a fourth. So, for a Kobold Sorcerer of a Red Dragon you'd pick Dodger/Burning Hands/Fireball/Shifty.

The ideal might be a computer program where I start specifying attributes of the desired creature (halfling/artillery/level 5-ish/carries a staff) and have the program auto-generate a variety of appropriate stat blocks instantly.

MartinHarper wrote:I agree that 4e is better than 3e, but let's not oversell it. If I make a monster quickly based only on the table in the DMG, I won't get a very flavourful and satisfying monster. The generated monsters only vary in two things: level and role.

A better system would have a pluggable chassis, whereby you pick defences from one list, at-will attacks from a second list, encounter powers from a third, and quirks from a fourth. So, for a Kobold Sorcerer of a Red Dragon you'd pick Dodger/Burning Hands/Fireball/Shifty.

The ideal might be a computer program where I start specifying attributes of the desired creature (halfling/artillery/level 5-ish/carries a staff) and have the program auto-generate a variety of appropriate stat blocks instantly.

Yeah, without a doubt, the 4E system could use some improvement, but I think it's a nice starting point.

Ultimately we would like a program similar to the one you're talking about where you can instantly generate NPCs based on parameters. Then it wouldn't matter so much what NPC generation system you had, so long as the computer could get your NPC to conform to the specified CR. Ideally, that would be awesome. Though given WotCs history with computer programs, I just don't see it happening.