|
3 years ago ::
Mar 03, 2010 - 2:53PM
#491
|
Date Joined:
Jun 18, 2008
|
It really is a rarity that animals attack humans.
So what? If the PCs are fighting the animal, it's dangerous to them. It doesn't matter why they're fighting (although I'd point out that everything adventurers do is an unusual situation--if anybody's getting attacked by an elephant, it's those guys and gals).
If the PCs aren't fighting the animal, it doesn't need game stats. And will never score a critical hit. But if it did attack them--doesn't matter why since we're talking about ability--it reasonably could.
Speak softly and carry a sharp quill.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 03, 2010 - 3:36PM
#492
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
Go right ahead. It won't prove your point, though, because once again, you'll be taking exceptions and trying to apply them as the status quo, and I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way.
In this case, actually, it does. The argument is not whether elephants, rhinos or whatever are often killers, but whether they are sufficiently adept at killing that they it makes sense that they would be able to criticaly hit the PCs.
For some reason, Alyri had posited that they were not in support of her argument that PC are not sufficiently trained in being adventurers that they'd be able to check their equipment for wear and tear.
But elephants and rhinos are dangerous creatures when they fight, and when they fight is the only time they need combat stats.
Alyri seems to be under the "The World is Made of Stats" mindset that the MM simply catalogs everything that might breathe. Cats should have combat stats, and mice, and, presumably termites.
But 4e doesn't work that way. Stats are made for combat (except for skills), and the only creatures given full combat stats are those the PCs may encounter in combat (as foe or steed). By definition, then, all the creatures in the Monster Manual are appropriate combat encounters for their level. Thus, it makes sense that they can critically hit adventurers. Thus, Alyri's argument fails.
The existence of elephants as potential foes does not mean that PCs are so unprofessional as to warrant random mishaps. Realism does not justify critical miss rules. (Which does not mean other justifications might -- but Alyri was invoking realism, so that's what we were discussing.)
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 03, 2010 - 4:22PM
#493
|
Date Joined:
Feb 26, 2007
|
What player wouldn't like the houserule? It is decidedly in their favor.
lvl1-4 you get a daily every other encounter, lvl5-8 4 dailies per 5 encounters, 9+ daily every encounter. Drastically different from what the game has as the rules.
I have espoused fumbles as superior? Where? I have questioned the reasoning behind the professionals never make mistakes concept.
The Designers have added in a fumble mechanic. Strange I didn't realize I tried to claim to know better than the game designers, wonder where I said that.
Funny how it's DM's making commentary about the Houserule in a positive fashion.
The game assumes that someone is going to be using at least one daily per two encounters. Before, that wasn't happening because of them only coming back once every Extended Rests. (of which you only get one of every 18 hours.) People would save them because at most they only got three dailies. And it could be a while between Big Encounters, or Extended Rests.
People -weren't- using them and making their fights much harder than they should have been otherwise, while blowing Dragons and etc down faster than they were mowing through standard encounters.
The game takes into account people using dailies fairly frequently. Kind of hard for it to function as intended when they aren't using them you know?
one of the things alot of Dms have a hard time with is getting players to use dailies instead of just "saving them " it makes it harder to design encounters when players are saving dailies because you have to run a much narrower range of monsters before it either becomes too hard (and forces everyone to blow a daily at once and then they have nothing for the Solo which turns it into a big bag of Hp type fight ((sound like a familiar complaint about Solos?)) ), or it's still too easy to be a challenge.
The Milestone Recharge rule actually addresses that problem directly by making Dailies abit more free to use. Which brings the Encounter range back into line with what the designers were intending.
Sounds like a player problem and not a game problem doesn't it. One of my players calls it the Giant Crab Syndrome, can't use my daily on this giant crab, there might be a bigger one around the corner. Your solution just turns daily powers into encounter powers.
You also assumed to know more than the Designers when you started assuming that some how Crits aren't part of the games default math. Which if this were previous editions I'd grant you, because any "balancing" that went on was much akin to a blindfolded drunk throwing darts at a dartboard. Any that happened to hit the dartboard were just coincidence.
What part of the math is crits? These crits that can vary so much all over the spectrum, just what math are these?
Moderated by
ORC_Sinister
on Mar 03, 2010 - 05:47PM
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 03, 2010 - 4:35PM
#494
|
Date Joined:
Apr 17, 2008
|
actually it turns them into an Every Other encounter power.
You get it back -after- you reach the milestone. meaning Two Encounters. Which is the frequency they intend on daily use being.
The fact that the default rules really do not do a good job of encouraging this sort of play is a problem. And thus the house rule.
I didn't see any snide comments until certain posters started bandying about "zomg people that hate fumbles are whining cry babies!". And even then it's no where in the same magnitude.
Monster Hp, Defenses. Hell attack bonus and hit percentages. Powers, paragon paths, destinies, feats.
Player Hp, player defenses even.
Crits happen up to a certain frequency -at maximum- upping the crit range through several means do not stack. You just get the greatest range. That tells you right there that the math of the game is to take crits into a given frequency.
Crits also have a set damage maximum and minimum that they can do now that are much less random.
The Crits are also balanced within level ranges that they occurr. That they SCALE, tells you that Yes the designers DID take them into account, rather than taking another shot of courage donning the blindfold once more and throwing a dart where they think the dartboard will be.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 03, 2010 - 4:45PM
#495
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
We roll those. But those aren't random things. The dm doesnt roll on an encounter sheet to find out what we will be finding.
Since you seem to be unable to find it yourself, I'll direct you to the RANDOM encounter chart in the DMG. It's on page 193. Right near the RANDOM dungeon creation charts.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 03, 2010 - 4:48PM
#496
|
Date Joined:
Apr 17, 2008
|
Since you seem to be unable to find it yourself, I'll direct you to the RANDOM encounter chart in the DMG. It's on page 193. Right near the RANDOM dungeon creation charts.
Aren't those in the Build your game on the Fly section though?
I think they even go as far as to say that those are a good method strictly speaking for designing something when you are incredibly short on time.
And isn't the random encounter generator done by monster groups and not by monsters? There are alot of fields they have specified and narrowed it down with, so I don't know if we can call them Random in the spirit of previous Es you know?
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 03, 2010 - 4:49PM
#497
|
Date Joined:
Feb 26, 2007
|
Go right ahead. It won't prove your point, though, because once again, you'll be taking exceptions and trying to apply them as the status quo, and I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way.
In this case, actually, it does. The argument is not whether elephants, rhinos or whatever are often killers, but whether they are sufficiently adept at killing that they it makes sense that they would be able to criticaly hit the PCs.
For some reason, Alyri had posited that they were not in support of her argument that PC are not sufficiently trained in being adventurers that they'd be able to check their equipment for wear and tear.
Actually my comment was about how non professionals have the same chance at critical hits and seem to suffer no adverse effects from combat, just like the trained professionals.
But elephants and rhinos are dangerous creatures when they fight, and when they fight is the only time they need combat stats.
And that doesn't make them combatants. Their size makes them dangerous, you don't go out to a herd, looking for the silver dragon around the right elephants, signalling the one that has combat ability.
Alyri seems to be under the "The World is Made of Stats" mindset that the MM simply catalogs everything that might breathe. Cats should have combat stats, and mice, and, presumably termites.
No, you were the one to bring up the stat block, not me.
But 4e doesn't work that way. Stats are made for combat (except for skills), and the only creatures given full combat stats are those the PCs may encounter in combat (as foe or steed). By definition, then, all the creatures in the Monster Manual are appropriate combat encounters for their level. Thus, it makes sense that they can critically hit adventurers. Thus, Alyri's argument fails.
combat stats =/= equal professionals, no matter how many times you say it, it doesn't make it true. The argument that adventurers never need worry about equipment maintenance and thus fumbles, because they are professionals doesn't hold up to the scrutiny when the creatures they fight are not 'professionals' themselves, but merely able to give a credible threat to the adventurers.
The existence of elephants as potential foes does not mean that PCs are so unprofessional as to warrant random mishaps. Realism does not justify critical miss rules. (Which does not mean other justifications might -- but Alyri was invoking realism, so that's what we were discussing.)
No, I was questioning the reasoning of professional adventurer as the basis of why the PCs never fumble.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 03, 2010 - 4:52PM
#498
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
And you never will. Your bias against fumbles will prevent you from ever seeing any fumble as adding to the game.
Wrong. I'm against random fumble charts that excessively penalize players for rolling a 1. In 4e, when a DM hits a player with a penalty that is worse than CA, it often sucks for the player. Having a magical item you enjoy break simply as a result of a critical failure is far worse than granting CA.
It really depends on the player. Some players thrive on the risk of "bad" things happening. I've lost more magic items than I can count over the years. Only a very few broke, but I've had many stolen or taken from me while unconscious. I don't sweat it, because new ones are there to be found.
If a DM is going to include a random critical failure chart, then that DM should also include a random critical success chart. The DM is never as screwed as players by random fumble charts.
I agree, and every DM I know that has made a fumble chart, has also made a crit chart.
He's belittled many players for "not wanting anything bad to ever happen to their characters" yet he changed his critical failures into something that are not critical failures. They're "you succeed but" effects. Not the same and completely hypocritical. It was just amusing.
I think you misread his statement. I read that one and it read like a single example of a fumble, not how he runs all of his fumbles. Sometimes they are bad, sometimes they are both good and bad. He decides what happens when the fumble is rolled. It's not hypocritical at all.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 03, 2010 - 4:55PM
#499
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
Hmm. We could call it the Elementary School Fallacy. "Because I say so." was big in Elementary School.
But since that is a regular approach by Feyberry, it would be the Feyberry fallacy. Which seems to be the usual method of naming fallacies on these forums.
It's already got a name. False Authority.
No, he's not offering himself as a false authority who should be believed. He's saying "Because I said so.", which is different.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 03, 2010 - 4:59PM
#500
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
Go right ahead. It won't prove your point, though, because once again, you'll be taking exceptions and trying to apply them as the status quo, and I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way.
Sam. I already showed that from only two of the many locations around the world with elephants, the number of deadly elephant attacks averaged at 2 per week for the several years the study was conducted. Since it only included deadly attacks, if you include non-fatal attacks and attacks where no injuries happened, you would increase the number of weekly attacks by quite a bit. That's hardly an "exception" I didn't bother to look up hippos and rhinos, but they are probably attacking people in similar numbers given their more violent temperments.
|
|
|
