Quote from: Omega;1009704I was more asking about the PCs in 4e. The monsters in the GW version arent using the same rules as the PCs for equipment either. In fact they barely seem to be following any equipment rules at all.

It's similar in Pathfinder/Starfinder as well. CR/Level has more effect on AC than equipment. Sometimes it makes sense, as in a creature with natural armor, but most of the time it's an aspect of the level treadmill. PCs get tougher, monsters get tougher to match their power level, and the world scrolls by like a Flintstones cartoon.

[video=youtube;8LX7LOhiyHM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LX7LOhiyHM[/youtube]

It's... not unworkable, but the evaluation of how tough/difficult a monster is is detached from most of the descriptions, unless the GM is on the ball and introduces some contrived cues. "This ork is wearing Fel Plate..."

Thanks guys, more good stuff. As to not responding to those supporting part or all of my approach, thanks very much and I apologize if I have ignored you. One tends to address the dog biting his ass over the one waiting to be petted. My bad though, I appreciate all the comments, friendly and otherwise. I wouldnt frequent this forum if I thought you assholes didnt haven something to teach me.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009722you assholes

* Sally Fields *  "You like me!  You really like me!"

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009722Thanks guys, more good stuff. As to not responding to those supporting part or all of my approach, thanks very much and I apologize if I have ignored you. One tends to address the dog biting his ass over the one waiting to be petted. My bad though, I appreciate all the comments, friendly and otherwise. I wouldnt frequent this forum if I thought you assholes didnt haven something to teach me.

I'll give you this; you take your lumps and come back for more. Here's hoping to god that you learned something this time ;-)

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009352Yeah, a 2 modifier to the AC has removed all consistency from the game. All is lost, all is lost.

I don't know how you can sleep at night after doing such a thing.

You bastard.

Quote from: saskganesh;1009344Well ya, if you make a mistake, you should own it. Game on. It happens. Convoluted explanations of a fuck up are just a dodge.

I certainly wouldn't fret and handwring about it, and start a thread online so that strangers could comment and try to solve mistakes of the past and the lost hope of wasted table time.

His mistake was answering with some version of "Because I said so."

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1009360But... seriously... why not just give him worse armor to make a lower AC?

But I repeat, I'm an armor fetishist.

You do realize that in D&D there are other factors in AC, right? Maybe that orc has cursed armor. Maybe it's an illusion. Maybe it's damaged/worn out/badly made chainmail. Maybe the PC is the beneficiary of a magical bonus he doesn't know about yet.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1009367Sure. I can think of lots of reasons to rationalize a lower AC. Damaged armor and/or low Dex off the top of my head. The important thing is to be consistent so the players could at least know that there is a reason.

The DM is under no obligation to explain WHY a creature has a certain AC during or immediately after combat. If a player is just dying to find out why what looked like a miss turned out to be a hit, let his character look into it. He can examine the armor, do an autopsy on the orc...

Quote from: Sable Wyvern;1009576The other day, I invited some friends over for a party, where I served cake. I explained in the invitations that I would be serving a chocolate mudcake. After everyone had eaten, one of my guests pointed out that that it tasted a bit off. I explained to the guest that I had made the cake out of my own excrement, because it was my party and it doesn't matter how I describe the menu, I serve whatever I feel is best.

The guest was angry, because the accepted High Society Style Guides indicate that in November you should only serve white chocolate mudcake. These style guides are just pretentious twattery, and the guest was being completely unreasonable. Why should I be limited to serving only white chocolate in November?

Clearly, the only real issue here is the guest's insistence that the style guide be adhered to.

Because changing an orc's AC is the equivalent of shitting in someone's food. Drama queen much?

Quote from: Skarg;1009470What happened to all the D&D people who claim the rules are just suggestions and the DM can & should use rulings over rules?

Is there no mechanic for foes of different skill to be harder to hit than others, other than armor class which doesn't get adjustments?

If not, it sounds to like rgrove was just trying to improve the combat system, and in a way that sounds like an improvement to me, no?

Apparently, orcish armor is the one thing that must never be altered. For to give an orc low-quality chainmail is worse than crossing the streams plus letting gremlins eat after midnight, multiplied by looking into the Ark of the Covenant. I shake with fear just at the thought of it.

Quote from: Elfdart;1009732You do realize that in D&D there are other factors in AC, right? Maybe that orc has cursed armor. Maybe it's an illusion. Maybe it's damaged/worn out/badly made chainmail. Maybe the PC is the beneficiary of a magical bonus he doesn't know about yet. .

None of which he said.  He said "because."

DO try to keep up.

Of course Grove could always introduce this player to T&T. Monsters in that game are given a single number, their "Monster Rating". This serves as hit points, attack score, defense, the lot of it. No seperate armour or weapons to track. Just an MR score. Describe it as wearing plate armour and weilding a great sword, or dressed in rags and wielding a rusty table knife, both could be a MR 65 orc, rolling 8d6+33. Let the warrior in the party pick up that great sword after the fight is over and for him it's a great sword, maybe 5d6 or 7d6.  It's one game where for the monsters the "skin" has absolutely no bearing on the game stats.

I am pretty sure there is a spell that lets you know the MR of a foe so you can judge how tough a fight it will be. Good thing too. Just because the last orc was MR 65 doesn't mean the next one won't be MR 270 but look just the same.

[video=youtube;JizzeERcZjg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JizzeERcZjg[/youtube]

Oh, come on, Ravenswing. We're only on page 16, we're just getting started.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009722Thanks guys, more good stuff. As to not responding to those supporting part or all of my approach, thanks very much and I apologize if I have ignored you. One tends to address the dog biting his ass over the one waiting to be petted. My bad though, I appreciate all the comments, friendly and otherwise. I wouldnt frequent this forum if I thought you assholes didnt haven something to teach me.

One thing to consider here is that your overall style as you've explained it in various posts is more storygame or even storytelling than traditional RPGing. And from experience things like armour and weapons are not as important as the staging and drama of whats going on. Arbitrarily changing what the stats are on gear fits storytelling because gear doesnt have stats to begin with and might, or might not have stats in a storygame.

But when you do that in a standard EPG with defined rules with nothing to back it up. THEN you are alot more likely to either hit resistance or outright hostility as in these games the data you get from the DM is vital for determining what to do next. Whereas in a storytelling session its just short of irrelevant and may or may not be usefull in a storygame.

It sounds like your player thought, possibly rightly, that they were playing in a RPG rather than a storygame or storytelling. It sounds often like you usually end up just playing a storytelling game in the end no matter what the system you have. Which kinda makes your other thread a little weird. Its not a bad thing. As Ive said before. But you really should be up front with the players about it. And an actual reason instead of "because I wanted to" for the changes is the better approach. Otherwise you are not telling a good story. Internal consistency helps to reinforce the story and you wasted a great opportunity to play with that with your low AC orc for example.

Quote from: DavetheLost;1009739I am pretty sure there is a spell that lets you know the MR of a foe so you can judge how tough a fight it will be. Good thing too. Just because the last orc was MR 65 doesn't mean the next one won't be MR 270 but look just the same.

Well its usually good form to describe the MR 270 as somehow better than the 65. The books tended to differentiate somehow when something was higher threat.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009296A comment by Gronan on GM rulings reminded me of a strange conversation I had with a player a while back. It involved myself, as GM, altering the stats of an adversary and his response when he found out. Before I paraphrase it let me say the player is a great guy and an avid player but is somewhat of a stickler for the game/challenge/tactics/mechanics side of RPing.

GM: The orc goes down, a solid hit in the ribs yields a loud crack beneath his mail and he spits a gout of blood as he collapses.

Player: Awesome! Thats the last of them. We... wait...  Did you say mail?

GM: Huh? Oh, yeah... chainmail, he was wearing a chainmail hauberk, grieves... you know?

Player: But I rolled a 12 to hit. Chainmail is 14?

GM: Yeah, his AC was an 11.

Player: But thats not chainmal, thats like hardened leather or whatever. I should have missed.

GM: No you hit his AC of 11, fair and square. The orcs typically wear mail though, these do anyway, soldiers of the Black Duke and all. Doesnt matter how I describe it. I designed him with an AC of 11. Thats what you use when you fight him.

Player: So chainmail for me is 14 but for him is 11?  Do you make up other kinds of chaimails for other guys?

GM: No, well, yeah... they are monsters, adversaries, extras... whatever. They function differently. Yes as a character the armor should be consistent but for the monsters, who cares if his chainmail is AC11 or his broadsword only does 1d6 damage or whatever?

Player: WHA? They use different weapons too? So if I pick up an orc broadsword it only does a d6?

GM: No, it would probably do a d8 like normal, just not for him.

Player: So you have different rules for how much damage weapons do or armor stops based on who is using them?

GM: NO, I just rule it the way I see it. An orc grunt with a broadsword isnt as good as a hero. So I nerf them a little.

Player: So how the hell am I supposed to know what anything is, how good or challenging it will be? Chainmail isnt really chainmail, a broadsword really isnt a broadsword...

GM (Interrupting and a little hacked) ... yeah, thats right and a fireball may not do the same damage, a fall from the roof may do more, and they might take a saving throw differently too. So what? Its my world, those that live in it and arent under your control function as I see them, not based specifically on some freaking rulebook.

Player: Well how nice, I guess we all just live to adventure in your own little special and private version of a fantasy world where everything, even natural laws, are yours to change.

GM: Err.. umm, yeah.. exactly!


Who do you guys feel - whose side do you lean on?

Ha! I'm so glad I dodged that game mechanic.

Grove:

The thing you're missing is that the rules are more than rules, they are a syntax, a language of communication.  Whatever system you're using (unless it's one of the highly narrative or tactical systems people have suggested above), "An Orc in chainmail with a broadsword" means something.  It's different than "An Orc in leather armor with a shortsword" or "An Orc in platemail with a greatsword".

What you say to the players is the only means of information they have to understand the world their characters are in and make decisions.

I'll say it again because it's that important:

What you say to the players is the only means of information they have to understand the world their characters are in and make decisions.

The fact that you wanted to make a weak orc isn't the problem.
The fact that you wanted to make the orc weaker by giving him a lower AC isn't the problem.

The problem is: You think it doesn't matter at all how you make the orc weaker, and you think nothing of the terms "chainmail" or "broadsword" meaning something different every time they are used.

There are tons of ways you could have made the orc weaker, and many have been said, but here's the REAL problem...

You mentioned you wanted the visual effect of a chainmail-clad orc without the actual danger of a chainmail clad orc.

You see no actual value in the consistency between what the imagery you are imparting to the players is, and what the reality of what the characters are doing is.  You expect your players to trust you as MC, and allow you to alter the rules at will with no internal consistency, because the end result, if they let you do your thing, will be enjoyable.

When the players are strong, they will fight full HD, AC:14, D8 damage orcs and it will be a tough fight.
When the players are weak, they will fight half HD, AC:11, D6 damage orcs and it will be a tough fight.
They'll think they are fighting the same exact orcs by your descriptions.

Your style is HIGHLY Illusionist.   You will continue to keep having violent reactions from players until you...
1. Tell them in the beginning your GMing style is highly Illusionist, and they should expect Schrodinger's Ogre.
2. Never, EVER, tell them the reality of any GMing decision you make. This one I wouldn't recommend, because I'm not sure you can even identify the things you're doing that are Illusionist.

Quote from: S'mon;10097074e PC AC is calculated as 10 + armour bonus + 1/2 level + any other mods.

The 4e DMG does actually suggest doing this for a special category of simplified quasi-PC-class NPCs, but this was never followed up; published NPCs are all Brute/Soldier/Skirmisher etc with 12/14/16+Level ACs.

4e is weird - last session my group were wary of taking on 5 hobgoblins with 3 PCs. But if there had been 20 hobgoblins they'd have thought "Minions!" and dived right in. It's definitely not high on the versimilitude and doesn't encourage outside-the-box thinking; thinking is for in-combat, not whether/how to engage.

So, a version of D&D finally had combatants become harder to hit as they advanced. Wow, if they had left armor out of the calculation, and let it absorb damage instead, they would have reached what my system has been like since 1985. And why aren't NPCs just characters. Is a simple 4e character so difficult to create?

Quote from: CRKrueger;1009840Grove:

The thing you're missing is that the rules are more than rules, they are a syntax, a language of communication.  Whatever system you're using (unless it's one of the highly narrative or tactical systems people have suggested above), "An Orc in chainmail with a broadsword" means something.  It's different than "An Orc in leather armor with a shortsword" or "An Orc in platemail with a greatsword".

What you say to the players is the only means of information they have to understand the world their characters are in and make decisions.

I'll say it again because it's that important:

What you say to the players is the only means of information they have to understand the world their characters are in and make decisions.

The fact that you wanted to make a weak orc isn't the problem.
The fact that you wanted to make the orc weaker by giving him a lower AC isn't the problem.

The problem is: You think it doesn't matter at all how you make the orc weaker, and you think nothing of the terms "chainmail" or "broadsword" meaning something different every time they are used.

There are tons of ways you could have made the orc weaker, and many have been said, but here's the REAL problem...

You mentioned you wanted the visual effect of a chainmail-clad orc without the actual danger of a chainmail clad orc.

You see no actual value in the consistency between what the imagery you are imparting to the players is, and what the reality of what the characters are doing is.  You expect your players to trust you as MC, and allow you to alter the rules at will with no internal consistency, because the end result, if they let you do your thing, will be enjoyable.

When the players are strong, they will fight full HD, AC:14, D8 damage orcs and it will be a tough fight.
When the players are weak, they will fight half HD, AC:11, D6 damage orcs and it will be a tough fight.
They'll think they are fighting the same exact orcs by your descriptions.

Your style is HIGHLY Illusionist.   You will continue to keep having violent reactions from players until you...
1. Tell them in the beginning your GMing style is highly Illusionist, and they should expect Schrodinger's Ogre.
2. Never, EVER, tell them the reality of any GMing decision you make. This one I wouldn't recommend, because I'm not sure you can even identify the things you're doing that are Illusionist.

I hear what you are saying but, at the risk of bringing down another torrent of descent on my head, I think you perception is highly limited in this case.

From what you are saying my description must match their perception, and frankly the one by the designers of the game we are playing, exactly. If I describe a Minotaur it must have this AC, do this much damage, move this speed etc. You are robbing me the freedom as a GM to vary the threats, modify their traits and present them in the manner in which I view them as part of my world. Of course Im not talking about making a mosquito hit for 10d10 damage or something, the presentation has to match in a general respect the performance of the entity but variations are part of what makes life, and whatever we are simulating in the game, interesting.

If I am accosted by a street tough on my way to the store his appearance may give me an accurate assessment of how much of a threat he is, and then again it may not. There are hints perhaps, his bearing, his expression and so on but that knife in his hand could be a d4 weapon in the hands of a desperate but incompetent thug to a d20 lethal instrument in the hands of a career criminal.

The orc in chainmal does not have to reflect every other orc in chainmail in the world. He can, as many here have stated, be different in any of a number of ways. This is reflected by a change in his stats.

SURE, I ADMIT FREELY, I made a mistake by not simply explaining this difference when asked about it - instead I resented the player's probing and showed my ass. Lashing accepted. However, the act of making a suit of armor less effective on one individual for any number of reasons, especially in a system like D&D when AC and even weapon damage reflects any number of actual elements, is perfectly acceptable as far as Im concerned. Ill continue to do it in the future when appropriate, but I will have a clear reason available should the player ask and perhaps even drop a hint during the encounter that this specimen may not be the norm.

"Looks like a Black Pudding, but there is a slight shimmer of green youve never encountered or heard of before."

Personally in a world where the Monster Manual isnt available on newstands I think having to do the above is pretty silly, unless the characters happen to be specialists on puddings or something but in the interest of peace at the table, when most players are intimately familiar with most creatures, its probably a good idea top avoid misunderstandings. (Applies to suits of armor too of course)