Post/Author/DateTime	Post
LaTempestad 01-20-04, 12:14 AM	My current DM, disgusted with making up stats for NPCs only to have them horribly die in combat to PCs, came up with the following system... Basically, encounters are sorted into "easy", "medium", and "hard" categories... If something is "easy", it needs a 16 or so to hit X party member on an attack. If something is "medium", it needs a 14 or so to hit X party member on an attack. If something is "hard", it needs a 12 or so to hit X party member on an attack. Vice versa for us being able to hit the creature. Hit points are made up based on how many we have, and how many he thinks appropriate. These values are based on the party's average AC and attack bonuses... so, the mage will still be hit far more than the party fighter, in theory, although at the moment we all have almost the same AC and attack bonuses (2 clerics, 1 rogue). However, if the whole party ran around naked, the enemies would need the same values to hit us. This system is based on the notion that most of our opponents are humans, as opposed to monsters, so they need to scale to our level in order to keep challenging us... Good idea? Bad idea? Thoughts appreciated--I can't stand the system at all, although I know logically it works almost the same as the current ever-rising AC/hp/BAB etc... hopefully someone can reason it out better than I.
channel_dunlap 01-20-04, 12:34 AM	actually seems like it benifits you guys. The harder they are, the higher they have to roll to hit you?
LaTempestad 01-20-04, 12:39 AM	Whoops--mixed up the values. :embarrass
Arkenian 01-20-04, 01:04 AM	I suspect, that a lot more DMs have used something like this system on occasion than are terribly likely to admit it -- it's a fairly classic way on how you run an encounter you haven't prepped ahead of time. -Arkenian the Golden
Mister Mayhem 01-20-04, 01:42 AM	In the past, I've been sorely tempted to secretly run encounters in which the monsters have no actual HP, they simply die after the first hit upon them that occurs after they have delivered a pre-set amount of damage to the party. EG an orc might die only after delivering a total of 20 damage. This would fine tune exactly how dangerous a monster is to the party. Although you need to make sure that the damage is reasonably spread around the party as appropriate. I wouldn't do it for an important battle but it might work quite well for off-the-cuff random encounters. Of course, if they discover you are doing it, the combat becomes pointless from the PCs point of view as all apparence of challenge goes out of the window. Somewhat contraversioal, I feel. Fine if the story is the thing, but some DMs would balk at the thought of "cheating" in this fashion.
the_heart 01-20-04, 06:57 AM	nah, i don't like the sound of that either. it takes no account of different PC's abilities. you might as well not bother with armour, just stack up on offensive power. and, more importantly, it smacks of lazy DM'ing. if i need quickstats i just scribble approximate basics roughly suitable to the supposed class and level. give them no significant feats or just note one favourite feat. spells for a spell caster would be bogstandard FB/hold/magic missile. example: L10 ftr hp80 +15 to hit 1d8+10 dmg AC 27 disarms. literally a minutes work and then if i have to i can retroactively work out stats and equipment. as a suggestion to others. write up a number of 5*3 note card with 'token L10 NPC fighter No1' or every time you quickstat an NPC, transfer a fuller version to card.
DM Zoc 01-20-04, 08:13 AM	As a player, I would quit if the DM did that. It basically means that my character is nothing but a character; if I wanted that, I'd LARP. Removing the statistical analysis (or in this case, grossly simplifying them) is removing the G from RPG. As much as I hate power-gaming, munckining, and monster-bashing, I hate the alternative more; you need a balance, and one half of the balance is about numbers, and those numbers should matter. As a DM, though, it's fine to bluff your way through an encounter every now and then, when the players catch you way off guard. If you do this too much, however, then it's just bad DMing. The first law of house-ruling states that any modification you make to the game makes it into a different game. Feel free to make up your own game, but leave D&D out of it.
Salla 01-20-04, 08:20 AM	That really ... stinks. If you're going to go through the effort to decide that rolling a (XX) hits, you might as well just find a monster with the right attack bonus to actually do it. That also takes tactics completely out of the picture (unless the DM takes that into account; you didn't specify). I mean, does he change the 'target number' if you use Dodge or Combat Expertise? On the up side, at least he's consistent. I've got a DM who obviously makes up numbers as he goes, and they hop all over the board, apparently based on 'dramatic effect'; meaning that, if you're making multiple attacks in the same attack sequence, you can hit with a total of 23 then immediately miss with a 27 on the next swing.
FineasBoggs 01-20-04, 04:11 PM	Isn't that why the DMG is full of stats for generic NPC's ??? There should be no reason what-so-ever for using a system like the one described above. Why bother even playing DnD if you are going to completely disregard the rules? If you do that it's just some home brew game with home brew rules. I do agree completely, that it smacks of lazy DM'ing. If I were you, I would start looking for a REAL group of players interested in playing DnD because the system you described isn't it. http://webpages.charter.net/acamphuysen/manshoon_mage_sigil.gif
LaTempestad 01-20-04, 05:26 PM	To answer a question... From my estimate, it looks like the 'value' is determined when the first enemy gets his first attack. So, using any defensive maneuvers beforehand is fairly useless. On the flip side, our main boss-type encounter became a cakewalk once I used the simple strategy of a tanglefoot bag and messed with the attackers' AC by 2 or so. The system horrendously broke down... Although, I was slightly ticked the DM decided "they all break through in 2 rounds" as opposed to having to deal the 15 damage--mainly because that made the bag slightly less effective by a round or so, but also because it made the 15 damage entirely meaningless. The system makes a lot of cool things useless, though... my character Moved Silently with his +11 bonus no problem, but as soon as I rolled low (a 4; total 15) the DM decided I was heard. To agree with the_heart specifically, it does smack of lazy DMing. I know not all of us have free time, but hey... :behold: For those of you who agree with it, though, I'd be interested to hear why. I'm much easier to convince than I suspect the DM will be. ;)
Mister Mayhem 01-21-04, 02:32 AM	It depends primaraily whether you are running combats as a complicated gme of chess, or whether your sole purpose is to entertain the players. Most choose a middle ground. But as long as a Player *thinks* his PC has been fighting for his life, and fought hard, what actually happens isn't necessarily as important. Its all in the look of the thing. Perhaps not best suited for the stark and inflexible reality of a miniatures combat, where players have no doubt how often a monster has or has not been hit. It depends whether or not your players are the type who dutifully track each blow upon an enemy in order to calculate whether or not that foe should have hit the floor by now. *** But the method actually works quite well in a LARP melee, where nobody has an artificial overview of the entire combat the way a tabletop-player has, and so generally has no idea whether a monster has already had a good beating from another player or not. After all, the result of a good combat, especially the climatic final fight, is for the players to come out of it alive at the end, but only just, and fully believing that they were in danger of death and only survived by luck and superior tactics.
Veton 01-21-04, 02:05 PM	Originally posted by LaTempestad My current DM, disgusted with making up stats for NPCs only to have them horribly die in combat to PCs... :rolleyes: Good idea? Bad idea? Bad. This messes with feats in various ways. For example, take Power Attack. Since your base attack bonus doesn't matter, why not pump all the points into it? And Manyshot will definitly become more powerful by this. You get more arrows, and the penalty won't affect your attack, so why not use it all the time?
Arakano 01-21-04, 02:15 PM	Well, I always have important enemies prepared ahead. If I should need some "fillers" in between, I make them up in a few minutes. So, no great work. Btw, I LOVE designing deadly opponents to set against the PCs. From that Vampire Blackguard with his Vampire Cleric beloved to the dwarven defender smuggler leader... :D
Veton 01-21-04, 02:25 PM	You know, if you are able make the NPCs "horribly die in combat," then something is wrong here. A) You guys are overpowered. B)The NPCs are underpowered. C)He's not playing them very well. So see if you can work with your DM to fix it. For A, you might want to give up stuff, although your DM should offer you something for it. For B, he needs to take a better look at the DMG. For C, show him this article (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=72194).
BW0222 01-21-04, 08:55 PM	LaTempestad, 3.x D&D isn't something you can wing-it to that extent. First, during a four hour play session, you might have one to three combat encounters. I've seen some games take two hours to get through a combat. Because of the amount of time it takes to go through even six seconds of combat, it's really expected that your DM will come up with actual stats prior to play or refer to the MM for actual stats. A DM should be willing to spend ten minutes to prep a combat which will likely last an hour or more. Second, combat in 3.x is extremely precise. Unlike 1e or 2e, where you basically exchanged rolls for twenty rounds, 3e combat involves detailed rules for movement, attacks, cover, AoO, spellcasting, etc., etc. Players will spend a lot of time doing all sorts of tactical planning, movement, spellcasting, etc. Having players make such important decisions when the DM doesn't actually have the number is really cheesy. Third, combat in 3e is far more deadly. A DM needs to be extremely careful on selecting opponents for a party. A special ability, feat, spell, etc. not thought out a head of time can lead to silly one-sided slaughters. There are so many things other than AC and attack roles which determine how well a party will fair against a specific creature. If a DM doesn't even have stats for NPCs then you run have an increased risk that they will either be slaughtered or slaughter the PCs. In most adventures, NPCs are the most dangerous opponents a party can face. Even those 1-2 levels lower, typically have a wider variety of abilities than your typical monster and can surprise you with spells, feats, and methods of fighting. There is little reason a group of six NPCs can't be as tough a group of five PCs, unless the DM isn't playing them well -- and not generating the stats typically means that the DM isn't going to be familiar enough with their abilities to play them effectively. Thanks, Brett
devinmdp 01-21-04, 11:20 PM	Why stop there? I remember an old April Fool's issue of the Dragon that featured wandering damage charts. Why waste time with actual wandering monsters? Just cut through the fuss and roll on the wandering damage table. DM: You encounter some wandering damage, you take a D12 The problem with the DM's approach is that it ignores the many facets of an NPC that make 3rd edition so much more interesting than 2nd edition. In 2nd edition a non-mage NPC often just walked up and whacked with a weapon. But in 3rd edition you should know what feats he has, skills, stats, etc. What if the NPC wants to grapple or trip or disarm? Why not have your DM go further and calculate the average damage he wants everyone to take from his Average, Easy, and Hard Encounters and assume he rolled average and just distribute damage. DM: Ok, you all have an average encounter....take 15 damage each. Next. The point is that in shorthanding the NPCs so much the DM is destroying too many of the variable that can affect combat as well as denying many of the colourful things that you or the NPCs can do in them. If the whole point is that the DM is having his NPCs die horribly, then he needs to get better at designing and running NPCs or up their difficulty until he finds the right balance. Otherwise, he is simply being lazy at the expense of the players. Why even have a DM? Devin