|[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties

"DougL" <lampert.doug.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c381b8aa-f0b7-4174-b8bd-0ac36f009809@m23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 25, 12:36 pm, "Malachias Invictus" <invictuse....DeleteThis@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> "DougL" <lampert.d....DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:3a62d9a9-c47c-4611-8e54-06d101b20636@64g2000hsw.googlegroups.com...
>
> >"Malachias Invictus" <invictuse....DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> "Matt Frisch" <matus....DeleteThis@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
> > > Keith Davies <keith.dav....DeleteThis@kjdavies.org>:
> >> >>Put it this way: if Dex+light armor isn't so much better than
> >> >>tanking,
> >> >>why do I see so many Dex-monkey combatants than tanks?
> >> > I hardly ever see them.
> >> My experience matches Keith's.
> >May or may not tell us anything about efficiency of the two builds.
> >LOTS of players and people on this group tend to strongly undervalue a
> >+1 to hit or +1 to AC.
>
> I am not one of them. I try to squeeze out every plus, for the most part.
>
> > They may be figuring "close" is good enough
> > even if it's not. IME fast guys actually end up a couple of points
> > behind on AC (in fact full plate and 12 Dex is a point better than any
> > other reasonable combination, and light characters don't always max
> > out their dex bonus to AC).
>
> If you are not coming close to maximum Dexterity, then you are likely
> right.
> I find that most front-liners either have a very high Dexterity, or a very
> low one (and most have the former). If you figure on a 16 Dexterity (which
> is high), you are losing 2 AC from Dexterity by going heavy (Full Plate),
> but gaining 4 AC from Armor (vs. a Chain Shirt). On the other hand, once
> you get a +4 Dexterity item, you are even. Even, that is, if you ignore
> weight issues, movement penalties, and armor check penalties. The higher
> level you get, the less that heavy armor is helping.

The chain shirt is ALWAYS behind. It has +4 max dex bonus and +4 AC.

The Plate has +1 max dex bonus and +8 AC.

+8<+9, and you're spending 16k on a dex item and 6 more points on
point buy to do it.

> >Monsters hit armored types maybe 25% of their total attacks, dropping
> >that to 20% is a big deal.
>
> Yes, it is.
>
> > IME faster movement mostly gives more spotlight time, it rarely really
> > helps much in combat,
>
> I find that it matters in combat quite a bit, especially if you are using
> Book of 9 Swords.

I don't.

> > and if you charge forward ahead of the tank I'm
> > not going to pull any punches when the BBEG + minions intended to
> > seriously challenge the entire group find themselves fighting only the
> > fast guy on his own with no other really good targets.
>
> That is why the fast guy invariably takes Spring Attack, which works
> better
> with more movement.

And unless he's twice the speed of the enemy they still catch him.

> > I've seen LOTS of dead fast guys in my games, I don't think I've
> > EVER managed to kill a tank outside of one TPK.
>
> Apparently, your party has never been routed and had to run for their
> lives.
> The guy who only moves 20' is toast.

Followed by the guy with 30' move, and then the guy with 50' move,
because Dragons and Demons and even most really big brutes are STILL
faster than ALL of you unless you have teleport. And if you have
teleport one guess as to who the wizard is near enought to to take
with him.

DougL
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties 

"DougL" <lampert.doug.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c381b8aa-f0b7-4174-b8bd-0ac36f009809@m23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>"Malachias Invictus" <invictuse....DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "DougL" <lampert.d....DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:

>> > They may be figuring "close" is good enough
>> > even if it's not. IME fast guys actually end up a couple of points
>> > behind on AC (in fact full plate and 12 Dex is a point better than any
>> > other reasonable combination, and light characters don't always max
>> > out their dex bonus to AC).

>> If you are not coming close to maximum Dexterity, then you are likely
>> right.
>> I find that most front-liners either have a very high Dexterity, or a
>> very
>> low one (and most have the former). If you figure on a 16 Dexterity
>> (which
>> is high), you are losing 2 AC from Dexterity by going heavy (Full Plate),
>> but gaining 4 AC from Armor (vs. a Chain Shirt). On the other hand, once
>> you get a +4 Dexterity item, you are even. Even, that is, if you ignore
>> weight issues, movement penalties, and armor check penalties. The higher
>> level you get, the less that heavy armor is helping.

>The chain shirt is ALWAYS behind. It has +4 max dex bonus and +4 AC.

You are forgetting Mithril. Make that a +6 Max Dex, for only 1K gp.

>The Plate has +1 max dex bonus and +8 AC.

Granted, you can get the same for Full Plate, but it costs 9K gp. At that
point, you are probably better going Adamantine for 15K gp, and getting DR
3/-.

> +8<+9, and you're spending 16k on a dex item and 6 more points on
> point buy to do it.

We don't use that point buy, so that is less of an issue.

>> > IME faster movement mostly gives more spotlight time, it rarely really
>> > helps much in combat,

>> I find that it matters in combat quite a bit, especially if you are using
>> Book of 9 Swords.

>I don't.

That explains quite a bit, then. If you just waddle up and full attack
round after round, movement matters very little after the initial charge.

>> > and if you charge forward ahead of the tank I'm
>> > not going to pull any punches when the BBEG + minions intended to
>> > seriously challenge the entire group find themselves fighting only the
>> > fast guy on his own with no other really good targets.

>> That is why the fast guy invariably takes Spring Attack, which works
>> better
>> with more movement.

>And unless he's twice the speed of the enemy they still catch him.

Perhaps. They don't get to full attack him, though.

>> > I've seen LOTS of dead fast guys in my games, I don't think I've
>> > EVER managed to kill a tank outside of one TPK.

>> Apparently, your party has never been routed and had to run for their
>> lives.
>> The guy who only moves 20' is toast.

>Followed by the guy with 30' move, and then the guy with 50' move,

Nope. By the time the slow guy dies, the others have been running for a few
rounds.

>because Dragons and Demons and even most really big brutes are STILL
>faster than ALL of you unless you have teleport.

Dragons can outrun almost anything if they have room to fly. My whisper
gnome warlock (who has 60' flight with good maneuverability) managed to
escape from a pursuing large green dragon by running at x4, taking a few
hits in the process (it had wingover), then ducking into a forest. The
dragon could not keep up with all the trees in the way, while my small
character was able to zig zag and get away.

Demons can themselves teleport much of the time.

> And if you have
>teleport one guess as to who the wizard is near enought to to take
>with him.

As for the other big brutes, I have not found them able to catch the faster
characters. Generally, they get the one guy in the back, if they get
anyone. Of course, our group also has a lot of folks with 40' and 50'
movement, which is pretty easy to get even at low levels.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties 

Tetsubo wrote:
> Peter Knutsen wrote:
>> My general approach to life is that when I don't see a person doing a
>> difficult thing, it is because said person doesn't *have* the
>> capability to do that difficult thing.
>
> It's been my experience that animals (humans included) follow the
> path of least resistance. Doing the absolute minimum to achieve their
> desired goals. One of my favorite quotes is, "If you have a difficult
> job, give it to a lazy man. he will find the easiest way to do it."
> Other than Shoalin monks and "extreme" sportsman I don't know anyone
> that takes the most difficult path intentionally.

180 degrees wrong.

We're a species of show-offs: If we can, we do.

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties 

Peter Knutsen wrote:

> Tetsubo wrote:
>
>> Peter Knutsen wrote:
>>
>>> My general approach to life is that when I don't see a person doing a
>>> difficult thing, it is because said person doesn't *have* the
>>> capability to do that difficult thing.
>>
>>
>> It's been my experience that animals (humans included) follow the
>> path of least resistance. Doing the absolute minimum to achieve their
>> desired goals. One of my favorite quotes is, "If you have a difficult
>> job, give it to a lazy man. he will find the easiest way to do it."
>> Other than Shoalin monks and "extreme" sportsman I don't know anyone
>> that takes the most difficult path intentionally.
>
>
> 180 degrees wrong.
>
> We're a species of show-offs: If we can, we do.
>

Actually, seeing as I was speaking from my own personal experience, you
don't get to decide if I am wrong or not.

Or there are those that follow the dictate of, "Chop wood, carry water."

--
Tetsubo
--------------------------------------
"The apparent lesson of the Inquisition is that insistence on
uniformity of belief is fatal to intellectual, moral and spiritual health."
-The Uses Of The Past-, Herbert J. Muller

BLUP
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties 

"Peter Knutsen" <peter.RemoveThis@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message
news:47c3e796$0$99016$157c6196@dreader2.cybercity.dk...
> Tetsubo wrote:
>> Peter Knutsen wrote:
>>> My general approach to life is that when I don't see a person doing a
>>> difficult thing, it is because said person doesn't *have* the capability
>>> to do that difficult thing.
>>
>> It's been my experience that animals (humans included) follow the
>> path of least resistance. Doing the absolute minimum to achieve their
>> desired goals. One of my favorite quotes is, "If you have a difficult
>> job, give it to a lazy man. he will find the easiest way to do it." Other
>> than Shoalin monks and "extreme" sportsman I don't know anyone that takes
>> the most difficult path intentionally.
>
> 180 degrees wrong.

No, you are. He is talking about his own experience, so unless you live
inside his brain, or have otherwise studied his life, *you* are the one who
is dead wrong here.

> We're a species of show-offs: If we can, we do.

Nonsense. Another example: I own a limo company. I am also single (and
generally polyamorous when I am not), and frequently look for potential new
paramours when I am out. Now, I could show up to any event I attend all
dressed up, driven in a limousine. That includes singing karaoke in local
dive bars. Do I occasionally cruise in the back of my own limos? Sure,
just for fun. Do I regularly do so? No, even though I know it would help
the mojo, and I would enjoy it. Sorry, too much effort. The same goes for
going all out with my clothing. As Tetsubo noted, I am doing the absolute
minimum to achieve my desired goals.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties 

Sea Wasp wrote:
>>>> Put it this way: if Dex+light armor isn't so much better than tanking,
>>>> why do I see so many Dex-monkey combatants than tanks?
>>>
>>> I hardly ever see them.
>>
>> My experience matches Keith's.
>
> I don't see either, in the sense that I could classify characters
> that way, and the reason for that probably explains a lot of the subtle
> or obvious differences between the way my campaigns go and the way other
> peoples' do.
>
> We build characters based on a concept -- not a "he's a dex based
> fighter" concept but "He's Camillus, a Grecian Warrior-type from Aegeia,
> trained by one of the Saints to be a gladiator and later special warrior
> agent..." or "She's a Barbarian who found the religion of Thor and
> became a Paladin".
>
> Usually all the design is based around who the person is. The
> closest to minmaxing I usually see is deciding which feat progression
> will end up coming closest to replicating the fighting approach the
> player wants.

So you're saying you have no experiences relevant to the discussion?


--
Jasin
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties 

Jasin Zujovic wrote:
> Sea Wasp wrote:
>
>>>>> Put it this way: if Dex+light armor isn't so much better than tanking,
>>>>> why do I see so many Dex-monkey combatants than tanks?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I hardly ever see them.
>>>
>>>
>>> My experience matches Keith's.
>>
>>
>> I don't see either, in the sense that I could classify characters
>> that way, and the reason for that probably explains a lot of the
>> subtle or obvious differences between the way my campaigns go and the
>> way other peoples' do.
>>
>> We build characters based on a concept -- not a "he's a dex based
>> fighter" concept but "He's Camillus, a Grecian Warrior-type from
>> Aegeia, trained by one of the Saints to be a gladiator and later
>> special warrior agent..." or "She's a Barbarian who found the religion
>> of Thor and became a Paladin".
>>
>> Usually all the design is based around who the person is. The
>> closest to minmaxing I usually see is deciding which feat progression
>> will end up coming closest to replicating the fighting approach the
>> player wants.
>
>
> So you're saying you have no experiences relevant to the discussion?
>
>

I'm saying that I see a problem, or at least an issue, which is basic
to the EXISTENCE of the discussion. If your way of character building
is to start with the mechanics, then you'll find people using specific
mechanics pretty much the same way -- because there will almost
certainly be a few "best case" designs to use in any given game system.

But that's not generally how people work. They grow up interested in
X, Y, and Z, and poke around doing several things. Very, VERY few
people are fanatics interested in doing only one thing and doing it
better than anyone else, which is what optimized build characters
usually reflect.

--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties 

"Sea Wasp" <seawaspObvious RemoveThis @sgeObviousinc.com> wrote in message
news:47C41598.7000602@sgeObviousinc.com...
> Jasin Zujovic wrote:
>> Sea Wasp wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Put it this way: if Dex+light armor isn't so much better than
>>>>>> tanking,
>>>>>> why do I see so many Dex-monkey combatants than tanks?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I hardly ever see them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My experience matches Keith's.
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't see either, in the sense that I could classify characters
>>> that way, and the reason for that probably explains a lot of the subtle
>>> or obvious differences between the way my campaigns go and the way other
>>> peoples' do.
>>>
>>> We build characters based on a concept -- not a "he's a dex based
>>> fighter" concept but "He's Camillus, a Grecian Warrior-type from Aegeia,
>>> trained by one of the Saints to be a gladiator and later special warrior
>>> agent..." or "She's a Barbarian who found the religion of Thor and
>>> became a Paladin".
>>>
>>> Usually all the design is based around who the person is. The
>>> closest to minmaxing I usually see is deciding which feat progression
>>> will end up coming closest to replicating the fighting approach the
>>> player wants.
>>
>>
>> So you're saying you have no experiences relevant to the discussion?
>>
>>
>
> I'm saying that I see a problem, or at least an issue, which is basic to
> the EXISTENCE of the discussion. If your way of character building is to
> start with the mechanics, then you'll find people using specific mechanics
> pretty much the same way -- because there will almost certainly be a few
> "best case" designs to use in any given game system.
>
> But that's not generally how people work. They grow up interested in X, Y,
> and Z, and poke around doing several things. Very, VERY few people are
> fanatics interested in doing only one thing and doing it better than
> anyone else, which is what optimized build characters usually reflect.

Then again, I imagine very few folks would be interested in continuously
risking their lives like adventurers do.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties 

On 25 Feb 2008 19:58:46 +1300, tussock <scrub.DeleteThis@clear.net.nz> wrote:

>Del Rio wrote:
>
>> That's why games with less silly combat abstractions model Dex based AC
>> as avoidance which makes you harder to hit, and heavy armor as
>> damage-absorption, which makes you less prone to take harm from being
>> hit. You know - like it actually works IRL.
>
> <sigh> That's not at all how it works in real life.
>
>
> And yes, I see the smiley, I just don't care. What is it with
>everyone being wrong on the internet lately?


http://www.xkcd.com/386/


BP
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties 

Malachias Invictus wrote:

> Then again, I imagine very few folks would be interested in continuously
> risking their lives like adventurers do.
>

Ding, Ding! We have a winner!

I wonder what percentage of the human population would fall into the
category of "adventurer"? I'm thinking around 1% if that.

--
Tetsubo
--------------------------------------
"The apparent lesson of the Inquisition is that insistence on
uniformity of belief is fatal to intellectual, moral and spiritual health."
-The Uses Of The Past-, Herbert J. Muller

BLUP
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties 

Malachias Invictus <invictusebay.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> "DougL" <lampert.doug.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3a62d9a9-c47c-4611-8e54-06d101b20636@64g2000hsw.googlegroups.com...
>>"Malachias Invictus" <invictuse....RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> "Matt Frisch" <matus....RemoveThis@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
>> > Keith Davies <keith.dav....RemoveThis@kjdavies.org>:
>
>>> >>Put it this way: if Dex+light armor isn't so much better than tanking,
>>> >>why do I see so many Dex-monkey combatants than tanks?
>
>>> > I hardly ever see them.
>
>>> My experience matches Keith's.
>
>>May or may not tell us anything about efficiency of the two builds.
>
>>LOTS of players and people on this group tend to strongly undervalue a
>>+1 to hit or +1 to AC.
>
> I am not one of them. I try to squeeze out every plus, for the most part.
>
>> They may be figuring "close" is good enough
>> even if it's not. IME fast guys actually end up a couple of points
>> behind on AC (in fact full plate and 12 Dex is a point better than any
>> other reasonable combination, and light characters don't always max
>> out their dex bonus to AC).
>
> If you are not coming close to maximum Dexterity, then you are likely
> right. I find that most front-liners either have a very high
> Dexterity, or a very low one (and most have the former). If you
> figure on a 16 Dexterity (which is high), you are losing 2 AC from
> Dexterity by going heavy (Full Plate), but gaining 4 AC from Armor
> (vs. a Chain Shirt). On the other hand, once you get a +4 Dexterity
> item, you are even. Even, that is, if you ignore weight issues,
> movement penalties, and armor check penalties. The higher level you
> get, the less that heavy armor is helping.

You get +2 to your Reflex saves, too. And Initiative.

For that same 16k, you could instead get +4 to your armor. For the
light guy this gets him better than the (unenhanced) tank, but if the
tank gets it too he's still two points higher AC than the Dex-monkey.
Of course, he's still slower, takes bigger ACP (potentially ASF too), is
carrying a bigger load, has paid more money, and has bugger all against
touch attacks.

>> IME faster movement mostly gives more spotlight time, it rarely
>> really helps much in combat,
>
> I find that it matters in combat quite a bit, especially if you are
> using Book of 9 Swords.

Oh gods yes.

I've found tanks often come late to the party if the encounter distance
is more than a round or two. The mobility guys get to haul ass, can
often flank and get past the meatshields, and start killing the ranged
guys (who are usually relatively lightly protected).

IME the tanks make good meatshields to keep the opposition off the
delicate firepower, while the mobility guys and the firepower do the
most damage to the opponents. If the tanks get involved and personal,
it's usually a sign things are getting hairy.

>> and if you charge forward ahead of the tank I'm
>> not going to pull any punches when the BBEG + minions intended to
>> seriously challenge the entire group find themselves fighting only the
>> fast guy on his own with no other really good targets.
>
> That is why the fast guy invariably takes Spring Attack, which works
> better with more movement.

Oh hell yes. AC doesn't matter if you're not close enough to hit.

>> I've seen LOTS of dead fast guys in my games, I don't think I've
>> EVER managed to kill a tank outside of one TPK.
>
> Apparently, your party has never been routed and had to run for their
> lives. The guy who only moves 20' is toast.

Damn straight.

In one game my guy (cleric/ranger mobility type) scooped up our
halfling-paladin-in-full-plate while we were running from a Balor (fun
encounter for 9th level, yeah?).

Tanky paladins don't stand and fight simply because they're heroic and
self-sacrificing. They do it partly because they know they can't run
away, and it's better to face down the horde and maybe slow it for a
moment than get trampled as they overrun you on their way to the tender,
tasty people who can actually run.

>> The fast build is STILL more popular because (a) many players value
>> spotlight over effciency and (b) many players are trying to build the
>> hero of their favorite fantasy story and few modern fantasies' heroes
>> bother with armor when its so much easier for the writer to simply
>> keep all those nasty pointy things away.
>
> That is not the case here. It is purely mathematical.

I can accept spotlight time as part of the reason. After all, if you're
consistently too late to the fight to take part or get trampled because
you can't run away, you don't get much spotlight time. Add in the other
factors (such as losing all AC against touch attacks) and heavy armor
loses a lot of its appeal.

Hence the changes I've been making to how armor works IMC.


Keith
--
Keith Davies below you, right now: radioactive magma
keith.davies.RemoveThis@kjdavies.org above you, right now: hard vacuum
keith.davies.RemoveThis@gmail.com probably somewhere near you: a product with
http://www.kjdavies.org/ label warning you it is unsafe if misused
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties 

Malachias Invictus wrote:
> "Sea Wasp" <seawaspObvious.RemoveThis@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote in message
> news:47C41598.7000602@sgeObviousinc.com...
>
>>Jasin Zujovic wrote:
>>
>>>Sea Wasp wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>Put it this way: if Dex+light armor isn't so much better than
>>>>>>>tanking,
>>>>>>>why do I see so many Dex-monkey combatants than tanks?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I hardly ever see them.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>My experience matches Keith's.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't see either, in the sense that I could classify characters
>>>>that way, and the reason for that probably explains a lot of the subtle
>>>>or obvious differences between the way my campaigns go and the way other
>>>>peoples' do.
>>>>
>>>> We build characters based on a concept -- not a "he's a dex based
>>>>fighter" concept but "He's Camillus, a Grecian Warrior-type from Aegeia,
>>>>trained by one of the Saints to be a gladiator and later special warrior
>>>>agent..." or "She's a Barbarian who found the religion of Thor and
>>>>became a Paladin".
>>>>
>>>> Usually all the design is based around who the person is. The
>>>>closest to minmaxing I usually see is deciding which feat progression
>>>>will end up coming closest to replicating the fighting approach the
>>>>player wants.
>>>
>>>
>>>So you're saying you have no experiences relevant to the discussion?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I'm saying that I see a problem, or at least an issue, which is basic to
>>the EXISTENCE of the discussion. If your way of character building is to
>>start with the mechanics, then you'll find people using specific mechanics
>>pretty much the same way -- because there will almost certainly be a few
>>"best case" designs to use in any given game system.
>>
>>But that's not generally how people work. They grow up interested in X, Y,
>>and Z, and poke around doing several things. Very, VERY few people are
>>fanatics interested in doing only one thing and doing it better than
>>anyone else, which is what optimized build characters usually reflect.
>
>
> Then again, I imagine very few folks would be interested in continuously
> risking their lives like adventurers do.
>

They'll be from vastly different backgrounds though. You can become
an adventurer because you're an adrenalin junkie; because you were in
the military and fighting stuff is what you already know how to do;
because Villain X was behind the destruction of your family, and the
only way to get the resources and experience to have a chance against
him is to become an adventurer; because despite preferring the nice
comfortable area of your study, the materials you need for your
worldshaking enchantments are OUT THERE, and only a mage/alchemist of
your experience can tell the real deal from the phony, so you have to
get off your ass and into the rain, the wild, the blood and steel.

And so on and so forth. And NONE of these backgrounds necessarily
means you're going to be following an optimal path; the Adrenalin
Junkie might have spent prior time doing acrobatics on a highwire
before taking a short stint as an adventurer and deciding this was
even more fun than balancing on a wire 400 feet up; the military man
will have learned a lot of group tactics and strategy which may be
nigh-useless in the small adventuring party context; etc., etc., etc.

This of course means I don't build my NPCs to be perfect designed
adversaries either; they come from their own background of motivations
and strategies which may be optimal at times, and suboptimal at others.

OTOH, I also don't build average NPCs or have players playing average
PCs, either. Running the Ravenloft hardcover module, I've had to beef
up the monsters both because with PCs and NPCs there's considerably
more characters in the group, AND because the design of the
adversaries appears to assume some pretty wussy capabilities in the
characters.


--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties 

Tetsubo wrote:
> Malachias Invictus wrote:
>
>> Then again, I imagine very few folks would be interested in
>> continuously risking their lives like adventurers do.
>>
>
> Ding, Ding! We have a winner!
>
> I wonder what percentage of the human population would fall into the
> category of "adventurer"? I'm thinking around 1% if that.
>

Oh, I'd say 0.5% or less.

But they're from all walks of life. With all sorts of motivations.
And all sorts of backgrounds.

--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties