What's on your mind?
+ Log in or register to post
Results 1 to 10 of 57
Thread: Rule-of-Three: 06/19/2012
Tuesday, 19th June, 2012, 05:00 AM #1
Novice (Lvl 1)
You've got questionsÔ??we've got answers! Here's how it worksÔ??each week, our Community Manager will be scouring all available sources to find whatever questions you're asking. We'll pick three of them for R&D to answer.
Read Rule-of-Three: 06/19/2012 on D&D Insider here!
Tuesday, 19th June, 2012, 06:36 AM #2
Lama (Lvl 13)
I don┤t like answer 2.
And I won┤t play that way. If kobolds are outnumbering you, but are fighting in light, the guardian ability should give those goblins disadvantage. They really should cancel each other out on a 1 by 1 basis... oh, and technically if they are cancelling each other out, you should not technically have it, but need to search for an additional advantage.
Tuesday, 19th June, 2012, 06:44 AM #3
Waghalter (Lvl 7)
Tuesday, 19th June, 2012, 08:39 AM #4
Superhero (Lvl 15)
2) I don't like this rule. I played it that way. But I hated it.
3) Facing? First module I ain't using probably just showed up.My beard is hairy.
Tuesday, 19th June, 2012, 08:58 AM #5
Magsman (Lvl 14)
Yeah, did anyone really want facing? Serious question.
Tuesday, 19th June, 2012, 09:15 AM #6
Lama (Lvl 13)
I want facing! (Sometimes)
Tuesday, 19th June, 2012, 11:36 AM #7
Thaumaturgist (Lvl 9)
Tuesday, 19th June, 2012, 06:46 AM #8
Gallant (Lvl 3)
New Rule of Thirds
I like that they really tried to make each domain cleric feel its domain. not just a standard chainmail with mace type. i see a valid stealth cleric here with light armor and a dagger.
about 3. im not sure about facing rules. i thought it was understood that all creatures are constantly facing all directions.
Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Rule-of-Three: 06/19/2012)
Tuesday, 19th June, 2012, 06:56 AM #9
Magsman (Lvl 14)
- Join Date
- Apr 2003
- Sydney Australia
- Read 0 Reviews
- Blog Entries
° Ignore Herremann the Wise
I love the idea of facing for an advanced combat module. However, if you do this, I think you really need to split a character's actions up so that characters can have a number of reaction opportunities (call them minor and swift actions that combatants get one or more of). With this, you can change facing as part of a reaction. You then have the space in front of a character where they threaten, their flanks and their rear. So many opportunities here to get good tactical combat without having to artificially complicate it with thousands of powers.
Herremann the WiseImagination is a quality given a man to compensate him for what he is not,
and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is.
He who is certain he knows the ending of things when he is only beginning them is either extremely wise or extremely foolish; no matter which is true, he is certainly an unhappy man, for he has put a knife in the heart of wonder.
Tuesday, 19th June, 2012, 07:09 AM #10
The Grand Druid (Lvl 20)
Between this, and the new Legends and Lore, it seems to be getting clearer that there won't be much support for 4e-style play.
This was particularly striking from the L&L column:
One of my favorite pieces of 4th Edition was its approach to the humanoid monsters. They felt distinct not only in terms of story and place in the world, but also in how they played during combat. Goblins skittered away from the characters, gnolls swarmed in hungry packs, and so forth.
Rather than make special abilities a feature of every creature, we're instead moving those abilities to chieftains, shamans, and other leaders. . .
When a creature's story and background demand it, we will also allow exceptions to how we assign special abilities. Even the weakest drow has an array of magical abilities. We won't remove abilities for the sake of hitting this goal [of scaling complexity and sending gameplay signals to players and GMs].
This implies two things: (i) that "story and background" are based on a pre-4e standard, and (ii) that "story and background" are being treated as something indpenent of, and prior to mechanics, rather than something that it is the job of the mechanics to produce.
So instead of hobgoblins who form phalanxes because they get an AC bonus (as in 4e), there will be flavour text telling us that hobgoblins form phalanxes, and that goblins are sneaky, even though mechanically there will be little reason for the hobgoblins not to sneak or for the goblins not to form phalanxes.
The tactical combat model desctribed in Ro3 doesn't look to me much like 4e either:
this chunk of optional rules covers tighter integration with a grid, templates for area effects, more grid-based rules for line of sight and cover, along with more options for movement and forced movement. . . . we want the tactical combat module to provide a full, rich tactical experience that is completely compatible with our base rules.
one of our goals is to create a general set of stunts that monsters can attempt . . . abilities such as stomp, fling, and bull rush might exist as maneuvers that any monster can attempt in the tactical combat module. . . The goal is that a group playing without miniatures or a grid can run a fight that captures the core of a monster. A group that loves tactical combat and detail can add that, with the DM now having more freedom and flexibility to throw unexpected tactics at the party.
Particularly in light of what Mearls says about monster design, I don't have any hope that we'll see monsters like the Deathlock Wight (uses forced movement + psychic damage to model PCs fleeing from fear at its Horrific Visage) or PC powers like Come and Get It or even Thunderwave.
Tactical combat resolution seems to be being treated as an end in itself, rather than (as in 4e) a vehicle for communicating and generating deeper thematic and story elements.
By Wizards of the Coast in forum General RPG DiscussionReplies: 13Last Post: Wednesday, 13th June, 2012, 02:30 PM
By Zaphling in forum General D&D Discussion + Older D&D Editions, D&D Variants, and OSR GamingReplies: 13Last Post: Thursday, 31st May, 2012, 02:21 AM
By Tallifer in forum General D&D Discussion + Older D&D Editions, D&D Variants, and OSR GamingReplies: 1Last Post: Tuesday, 29th May, 2012, 11:51 PM
By Ranganathan in forum General D&D Discussion + Older D&D Editions, D&D Variants, and OSR GamingReplies: 33Last Post: Tuesday, 10th April, 2012, 06:52 PM
By Turanil in forum General RPG DiscussionReplies: 41Last Post: Wednesday, 13th July, 2005, 07:44 PM