Rule-of-Three: 06/26/2012

Wizards of the Coast · Jun 26, 2012

You've got questionsâ??we've got answers! Here's how it worksâ??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: 06/26/2012 on D&D Insider here!

Tallifer · Jun 26, 2012

As a fanatic of the Fourth Edition and a player of Pathfinder, I like each of these answers. I also play Labyrinth Lord (Basic D&D) so I have all the bases covered these days.

I like the fullness of options which shall be offered. I think if they are built into the system, they will all balance each other and be easily added or subtracted.

I like that manoeuvres will not just be the dull feat-heavy tricks of Pathfinder: this looks like a real bone for us enthusiasts of the Fourth Edition.

I like that Wizards will not become a catch-all and all-powerful class. I think we can look forward to Sorcerers, Warlocks, Swordmagi and possibly Summoners, Witches, Necromancers and Invokers.

Minigiant · Jun 26, 2012

1) I hope they are printing a campaign sheet if they are going to have all these stand alone rules.

2) Normal= Attack or Improvise. Maneuver= Attack and Improvise

3) Huh?

Viking Bastard · Jun 26, 2012

I'm glad to hear that the tactical module is more of a package of pick-and-choose submodules, rather than a concrete "if you don't use all the rules, it falls apart" whole. The way they were talking about it was starting to make me scared. I don't want anything more complicated than 4e.

Ahnehnois · Jun 26, 2012

It always concerns me when people use language that misrepresents the point or betrays a flawed thought process; an injury system isn't really "grim" or "gritty". It would make more sense to refer to the base system as "grindy" and "cartoony" and call some kind of vp/wp system what it is: a welcome relief. That said, the fact that they're looking at that type of rule is a plus.

The maneuvers are sounding like a positive; i.e. useful but not spell-like.

Hopefully they do make several different casting classes with radically different mechanics.

Balesir · Jun 26, 2012

Ahnehnois said:
It always concerns me when people use language that misrepresents the point or betrays a flawed thought process; an injury system isn't really "grim" or "gritty". It would make more sense to refer to the base system as "grindy" and "cartoony" and call some kind of vp/wp system what it is: a welcome relief.

...also known as a fundamentally flawed cludge intended to take a fundamentally unrealistic game world and add a veneer of faux "realism" with a mechanic that will never achieve that.

Any system that treats actual, physical wounds as a resource that gets whittled away until you have none left (none of what left, FFS?) is fatally flawed. The representation of wounds in any sense "realistically" requires a totally different approach - which would be counterproductive in a game aimed since its pre-history at stories of action-adventure heroes, in any case.

Ahnehnois · Jun 26, 2012

Balesir said:
...also known as a fundamentally flawed cludge intended to take a fundamentally unrealistic game world and add a veneer of faux "realism" with a mechanic that will never achieve that.

Any system that treats actual, physical wounds as a resource that gets whittled away until you have none left (none of what left, FFS?) is fatally flawed. The representation of wounds in any sense "realistically" requires a totally different approach - which would be counterproductive in a game aimed since its pre-history at stories of action-adventure heroes, in any case.

I think you're kind of overstating the point (straw man?). The point is that hit points don't describe much or provide tactical opportunities or make for a fun and engaging combat system; realism is way, way downstream of that.

Balesir · Jun 26, 2012

Ahnehnois said:
I think you're kind of overstating the point (straw man?).

Merely reacting to your similar assertion that this would be a "welcome relief" - not to me, it wouldn't.

Ahnehnois said:
The point is that hit points don't describe much or provide tactical opportunities or make for a fun and engaging combat system; realism is way, way downstream of that.

Well, (a) I have several systems that use HPs and give extremely fun and engaging combat systems (for what that's worth), and (b) Mike Mearls expalind pretty well what hit points "describe" or represent a while back.

How does having two resource pools instead of one "provide tactical opportunities" or "make a (more) fun and engaging combat system"? As opposed to just add unneccessary and confusing complication?

I mean, if you had "hit points" for the luck, favour and so on and then added a discrete wounds system on top of that, I could at least see a point - even though I think it would fit D&D like a sock puppet would fit an ocean liner - but just splitting hit points into two separate containers seems like complication for the sake of complication.

I'm A Banana · Jun 26, 2012

Dudes, calm down!

The problem is already solved.

Yeah, I think it's easy to see that they don't have HP "right" yet.

I'm pretty excited about all the answers here, though. Add-on modules happening a la carte is good. Maneuvers being "auto-stunts" is solid. Spellcasting differences being in different classes might not be SUPER-CUSTOMIZABLE, but it's a better play experience IMO anyway.

Mokay. Solid. Lets see where this goes.

Tovec · Jun 26, 2012

Just random thoughts..

I don't know how we got onto a discussion about HP but I don't see it as surprising because HP seems to be the big sticking point for a lot of people...

Anyhow as for the article.

What concerns me most is that these optional rules come bundled. Or rather that I am concerned HOW they become bundled. Let me explain.

I never had problems taking aspects of another system and introducing said aspects into my game. The problem arose when I had to do it for all aspects and modules going forward, and how to balance those extras with a core system.
I could give all creatures their con score at first level and 5 HP per level after that, but to do so I'd have to remember to add a variable amount of HP to every single monster I encountered later. Usually when I tried something like that it ended up less con score (instead of con mod) being replaced by 10 and dropping the 5 HP per level entirely, to be replaced by an extra 10 or 20 HP on top of everything.

That is kind of what I'm seeing here. Granted it will be easier to integrate the "grim and gritty" HP systems because those are one time functions than it will be to implement "facing" or "criticals", but when further modules come along without mentioning random rule 47 of subset K then it is going to get trickier and trickier. It is all too easy to forget a lot of tacked on rules, or remembering which were used in this campaign compared to another.

The other thing I worry about is how they are packaged. As we heard, other ways of doing HP will come in the "grim and gritty" module. But will the aspects of those modules be balanced throughout the longevity of the game?

We know they won't all have to be used to work, but will we have to buy other books that will have additional "grim and gritty" information in it to further flush out the criteria?

I know I'm interested in the variant HP recovery. I have heard a lot of talk, even from other people, wanting crit tables and long term wounds. But will each new supplement be (a) balanced with only aspects of this one module in mind and (b) on a certain level "force" us to continue buying this module to get the most up to date or most relevant info. The same goes for grid-based combat, facing, or anything else he talks about as modules coming down the tubes.

I don't want it to sound unappreciated because I love that they're rolling out new options. I just worry about how we'll be expected to introduce and integrate those things into our games.