"Metadesign Principles of D&D"

[Henry]

Great thoughts, ladies & gents. Keep 'em coming.

Nail: That's exactly the type of principles and debates I'm looking for. My general eventual goal is: Is it possible to put together a short document (meaning: less than 5 to 10 pages) that a fledging or even adept DM could read, and then run a game of D&D at least 75% or 80% correct, without having to loot up any other rules?

The original design goal was to keep rules consistent; that's faltered a little bit along the way, in the interests of both different designers as well as shaking the game up a bit from time to time, but even if not every rule were observed, is what they're running at least consistent with design goals in the game? And that's the kind of core "meta-rules" I'm looking at.

 

[FlameFrost]

75%+75%=100%, and 50%+50%=75%

an overarching rule concerning diversification in character abilities, especially concerning spellcasters ( for example fighter/mage , rogue mage , fighter/cleric , enz...)

Is that you want a hybrid fighter/caster for example he shouldnt be half a full fighter and half a full caster , he should be 3/4 mage , and 3/4 fighter , to equal a specialist ( full fighter , or full caster)

This is why all of those Prestige classes like arcane trickster , mystic theurge ,Eldrith knight ... where created

for example , the mystic theurge , he is 75 % of a mage , and 75 % of a cleric , by level 15

The bard is even further in this , he is half an arcane caster ( lvl6 is not nearly lv9 spells), not even half a divine caster in buffing and healing ( heal>>>CCW) , he is half a rogue ( gets about half the skillpoints ( theoretically 3/4 , but has to max perform) and with bardic music half a fighter. so
50%+50%+50%+50%=100%
theoretically , he should be a usefull character

If you wanted a really short rundown of what I just said : specialist > generalist

And thats how the classes are designed

 

[domino]

Weapons must be balanced (by a formula I can't think of).

Size, critical threat range, damage, special abilities, and weapon proficiencies must, ideally, balance.

A longsword has certain figures. To step up the critical threat range, you must weaken it somehow to stay balanced. Lowering the damage by 1 step gets the scimitar. Raising the critical, but keeping damage (more or less) the same would require another penalty, for the Falchion, it is to make it a heavier weapon.

 

[Seeten]

I believe one of the design principles, and I'd bet there is a WOtC design document with this in it:

No weapon should be better than a longsword, unless: It is an exotic weapon.

Something that should be a principle is, "Only create a new type of bonus if the subject matter truly warrants it." Such as BoED's Sacred and BoVD's Profane, etc. The more Typed and Stackable bonuses, the more it all falls apart.

I think the design document also includes, "Creating a feat that does little or nothing and that no one will ever take should not be done to increase the 'feat count' that goes on the cover" but it seems no one follows this principle.

 

[Corinth]

This thread needs to be made Sticky.

 

[Whimsical]

If you can access it, the August 2000 Dragon magazine issue had an article from Monte Cook that laid out several metadesign principles of D&D 3e. I don't have the issue number, but it is the first D&D 3e issue.

 

[MatthewJHanson]

Giving the player a choice is more powerful than an equivelent ability where there is not a choice.

I.e. the Human's bonus feat is more powerful than if they had been given Weapon Focus as a bonus feat.

 

[Moonstone Spider]

In general a penalty seems to be worth about half an equivalent bonus. For instance a penalty of -4 is considered equal in value to a bonus of +2. This is because it's assumed that players will put bonuses where they are most useful, and penalties where they will have the least impact.

 

[domino]

In general a penalty seems to be worth about half an equivalent bonus. For instance a penalty of -4 is considered equal in value to a bonus of +2. This is because it's assumed that players will put bonuses where they are most useful, and penalties where they will have the least impact.

Only when placement is left to the player.

A +2 and a -2 set by the DM balance out.

 

[merelycompetent]

What about maximum bonuses for setting limits within the rules.

For example: +10 for magic items (weapons & armor), +20 for skills. (Anyone remember the potion of Glibness, and its +30 bonus to bluff checks from 3.0?) This is assuming core rules only (non-Epic).

How would one then determine what the maximum penalties are?