The New Design Philosophy?

[Mercule]

I don't mind swift/immediate actions. Yeah, it feels a bit like like an interrupt, but spells of the nature make sense. In general, I like the codification of the underlying engine.

What I don't like are some of the odd decisions that seem to be made on some things. Monsters is a wonderful example. I've complained about it elsewhere, but I loathe the notion that monsters (demons, esp.) should have some of their redundant or extraneous special abilities culled, just because they're not useful or convenient in combat. :vomit:

In thinking about the integration with minis, I've begun to realize that it isn't the terms, etc. that get to me. 1E used inches for everything, for crying out loud. But, 1E felt like that was just an oddball convention. 3E feels somehow more limiting. I can't put my finger on it, but it definitely bears some consideration.

 

[Scribble]

Oddly enough, coming from someone from whom no rule, spell, or ability is safe from tweak or redesign, I'd never even considered adding in such things until seeing 3e...the thought had simply never entered my mind. That said, those aren't the only buff spells out there...just look at what a Cleric can do to herself if given 5 rounds prep time before a battle...it's almost ridiculous.

Lanefan

Really? It never occured to you?

Dunno. Just never seemed like a problem to me. Along the same lines as why couldn't someone make an ice ball instead of a fire ball.

I mean, the suggestion is in the rulebook for making new spells... Look at existing spells and modify.

I think maybe the problem (for some) is too many options... Options are a double edged sword. Too little and game play is stale. Too many and game prep is harder for the DM.

Power Gamers and Min/maxers have existed with every edition... I don't think limiting options is a good way to deal with them.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Power Gamers and Min/maxers have existed with every edition... I don't think limiting options is a good way to deal with them.

No, but sticking with core design principles would have been. The concept of named bonuses not stacking, for example, was brilliant, but then they went and ruined it by adding new types every time you turned around.

That's my biggest beef with the swift/immediate/sudden stuff. Not that they exist (because, conceptually, they make sense) but because they added another level of power and yet another way for things to get out of hand really quick.

 

[Scribble]

In thinking about the integration with minis, I've begun to realize that it isn't the terms, etc. that get to me. 1E used inches for everything, for crying out loud. But, 1E felt like that was just an oddball convention. 3E feels somehow more limiting. I can't put my finger on it, but it definitely bears some consideration.

Is it really limited or just streamlined?

Maybe it has something to do with the rules themself... In 3.x the rules are sort of codified into a coherent whole that builds off of itself. Terms have very specific meanings, and there are rules for just about everything. If there ISN'T a rule for a particular event or action, there's probably a way it can be built based on other actions...(a logical build) If that makes sense... In 3.x if I forget the particular mechanics for something, while I look it up I normaly just say: "roll a d20." because 9.9999999 times out of 10 that's how you start doing just about anything.

In earlier editions this wasn't always the case. Rules were sometimes handled with multiple seperate mechanics... Bend bars lift gates was a % and Thief skills were percentages, while other "skills" were basically just stat checks...

Maybe because of this 3.x seems limiting because if there isn't a rule for something there's kind of a "way" it should be handled... Whereas earlier editions left things open as one way was just as valid as another based on DM whim?

 

[Ciaran]

Who uses ogre magi these days anyway? If I want a sorcerous ogre in 3e, I'll just take a regular ogre and give it sorcerer levels.

 

[Scribble]

No, but sticking with core design principles would have been. The concept of named bonuses not stacking, for example, was brilliant, but then they went and ruined it by adding new types every time you turned around.

That's my biggest beef with the swift/immediate/sudden stuff. Not that they exist (because, conceptually, they make sense) but because they added another level of power and yet another way for things to get out of hand really quick.

But spells and magic item effects have always, to me at least, been about breaking the rules... kind of. Like when you get the chance card and it tells you to advance to Boardwalk without having to roll the dice.

So yeah, Like I said, too many options makes things harder for the DM to prep, but I dissagree it's a bad thing.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Oddly enough, coming from someone from whom no rule, spell, or ability is safe from tweak or redesign, I'd never even considered adding in such things until seeing 3e...the thought had simply never entered my mind. That said, those aren't the only buff spells out there...just look at what a Cleric can do to herself if given 5 rounds prep time before a battle...it's almost ridiculous.

Lanefan

But how quickly can that prep time be dispelled by dispel magic or anti-magic fields? And those spells aren't free. Each prep spell takes away from an otherwise 'vulgar' defense or offense. For every shield spell in use, that's one less magic missile. For every Fire Shield, that's one less Evard's Black Tentacles. For every Bull's Strength, etc...

It's front load stacking vs in combat stacking.

 

[BlueBlackRed]

I'm wondering if these design changes are coming from an idea of improving the game or the R&D group thinking they're improving the game by infusing it with their personal wants and concepts of "how the game should be".

 

[Scribble]

I'm wondering if these design changes are coming from an idea of improving the game or the R&D group thinking they're improving the game by infusing it with their personal wants and concepts of "how the game should be".

My guess would be it's coming from a look at what products are selling...


Also, part of it probably is playtesting too.

I know the whole new stat block rang true with me if you read the article online. I've had that same "Oh man, I totally forgot to use that power!" experience...

 

[Victim]

WotC's way of doing things seems to be based around how they've done Magic cards...and even those have gone a similar route, from flavourful, random, and widely disparate in power level at the beginning to now being so balanced and overdesigned it's boring. A side effect is that their designs tend to force you into playing from among a relatively limited number of workable decks.

Same thing is starting to rear its ugly head in D+D. Look, for example, at "buff" spells. In days of old, sure somebody might cast "Strength" on a fighter now and then, but that was about it. But that wasn't "balanced", that Fighters could get such a thing but no-one else could, so they dreamed up an equivalent spell for the other 5 stats. Now, with so many buff spells in the system, it's almost expected the party will be buffed to the max every time. In other words, the game is somewhat forcing you to play that way...kinda like when a Magic set has loads of good Goblin cards, that somewhat forces you to play a Goblin deck to be competitive.

I'm not being very clear here...if this doesn't make sense, ask away and I'll try to clarify.

Lanefan

The thing is that having encounters designed under the assumption that nobody uses buffs is an equally controling assumption.