Rule-of-Three: 03-27-12

[Kynn]

In what way is it productive? You're not saying "I'd prefer they do this instead of that based on what he says here." No, you're popping in to defend your edition by attacking an edition that isn't even out. Not even just out, but where the mechanics for the base game aren't even defined. Not even where the mechanics for the base aren't even defined, but one which plans on catering to a 4e-style in the article you commented on.

I'm not defending my edition. I'm noting my displeasure with their expressed design philosophy for D&D Next. There's a difference.

I didn't claim that it was from 4e...?

I said "that's how I ran 3.X" when discussing mechanics and how they're compatible with a grid; I mentioned 3.X specifically because it had the grid strongly in mind when it was introduced.

I think you forgot that you rather snarkily wrote this:

They aren't abandoning 4e's grid system. They'll have rules for it, from the looks of it. It just won't be the base assumption. See Kynn? The sky isn't falling as fast as you thought.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I'm not defending my edition. I'm noting my displeasure with their expressed design philosophy for D&D Next. There's a difference.

Okay, but, what are you adding to the conversation? What do you want to see instead? What do you dislike about his comments? What do you want out of 5e?

Blatantly saying that they "won't be doing it like 4e!" seems objectively wrong given the context of the quotes I provided. They want the same solos from 4e, and for them to take on a group alone. They plan on releasing a grid system with conversions to be like 4e.

I think you forgot that you rather snarkily wrote this:

I didn't forget about that. It looks like 4e's grid system (including the 1-1-1-1 movement and square fireballs [which I don't have too much of a problem with]) will be there, as far as I can tell from the comment.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I also don´t see the abandoning of 4e when reading the articles.

Solo design, fixed damage of spells, abilities that still work well, even when you multiclass. That is all 4e.
Was the implementation in 4e good? Yes, but too costly. You could reduce it to two feats and it would be balanced better. But I could imagine a 3e system that works. Both are viable.

I am still looking forward to DnD next. What we read is careful consideration and the will to make it great. That at least is what it has in common with 4e. The designers tried to fix a lot of things with 4e. Mostly successful. Partly overreacting.

 

[Blackwarder]

Yay for hex grid!

Warder

 

[Blackwarder]

I'm not defending my edition. I'm noting my displeasure with their expressed design philosophy for D&D Next. There's a difference.

As an innocent bystander I think that you are noting your displeasure with what you perceive as the expressed design philosophy of D&D next...

Just sayin'...

Warder

 

[Leatherhead]

Wasn't it already quoted somewhere that spells might not necessarily scale by level anymore, and if you want a fireball to do more damage you'd have to use higher level slots?

This is the one thing that leaves me the most wary. How exactly is that going to work with multiclassing? Underpowered fireballs for the rest of your characters life? And how will it work with non-damage spells?

Mind you, I am not a fan of fireballs in the first place, but the options should work for variables like that.

 

[Sigdel]

I played D&D for a few years without using grids and such. I ended up adopting the grid due to it just making things easier. It was like trying to play chess but you were not allowed to look at the board or move your pieces while a third person tried to you describe what is going on.

More hassle than it was worth.

Poor DM's already have enough on their plate without fielding questions from players that they could answer themselves if only they could SEE whats going on.

 

[FireLance]

This is the one thing that leaves me the most wary. How exactly is that going to work with multiclassing? Underpowered fireballs for the rest of your characters life? And how will it work with non-damage spells?

Well, as I mentioned previously, I hope that spell power will scale with spell level which will scale with character level. So, a 20th-level wizard and a 10/10 fighter/wizard will both be capable of casting 9th-level spells. However, the 20th-level wizard might have four 9th-level spells per day while the 10/10 fighter/wizard might have only two (but would make up for it by being able to make multiple attacks in the rounds that he isn't casting spells).

Non-damaging spells will have effectiveness tied to spell level in other ways. For example, in one supposably leaked playtest, invisibility as a 2nd-level spell had a fixed Hide DC of 17 (or something similar). Presumably, if you want it to remain useful against higher-level opponents with better Perception scores, you'd have to prepare it at a higher level, using a higher-level spell slot. Other spells might have qualitative improvements when cast with higher-level slots. Casting shield as a 1st-level spell might give you a duration of just one combat round; as a 2nd-level spell, it would last longer.

 

[Ainamacar]

Cones have worked for some decades... where is the problem?

I liked the rule of three. I am confident, that multiclassing a la 3e can be fixed. I am sure that 4e hybridization could also work without extra efford, if class abilities are worded carefully.
So I am neutral about that.

Solo monsters shoul not be needed in D&D next, with the flat attack bonus. HP determine if they are solo or minion. Especially if high hp makes you immune to some effects.

Also I like the ability to play gridless, on a square and a hex grid. Makes everyone happy!

I also thought this was a really good Ro3, especially the directions for monsters.

With respect to solo monsters, based on the ideas about minions the other week I think we can safely assume they're going for a pre-4e approach of not needing separate designations for creatures, while using all the lessons gained from 4e to see what makes those kinds of fights work. Using hit points could really tie it together, just like you say.

For example, suppose something like "stun" has a different effect depending on if the creature has 0-1/4, 1/4-1/2, 1/2-3/4, 3/4-1 of its normal hit points. At the high levels the effect can be shaken off fairly easily, and maybe classic "stun-locking" isn't actually a thing until the 0-1/4 range. In this case the level 1 PCs facing a level 4 monster might find it just like a solo fight: the monster will have marginally (but not ridiculously) higher defenses and hit points, and the PCs will struggle to get that monster down to a point where the abilities that "break" solo fights actually work in that manner. When the PCs are 4th level themselves, they already do more damage, so those kinds of effects become effective much earlier in the fight. When the PCs are 8th level just a hit or two will be enough to make such attacks very effective. And when the PCs are 12th level that monster might be effectively minionized. The game didn't have to fuss over it, it is just something that happens smoothly, and conveniently dodges the sometimes confounding comparisons in 4e between, say, a level 7 solo and a level 14 standard.

To me the most interesting thought in the multiclass question is actually the part that involves the action economy. We've seen some hints in this direction already, but it seems the minor/move/standard action economy (a system I really liked) might go to something slightly less fixed, where if the game says you can take an action you can simply take it. What is really interesting here is that this sort of thinking can help support the solo monster issue as well: if an 8th level giant gets a 2nd attack, for example, it already has the extra effective (occasionally actual) actions that solos have in 4e with respect to PCs. In this case it comes from having a higher level, and again we can imagine a smooth progression from something like solo->elite->standard->minion without necessarily making those a separate thing. There are other problems with multiple attacks, particularly slower gameplay at higher levels, but as long as they stay away from the excesses of 3e (7 attacks, most of them misses!) I think they might actually be able to graft the best of 3e and 4e together. (And not just as lip service to 4e fans!) That would be quite an accomplishment! I've long been convinced that something like that is possible in principle, but when it comes to game design we need "constructive proofs" for it to be of any use, and this Ro3 convinces me they might actually be able to pull it off.

Are there other major aspects to solos that would need some love? I know MM3 revised how 4e approached solos, and I bailed on 4e before that. Still, given only the few paragraphs above I think we could handle:
Extra hp - Comes from higher level
Higher (but only slightly) defenses - Comes from higher level
Resilience against the classic lockdown effects - Comes from extra hp, and thus from higher level.
Extra actions (relative to PCs) - Comes from higher level
Extra damage - Comes in many forms including extra actions, extra base damage, and other improvements due to, yes, higher level.

The trickiest part might be hit points, because if a solo creature is designed for a fight with 4 PCs, one might naively suspect that by the time the PCs reach that monster's level they should have roughly 4 times as much hp as they had earlier. One can only do that so many times before everyone has hundreds or thousands of hit points. The trick is probably to make sure that the balance between higher monster defenses and lower PC damage in a solo fight is such that the "solo" monster only actually needs about twice the hit points as an average party member. Rough estimation: suppose the average PC starts with 15 hp (roughly splitting the 3e/4e difference), and a canoncial solo is level +6. That would indicate hp doublings for PCs roughly by levels 7, 13, and 19. Or 15*2*2*2=120. Would you feel OK with 80 hp wizards and 160 hp barbarians at 20th level? It's certainly in my temperate zone. Alternately, if one kept 4e-like tiers over 30 levels, those same numbers would arise if +10 levels represented a solo. Thematically speaking, it feels natural to me if a creature a tier up represents a suitable solo encounter.

 

[GX.Sigma]

This is the one thing that leaves me the most wary. How exactly is that going to work with multiclassing? Underpowered fireballs for the rest of your characters life?

What's wrong with that, then? If you only have 3 levels of wizard, you would cast fireballs as a 3rd-level wizard. If you want to get better at being a wizard, you'll have to gain more levels as a wizard. I don't see the problem.