D&D 5E 28/1/13 L&L D&DNext goals part Four

[Raith5]

Cyberen,I agree that 4th ed rules are not very complicated - things like second wind and action points are very easy to overlay on DDN. I would also add that keywords and standard conditions make it even less complicated.


I think that a system of static defenses where the attacker always rolls against a defense is far more coherent than a system where the attacker sometimes rolls and the defender sometimes saves.

But there is also some significant differences between 4th and previous editions which means that 4th ed cannot be easily reduced to a few rules:

* One is the pacing and framing aspect of 4th which has that cinematic quality of focusing on scenes or encounters - this has consequences for how healing is handled.
* The rules are also much more foregrounded - the relationship between the DM and player is much more mediated/structured by the rules - rather than a free form interplay (skill challenges are a good example here).
* Some spells were overtly taken out of combat in the form of rituals. Some forms of capability like flying were overtly taken out of low and mid level play.
* As a result, there is also a much more equal relationship between DM and player. In 4th ed the player can use powers to interrupt the DM in resolving combat by using powers like 'combined fire' or 'disruptive strike'. Could this be easily done in previous editions? I love this more equal and shared responsibility for making the game work - but it certainly jars with previous editions of D&D.

As a result I think there is more to 4th ed than a few rules, there are some underlying ideas that could be the basis for an advanced game in DDN. However, the problem is that I am not sure how aware WOTC are of the underlying ideas of 4th ed. It is certainly the case that many threads here on ENworld demonstrate a more sophisticated take on 4th ed than what is stated by Mearls and co.

 

[Libramarian]

I think that a system of static defenses where the attacker always rolls against a defense is far more coherent than a system where the attacker sometimes rolls and the defender sometimes saves.

Not when you have pit traps rolling to attack, etc.

 

[Klaus]

Not when you have pit traps rolling to attack, etc.

A mechanical pit trap that opens under a character is making an attack vs. Reflex. A simple hole in the ground isn't (usually, the character gets a saving throw to avoid falling into it).

 

[Obryn]

Not when you have pit traps rolling to attack, etc.

Rolling attacks for poison and the like is kind of unusual and a bit awkward. I find that the consistency gained from having a single system more than makes up for that awkwardness, though, and toyed with hacking it into 3e well before 4e was being written. The Poison is "attacking" your Fortitude, and the trap is "attacking" your Reflex.

Mathematically, a saving throw and an attack vs. a defense are identical, and if it's not "actor rolls" like in 4e, I'd prefer something like Unisystem where the players roll all the dice - rolling to attack and rolling to dodge vs. static monster attacks or defenses. (Damage would still need rolled, however.)

Basically, I don't think "who rolls the dice" should necessarily model anything that's occurring in game. Rolling is itself a gameplay convention, so I'm more interested in ease of use at the table.

-O

 

[DerekSTheRed]

I was kind of hoping that this article would be about custom world building and include things like how to create home brewed deities, races, and prestige classes. The wish list though is pretty interesting though. And as someone said above, please bring back Birthright.

 

[Unwise]

Regarding the reference to "facing rules", in my experience, I do loath facing rules for fantasy games, however in modern shoot-em-up games they can add a huge element to the tactics of a game. I played a really tense Shadowrun game where the PCs were running a commando raid on a gangs hideout. The use of facing and overwatch rules really led to some great tactical play.

 

[triqui]

Really? They're still on with this whole "facing" thing? I don't know which member of the design team keeps bringing up facing at the meetings.

It says an optional system with facing. If some group want to play with facing it's good that they have the option (and it's something that is mentioned here and there with people asking for it. For example, with stealth rules)

As long as they still have healing surges (or hit dice, whatever) so that you don't literally get EVERY resource back after each encounter.

Why? Does it matter? If some group want to play purely encounter based, and they have fun for it, what's the problem?

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think that a system of static defenses where the attacker always rolls against a defense is far more coherent than a system where the attacker sometimes rolls and the defender sometimes saves.

I was actually pondering this a bit recently, as I was engaged in some other conversations about how 4e's powers system sometimes quashed creativity by limiting the flexibility of certain spells or effects.

Part of the reason 4e is formatted like that is because of "the attacker always rolls" mantra. So when you make a fireball, you roll to attack with it. So you need to now what you're attacking. So the targeting line says "creatures in the burst" (or whatever).

However, if it was swapped, so that the defender rolled, you could make a fireball that was simply an Effect line. So you wouldn't need targets. You create a ball of fire. If there's creatures in it, they can try to avoid getting burned (ie: make a saving throw), but that ball of fire is there, regardless of your roll.

I could see this extending to weapon attacks and maneuvers, too. So someone spinning a flail around might create an Effect where the first person to get next to them takes damage (but they get a save). No attack roll: you're spinning that flail, and it's up to the defender to avoid it.

I think having a "defender-rolls" system is great for that feeling of actually creating something in the world. It's reactive, which fits in the mode of immersion and improv better. The dice don't tell you you fail, the dice are a tool the defender can use to avoid the effect.

I kind of wonder how an all-"defender rolls" system would look....hmmmmmmmm....

 

[Dragoslav]

It says an optional system with facing. If some group want to play with facing it's good that they have the option (and it's something that is mentioned here and there with people asking for it. For example, with stealth rules)

Why? Does it matter? If some group want to play purely encounter based, and they have fun for it, what's the problem?

1) I already explained my reaction to the facing suggestion upthread.

2) If a group wants to play with full resources regained after each encounter without healing surges, that's fine, but I'm assuming that WotC put "rules for encounter-based resources" on their wishlist of modules to give people something that emulated 4e combat and resource management. In order to accomplish that, they need to make it utilize healing surges/hit dice. If, by default, it doesn't, then I will be disappointed because it won't be a module for getting 4e-like combat and resource management. If, however, by default it does utilize healing surges/hit dice, then even if there were no separate rules for encounter-based design where you get all of your resources back after each encounter, it would be a simple matter for a group to say "we're using the encounter-based resource system, but you get all of your HP back during a rest without expending hit dice."

 

[Obryn]

Yeah, to be frank, the facing thing is just one of the weird things the designers seem to assume are important to 4e players. It's a symptom of a larger issue. Even the issue itself surprises me - it's not like most of the guys writing it haven't also worked on 4e at some point.
[MENTION=10021]kamikaze[/MENTION]Midget - defender-rolls would be good, too. It's even less iconic than attacker-rolls, though, if that even matters.

-O