Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Irda Ranger" data-source="post: 4013652" data-attributes="member: 1003">Level/Tier Based Encounter Design: The successor to the CR system, this system seems to be designed to ensure parity or balance between the PCs and their opposition even more rigidly than the CR system with the inclusion of tiered monsters.  moreover, monster/encounter design has gotten a lot of attention, it seems, all with an eye toward balance.Er?  I don't see how "3rd level" monsters is any more or less rigid than "CR 3" monsters.  All they've done is make the verbiage the same as that which describes relative PC power ("I'm a 3rd level Wizard") and (now) magical items. That's called consistency, not rigidity.  And I'm not sure how the "tiered monsters" thing supports your contention at all.  The introduction of minions, elite and solo monsters at every level seems to drastically increase the flexibility of monster and encounter design.  The DM has way more toys to play with, and all the math is worked out ahead of time. That's a good thing.Quests: While "Quest Cards" may  be optioona [sic], it seems that Quests themselves are an inherent part of the rules for adventure design.  What this does is clearly lay out the goals and rewards for achieving those goals at the beginning of play, thereby limiting or even eliminating DM interpretation of the players' performance as a matter of what rewards are gained.What?  The "Quest Cards" are just a to-do list.  They're a way to keep things organized.  I've been using a system like them for years (as PC and DM) and they're tremendously helpful.  As for your contention that they somehow reduce a DM's control over his game, I can assure you from experience that this contention is total bunk.  I can write whatever I want on the card - but only stuff the DM has confirmed is "true" counts for anything, just like always.Roles: PC roles, particularly in the sense of "minimum competency" in the role's specific field, in or out of combat, means that a party composed of the proper roles will always have the tools necessary to overcome a challenge.  that is to say, if the DM also uses roles for monsters and other kinds of challenges, as has been suggested, the PCs are by default always equipped to meet the challenges head on (whatever that may mean for a particular challenge).Roles and niche protection are an inherent part of ANY game that uses class-based character design.  They've been fundamental to D&D since EGG released the original book, just not as explicitly defined as before.And who said the PC's will always have all the Roles covered, or that the Fighter won't be out of commission for some reason?  The only thing Roles do is help the DM smartly judge what his group is and is not capable of handling.  It's spelled out in crayon that "If you don't have a Defender, this is what you're more vulnerable to." but this is a Good Thing(TM).  It means I'm that much better able to judge what my group can handle, and what's going to result in a TPK.Magic Rings: This is a specific example of a general attitude toward codifying certain aspects of the game that were once open to DM interpretation and decision making.  While all editions of the game have lobbied the DM to avoid giving PCs inordinately powerful and/or numerous items, and 3E went so far as to create quantified guidelines as to what this meant, 4E is the first edition to actively prohibit lower level PCs from using "inappropriate" iems (in this case, rings). Good luck using a Scroll with a 7th level spell when you're a 3rd level 3E Sorcerer.  While you're at it, try casting a Fireball when you're 2nd level. Or taking the Archmage PrC at 4th.D&D has had level requirements for things forever.  Just because this is the first time (I can think of) that it's applied to a non-consumable magical item hardly means it's a new concept.Besides, you have no way of knowing what Rings are capable of in 4E. Once you've actually seen the system you can intelligently comment on whether their level-cap rule is a good idea or not.In general, the more codified a set of rules is and the more specific the guidelines for a greater number of aspects of play, the fewer aspects remain in the hands of the DM.The more codified, transparent and sensible the rules are, the easier it is for the DM to think intelligently about this game and make informed decisions as to what to leave as is and what to house rule.With fewer gaps, there's then less Fiat.When it comes to rules (the number that result in game balance), fiat is over-rated.  Mearls et. al. have way more time and resources than I do to figure out what's balanced.  The more tools they give me, the more time they save me, the better.  I can spend my time on plots, NPC's motivations, world design, etc.I think the game should give the DM both more powers and more responsibilites, going "backwards" away from 3E's highly structured ruleset toward earlier editions' more open rulesset.I think it does do this.  By drawing back the curtain and showing the inner workings of the game that were hidden in 3E, I have more power and responsibility.One of the implicit design goals of 4E seems to be to reduce the influence the DM has over the game, particularly as it relates to "fun".I utterly disagree.  Where you see control I see structured thought and intelligent guidance. I already can tell, from what limited previews we have seen, that 4E will be much, much more under my control than 3E ever was.</blockquote>

Verification