D&D 4E 4e Dungeon Design - New Article

Celebrim said:
Because, we certainly don't know amongst the little we know whether a CR appropriate encounter no longer is designed to consume 20-25% of the PC's resources, or whether the PC's will have to rest every four encounters or every ten or every one. But, for all that, it doesn't really matter, because we are talking about something that is completely relative. We'll just slide the scale.

Yes, but if you can adjust it so that the characters feel that their not going to need to rest for the majority of the session, or are willing to make that extra push, it would become more acceptible. If your characters need to rest once per RL week, it doeen't feel as "off" as resting once per game day.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Baron Opal said:
Yes, but if you can adjust it so that the characters feel that their not going to need to rest for the majority of the session, or are willing to make that extra push, it would become more acceptible. If your characters need to rest once per RL week, it doeen't feel as "off" as resting once per game day.

Actually, for me, once per game day is fine. It's 8 hours of rest for every one hour of adventuring that's off for me.
 

Grog said:
No. You're still thinking in 3E terms.

No, I'm thinking in D&D terms. And I feel as if I'm on solid ground in doing so, because one of the few things we do know is the heart and soul of D&D resources is not going away. I think I got this off on the wrong foot by even mentioning the wizard. I only brought wizarding up, because its something we'd had a hint about. The wizards spells are really tangential to the argument. That he gets to keep the basic blaster function, warlock like, really makes the wizard in 4E little different than a fighter in this regard to resources. So lets simplify this discussion and avoid the distraction of arcane spells, because that's not really what's at stake here.

Imagine the party has no wizard. In fact, lets imagine that the adventuring party has no spell casters. When we talking about spending resources, what primarily are we talking about in 4E or any other addition of D&D?

Hit points. Regardless of how much blaster power the Wizard still retains, if the hit points are waning, its time to go have a nap. All the at will blaster fire in the world doesn't change that. And, as you note, we don't know anything about how hit points are handled as a resource in 4E. Unless they refresh on a per encounter basis (as some have argued that they do in 3E given the prevelence of wands of cure light wounds), your argument that 4E is more friendly to longer dungeon runs has no substantial basis.

A given encounter in 4E could be equally difficult in a relative sense to a similar encounter in 3E, but because of changes in the design paradigm, it doesn't have to push the PCs anywhere near as close to their next rest break as the 3E encounter did.

If it takes the same percentage of hit points away, then it does. And if it doesn't, then its in a very real way not as difficult of an encounter.

The big question in my mind is how they're going to handle healinng.

I think that became the single biggest question out there as soon as they said they were going to an at-will and per encounter model of resources. At will healing breaks central tenents of the game. Per encounter healing, like the 'first aid' of many systems, is more likely, probably in some form like 'bind wounds' that only works once per encounter (this however creates a book keeping nightmare), combined with a small amount of per day miracles.

I'm inclined to think that under the new rules, not all clerics will even have access to healing, but this may just be my confusion over how they can even manage to get traditional D&D healing to work under the new model.

on multiple occasions, but the second the cleric runs out of healing, everything stops.

Exactly.

So, if they want to significantly change the way D&D adventures work, they're going to have to change the way healing resources work, and I'm very curious to see how they're going to do that, because it's going to be a critical design issue.

You are absolutely right. If we could get any one question answered about 4E, this would be the one to have answered.
 

Personally, balancing issues aside, I really LIKE minion rules, especially after having used them in M&M. They aren't so much a separate set of rules as a set of conditions that make life easier for everyone at the table, at least when used in M&M. Of course, in M&M, it's a different genre and style. Being able to simply 'Take 10' when fighting a mook and being able to knock them out with a single hit is fun in M&M...in D&D, it would depend on the situation.

One problem that I'd like to see more addressed is the scalability of certain monsters. There was a Dungeon adventure about two years back that had a tribe of orcs guarding a temple with an arifact of Iuz, iirc. Since this was a 10th level module, the orcs were all Barbarian 8s....which made sense in that they gave the heroes a mechanically apt challenge, but didn't really hold water in the sense of any sort of verisimilitude. These were an entire tribe of CR8 super-orcs...why they hadn't conquered every other tribe of orcs really wasn't established. But the only way to make orcs even remotely challenging to a 10th level party was to change them thusly.

In my last campaign, the party was 18th-20th level when they repelled a Githyanki incursion onto the prime. One combat had them facing 250 foot soldiers and about 30 high-levelled classed or special opponents. Minion rules would have simplified that combat in a helpful way, as they would for many high-level encounters using relatively lower-level threats. IF they implement something like that, which obviously we don't know about.
 


Remove ads

Top