Cascade effect of rule changes

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

4E fixes a few of these problems in simplistic ways (giving everyone a level-dependent static bonus to all their skills, so eventually all the PCs can make a DC15 climb check, for example) , but it remains a game where PCs are encouraged to stick to their roles, from what I can tell. They've even introduced formal language (Striker, Controller, Defender, etc) to define these roles. So I worry that , over time, the damage output of the Striker will diverge greatly, and the saves and AC of the Defender will do likewise. If skill resolution remains an important part of the game, DCs of tasks will scale in such a way that those class-dependent bonuses to skills are necessary for success.

The problem was that the big differences where in critical areas that affected all characters.
It's okay for a Wizard to be bad at melee combat. Nobody expects that from him. But it's bad if he autofails his fortitude save against poison, or if his hit points are so low he can't even survive some area spells on a succesful reflex save.

If the difference in mere bonus and defenses remains mostly static, this problem is significantly lessened. This also means though that the total bonuses you can accrue that directly affect your attacks and defenses must be limited.

 

[Jinete]

I am not sure though that 4E will solve these problems.

The main issues you identify, namely that the attack capabilty and defenses of the different PCs diverge as they level, is a consequence of D&D's focus on specialization.

IE, in D&D, the party is supposed to succeed when PCs stick to their roles. Therefore, players choose PCs that specialize in such a way as to perform their roles optimally. The Wizard pumps his DCs rather than improving his attack ability or his AC, The fighter gets a flaming sword rather than improving his will save, and so on. Everyone maxes a few skills that define their character, and ignores all the others.

The class abilities that accumulate reinforce this trend.

4E fixes a few of these problems in simplistic ways (giving everyone a level-dependent static bonus to all their skills, so eventually all the PCs can make a DC15 climb check, for example) , but it remains a game where PCs are encouraged to stick to their roles, from what I can tell. They've even introduced formal language (Striker, Controller, Defender, etc) to define these roles. So I worry that , over time, the damage output of the Striker will diverge greatly, and the saves and AC of the Defender will do likewise. If skill resolution remains an important part of the game, DCs of tasks will scale in such a way that those class-dependent bonuses to skills are necessary for success.

Ken

If the damage output diverges greatly between a lvl 1 and a lvl 15 striker, I don't see that as a problem. As long as the damage scales approximately the same as your average monster's hit points that is.

I'm sure that the designers are aware of the problem of overspecialization. From what I see, they have defined average damage, HP, and AC for monsters by level. My guess is they probably have a similar table for PC's and ways of keeping them within those limits.

The problem with 4e could be with combos that can be pulled off by two or more players working together, but I'm hoping that most of that was detected during playtesting.

The splat books are a different matter. As the possibilities grow, so will the chance that something will slip under the radar, and the char op boards everywhere will go wild.

 

[hong]

Actually, I'd be happy with combos that require 2 or more people to pull off. That encourages cooperation and teamwork in the tactical environment, which makes for more interesting gameplay. In the current setup that kind of thing is generally limited to flanking, and focusing fire on individual targets until they go down.

The potential downside is locking character builds into being cogs in a machine, but the inclusion of retraining rules in the 4E core should help mitigate this. If you get tired of being a cog, you can always respec.

 

[AllisterH]

Could the Big six Xmas tree problem be seen when 3.0 was in the design stage?

Legitimate arguments could be made that given in 1E/2E, fighters depended on magic items (even in 1E/2E, Mord's Disjunction was a gamebreaker versus fighters but more of a nuisance versus wizards), not changing the underlying system would result in the same problem.

Compare this with the skill system. 2E never had a decent skill system (unless you count S&P) thus it would be hard to predict that the skill system is pretty much borked by level 7
due to the effects of both magic and the nature of the skill system itself.

That's what I'm wondering about 4E. Can Mearls et al use the past to actually predict the future?

re: Splatbooks
I don't think these were a problem. They just highlighted a problem from core. For example, the fact that sorcerors/wizards pretty much had no reason NOT to remain in their own class is not because of the prestige class system itself but the fact that the sorceror class had nothing intrinisically keeping you in.

Compare this with the druid where over the course of 3.x, there have been VERY few PrC I've seen people willing to dip into for if they were a druid. Similarly, the ToB classes and the rogue are good enough that it makes sense to stick to one from levels 1-20 without prestiging out.

ITs the same thing with spells. Sure, the spell compendium released some broken spells such as the "Dex-killer" but core had Forcecage et al.

 

[hong]

It's possible they foresaw that characters would have lots and lots of magic items (that 760,000 gp has to be spent on _something_), but not considered it a problem as such. The "Christmas tree effect" is at heart an aesthetic, not a mechanical issue: many people have found that it's not to their taste to have characters with lots of items. However, there are also many other people who don't mind it at all.

 

[Set]

It's always fun to find those ripple effects after the fact.

Consolidating Spot and Listen into a single Notice skill, and now the Alertness feat needs to be dropped, and anything that grants it, like, say, a Familiar, would instead give Skill Focus: Notice, for instance. Similarly, if a skill grants synergies, those need to be adjusted for the lack of that original skill, and perhaps for the presence of the new skill.

Do the same with Hide + Move Silently = Stealth, and the Boots and Cloak of Elvenkind need to be tweaked. Do they give the appropriate bonuses only during the appropriate actions? (Like a lion's bonus to Hide in tall grass, or that synergy bonus to Disguise rolls to 'act in character' you get for 5 ranks of Bluff.) Or do they just give a smaller bonus to the new combined Stealth skill, which would be less precise, but *way* simpler to adjudicate?


As for the Christmas Tree Effect, that got invented just now by the same people who sold us Magic Item Compendium not a year ago, *when they were already working on 4E.* I'm not falling for that. If it was a problem, it was a problem that they not only created, but were actively selling books to promulgate even as they designed a system to 'fix the problem.' Yeah, pull the other one.

 

[AllisterH]

As for the Christmas Tree Effect, that got invented just now by the same people who sold us Magic Item Compendium not a year ago, *when they were already working on 4E.* I'm not falling for that. If it was a problem, it was a problem that they not only created, but were actively selling books to promulgate even as they designed a system to 'fix the problem.' Yeah, pull the other one.

Er, no.

The Xmas tree effect was well known YEARS before MIC. MIC was actually an attempt to fix this by making non-stat boosters more attractive. Its one of the reason why it is so popular among fans IMO.

 

[Dragonblade]

As for the Christmas Tree Effect, that got invented just now by the same people who sold us Magic Item Compendium not a year ago, *when they were already working on 4E.* I'm not falling for that. If it was a problem, it was a problem that they not only created, but were actively selling books to promulgate even as they designed a system to 'fix the problem.' Yeah, pull the other one.

The Christmas Tree effect has been around since 1e/2e though it was not nearly as evident. It really exploded with 3e. I blame Monte, Tweet, and Skip for the CTE as we know it today.

The current design team is working to mitigate the issue with 4e, but I don't blame them for putting out the Magic Item Compendium. Heck, I have the book and I like it even though I don't like the CTE.

 

[Kaisoku]

There are folks out there that are confusing the term Christmas Tree Effect... it's not about having a lot of magic items in general. If anything, it's the exact opposite of having many different magical items.

As I understand it, the "Christmas Tree Effect" is regarding the standard set of bonuses that everyone *has* to take. These were available in the core rules, and didn't need a splat book. These were the bonuses that you needed to keep up with the Monster's power creep, since many bonuses didn't scale as fast as level... or in the case of AC, *at all* without equipment.

The very problem was that splatbooks with interesting items were near useless *because* of the Christmas Tree Effect... you "needed" those other items, so these non-core items were never used.


Someone who used the MIC and enjoyed it would have been trying to break away from the Christmas Tree Effect, not making it worse.


D&D is still going to be about a lot of magical items... it's not becoming "low magic". The fix being done is to make general stat bonuses take up less item slots so you can actually get and use multiple "unique use" or "wicked awesome" items. Without being inherently lower powered.

As long as Splatbooks don't break core rules in magic items (like creating a new bonus that everyone will suddenly need), then splatbooks can just be chalk full of new concepts.

Personally, I'd be wary of any new splatbook in 4e that would claim to have "new mechanics" essentially.

 

[hong]

I take "Christmas tree effect" to be a generic description of PCs with dozens of items hanging off them, like a Christmas tree. The specifics of what those items do are the subject of other debates, like the ubiquity of the "big 6" (which is what the MIC was trying to address, by making non-big-6 items cheaper and more useful/interesting).