Cascade effect of rule changes

[Keenath]

Yes, I think there might be a need for a distinction.

Chrismas Tree: Loaded with magical items.

Looking at the original article, that's not what Christmas Tree means.


The Christmas Tree effect is, if you fail to have a christmas tree's worth of items, your character becomes worthless. Or significantly less able.

The Christmas Shrub concept is that you only have three items that are really necessary -- armor, weapon, and throat-slot -- and each of those can carry a secondary power as well, similar to magic weapons now.

The rest of the slots can be filled, but -- and this is the important bit -- if you fail to fill them, you aren't significantly less able. The items represent neat tricks or enhancements to certain strategies, but not overall power changes.

 

[Spatula]

In the "why aren't you switching" thread, one argument was the "I thought Y was a problem but why are they changing X when that wasn't a problem" and I wonder how much of this is because of Mearls et al looking at the underlying problem of Y?

I'm curious which "Y" had at its underlying problem that people could play half-orcs.

One of the 4e guys, Mearls I think, posted a list a while back of all the complaints that they had heard from people regarding 3e, which they had set out to address with the new edition. And I agreed with pretty much the entire list, as problems with the game that I would like to see fixed. Unfortunately, the only changes we've really been shown is the trashing of established D&D settings, plus a lot of vague statements along the lines of, "trust us, we also fixed all those mechanical problems, too, and it's cooler! more fun! plays faster!" This has changed a little bit in the last few weeks (info on magic items & dying), but not by much. And the quality of what they have shown us has been mixed (level prereqs on wearing items?). The combined effect is that my interest in 4e has significantly cooled.

IMHO.... all of them. Otherwise the 'problems' would have been readily HR'd out of the game.

3e was great because the mechanics fit neatly into a tightly functioning system, quite unlike the patchwork quilts of earlier versions where there were multiple mini-games stuck together.

3e was horrible because the mechanics fit too tightly together and altering one piece would trigger fatal errors elsewhere.

One of the reasons for this was that the underpinning assumptions were not known outside of WoTC. Any HR had the potential to completely off balance the game. And some 'official rules' ran into the same problem.

I don't agree with this on any level. The core game isn't some finely-tuned machine that breaks down when you try to tinker with it. It breaks down on its own at higher levels, has annoying clunky bits nailed onto it (turn undead, grappling), and has plenty of deficiencies at any level (for example, some classes multiclass poorly - which BTW is easily house-ruled for spellcasters). On the flipside, tinkering with the rules isn't any more catastrophic than it was in previous editions, or in any other game system. Not every rule will work for every group... change the ones you don't like, and if you don't like the results, refine & change it again.

 

[AllisterH]

One of the 4e guys, Mearls I think, posted a list a while back of all the complaints that they had heard from people regarding 3e, which they had set out to address with the new edition. And I agreed with pretty much the entire list, as problems with the game that I would like to see fixed. Unfortunately, the only changes we've really been shown is the trashing of established D&D settings, plus a lot of vague statements along the lines of, "trust us, we also fixed all those mechanical problems, too, and it's cooler! more fun! plays faster!" This has changed a little bit in the last few weeks (info on magic items & dying), but not by much. And the quality of what they have shown us has been mixed (level prereqs on wearing items?). The combined effect is that my interest in 4e has significantly cooled.


.

Well, take the Magic Item problem.

If you REALLY want to fix that, you have to go to the underlying problem, namely the magic system itself and fix how that works.

 

[D_E]

Well, take the Magic Item problem.

If you REALLY want to fix that, you have to go to the underlying problem, namely the magic system itself and fix how that works.

[NITPICK]
The magic system is what you end up wrestling with if you try to fix class balance.

The magic item problem stems from the fact that there are certain numbers which are assumed to scale by level which do not in fact scale unless you have the right magic items; AC is the obvious one, but saves also scale in funky ways.
[/NITPICK]

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I don't agree with this on any level. The core game isn't some finely-tuned machine that breaks down when you try to tinker with it. It breaks down on its own at higher levels, has annoying clunky bits nailed onto it (turn undead, grappling), and has plenty of deficiencies at any level (for example, some classes multiclass poorly - which BTW is easily house-ruled for spellcasters). On the flipside, tinkering with the rules isn't any more catastrophic than it was in previous editions, or in any other game system. Not every rule will work for every group... change the ones you don't like, and if you don't like the results, refine & change it again.

The difference is, IME.. given tinkering with rules since 1e.. the earlier editions could be tinkered with and the overall game wouldn't change because of a lack of cohesion in the major mechanics.

I am not saying that 3e is a 'finely-tuned machine', but rather that the cohesiveness of the main components meant that changing things had second and third order of effects. Take, for instance, armor as DR. Simple enough change, right? Its even an option in UA. Use this rule and the build to play is the 2-handed Power Attacker.... its easier to hit the target and PA gives additional damage.... unless the target is one of those armored beast where the rule makes then almost indestructable.
3.e HRs had to check and double check to see if unintended consequences sprang up. This is one of the main reason I stick relatively close to a RAW game.


I am saying that 4e looks to be the next step in bringing the mechanics into a cohesive and understandable foundation from which to build the game system. Having the assumptions up front make it much cleaner to see the consequences of changing things.


....and, having read this thread, I agree with Lord Zardoz' excellent analysis

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

So, what's the christmas tree effect again? Is it that characters all buy the same six items. Or is it that every character has so many items that they're like a yuppie christmas tree?

If MIC was an effort to fix the former problem, then it only partially succeeded. It provides a variety of equipment that is worth the price cost (and the a few items (belt of battle for instance) that are so utterly and dramatically undercosted to singlehandedly wreck games and demonstrate that the designers did not even learn the lessons of the 3.0 to 3.5 conversion particularly well). On the other hand, if the MIC was an effort to fix the problem that characters have so many magic items that they light up like a christmas tree under detect magic, then it is an utter and abject failure because it accomplished the exact opposite of what it intended.

Pre MIC, a wizard probably wanted a headband of intellect, cloak/vest of resistance, and maybe an amulet of health, pearl of power, and/or blessed book. Most of those are single items that are regularly upgraded so for at least half his career, the wizard is likely to have less than ten items.

post MIC, the wizard is going to want arcanists gloves, an anklet of translocation, a healing belt, a headband of intellect, a cloak/vest of resistance, an amulet of health, pearls of power, maybe a blessed book, a twilight mithral chain shirt and a twilight mithral buckler with a couple armor augment crystals for each of them, and as many belts of battle as his DM lets him craft, find, buy, or steal.

Similarly, pre-MIC, the dwarf who has a magic spiked chain, magic heavy flail, magic armor, magic vest of resistance, belt of giant strength, animated shield, and boots of speed already, is probably going to save up his money and pay a wizard to make one of those items better.

Post-MIC, the dwarf melee character will want an augment crystal for each weapon (if nothing else, the one that lets you draw that weapon as a free action), an augment crystal for his armor, an augment crystal for his shield, and a couple extras for odd situations, some extra magic weapons that give a nifty option usable a few times per day (meteoric knife for instance), a dragon mask so he can see invisible, a bear helm or helm of glorious recovery, and as many pairs of counterstrike bracers as he can fit in his hand haversack (because this dwarf has a good AC and likes getting extra attacks).

The long and the short of is that by including numerous cost-effective low-priced items for every slot, the MIC ensured that characters would buy more (and more specialized) magic items rather than fewer. By making most of them limited by charges but not limited by an attunement period (as the minis handbook items were), they also ensured that many characters would do their utmost to obtain multiples of the really cost effective items so that the 3/day tricks could become 3/combat tricks. (After each combat, you trade out boots, belts, bracers, or whatever else you have)

The "big six" and the "Christmas tree" effect are actually opposite problems. The MIC took the game towards the christmas tree effect not away from it. (And if the designers tell you that wasn't their intent, I want to know how they managed not to realize it was an inevitable consequence of their design philosophy).

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.

 

[hong]

Looking at the original article, that's not what Christmas Tree means.


The Christmas Tree effect is, if you fail to have a christmas tree's worth of items, your character becomes worthless. Or significantly less able.

Er, yes. How is this not what Mustrum Ridcully said?

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I think that further displays one of the weaknesses of 3e, and it's "tight" rules package.

The "tightness" of the rules effected even the CR of monsters, and make them somewhat variable.

In 3e, undead have a somewhat roving CR. Sure, stat/level drain attacks aren't that bad... provided you have a cleric to counter them. Sure the rogue can't sneak them.... but you have a cleric to turn them right?

If you change one basic rule assumption (that there will be a cleric in the party) another rules assumption (that undead are a certain CR) changes.

Tight? In old school pre-3e we had a name for parties that wandered around without adequate clerical support: Losers who deserved to die.

I cannot imagine 3e is tighter than that.

Most of the accusations thrown at 3e existed in previous editions -- sometimes better, sometimes worse.

One new thing 3e experimented with is allowing stats to improve. Once you have six 2nd level spells in the game that are effective boosters, it is inevitable that the PCs are eventually going to get those Enhancement bonuses somehow. Might as well let them have the items.

The "problem" of the Big Six is not necessarily that there is anything wrong with the Big Six. If the Cleric could cast Bull's Strength at 3rd level, is it really a problem if the 9th level Fighter has a +4 Str and a +2 Con item? I do not think so.

The underlying problem is that most non-Big Six items are too expensive weighed by their combat value by a factor of 2X to 4X, as proven by how attractive it is to cash out at 50% of Market price and invest the proceeds in the Big Six. A player might choose, say, a Flying Carpet over boring items if only the DMG (or DM) would dare not punish the player for that choice.

Many criticisms of 3e sound like criticisms of its great success. Many splatbooks mean the game is successful. The first few should be solid, but eventually you will reach the point where the designers must push the envelope to create something that feels new -- if there are not a few flops there the designers just aren't trying hard enough. I hear lots of people grouse about "high level" player, where now most people define high level as 15-20, instead of 9-12. That tells me more people playing a wider range of levels.

And finally, if you stick mostly to the Core, I am doubtful that the mechanics and math are really significantly different for levels 1-10 in all editions. I have had PCs enter a fair share of combats with: Bless, Aid, Invisibility, Prayer, Protection from Evil, Strength, Fly, Haste, Fireshield (Cold), Stoneskin, magic armor, magic shield, Ring of Protection, Ring of Fire Resistance, Cloak of Protection -- most or all(!) up at once. Now the party is hit by a Dispel Magic; time to stop combat and roll the dice for 10 minutes. Here comes the Fireball. What is my saving throw now? We are talking ~9th level 1e/2e BTW. It is the same pain in all editions.

 

[Terramotus]

I think the elimination of the full attack is a big one. It's one thing in Star Wars, where most weapons have static damage outputs, and the sword wielders are supposed to be a little bit better than everyone else. It's totally another when trying to adapt that to a system like D&D with all of its stacking bonuses, magic items, defensive bonuses, hit point variations, etc.

I think the simplification of many of the systems arose out of the necessity of finding out how much extra damage to have the characters do with iterative attacks. Limiting how much the damage output on a single attack can explode with optimization makes it possible to put a reasonable number there.

But it's not only that. Drastically changing the expected damage output of the fighters requires a second look at hit points, rogue sneak attacks, every single spell that does damage, monsters and any abilities that summon monsters... it's a lot of work. I'm hopeful that they've done a good job of balancing it.

 

[sinecure]

Maybe stat boosting magic items will work like they did in second edition? Instead of having a bonus to strength you get the actual strength score a giant has. I may be misremembering, but belts of giants strength were Str 25 or close to that. I think it could depend on the time of giant too or that was a common house rule.