Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mustrum_Ridcully" data-source="post: 5960769" data-attributes="member: 710">Though I believe it may be possible to bring both sides closer together, as mentioned in my post.With bounded accuracy, a monster designer no longer has to &quot;make up&quot; some of those 3.x values like natural armor. The system can focus on creating assumptions that seem sensible, for example: A Full Plate is a bit weaker than a Dragon's Hide (that's why we have a Dragonscale Plate be more powerful than a Full Plate). By ensuring that the expected values fall within the range allowed by the accuracy, you can make things a bit more stable balance-wise.From the other side, you can also make certain other assumptions: &quot;AC this high coupled with this many hit points and an attack witht his average damage makes this a Level X&quot; monster. A lot of this may noteven be spelled out in the core, but rules module could focus on both. Someone that prefers the 4E approach of &quot;plug in the level to get all base statistics&quot; may have something more constrained then the guy using the 3E approach of modeling. The 3E compatibiltiy module user would probably be able to stat something up like &quot;Commoner in Plate Armor&quot; where hit points, AC and damage values will not fall perfectly into a level scheme (depending on party composition and available spells and abilities, a 3 hit point Commoner with AC 25 may be really hard to beat or drop on the first round). That's okay for the purposes of that modue, but would probably bother someone that wants something like the 4E rules. But one may even be able to combine both rules module and while the &quot;3E&quot; module would allow such extreme combinations, use the &quot;4E&quot; module to generally only design NPCs and monsters that fit in the &quot;neater&quot; range of values for their level. The D&amp;D community is heterogeneous and has different preferences and demands for the system - and these interests sometimes outright diverge. So I think it is a good idea to start D&amp;D Next on a common, sometimes maybe simplistic appearing level, and then add modules that can explore the divergences (and maybe sometimes find new ways to combine them). I believe this common ground doesn't require the 4E monster roles and the &quot;plug in level for stats&quot; appraoch, but it will probably require some balance at its core against which power can later be measured for future modules, and also intentionally broken. The monsters probably are best kept self-contained, e.g. their stat block contains all the information you need to play them in game. Later on, rules modules can break this all apart or add detail where needed.Of course, the challenge is to still have a &quot;core&quot; that can stand on its own and is not immediately off-putting.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mustrum_Ridcully, post: 5960769, member: 710"] Though I believe it may be possible to bring both sides closer together, as mentioned in my post. With bounded accuracy, a monster designer no longer has to "make up" some of those 3.x values like natural armor. The system can focus on creating assumptions that seem sensible, for example: A Full Plate is a bit weaker than a Dragon's Hide (that's why we have a Dragonscale Plate be more powerful than a Full Plate). By ensuring that the expected values fall within the range allowed by the accuracy, you can make things a bit more stable balance-wise. From the other side, you can also make certain other assumptions: "AC this high coupled with this many hit points and an attack witht his average damage makes this a Level X" monster. A lot of this may noteven be spelled out in the core, but rules module could focus on both. Someone that prefers the 4E approach of "plug in the level to get all base statistics" may have something more constrained then the guy using the 3E approach of modeling. The 3E compatibiltiy module user would probably be able to stat something up like "Commoner in Plate Armor" where hit points, AC and damage values will not fall perfectly into a level scheme (depending on party composition and available spells and abilities, a 3 hit point Commoner with AC 25 may be really hard to beat or drop on the first round). That's okay for the purposes of that modue, but would probably bother someone that wants something like the 4E rules. But one may even be able to combine both rules module and while the "3E" module would allow such extreme combinations, use the "4E" module to generally only design NPCs and monsters that fit in the "neater" range of values for their level. The D&D community is heterogeneous and has different preferences and demands for the system - and these interests sometimes outright diverge. So I think it is a good idea to start D&D Next on a common, sometimes maybe simplistic appearing level, and then add modules that can explore the divergences (and maybe sometimes find new ways to combine them). I believe this common ground doesn't require the 4E monster roles and the "plug in level for stats" appraoch, but it will probably require some balance at its core against which power can later be measured for future modules, and also intentionally broken. The monsters probably are best kept self-contained, e.g. their stat block contains all the information you need to play them in game. Later on, rules modules can break this all apart or add detail where needed. Of course, the challenge is to still have a "core" that can stand on its own and is not immediately off-putting. [/QUOTE]

Verification