D&D's abstraction level

[Imaro]

I was simply saying it's nothing new. It's not really a new design concept for 4e. It's just been pointed out from the beginning in 4e.

As far as it not mattering? I never said that either. I said I think the new edition will be able to handle it better, as it tries to start from an an even starting point and moves from there.

Will there be unbalanced rules? Sure. In a game where the rules get added on in multiple hundred page books at a time, there will be unbalanced rules.

I think what I, as well as rounser, are arguing is that the design of 4e opens it up to an even greater number of and probability of this imbalance occurring than previous editions had as more is added to it.

 

[rounser]

I was simply saying it's nothing new.

In a technical, academic sense, yes. In practice, no - it potentially has more impact on gameplay than ever before by taking over the default activities of each class, and this time it's not just the spellcasters.

 

[Scribble]

I think what I, as well as rounser, are arguing is that the design of 4e opens it up to an even greater number of and probability of this imbalance occurring than previous editions had as more is added to it.

I understand what you're arguing, I just disagree.

 

[Scribble]

In a technical, academic sense, yes. In practice, no - it potentially has more impact on gameplay than ever before by taking over the default activities of each class, and this time it's not just the spellcasters.

Spellcasters had one way of breaking the rules, other classes had other ways of doing it.

In adition, none of the ways they broke the rules did so in a way that was consistent with eachother.

Feat vrs spell, spell vrses level.

Now we start from a level field, and when we break the rules, we do so in the same way each time. The effects will be different, but you have consistent starting point.

 

[Imaro]

I understand what you're arguing, I just disagree.

I guess I missed this since I haven't seen a basis for your argument against yet. I gave an example above with the "shifting" question, and everything I compared it to were abilities that low level monsters or pc's have, yet I see no way of balancing this out as of now.

The biggest problem I see is that the exception based abilities ( powers, feats, racial abilities, class features, etc.) are the standard now instead of the exception, and thus since they will be used more often, have a greater chance of combining on the battlefield in totally unexpected ways... especially when terrain, other allies abilities, enemies abilities, etc are taken into consideration. I'm curious to hear how the designer's planned for this.

I mean isn't a creature who can push numerous squares a more powerful threat along the edge of a canyon or on a bridge? Yet that same creature wouldn't have as big an advantage in a regular rectangular room.

 

[rounser]

Now we start from a level field, and when we break the rules, we do so in the same way each time. The effects will be different, but you have consistent starting point.

Scribble - have you ever followed M:tG? M:tG's history tells us a couple of things about exception-based games:

1) As the number of exceptions increase, the number of balance problems with broken exceptions inevitably go up. There's less obvious blunders like Black Lotuses when the designers wise up to their game, but you get the odd Necropotence slipping through the net and end up with a Black Summer.

2) Exceptions can combine in unexpected ways with broken results, and as the number goes up, it becomes impractical to test them all.

Now consider - D&D is new to being treated in this way, and the designers are doubtlessly still learning about the finer points of what they've created. Maybe there's a Black Lotus already in the PHB, staring us in the face, that only hindsight will uncover. Equivalent to the Haste realisation that actions are the real currency of 3E combat. It'll probably be in the guise of something subtle, like shifting monsters or PCs about, but in a year's time will be as "obviously broken" as extra actions are to 3E players.

Maybe the PHB's totally fine (unlikely), but I'd suggest that turning D&D into a fully exception-based model ruleset with those exceptions having at-will screentime and default action status means that it's burning a much shorter fuse towards becoming broken than it once was.

Does this matter? I'm not sure. D&D's survived being very broken indeed before. It's just an observation about what the 4E paradigm is likely to lead to, if M:tG is any guide.

 

[Mister Doug]

Rare is the feat that you use every round as your default attack.

Like Power Attack?

 

[Imaro]

Like Power Attack?

So now not only do you have feats like Power Attack or Weapon Focus but you have powers (that are not just math based) as well. Not seeing how 4e has addressed this problem at all.

 

[Scribble]

I guess I missed this since I haven't seen a basis for your argument against yet. I gave an example above with the "shifting" question, and everything I compared it to were abilities that low level monsters or pc's have, yet I see no way of balancing this out as of now.

I'm not a mathematician, nor am I a professional fun maker, but offhand I would say:

Shift vrs Side...

About the same? Depends on the person playing.

Each has it's bonus and it's drawbacks. Pick your attack style.

The point, however, is both of them start from the same base.

The biggest problem I see is that the exception based abilities ( powers, feats, racial abilities, class features, etc.) are the standard now instead of the exception, and thus since they will be used more often, have a greater chance of combining on the battlefield in totally unexpected ways... especially when terrain, other allies abilities, enemies abilities, etc are taken into consideration. I'm curious to hear how the designer's planned for this.

But my argument is it's ALWAYS been about exceptions... It just wasn't called out.

Characters can't get througha locked door.. EXCEPT if you have a thief! He can unlock doors!

Characters can't get to the top of the cliff without climbing. Except when you have a fly spell or a set of wings!

Characters can't get through an enemy line. EXCEPT when you have tumble!

I'd argue the best part fo the game actually IS the exceptions, and always has been. Look what I can do! Woohoo! With that list of look what rule I can break getting bigger the higher level you are.

Gygax was a rebel!

The problem was that there were numerous ways to create an exception, and they were eyed up, as far as how they effected the game, or worked together.

3e started moving in the right direction... It vastly reduced the number of subsystem exceptions, but it didn't go far enough (tolling of sacred cow bells...)

4e at least seems to be trying to start from a baseline. These are the rules. Everyone makes exceptions to the rules utilizing the same ideas.

The exceptions might be different, but the system for generating them is not. They will be easier to compaire against each other.

Will it always work. Probably not, I'm sure there will be flaws. It'll just be easier to start.

I mean isn't a creature who can push numerous squares a more powerful threat along the edge of a canyon or on a bridge? Yet that same creature wouldn't have as big an advantage in a regular rectangular room.

Yup, but that is a tactics thing.

Anyway I'm off for coffee, farmers market, dishes, and work out... yikes... so much to do! See ya!

 

[Scribble]

Scribble - have you ever followed M:tG? M:tG's history tells us a couple of things about exception-based games:

But as stated to Imaro, D&D has ALWAYS been about exceptions. It's not a new design philosophy. What's new is really trying to account for them from the start.