Design and Developments: Dirt, Rocks and 10' halls

[Raven Crowking]

Hmmm...

Yep, I can abstract this for an abstract combat system and have more fun.

I wonder how many people who condemn the long cascading math will mind the long pre-prepatory minis set-up?

Crom help me, I agree with KM. Well, sorta anyway.

I could see using this without minis. I can see that the goal is increased encounter options, and I can see how the example meets its goal. To my mind, that means that this is a good addition to the game. If I don't switch, I'd be happy to adjust doomspores to my homebrewed 3.X.

OTOH, I can see where this ties into the virtual tabletop (you might need it for your home game if you don't have a big enough table....) and the delve encounter format. As much as I despise "delve", it would make it easier to mark out zones and their effects.

RC

 

[BeauNiddle]

I was wondering when the whole just take it out argument would pop up. Well this is all dependant upon how integrated the systems and subsystems are in D&D 4e. If monsters are created and ranked with the implicit assumption that terrain will be used as well in an encounter then it could be a nice bit of work to run without.

Never said it "will be too dificult or complicated to run". Using trigonometry or calculus problems isn't too complicated to run a game either...but I wouldn't consider a game that ran on such principles to be streamlined or quick in play either. (I probably wouldn't consider it much fun either, now that I think about it.)

This reminds me of when they announced PC's/NPC's and monsters would all be built using the same principles. In theory everyone loved it (and it was a good idea, though not for a human preped/ran game)...however as time wore on it became a problem for more and more DM's, especially at higher levels. I see this overly detailed terrain going the same way. It will be lauded by most at first, but as more and more people play they will find it bogs down play and probably could be accomplished with simpler rules. I never said I didn't like the idea...what I don't like (as presented so far) is the implementation.

Isn't a doomspore basically a trap? When touched it triggers a poison gas cloud. Resets in 5 minutes.

It's no different or more difficult to run than a current gas trap.

The difference is 3rd ed (and previous) had the expectation that traps were found outside combat and 4th ed is going the route that everything is an encounter. Traps and monsters are interchangeable and they suggest using them in combinations (archers behind a pit trap is one example).

Doomspores as a general plant that grows randomly is insane. Doomspores as a 'monster' in an encounter is fine - infact it will probably be easier to run than the other monsters just because it has so few features (has it be triggered? yes/no)


I think this ties in with their plans for interesting traps - instead of a bridge with a loose plank (search DC 18, Disable DC20) the whole bridge becomes rickety and requires balance / reflex saves per round variable on damage caused to the bridge then it will be much much more interesting.

If the rest of the game has been streamlined enough that I have spare time to think about extra monsters/traps/terrain then I love it. If I'm expected to have 4 or 5 types of 'monsters' in a single encounter (boss / mooks / terrain / trap / controller / skirmisher / etc.) without them simplifying then their mad.

I think they know that and hence why they keep mentioning how much easier it is to run the bad guys in their playtests.

 

[Black_Swan]

Info Mapped to the best of my ability without access to tables

DoomSpore
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Description:

Usually found in large, natural caverns, this fungus takes the form of a clump of toadstools, some of which reach a height of about 3 feet tall. A square of doomspore is difficult terrain and provides cover to anyone standing within.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mechanics:

Normal:

If a square containing a doomspore is entered, moved through, or physically interacted with the doomspore releases a cloud of spores that provides concealment to all creatures within its own and adjacent squares.

Bloodied:

A bloodied creature in the area of a cloud when created, who moves into the cloud, or begins its turn in the cloud, is subject to a Fortitude attack (+10) that deals 1d10 points of poison damage on a hit.

*Exceptions: Poison immunity and resistance applies.

If Hit:

Target is weakened and takes ongoing poison 5.

*Exceptions: Poison immunity and resistance 5+ negates this effect​

If Missed:

Target suffers no effects but will be attacked again if the target begins its turn within a square effected by the cloud.​

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Duration:

This cloud and it's effects on a bloodied character persist until

• save or,
• the remainder of the encounter or,
• 5 minutes

whichever occurs first.

*Note: Once the cloud settles, the doomspore can't produce another for 24 hours.

 

[Scribble]

And I guess this is where we differ. I want a game that flows fluidly...Characters, if the DM gave it to them, had a reason to use terrain in 3.5. What I as hoping for wa a streamlining and ease of use in 4e.

How do you know it doesn't flow fluidly?

Yes characters could interact with terrain in 3.5, however, since the rules for the various effects were spread out in different places/books, doing so would slow down combat. Plus if there wasn't much incentive to do so (it was easier just to stand there and trade blows...) then the terrain was pointless.

If they add terrain that is meaningful and easy to work with, it can be used more often. If they streamline the whole thing in the process it won't be a pain to work with.

 

[helium3]

Black Swan, is that what the Doomspore would look like using the Iron Heroes zones thingy or did you put that format together on your own?

 

[Ahglock]

Get with the times, we use double heat-sinks and Gauss Cannons now.

Bah, I roll old school. New fangled battletech dumbing down the system.


I love it when a plan comes together.

 

[Lucius Drake]

I have the smallest bedroom in my house and it is 10x12ft (roughly, I am doing the metric->imperial conversion with a 1m=3ft which I know is wrong but is close enough for government work! ) and the next larger bedroom is 12x15, then 15x15, until we come to the living room which is around 15x18 and flows into the kitchen which is itself 9x12 with an actual 5' door/archway (not just a normal sized door). There is also a laundry/bathroom and a front room, the only one of which of note is the front room at 12x12 (10x15 would probably map out the area nicely in 'squares')

Putting indoor terrain in perspective perhaps. None of the rooms in our house 'feel' particularly large and the ones that are quite small would definitely be BUSY with a few combatants in them, but not packed to bursting.

 

[Black_Swan]

Black Swan, is that what the Doomspore would look like using the Iron Heroes zones thingy or did you put that format together on your own?

I pulled that together on my own.

 

[Warbringer]

Nice format black swan... Now, terrain I want on a card alog with a pic of the terrain and I bet you $20 this is exactly what we will get in the Dungeon Tiles.

Nice , if basic idea. Hopefully rules will be clear and player optimzing terrain will not slow play.

 

[reveal]

Another example... would a White Dragon keep lava pits on its lair? of course not! A defense like that could easily be used against him. Lava pits, however, make perfect sense from a Fire Giant's perspective...

Very true. I don't see why a White Dragon would keep lava pits in its lair. Especially if the designers take a hint from the lava rules linked to in my sig.