Design and Developments: Dirt, Rocks and 10' halls

[Bagpuss]

B) It seems the doomspore only affects bloodied characters, which I presume means roughly wounded characters; that seems mightily strange.

As mentioned it means you are on half hit points. I assume it means you have enough open wounds for the spores to get into your bloodstream, breathing them isn't enough to get poisoned.

Personally I'm worried as designer uses the phrase "save ends both conditions"

I thought they got rid of saves, now it's attacks on Fortitude Defense. If a designer is still using old terms it's going to get confusing.

Star Wars Saga suffered in parts because although it was meant to be a new standalone edition of the rules it assumed knowledge of 3.5ed rules in a number of areas. So if you didn't already know something from playing D20 you were likely to make mistakes.

That was made worse by the fact in some cases the rules were the opposite of 3ed rules.

 

[Bagpuss]

I don't know about weakened, but poison sounds like they are going with the D&D minis poison mechanic where you take a certain amount of damage each turn if poisoned.

This is bit worrying because it then means the DM needs to track which players are poisoned so that he can make the attack roll against their Fortitude Defense each round to see if they 'save' IE: he misses. More work for the DM.

 

[Glyfair]

As mentioned it means you are on half hit points. I assume it means you have enough open wounds for the spores to get into your bloodstream, breathing them isn't enough to get poisoned.

At least since the AD&D days damage was always abstract and not always wounds. They may just be codified in 4E so that you don't take "real damage" until at half hit points. That triggers certain things (think of a Bruce Lee movie and his reaction when they first draw blood).

I know this has appeared here and there in some incarnations. Monte Cook's current house rules have something like this.

This is bit worrying because it then means the DM needs to track which players are poisoned so that he can make the attack roll against their Fortitude Defense each round to see if they 'save' IE: he misses. More work for the DM.

At least in DDM, once you are poisoned you stay that way without more saves. Of course, DDM is over when the battle is over, so the out-of-combat mechanic may allow more "saves" or other ways to recover (maybe even automatic recovery for some poisons).

 

[Plane Sailing]

Threads merged

 

[Caliber]

This is bit worrying because it then means the DM needs to track which players are poisoned so that he can make the attack roll against their Fortitude Defense each round to see if they 'save' IE: he misses. More work for the DM.

How is that all that different from now? I certainly keep track of party members who are poisoned (as well as what round they were poisoned on!) to make sure they check for that second save. At least this way I can forgo making sure I keep track of how long they've been poisoned, since the affect is the same every round.

 

[helium3]

Gladly. Actually, I'll go one better and quote some of the relevant descriptive text first, and then summarize.

*snip*

Does that explain the concept sufficiently? Or do you need a more complete explanation?

Oh wow man!! I'm so excited that 4th edition is going to finally allow me to place do-dads that the PC's can interact with during combat!! Up until now, the only thing that the rules have allowed is perfectly flat surfaces to which sensory information has been magically attached. Will there also be rules that will finally allow them to interact with stuff outside of combat too?

Okay, I'll turn the snark off now.

In all seriousness, what am I supposed to be impressed by here? What Mearls apparently wants to have everyone call "zones" seems like a pretty obvious thing to include in any body of work devoted to advising the DM/GM/Storyteller on how to create encounters.

"The more interactive an encounter the better, as long as it's not going to overload you with too many things to track while you're running it. Here are some examples of good and bad design."

Not to mention that the concept should be pretty self evident to anyone who like, walks around and stuff.

 

[TwinBahamut]

My problem was the unnecessary repetition and long-winded-ness of the description. I edited the bits that I could understand rules-wise. What I'm hoping is that we don't see so many caveats and contingencies in the actual rules!

I don't particularly see much in the way of "caveats and contigencies" myself... I just see an effect description. Really, a good effect description should never imply or assume anything. This is especially true since we don't yet understand how "poison 5" or "weakness" work. There is no guarantee that they would naturally end on a successful save (failed attack? this is a slightly confusing part, I admit). I am willing to give the designers the benefit of the doubt that this makes a lot more sense when you see the actual rules of the game.

I just wonder if they changed cover or concealment at all.

 

[helium3]

Move Earth or Disintegrate might make digging a bit easier. But at that level, pits (regardless of depth) might not be a real problem for most PCs and monsters...

What? Do you have any idea how long it would take for a team of people working with hand implements to dig a 10' X 10' X 10' hole? Hours and hours and hours unless the team is enormous, and even then, you can only put so many people to work on the surface you're working. And don't forget the noise the endeavor is going to make.

If my party tried to dig a pit to chuck monsters into a convincing explanation of the appropriate magic used or digging it far enough away that they also have to figure out how to lure the monsters to the pit, I'd say "Fine, and several hours after you start, you're attacked by the well prepared warband of orcs sent out to investigate the yokels who've been digging a pit on the others side of the meadow for the last few hours."

 

[Emirikol]

You're Going To Need A Bigger Boat!

You're going to need a bigger gaming table. Movement plays a lot more important role in 4E than earlier editions according to the latest news. They're talking about giant chasms and longer movement actions right? Personally I'm ecstatic. We play in a nice big game room in my basement and have two 4x6 tables side by side for our play space and we have a lot of 3D gaming terrain we toss up there (mostly from the Model Train store)..but wont' this be problematic for smaller gamer areas? Is your group ready?

Jay

YOU'RE GOING TO NEED A BIGGER BOAT
http://www.jawsmovie.com/1/sounds/bigboat.wav

 

[TwinBahamut]

Eh, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss his complaints. It does add more complexity to an encounter (as in it's more to keep track of). My personal opinion on the matter is that this will (just like AoO) create a stronger need for some type of battlemat and minis. Whether this is a good idea or not...it sounds fun, but like the major complaint about 3.5, for the players. For the DM it's another thing to track (placement, movement and effect).

They've done this type of thing in D&D 3.5, I specifically remember the second room in the armory in Shatered Gates of Slaughtergarde where the wooden pillars holding the ceiling up can be destroyed to cause a cave in. I'm not sure how in depth or how integral I would want something like this to be for encounters. I like Exalted's method of basically leaving it up to the players and GM to use the scenery in stunts and providing a general bonus for integrating the terrain into their actions. It's when you start quantifying every actual specific effect (and thus creating more that has to be accounted for, tracked, etc.) that it, IMHO, it starts to become something of a headache. I mean let's look at this for a minute...



I have to keep track of...
1.) whether any PC/NPC or Monster enters a doomspore's square.
2.) whether any PC/NPC or Monster touches the doomspore.
3.) The concealment it's spores create.
4.) Which characters are bloodied and in it's area already, move into the area during combat or begin their turn in it's area.
5.) Make a Fort attack against said character for 1d10 poson damage.
6.) If #5 is succesful apply a weakened condition to target
7.) Again if #5 is succesful apply poison damage each round (that character doesn't save...I think) for the entire encounter.

In the end it just seems like alot to go through for a sideline enhancemment of an encounter. I think this may be one of those things that sounds good in theory and on paper, but has the potential to really slow combat down.

Well, keep in mind that the doomspore is going to be a completely optional aspect of encounters. I also don't see how it even requires greater use of a map or miniatures, since if you want, you can just have it so the PC says "I duck into the mushrooms for cover", and the DM responds with "sure, but you are bloodied, so poison gets into your blood" and rolls the dice. It is only a part of tactical, rather than narrative movement, if you want to play in that style.

Also, the DM is going to need to pay attention to whether the PCs are bloodied or not regardless, so I would remove #4 from the list... Just taking advantage of creatures resistant to poison in combination with the doomspore saves you a lot of hassle.

Overall, if you think of doomspores being a major part of a encounter focused around them, rather than as a minor aspect of several other encounters, then it doesn't really add any complication the DM can't be ready for. As a whole, it isn't much more complicated than a single spell or monster.