Design and Developments: Dirt, Rocks and 10' halls

[GSHamster]

I think the biggest thing is the "zooming out" from a room level. I know that I always played one room at a time. Kick in the door, deal with what's in this room, kick in the next door. (Exaggerated a bit.)

Having a battle being fought across an entire floor or wing of a dungeon feels like a big conceptual change to me. You no longer need interesting terrain inside a specific room. Doorways create natural chokepoints, and corners in hallways become dangerous.

 

[MerricB]

Sounds cool, though the scale gets a bit silly. I mean, architecturally, how many buildings (especially medieval/ancient ones) had lots of 10' hallways and 10x10 rooms, let alone larger ones?

Not many. However... and it's a big however... realistic rooms don't work well with fun games. (This is something Paizo fails to grasp).

Cheers!

 

[KingCrab]

WTF? So much for speeding up combat. That's not terrain, that's turning a 5 foot step into a Greek Epic.

Yep. They keep claiming combat will be faster, but with each piece of information they release it becomes clearer that combat in 4e will be a much slower process than in 3.5.

 

[KingCrab]

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.

Perhaps someone should start producing extra jumbo battlemats for the upcoming demand.

 

[TwinBahamut]

It requires a greater emphasis on minis and battlemats because it is based on an area effect. I can just see the arguments that will erupt because a player didn't realize he was in it's area of effect (especially if a different player triggers it). I mean anything can be handwaved...that doesn't dispute my point when playing by the RAW.

So long as the fireball spell exists, argument about area of effect is always going to be a problem when you don't use a battle map. I don't see how this is any different, and as such, I don't see how it adds to the problem like you claim it does.

Unless some or all of the PC's have some form of resistance or immunity. You seem to be constructing an artificial condition (only use doomspores with monsters that are resistant) to try and make this simple, the problem is the suggested increase in what an encounter can accomodate in 4e. It's no longer one room with one particular type of monster. So all kinds of monsters could pour into this room whille the PC's are fighting. I guess every monster in the dungeon should be immune to poison then, though I could easily see weaker monsters like goblins or kobolds cultivating this plant on purpose and knowing not to mess with it. This however, doesn't stop a player from knocking one of them into it.

Well, I don't see how I made a very farfetched claim. Look at the advice on how to use the terrain given in the article. It says that Doomspore shows up in undead lairs and in the Shadowfell, and that doomspore feeds on udead flesh. It makes sense that undead are immune (or at least resistant) to poison. The entry for doomspore itself is making the recommendation that you only use doomspore in conjunction with monsters immune to poison. I don't see how my situation was "artificial" if it is the recommended way of doing things.

But they're terrain...something to make combat more interesting. The doomspore in and of itself, IMHO, wouldn't be that interesting or challenging of an encounter...especially if a character has knowledge of them or has encountered them once before. IMHO, it's more complicated than a spell...but I can give you the monster thing. The problem is that it only reinforces what I'm saying. Running this thing is akin to running a seperate monster, when it's suppose to be an add-on to make combat a little more interesting. Just doesn't seem like a good example of streamlined mechanics as presented above. Too many if/thens.

Both are true, that it is as complex as running a monster, and that it is not interesting in of itself. However, this is true for pretty much any battle terrain. A burning building is easy enough for PCs to avoid or escape, but running a battle inside a burning building requires that you add a lot of complexity to the fight. The same goes for a sinking ship, or whatever else. These things have far more than a minor impact on a battle even if they are not a challenge in of themselves, and are worth the effort because they really do add something to the battle.

 

[Scribble]

But they're terrain...something to make combat more interesting. The doomspore in and of itself, IMHO, wouldn't be that interesting or challenging of an encounter...especially if a character has knowledge of them or has encountered them once before. IMHO, it's more complicated than a spell...but I can give you the monster thing. The problem is that it only reinforces what I'm saying. Running this thing is akin to running a seperate monster, when it's suppose to be an add-on to make combat a little more interesting. Just doesn't seem like a good example of streamlined mechanics as presented above. Too many if/thens.

I don't think the idea is to make the combat a "little" more interesting. I think it;s to make the combat more interesting and fluid in general.

Instead of Run in, stand in front of monster, Kill Monster, Take Gold, Repeat....

Characters (players) now have more of an incentive to want to move around and use the terrain to best effect.

Sure it sounds like it adds more complexity, but if they've streamlined other areas of combat, they have room to add a few things back in.

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

yay terrain!

I for one, am really glad to hear terrain will be important to combat.

This way, resourceful and savvy characters can take advantage of it in many ways.

For an example of an exciting fight using terrain, see this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2wEj2lvplY (ignore the changed music and the titles at the beggining and end)

00:31 - a few seconds into the battle, it becomes obvious that the kid will not be able to defeat the master one-on-one, so he:
00:34 - retreats towards a bridge to evade attacks (Total defense? Combat Expertise?)
00:48 - retreats again to some stairs to gain higher ground (bonuses to AC and Attacks, maybe?)
00:55 - master pushes kid against the wall, so now HE has terrain advantage
00:59 - kid uses a maneouver, pushing off the wall, and gets out of bad tactical position
01:02 - Immediately after, kid gets on top of wall to gain higher ground again
01:05 - Kid attempts disarm maneouver, aided by higher ground, but...
01:08 - ...disarm maneouver fails, triggering counter-attack from master that throws kid out of position
01:18 - Kid slashes at bamboo branches, creating a distraction and slowing down opponent
01:25 - Kid grabs bamboo, uses branches as cover for a couple of seconds
01:42 - Finally, Kid resorts to the oldest trick in the book (sand in opponents eye)

Before somebody blasts me for using an animated video for an example, please note:
1- This is _not_ anime, at least in the sense that its not a japanese show
2- All the attacks and maneouvers are based on real-life martial arts (Tai-chi and Wu-shu, to the best of my knowlege), and most of these maneouvers have equivalents on swashbuckling fiction (jump on tables, swing from chandeliers, overturn fruit cart, etc)

 

[Imaro]

So long as the fireball spell exists, argument about area of effect is always going to be a problem when you don't use a battle map. I don't see how this is any different, and as such, I don't see how it adds to the problem like you claim it does.

So it doesn't make a combat more dependant on a battlemat and minis if you add more game effects and abilities based upon using them...Let's say I can wing one or two fireballs...do I need a battlemat more or less if they go off simultaneously in different areas, or if they go off and I have a doomspore that one of the PC's interact with and 20 goblins running around. Is the mechanic for a doomspore more dependant on a battlemat than a fireball? No. That doesn't mean the more types of these effects added into play can't make combat more dependant on battlemats.

Solving a simple arithmetic problem can be done in a few seconds, adding up 50 of these takes longer. Are the base problems any harder? No, but it still bogs you down.

Well, I don't see how I made a very farfetched claim. Look at the advice on how to use the terrain given in the article. It says that Doomspore shows up in undead lairs and in the Shadowfell, and that doomspore feeds on udead flesh. It makes sense that undead are immune (or at least resistant) to poison. The entry for doomspore itself is making the recommendation that you only use doomspore in conjunction with monsters immune to poison. I don't see how my situation was "artificial" if it is the recommended way of doing things.

IMHO it gets kind of ridiculous when certain terrain is matched up with monster types, but your right...they do suggest using it in such a way. This however still doesn't address the issue of players with different resistances.

Both are true, that it is as complex as running a monster, and that it is not interesting in of itself. However, this is true for pretty much any battle terrain. A burning building is easy enough for PCs to avoid or escape, but running a battle inside a burning building requires that you add a lot of complexity to the fight. The same goes for a sinking ship, or whatever else. These things have far more than a minor impact on a battle even if they are not a challenge in of themselves, and are worth the effort because they really do add something to the battle.

I guess I just don't subscribe to complexity ="more fun"...especially as a DM. Been there and done that with D&D 3.5 and this looks no better. Keep complexity for those running one PC, you streamline monsters abilities and then give me a freakin piece of terrain that requires numerous steps throughout the entire combat to adjudicate, (probably harder to keep track of than the actual monsters the PC's are fighting). Bet 5.0 will be talking about how this was a really good idea at first...but the implementation was tedious and slowed down play. But then again, we'll see won't we.

 

[Imaro]

I don't think the idea is to make the combat a "little" more interesting. I think it;s to make the combat more interesting and fluid in general.

Instead of Run in, stand in front of monster, Kill Monster, Take Gold, Repeat....

Characters (players) now have more of an incentive to want to move around and use the terrain to best effect.

Sure it sounds like it adds more complexity, but if they've streamlined other areas of combat, they have room to add a few things back in.

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.

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

Solving a simple arithmetic problem can be done in a few seconds, adding up 50 of these takes longer. Are the base problems any harder? No, but it still bogs you down.

On this we agree

IMHO it gets kind of ridiculous when certain terrain is matched up with monster types, but your right...they do suggest using it in such a way. This however still doesn't address the issue of players with different resistances.

Here we disagree... would you run an encounter with a jaguar or a panther in a savannah? No, you wouldn't, because these animals climb into branches a dark, deep jungle in order to strike from surprise and gain advantages from it. Running them otherwise would not be fair nor fun.

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...

All in all, these poison spore things are perfectly logical from an intelligent undead's perspective, just like its perfectly logical for a human/dwarf/kobold's fortification to feature murder holes, moats and arrow slits...

I guess I just don't subscribe to complexity ="more fun"...especially as a DM. Been there and done that with D&D 3.5 and this looks no better.

I agree that its tempting to add too much complexity to a game... but on the other hand, the other end of that scale is the boring "I hit him with my sword... again" thing.