Design and Developments: Dirt, Rocks and 10' halls

[TwinBahamut]

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.

It seems I can't convince you on this one... Oh well. I won't pursue the point further. I have always used a battlemat myself, and don't see the problem with requiring one, so this line of discussion is a bit out of my element.

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.

I don't think that it is too ridiculous that a monster is matched with the dangers that it is resistant to. In fact, I think it is the most logical situation. Evolution, adaptation, and symbiotic partnerships and all of that. Things that live near poison tend to be immune to poison. Things that live in hot places are resistant to heat. Things that live in cold places are resistant to cold. Things that live in the water don't drown. It makes sense to me.

Second, the issue of players having different resistances is going to be there so long as PCs are individual and customizable. That is a case where freedom of customizability should never be sacrificed for speed of play. Also, the DM should never have to keep track of resistance, since the PCs will probably more than wiling to remind him when it comes up.

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.

If you don't want the complexity, then just ignore it. It will only be there if you want to put there as a DM, after all. However, I like it, and think it will be an improvement to the game. I also don't agree with your assesment that things like the Doomspore will be too difficult or complicated to run.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

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.

Doorways have always been natural choke points and is usually one of the reasons for immobile fights. Everyone is crowded around the doorway beating on each other and nobody can move. If some of these abilities can break that logjam, that could be good.

I think this terrain stuff could be really cool if they can find a way to make it worth doing. Too complex and the players and DM will probably resort to "Stand in. Beat each other up. Move on." rather than cool movement abilities that take more time and more brainpower to manage.

 

[EATherrian]

With the previous news about facing and now terrain I've finally figured out what 4e is going to be. It's going to Battletech minus the mechs. Now if I can only figure out how much rear armor my fighter has.

 

[Ahglock]

With the previous news about facing and now terrain I've finally figured out what 4e is going to be. It's going to Battletech minus the mechs. Now if I can only figure out how much rear armor my fighter has.

Forget that, I just need to know where the ponds are because you never have enough heat sinks.

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

With the previous news about facing and now terrain I've finally figured out what 4e is going to be. It's going to Battletech minus the mechs. Now if I can only figure out how much rear armor my fighter has.

What facing?? Has someone mentioned facing??

I am happy about terrain being meaningful (see my posts above), but FACING???

Now that's a rule I'm gonna need convincing about!

 

[I'm A Banana]

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?

 

[EATherrian]

Forget that, I just need to know where the ponds are because you never have enough heat sinks.

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

 

[TwinBahamut]

What facing?? Has someone mentioned facing??

I am happy about terrain being meaningful (see my posts above), but FACING???

Now that's a rule I'm gonna need convincing about!

The latest news about facing is that there is no facing. A playtest report caused a lot of people on ENWorld to start jumping to conclusions, but the writer of that playtest report came on these boards to say that his words were just a colorful description, and that there are no facing rules in 4E.

 

[EATherrian]

If that's the case Mea Culpa for mentioning it. I admit I missed that it was not something on the way. As an anti-miniature person I'm just super-sensitive to how much more miniature based the combat seems to be going.

 

[Imaro]

It seems I can't convince you on this one... Oh well. I won't pursue the point further. I have always used a battlemat myself, and don't see the problem with requiring one, so this line of discussion is a bit out of my element.

Well this is definitely a personal thing (the preference for or against minis), so I don't think either of us will convince the other. I have also used dungeon tiles (these things iritate me with how easily they slide around and move, but other than that they're ok) and minis. My problem is there are times where I don't have the room or the inclination to set all this stuff up if a game is already flowing very well. I don't mind it for major encounters but with the new paradigm it seems even minor encounters will be a hassle to run without them. Another problem I have is storage for this extra stuff. IMHO 3.5 was as mini-centric as I wanted to go...and 4e seems even moreso. Should it be there for those who want it? Sure. But that doesn't mean I think the games fundamental play should revolve around it. I understand DDM (and SW minis) are WotC's cash cows, but I also want to chill and play without needing the space and necessary time to have to set all that up.

I don't think that it is too ridiculous that a monster is matched with the dangers that it is resistant to. In fact, I think it is the most logical situation. Evolution, adaptation, and symbiotic partnerships and all of that. Things that live near poison tend to be immune to poison. Things that live in hot places are resistant to heat. Things that live in cold places are resistant to cold. Things that live in the water don't drown. It makes sense to me.

Agreed to a point...since I think this only applies to animals. Intelligent creatures have and will use things that may be detrimental to themselves for protection or to attack others. Humans use poison but (except for the exceptionally rare case) aren't immune to it's effects.

Second, the issue of players having different resistances is going to be there so long as PCs are individual and customizable. That is a case where freedom of customizability should never be sacrificed for speed of play. Also, the DM should never have to keep track of resistance, since the PCs will probably more than wiling to remind him when it comes up.

It is still a factor that slows play down, that seems increased by all the if/then statements necessary to "run" what is essentially a poisonous piece of fungus.

If you don't want the complexity, then just ignore it. It will only be there if you want to put there as a DM, after all. However, I like it, and think it will be an improvement to the game. I also don't agree with your assesment that things like the Doomspore will be too difficult or complicated to run.

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.