DMG II Preview and Mearls old work

[Eldorian]

Some people are not so great at improvising. Sometimes you want to have a way to "suggest" stunts. I think this is a neat approach.

Consider it something like the MM equivalent for stunts - the guideliens for creating monsters are in the DMG, but still people like to see a WotC made stat block for Demogorgon and Admantine Dragons.

Well stated.

 

[Kobold973]

Done well this should encourage players to interact with the environment and THINK like their character.

Done poorly <sigh> I agree -
Orcus... Chandelier... Gazebo...Thick Curtain... Precariously Placed Scissors...
The t-shirts may never cease.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I think that these would have been a lot better in the original books. They're the sort of thing that a novice DM and roleplaying group need to push them towards more entertaining combats. Once they've been in a few fights, players will start looking for them without needing to be prompted and DMs should get a handle on potential results.

As for level-based difficulty and damage? Like someone in another thread said: the entire damage, attack and defense scaling system is an artifact to create the illusion of progress anyway. Epic characters fight epic kobolds and so-on. And if they drop chandeliers, they're going to be epic chandeliers.

 

[LostSoul]

I could see a chandelier burning with the imprisoned souls of Efreet-Kings, crafted out of the rune-encrusted bones of dead gods crashing towards Orcus and...

...well...

2d8+15 damage isn't all that much.

 

[Regicide]

And if they drop chandeliers, they're going to be epic chandeliers.

a: It's internally inconsistent since it's basically gravity and it doesn't mesh with the falling rules or even the collision rules. In the case of the collision rules that isn't such a bad thing, but that is another rant.

b: Level-based damage is an attempt at simulationism, basically saying that being hit by X does a % damage like 3E sneak attack's d6/2 levels, which is inconsistent with the rest of the system.

c: It's cutting a rope or pushing a button. C'mon. Thats why it wasn't simply an improvised weapon, other than timing you don't have direct control over it like you do a weapon. Why then, with limited control, would this suddenly have damage controlled by level?

There are many other mechanics that could have been used such as falling damage, collision, improvised weapon and the like. This really sticks out like a sore thumb.

 

[Truename]

I find the implementation to be kinda, well 4e. Why would a chandelier become harder to take down for a higher level party then a lower level party? Or is level referring to the level of the chandeleer, and in that case how does on determine the level of a chandelier?

I think of this sort of thing as being level of the chandelier, not level of the party. Then making it work is just picking the right fluff for the level.

 

[frankthedm]

As for level-based difficulty and damage? Like someone in another thread said: the entire damage, attack and defense scaling system is an artifact to create the illusion of progress anyway. Epic characters fight epic kobolds and so-on. And if they drop chandeliers, they're going to be epic chandeliers.

You got the gist of it.

 

[Saeviomagy]

a: It's internally inconsistent since it's basically gravity and it doesn't mesh with the falling rules or even the collision rules. In the case of the collision rules that isn't such a bad thing, but that is another rant.

The falling rules aren't designed for getting hit by something falling though. I mean at that point you're basically arguing that since a bowshot goes X feet in a round, and falling moves you X feet in a round, it's inconsistent that they don't do the same damage.

b: Level-based damage is an attempt at simulationism, basically saying that being hit by X does a % damage like 3E sneak attack's d6/2 levels, which is inconsistent with the rest of the system.

? No, it's gamism. Simulationism would be if we had a big chart with how far the item fell and how much it weighed, and didn't take gamist constructs like level into account at all.

c: It's cutting a rope or pushing a button. C'mon. Thats why it wasn't simply an improvised weapon, other than timing you don't have direct control over it like you do a weapon. Why then, with limited control, would this suddenly have damage controlled by level?

Weapons DO have damage controlled by level, just indirectly. Magic item bonuses, feat bonuses etc.

The only real difference is that an improvised weapon is totally and utterly never ever worth using, while these are. Given that, we could say that the original improvised weapon rules are the failure.

There are many other mechanics that could have been used such as falling damage, collision, improvised weapon and the like. This really sticks out like a sore thumb.

Yeah, but all those mechanics would have had other issues. Just look at the 3.5e hulking hurler for what happens when you assume that you can define a simple physics calculation and then use it for weapon interactions.

 

[Kraydak]

...
The only real difference is that an improvised weapon is totally and utterly never ever worth using, while these are. Given that, we could say that the original improvised weapon rules are the failure.

Or, given that people should want to use real weapons, they are a roaring success. People only use improvised weapons when circumstances force them to.

Here we are asking, practically begging, for DM/Player communication disasters. You see, the effectiveness of chandelier dropping depends linearly on how cool your DM thinks chandelier dropping is. Either the DM or the player might say:
even a large chandelier, especially merely dropping a modest way under the effect of gravity, unaimed, should be less scary than a strong guy with a short short sword. So damage circa 1d3, with crappy to-hits. On the other hand, that chandelier is still supported by a chain, so don't even start talking until you do 10 or 20 damage to the chain.
If the other one is expecting something like as described up-thread, someone is going to be very unhappy. Worse, a DM could run a module with it, play it straight, and then revert to less effective chandeliers elsewhere.

Playing "DM-may-I" got old really early in 1e. I'd rather not see it return.

 

[WalterKovacs]

It's a trap!

More appropriately, it's designed like a trap, but something the PCs can spring on the monsters or vice versa. I've been DM'ing the modules, so a few of these things have popped up already [not chandeliers, but hanging cages] and are basically what is shown above, except with the level math already included. If I were to be designing encounters instead of using pre-used stuff, these kinds of terrain features would be perfect. Since the thing is supposed to be in the encounter area, the level should have been decided before hand (presumably equivalent to he encounter's level, or perhaps the level of the monster that would use the terrain feature (if the PCs don't set it off first).

Stunts are interesting, but ultimately, they should be for the stuff that the DM didn't consider ahead of time. In this case, the DM would deliberately include a chandelier in the hopes that a PC would use it (and if they don't, maybe a monster will). Depending on the DM style, they can 'train' their players to look for interesting terrain features. Maybe even have PCs make free skill checks a la monster knowledge checks to get hints about terrain features that they can take advantage of (from the simple ones like cover, concealment and difficult terrain, to more interesting things like the chandelier). And then you have stunts to cover good ideas of how to use a terrain feature in a way you didn't consider.