Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9501240" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Er....that's not what exception-based design is though.Exception-based design says that X thing is true, unless specifically instructed otherwise. It is not ad-hoc at all.The difference between the actually exception-based design of 4e and the...I'm not even sure what to call it, design of 3e is that 4e is bottom-up, while 3e is top-down.I think this is best exemplified by looking at the idea of &quot;good/noble undead.&quot; In 4e, such a thing is perfectly simple. Use the normal &quot;undead&quot; creature type, then add a feature on your special &quot;good/noble undead&quot; which modifies the effects. The undead creature type remains unchanged, but a new modifier is layered on top, without changing anything else that depends on that creature type. By comparison, in 3e, a thing like this isn't possible. You have to create a new creature type, &quot;deathless,&quot; which starts from the ground up as a good/noble undead powered by positive energy etc., etc.This is just one emblematic example. There are plenty. For example, 4e makes prolific use of &quot;stat-swap&quot; features, so (for example) Dragon Soul Sorcerers can add their Strength modifier to AC instead of their Dexterity modifier. That's an exception-based design solution to the problem that a character pumping Charisma and Strength will end up much too fragile. Doing an equivalent thing in 3e is a much more painful process, almost always involving some sort of feat, spell, or other bespoke structure that from the jump starts with the problem &quot;fixed.&quot; This is how you got, for example, a proliferation of optional base classes that were just &quot;X, but with a different core stat.&quot; (I'm reminded of the &quot;Battledancer,&quot; for example, which was...very nearly just &quot;monk, but based off Cha rather than Dex.&quot;)Exception-based design means you build generically-useful baselines, and rely upon them whenever you need them, but you don't limit yourself to them: you build on top of them, as one does with foundations. Whatever the top-down approach from 3e is, it results in having to carefully, carefully hang each new element off of something that can handle it....and all too often there either isn't such a thing, or any choice you could use will have some negative knock-on consequence (often very difficult to predict in advance.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9501240, member: 6790260"] Er....that's not what exception-based design is though. Exception-based design says that X thing [I]is[/I] true, [I]unless[/I] specifically instructed otherwise. It is not ad-hoc at all. The difference between the actually exception-based design of 4e and the...I'm not even sure what to call it, design of 3e is that 4e is bottom-up, while 3e is top-down. I think this is best exemplified by looking at the idea of "good/noble undead." In 4e, such a thing is perfectly simple. Use the normal "undead" creature type, then add a feature on your special "good/noble undead" which modifies the effects. The undead creature type remains unchanged, but a new modifier is layered on top, without changing anything [I]else[/I] that depends on that creature type. By comparison, in 3e, a thing like this isn't possible. You have to create a [I]new[/I] creature type, "deathless," which starts from the ground up as a good/noble undead powered by positive energy etc., etc. This is just one emblematic example. There are plenty. For example, 4e makes prolific use of "stat-swap" features, so (for example) Dragon Soul Sorcerers can add their Strength modifier to AC instead of their Dexterity modifier. That's an exception-based design solution to the problem that a character pumping Charisma and Strength will end up much too fragile. Doing an equivalent thing in 3e is a much more painful process, almost always involving some sort of feat, spell, or other bespoke structure that from the jump [I]starts[/I] with the problem "fixed." This is how you got, for example, a proliferation of optional base classes that were just "X, but with a different core stat." (I'm reminded of the "Battledancer," for example, which was...very nearly just "monk, but based off Cha rather than Dex.") Exception-based design means you build generically-useful [I]baselines[/I], and rely upon them whenever you need them, but you don't [I]limit[/I] yourself to them: you build on top of them, as one does with foundations. Whatever the top-down approach from 3e is, it results in having to carefully, carefully hang each new element off of something that can handle it....and all too often there either isn't such a thing, or any choice you could use will have some negative knock-on consequence (often very difficult to predict in advance.) [/QUOTE]

Verification