High-Level D&D Seminar

[davethegame]

We'll have a writeup of the seminar sometime this week.

To answer one question, they didn't talk about post 30th level play, the description was specifically said to be in error.

 

[Shroomy]

So, was it basically stuff they're going to cover in DMG3?

 

[SlyFlourish]

I was there. It was mainly a Q&A with players about running high level games. There were folks like me who pestered them about issues we've (I've) been having with damage of monsters not scaling to mitigation of players and others who seemed to bring in the 3.5 agenda (why do you publish so many books that I am forced to buy!).

There wasn't really any magic fix given out at the seminar. The game's math seems to break down when you have 7 players at the table, particularly with two leaders who can basically fight through everything. The way to keep solo stuff challenging is throwing in lots of other creatures as well.

There were a few things from DMG2 brought up. They had a copy sitting up there that they flipped through and let us flip through.

I was too busy chatting with Bruce Cordell about "Nightwyrm Fortress" which I'm starting next week. Bruce has written P3, E1, E2, and E3 so he has a handle on encounter design. One bit of news - Orcus, in E3, will have a different stat block than the MM1 based on stuff that happens in the module.

I brought up the issue with stun-locking solos. They suggested houseruling it based on your players (I'm sticking with my Stun = lose a standard, Daze = lose a minor house rule for big baddies).

He said you really need to tune encounters around the specific powers of your players at higher level. Your players will be really good at certain things and you have to build knowing for that.

Bruce reinforced again and again the importance of focusing on the fun of your players first. If they are steamrolling through encounters but having a blast, maybe it doesn't need to be fixed.

I don't have all of my notes here in front of me but I did get some good things out of the seminar. When I dig them up I'll post here about it.

 

[CapnZapp]

There wasn't really any magic fix given out at the seminar. The game's math seems to break down when you have 7 players at the table, particularly with two leaders who can basically fight through everything.

Thanks for replying!

This reinforces my suspicion healing is too cheaply available, and that there should be stacking rules that limited the worth of having more than one leader in a party.

Of course D&D doesn't lend well to the play-style of a WoW raid where a dozen leaders all focus on keeping a single main tank alive. Not because they can't do it, but because the mechanics aren't geared for it: first it is easy as pie with no real skill involved; and then, when the fighter's surges run out, it suddenly and dramatically becomes impossible.

I brought up the issue with stun-locking solos. They suggested houseruling it based on your players (I'm sticking with my Stun = lose a standard, Daze = lose a minor house rule for big baddies).

That really is a disappointment and a let-down.

I want and need WotC to issue an official fix that limits the orbizard and similar powers!

"Houseruling based on your powers" is equivalent to "write your own rules" which should be met by the question "but why should we give you our money if we have to write the rules ourselves?".

(None of this is directed at you, mshea. Again thanks for replying!)

 

[Ranadiel]

We'll have a writeup of the seminar sometime this week.

To answer one question, they didn't talk about post 30th level play, the description was specifically said to be in error.

Thank you very much. I had a feeling you guys would be writing up the seminars eventually, and I appreciate both that and you answering the question here. Now I just have to wait patiently for you to post all the seminar write ups so I can analyze every single sentence.

 

[SlyFlourish]

On solos and stun-locking, they did say that it's something they're aware of but didn't say what they were actually going to do about it. Other than newer better solo monsters like the heroslaying hydra and demogorgon, I don't know what we can expect. Maybe the mini-templates in DMG2 will help.

They talked about the design difference between MM1 and MM2 monsters. To MM2ize a monster, you should multiply hitpoints by .8, reduce increased defenses by 2, and add in some increase in threat at bloodied (make them explode and steal surges but with something more interesting than just that).

 

[tmatk]

This talk about fixing monsters and house rules makes me wish the designers kept blogs. It would be great to hear what fixes and house rules they implement in their campaigns.

Chris Sims offered some fixes for the Sharn - http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/259905-frcg-sharn-overpowered.html#post4878828

That's cool, but it's in a random enworld post. How about designer blogs, where I can search by tags such as "house rules, solos, MM1".

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, theoretically they have blogs from the Gleemax days, but most designers don't seem to use them anymore. Some have their own.

Hey, WotC, feel free to create a big thread/post/article where you link to your employees blogs!

Oh, wait, I think they can't do it generally, because it might imply that the designers are expressing "corporate thoughts" while they might just voice their personal opinions. Well, in that case, some fan might be able to do it...

For Mike Mearls, I found this:
The Keep on the Gaming Lands
(and Mearls's Journal and Mike Mearls' blog - Wizards Community, but they seem to be of less "use"...)

 

[Jhaelen]

To answer one question, they didn't talk about post 30th level play, the description was specifically said to be in error.

Thank god for that!