Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="KidSnide" data-source="post: 5228349" data-attributes="member: 54710">I was looking at EvilBob's comment on Mouseferatu's blog, and it occurred to me that there is a fair amount of potential level differentiation even within traditional adventuring.In 3.x, there were several points at which standard adventuring changed a lot.&nbsp; Both the point at which &quot;everyone can fly&quot; and the point at which &quot;scry-buff-teleport&quot; became reasonable tactics are key points at which the nature of the game changes a great deal.&nbsp; I think the 4e designers were correct in identifying these as not-entirely-functional changes to the game, but - as a consequence of removing them - the game tiers became less distinctive.At all tiers of play, small unit tactics (i.e. &quot;standard&quot; combat) is an important part of the game.&nbsp; It's everything else that changes by tier.&nbsp; It seems to me that there should be a giant list of appropriate challenges for D&amp;D, in which certain types of challenges are impossible, appropriate or trivial depending on the tier.&nbsp; The current design philosophy suggests that (almost) every style of challenge should have a heroic, paragon and epic version.&nbsp; This thread has made me think this may be a mistake.(*)-KS(*) Of course, it's OK for a clever GM to make a epic version of a heroic challenge (or visa versa).&nbsp; It's just that such a challenge should be the exception.&nbsp; An epic cliff should be a cute semi-self-referential design element, not a standard part of the game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="KidSnide, post: 5228349, member: 54710"] I was looking at EvilBob's comment on Mouseferatu's blog, and it occurred to me that there is a fair amount of potential level differentiation even within traditional adventuring. In 3.x, there were several points at which standard adventuring changed a lot. Both the point at which "everyone can fly" and the point at which "scry-buff-teleport" became reasonable tactics are key points at which the nature of the game changes a great deal. I think the 4e designers were correct in identifying these as not-entirely-functional changes to the game, but - as a consequence of removing them - the game tiers became less distinctive. At all tiers of play, small unit tactics (i.e. "standard" combat) is an important part of the game. It's everything else that changes by tier. It seems to me that there should be a giant list of appropriate challenges for D&D, in which certain types of challenges are impossible, appropriate or trivial depending on the tier. The current design philosophy suggests that (almost) every style of challenge should have a heroic, paragon and epic version. This thread has made me think this may be a mistake.(*) -KS (*) Of course, it's OK for a clever GM to make a epic version of a heroic challenge (or visa versa). It's just that such a challenge should be the exception. An epic cliff should be a cute semi-self-referential design element, not a standard part of the game. [/QUOTE]

Verification