"Metadesign Principles of D&D"

[domino]

You still get a +30 to bluff checks in 3.5

 

[Nail]

Where D&D 3.x e has fallen down for me, in a larger "metadesign" sense, is how many potential bonus types there are. A clever player, with most of the WotC books at her disposal, can easily break any part of the system she cares to with legitimate stackable bonuses.

Heck, even with just the DMG and the new magic item rules, such a player is good to go.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Only when placement is left to the player.

A +2 and a -2 set by the DM balance out.

Not necessarily. If the DM let's the player know beforehand about where the bonus and penalty apply, then the player can use that to his advantage. And note that the DM must/should do that.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

The following are more M:tG principles but I have seen their influence in 3rd ed.

For every offense possible, there should be an available defence to counterbalance the offense.
If one source says that something can happen, and another source says that it cannot, the source that says it cannot happen should take precedence.

However, I think they have done well in not making these overly explicit, but more a subtle "meta" principle standing behind the rules as a design philosophy. It is also worth saying that such principles are not universal. For example, the improved trip feat most certainly does not have a simple counterbalance. An improved sundering and enlarged dwarf is neither simple nor overly effective against a dedicated tripper. In the end, it is more the province and catch-all of magic to eventually have the last word in nullifying difficult opponents. Perhaps this is the greatest meta-principle of all; so that no matter how "broken a particular skill/feat/ability/spell/opponent may be, a group of adventurers with a diverse range of magic and skills at their disposal will most likely surmount any challenge.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Is that you want a hybrid fighter/caster for example he shouldnt be half a full fighter and half a full caster , he should be 3/4 mage , and 3/4 fighter , to equal a specialist ( full fighter , or full caster)

This is why all of those Prestige classes like arcane trickster , mystic theurge ,Eldrith knight ... where created

for example , the mystic theurge , he is 75 % of a mage , and 75 % of a cleric , by level 15

....

And thats how the classes are designed

I do not think that is a design principle so much as a fudge to make these multiclass combos playable.

The Mystic Theurge would be an example of there not being a overarching design principle that really works. Too weak at lower levels and (according to some) too strong at higher levels.

The fundamental problem is that fighting abilities between classes stack trivially and often have synergies, while multiclassed spellcasters do not. That is because the fundamental fighting stats BAB and HPs automatically stack. Spellcaster level does not.

The reason why we have these fudges of classes like the MT and the feat Practiced Spellcaster is because of the awful double-whammy of failing behind in both caster level and spell selection.

This stacking issue in favor of fighting skills is why the designers must be careful when designing full BAB classes that the class does not have too many special abilities or even a big spell list. Every fighting focused 3/4 BAB class under the sun generates a thread "Class X really should have full BAB. Why doesn't it?". The reason is these classes would be too good for a Fighter who just dips for one or two levels.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The following are more M:tG principles but I have seen their influence in 3rd ed.

For every offense possible, there should be an available defence to counterbalance the offense.
If one source says that something can happen, and another source says that it cannot, the source that says it cannot happen should take precedence.

However, I think they have done well in not making these overly explicit, but more a subtle "meta" principle standing behind the rules as a design philosophy. It is also worth saying that such principles are not universal. For example, the improved trip feat most certainly does not have a simple counterbalance. An improved sundering and enlarged dwarf is neither simple nor overly effective against a dedicated tripper. In the end, it is more the province and catch-all of magic to eventually have the last word in nullifying difficult opponents. Perhaps this is the greatest meta-principle of all; so that no matter how "broken a particular skill/feat/ability/spell/opponent may be, a group of adventurers with a diverse range of magic and skills at their disposal will most likely surmount any challenge.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

In general, there shouldn't be any counter-counter measures.

So, no "Anti-Dodge" or "Anti-Improved-Trip" feats. (There are some exceptions found even in the WotC books, but in general, that's not a good idea)

 

[merelycompetent]

You still get a +30 to bluff checks in 3.5

Apologies - I'm not finding this in either the 3.5 SRD or DMG. As near as I can tell, the potion of Glibness was dropped from 3.5, so a character could no longer get +30 from one bonus type. In the event that I am mistaken, could you provide a page # or reference, please?

 

[shilsen]

Apologies - I'm not finding this in either the 3.5 SRD or DMG. As near as I can tell, the potion of Glibness was dropped from 3.5, so a character could no longer get +30 from one bonus type. In the event that I am mistaken, could you provide a page # or reference, please?

I presume he means the Brd3 spell "Glibness" in the PHB.

 

[merelycompetent]

I presume he means the Brd3 spell "Glibness" in the PHB.

Found it, and thanks! Not many people play Bards in the groups I run with, so I completely missed this one :\

But it does tie back to a metadesign issue: What is the maximum skill bonus allowable from any one bonus type?

To me, +20 is good because it maintains consistency with BAB. I also set +20 as the maximum from any one bonus type (non-Epic) in the games I run to prevent repeats of certain incidents with the potion of Glibness (500gp, 3.0 DMG). It's worked well, even up into 20th level play.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

In general, there shouldn't be any counter-counter measures.

So, no "Anti-Dodge" or "Anti-Improved-Trip" feats. (There are some exceptions found even in the WotC books, but in general, that's not a good idea)

I'm talking counter measures rather than counter-counter measures. For example, a fighter concerned about getting grappled by every large creature they face can take the feat close-quarter fighting, which is most effective. Alternatively, there is the spell Freedom of Movement. These nicely counterbalance creatures with highly effective grappling ability. I'm not too sure that there is any mileage (similar to you I think) in feats or abilities to counter these counter measures).

In essence what I was pointing to is that as effective as some abilities are, there will almost always be an ability/spell etc. to balance it out.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise