"Metadesign Principles of D&D"

[wocky]

That's very much like what I'm attemping, except I'm aiming for the "official" and not the "optimal" progression... since one look at the official iconics will tell you that the game is not balanced against an optimal build.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

The problem here is actually the strength of save or disable spells in 3.X. In first and second edition, disabling spells often were worthelss to cast. Foes above a certain level just saved too often. That is because (with veyr rare exceptions) all spells were equally easy to save against. Sometimes this made me wanbt to translate "save neg." as "this spell does nothing". In 3.X these spells scale in power with the caster and so are always a threat.

Regulating the potency of the Save vs. Doom spells is not a logical reason to include an entirely separate game mechanic in the manner of SR. These spells could easily be toned down by giving a generic "racial" save bonus vs. magic.

I find save or disable spells less fun. Big encounters end with a sudden magical effect. The counter is to make spells less reliable which reverses tactics. On average, in 3.X the winning tactic seems to be either gambling or buffing. This is in opposition to one generation ago where the winning tactic was to do reliable damage round after round in support of the heavy hitters.

My personal experience says that making the optimal tactics in the final showdown against the BBEG entirely predictable is not going to help the game be fun.

I also do not see why we need a game mechanic so sloppy that it shuts down the offensive spells of the multiclassed spellcasters entirely. That is just sucking fun out of the game for no particular purpose.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Heh, except that PrCs and even some base classes routinely muck with ASF.

Actually, another design principle seems to be "It should be difficult (if not impossible) to cast arcane spells while wearing armor."

I am afraid, sometimes the metadesign rules are forgotten.

But in this case: ASF is not adjustable as a d20 mechanic - you need to have a certain special ability - you never use ability, skill, saving throw or attack modifier to manipulate arcane spell failure, which is the standard adjustment to a d20 mechanic.
There is no ability that says "reduce the arcane spell failure of your armor by your charisma bonus".

 

[Henry]

Yes, you're going to have designers who do forget a design principle, and it's not like a house where people get hurt if it falls apart.

But this thread has been very revealing regardless. Some things, I sort of knew but didn't state out loud, some things that caught me off guard, too, but are there when you look. Feel free to keep it going, all! I eventually want to write something up for myself, and probably others who want it.

 

[Nail]

That's very much like what I'm attemping, except I'm aiming for the "official" and not the "optimal" progression... since one look at the official iconics will tell you that the game is not balanced against an optimal build.

You're not talking about the NPCs listed in the 3.5e DMG, are you? I hope not => they are substantially "under par", regardless of optimization scheme.

 

[IanB]

- The amulet of health can't be combined with the periapt of wisdom. This seems to be a patch to keep mostly clerics in check, since it has WIS as a primary ability, and CON as a secondary/third ability (CHA is the other important ability for a cleric).

My feeling about this is that it was an error that was never corrected in the change to 3.5. Note that in the Epic book, CON bonuses are found on bracers, not on amulets. I keep meaning to make this change in my own games.

 

[EricNoah]

Has the concept of actions vs. reactions been covered? I.e. the general intention is that each character gets an action (a full-round action, a standard action plus a move, or two moves) on his turn; and that he may react one or more times between turns (making a save is a reaction; using an immediate action is often a reaction; being able to defend yourself is a kind of reaction; making an AoO is a reaction). Sometimes reactions happen "before" the event that triggers it is completed; sometimes reactions happen afterwards. Robbing someone of their ability to act or react is one of the most powerful, and often the least fun (for the one affected) effects in the game. I'm not sure exactly where I'm going with this one...

What about a rule pertaining to what sorts of powers/effects are assigned a standard action vs a full-round action? I'm not sure what the meta-rule is, but surely there is one?

 

[hong]

"If you metadesign principle of D&D, kill him." -- old saying

 

[wocky]

You're not talking about the NPCs listed in the 3.5e DMG, are you? I hope not => they are substantially "under par", regardless of optimization scheme.

No, I'm talking about the iconics, published in the Hero Builder's Guidebook, and in the WotC website (in the books section, mostly). They're the heroes from the PHB: Regdar, Tordek, Mialee, Liddia, etc.

Allegedly the designers at WotC have this iconics built at every level from 1 to 20 and they used them for hands-on game balance testing.

 

[wedgeski]

Another example is (Su) vs (Sp) vs (Ex). One big reason for these distinctions is the existence of the anti-magic spell. Ditch that spell, and there is really no reason to make such fine Su/Sp/Ex distinctions.

You're definitely right in saying that there has been a 'sacred cow' (you would call it 'laziness' ) element to the rules which were brought over from earlier editions, but in this specific case I disagree. I've always thought that the main reason for subdividing abilities like this was to make the polymorph spell actually workable. In the process it so happens that different defenses (e.g. Spell Resistance) and effects (e.g. Attacks of Opportunity) can also be limited to specific attack forms, and ignored for others.

Anyway, this is a fantastic thread, I just wish I could think of something useful to contribute!