New Design Paradigms - What are they and are they good or bad?

[Roman]

I don't think all monsters would be the same if CR=HD, after all the abilities of the monsters to make up the CR of the HD could be different. That said, the design constraints of this are simply too large for it to be practicable as some archetypical monsters would be impossible to build in such a way as to maintain their archetype.

How about my idea of eliminating LA and making HD=ECL though?

 

[hong]

Meh. Holy word is not the problem. BLASPHEMY is the problem.

 

[ruleslawyer]

An absurdly easy one to fix, though. Sicken makes a fine substitute for daze.

Sorry to not have finished the thread, but this is exactly why I DON'T like per encounter balance and I LIKE the current system. I like PCs having resources to use, and use up. I like the challenge of the situation of "Oh crap here's a balrog, and Gandalf used his big spells aready! What do we do now?!"

YMMV, of course. Personally, I don't like this because it can just as easily be "Oh crap here's a bunch of goblins, and Gandalf used his big spells already!" et cetera.

Also, I think that "per encounter" has assumed the dimensions of a virtual strawman in some of this discussion (El Ravager's point not at all included). For one thing, it's not at all clear (and, IMHO, unlikely) that everything would shift to a per-encounter basis in a future edition of the game. Second, "per encounter" usually means "usable a limited number of times every few minutes to an hour" rather than "usable as many times as you like, then wait six seconds and declare a new encounter to refresh your pool!" Third, most new and existing per encounter mechanics simply have *different* limitations on how often they can be used than those provided by per-day abilities; it doesn't mean that the limitations are absent. Iron Heroes provides an excellent example of this: Big-gun abilities either require time to spin up, require you to sacrifice other actions (like full attacking), or once used, require a good deal of time to recover.

What makes all that different from a uses per-day balancing mechanic is that a) the player or DM doesn't need to track uses beyond the context of a combat encounter and b) the PCs pace themselves by how hard something is to take on rather than how to run out the clock until sleepy-time.

The big problem with encounter-based abilities, and why per-day uses can't go away, is for abilities that are useful out of combat. I'd love to be able to fix those to work on a per-encounter basis (f'rex, to use with IH without having two types of tracking systems), but I can't see how.

 

[TwoSix]

The problem with the HD=CR scheme is that it assumes that all monsters are the same. It's a terrible idea.

If you have a 10 HD creature with a 10 AC and a 10 HD creature with a 30 AC, then you have two different play experiences - you have the variety that D&D excels at.

However, if you say HD=CR, then you can no longer have that variety. You *must* balance the two ACs.

Cheers!

You're under no obligation to balance the two ACs. However, the poor 10 AC monster should probably have some sort of DR, or high Constitution, to make it worth being 10HD. If it isn't equal to the 10HD monster with 30 AC in challenge, than why does it need to be 10HD?

 

[RFisher]

I've heard this argument before. It's what I refer to as "Rules-Lite" or "C&C Rox" thinking. However, I need to correct that equation slightly:

Simple System + Tactical Thinking + Imagination + DM FIAT = Interesting Combat.

I both agree & disagree.

To take the first example that comes to mind in my current (classic D&D) campaign: There was a wight in a sarcophagus. It took multiple PCs to move the heavy lid. When they realized that there was something inside, they only moved the lid a little bit, poured in some oil, & followed it with a torch.

There's virtually no DM fiat there. Neither did it use any rules beyond the damage burning oil inflicts & the duration it burns for.

The wight, of course, tried to move the lid so it could escape. The dwarf clambered on top of it to make it harder. I had the player make a Dex check each round to stay on the lid while the increasingly desperate wight attempted to escape. I slowly increased the difficulty.

So, this part depended upon some DM calls, but nothing that would be out of place, I think, in a 3e game. It just would have been a Balance check instead. Call it "DM fiat" if you wish, though. I don't mind.

The rest of the combat ran pretty much by-the-book.

Would this combat have been any more interesting or significantly different if we'd be playing 3e instead? Would this combat have been any less interesting if I had made different calls as DM?

In truth, I don't know.

The problem with not having your options spelled out in the rules is that there's always the chance of the DM going "Umm...nope, sorry, that doesn't work," or just giving such a paltry reward for the extra difficult move that it isn't worth it. Why should I try something risky (and risk failing) to do 1d8 with my longsword. That's what happens if I sit still. So most rules-lite games degenerate into "I whack him."

There are plenty of things you can do in classic D&D combat that can make it more than just hp attrition, which aren't spelled out in the rules yet don't require DM fiat. Out flank/surround your opponent. Concentrate your party's resources on your opponents' weakest point. Find a position where you can prevent/delay a monster with no ranged attacks from closing while you take them down with missile fire. Figure out how to close to melee range with a monster with a strong ranged/area of effect attack with minimal exposure to that attack. Take & hold strategic locations that allow you to deal with a horde of opponents in small, bite-sized chunks. Set up an ambush & lure the monster into it. Use defensive formations. Minimize the damage from an area of effect by using a spread out formation. Do whatever you can to increase the chances of disrupting their casters while decreasing the chances of them disrupting your casters. &c. ad nauseum. You don't need a complex system to do these things.

(& there are plenty of things that can make combats more interesting that are in the classic D&D rules: burning oil, turning undead, spells, monster special abilities/cases. So, I guess I have to conceed that complications can be part of the equation too.)

But...DM fiat does have a role to play as well.

I don't really see much different in having written rules that tell me that a certain option isn't worth the risk v. the DM telling me so. There's always the chance that the rules will say, "Umm...nope, sorry, that doesn't work." I don't really see much difference in the DM choosing a DC for a climb check based on the circumstances v. the DM just telling me that the climb will be trivial & not require a roll or that--based on the circumstances & my abilities--I'll have to roll X on YdZ.

OK, actually I do see a difference: In either case, the group needs to comes up with an answer that is sufficiently adequate for the group. In one case it consists of figuring out how to interpret written rules to get the desired result. In the other, it doesn't.

DM fiat is a huge part (if not the thing) of what makes the game worthwhile for me. But with caveats: Most actions don't need rules, ad hoc or otherwise; just simple rulings that aren't going to be controversial. With less certain situations, the group should discuss it--(not necessarily a long discussion)--whether there are rules that apply & DCs to choose or just a general coming up with a chance of success/failure. The DM may have the final say, but his choice should be informed by the group. The goal is that--as much as possible--the results are acceptible to everyone at the table, whether there were written rules available or not. Rules that don't give the desired results are just as bad as bad DM fiat. Groups should also have post mortems to determine what worked, what didn't, why, & how everyone can work to make the experience better in the future.

But, hey, that's just what seems to work for me, FWIW. It seems that doesn't work for other groups, & that's cool. Whatever works for you.

 

[JohnSnow]

Would this combat have been any more interesting or significantly different if we'd be playing 3e instead? Would this combat have been any less interesting if I had made different calls as DM?

Well, not to disparage your abilities as a DM, but a wight burning to death in a sarcophagus just doesn't do anything for me as a "interesting" combat. If anything, it seems kinda dull. I guess it's marginally more imaginative than the players just smacking him with sharp, heavy or pointy things, but it's not exactly a combat out of The Three Musketeers either.

I don't really see much different in having written rules that tell me that a certain option isn't worth the risk v. the DM telling me so.

The rules tell you what the risk is. The DM just says "no, that's not worth the risk, so you can't do it." Sometimes, I WANT to take the risk, slim as it is. I want to be the player of Han Solo's character who says "never tell me the odds" and tries anyway.

I'll come clean and confess my bias is for Iron Heroes over 3e D&D. I can weigh my alternatives or come up with crazy stunts to try. They might be risky, but sometimes, it's worth risking total failure to potentially get that all-important +4 (or whatever) to an attack. It's exciting.

And no, I don't trust the DM to make those kinds of calls consistently, without a vast array of houserules at his disposal (which might be entirely in his head). If my options aren't spelled out in the rules, I have to guess whether the DM and I have the same opinion of what's "reasonable." What if we don't?

Roleplaying games have rules in place to settle the old 'cowboys and indians' "I shot you" "no, you didn't" arguments. If you argue that Rule X isn't necessary, no rule is necessary.

Games have rules for combat so we don't actually have to fight it out. It could be argued that gamers who dislike social interaction rules (favoring "roleplaying over rollplaying" as they put it) just don't like their characters being limited by their stats. If you don't want social interaction rules, don't have stats for personality. A smart player isn't necessarily bound by his character's 6 INT, nor is a personable player hampered by his Half-orc barbarian's 5 charisma. He can choose to be, and if he does, everyone will applaud his "roleplaying." However, a socially inept gamer can't fake playing an 18 CHA bard without those rules.

So I think any significant aspect of the game needs rules to back it up. Basic combat does, magic does, social interaction does, and crazy combat stunts should.

But that's just my opinion. Obviously, not everyone agrees.

 

[RFisher]

Well, not to disparage your abilities as a DM, but a wight burning to death in a sarcophagus just doesn't do anything for me as a "interesting" combat. If anything, it seems kinda dull. I guess it's marginally more imaginative than the players just smacking him with sharp, heavy or pointy things, but it's not exactly a combat out of The Three Musketeers either.

Oh, disparage away. I'm a crappy DM. If that combat was interesting, it was in spite of me, not because of me.

I guess you had to be there. Or maybe we just have very different ideas about what constitutes an "interesting combat". No edition of D&D would be my choice for swashbuckling Three Musketeers style.

The rules tell you what the risk is. The DM just says "no, that's not worth the risk, so you can't do it."

Whenever the DM sets a DC, when he adds circumstance modifiers, that's the DM determining the risk. Maybe things have changed a lot, but one complaint I've often read about 3e is that there aren't enough sample DCs. Sure, sometimes the DC is clearly specified by the rules, but it's often still the DMs call as to which of the DCs in the book apply to the situation at hand.

And sometimes the rules do tell you "no".

The DM just says "no, that's not worth the risk, so you can't do it."

Seriously? I've never seen a DM refuse to let a PC do something on account of risk. Because he feels it is physically impossible, yes. Risk, no. (Heck, most DMs I've known will even allow PCs to try the physically impossible.)

And no, I don't trust the DM to make those kinds of calls consistently, without a vast array of houserules at his disposal (which might be entirely in his head). If my options aren't spelled out in the rules, I have to guess whether the DM and I have the same opinion of what's "reasonable." What if we don't?

No, you don't have to guess. You just have to ask if the DM didn't volunteer it. Just like you have to guess or ask when DM sets the DC or applies ad hoc circumstance modifiers & doesn't bother to tell you.

What if you & the DM disagree on which DC in the book applies to the current situation? What if you & the DM disagree on whether a modifier in the book applies? What if you & the DM disagree on whether something deserves an ad hoc circumstance modifier?

If I & the DM disagree, we discuss it. If we can't come to consensus, I accept the DMs decision because he's my friend & a peer whose opinion is just as valid as mine. & because that's the respect I show him for taking on the job.

Roleplaying games have rules in place to settle the old 'cowboys and indians' "I shot you" "no, you didn't" arguments. If you argue that Rule X isn't necessary, no rule is necessary.

We aren't 6 year olds anymore. We can come to consensus. We can strive to make unbiased decisions. We can ignore our ego & accept a friend's decision. We can settle the "I shot you/no you didn't" arguments because--if it comes down to it--we've agreed to let one person have the final say for this session.

Yes, no rules are necessary.

So I think any significant aspect of the game needs rules to back it up. Basic combat does, magic does, social interaction does, and crazy combat stunts should.

Well, I can mostly agree with that. Rules are fun. A game's rules tell you--or at least hint at--what is meant to be significant in that game. (& it's quite annoying when what a game claims is significant & what it's rules suggest is significant are different.) If I'm playing wuxia, I generally want some basic rules for at least three of those. If I'm playing Pendragon, I like having the passions, but I don't miss the magic or crazy combat stunts.

But I want a balance between rules & DM judgement. Well, I guess we all do. We just have different ideas about how/where that balance should be struck.

 

[Imaro]

I've heard this argument before. It's what I refer to as "Rules-Lite" or "C&C Rox" thinking. However, I need to correct that equation slightly:

Simple System + Tactical Thinking + Imagination + DM FIAT = Interesting Combat.

But C&C does "Rox"
Simple System+ Tactical Thinking+ Imagination+ DM FIAT(or group consensus)= Interesting Combat is for me a better analogy than the above and is true of all systems. In the D&D 3.x DC's are given based on difficulty. C&C also has a general rule on +/- a certain amount depending on difficulty of an action. Don't really see the difference.

C&C already has rules for: Charging, Grappling, Overbearing, Disarming, Evading, Flanking, Rear Attacks, Two-wpn Fighting, Cover, Concealment, Dodging, Disengaging (all this is from memory right now so I might be missing some options.) Now since we've established that these rules exist in C&C it really boils down to DM Fiat on when to give you bonuses to achieve them, just like DC's in 3.x. You could argue that feats allow you to define what your PC is good at but in my mind this isn't necessarily the case as the DM will still set the DC and can increase it if he feels your character shouldn't or wouldn't be able to do something. If you ask him why and he gives you a list of mitigating factors that you agree/disagree with, how is this any different from DM fiat?

The problem with not having your options spelled out in the rules is that there's always the chance of the DM going "Umm...nope, sorry, that doesn't work," or just giving such a paltry reward for the extra difficult move that it isn't worth it. Why should I try something risky (and risk failing) to do 1d8 with my longsword. That's what happens if I sit still. So most rules-lite games degenerate into "I whack him."

This is the biggest misconception I see with C&C, check above they are. Rewards come from deciding whether to flank, rear attack, take Cover or use Concealment, Disarm or Disengage etc. Each action rewards in different ways from I just hit him. The biggest difference for me is that these options are kept simple in their explanations as well as their implementation. In the end it has more to do with the players and DM's than cool feats and abilities or an abundance of tactical rules. In D&D I have seen someone find a combination of abilities that work well and do the same thing over and over again in numerous combats, this(IMHO) is as bad as I hit syndrome.

As an aside, the one good side of West End Games' d6 Star Wars was that multiple actions were possible, even at low levels - you just took a penalty to every action you tried. Which meant that you'd only try so many actions per round. Something similar might be a nice redesign in D&D. For example, if all multiple attacks worked the way the monk's flurry of blows ability does. Just an idea.

I have a little bit of a problem with systems like these unless their is a balancing factor like a penalty to AC next round, or your first actions penalty is dependent upon how many actions you are taking, something along those lines. This is because in essence their is no real reason to stop taking multiple actions as yes my chances of succeding decrease with each action but it in no way hinders me and I might just get lucky and roll great.

 

[Greg K]

I'm not sure unifying monster design is the right direction to go. In fact, I kind of tend to think the opposite direction:

Break HD out into hit points, fight level (or BAB), and size. And, have an option to break h.p. out from Con. to allow good Con-based saves etc. but low h.p., or the reverse.

I was hoping that the designers were going to do this for 3e

 

[Greg K]

Issue 2: Effects affecting creatures based on HD.
* Turn Undead
* Holy Word
* Colour Spray
* Sleep

At low levels - colour spray & sleep - the problems inherent in this are not really much of a problem. It is at high levels that they emerge, and especially for Turn Undead and Holy Word as neither allow a saving throw. Saving throws, although linked to HD, have more adjustments (racial, ability scores, feats, etc.) and can be tuned. The gap between CR and HD causes problems in those spells that only pay attention to HD.

Now, I don't mind having some effects wipe out otherwise powerful monsters because they have a low HD... it's part of the variety of D&D. However, especially in the case of Holy Word, it's too easy to do things to the Caster Level to make it much more potent than it should be.

Instead of hit die of the target(s) capping the effects, I'd rather have staged effects be tied to the degree by which the target(s) failed their save.