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

[Hussar]

Honestly, stripping out the spellcasting from dragons isn't all that bad. For one thing, the dragons under CR 10 have almost no spellcasting abilities anyway, so, you can ignore it for the most part. I find, for the bigger dragons, simply using a larger dragon without the caster levels works well enough. In other words, if you want to use a CR 15 dragon, pick a CR 17 dragon, strip out the spellcasting and use that.

You get a nice engine of destruction that is a breeze to use.

 

[Li Shenron]

FWIW, Mike Mearls recently noted on Bruce Baugh's weblog that some of the design paradigms used in 3E--the 'encouraging system mastery' and 'ivory tower design' ones called out by Monte Cook--were no longer in play at WotC R&D.

I think I am beginning to understand better why I have remained in love with 3.0. Probably I very simply don't want an evolving game, but instead I want different separate games each of which with its own stable assumptions.

PS What was the 'ivory tower' paradigm?

 

[Musrum]

One the thing I like about per encounter balance is that ability X is worth exactly the same to a PC and an NPC.

That's got to make things easier from a design perspective (a big help to Paradigm #3).

 

[hong]

I think I am beginning to understand better why I have remained in love with 3.0. Probably I very simply don't want an evolving game, but instead I want different separate games each of which with its own stable assumptions.

Well, it's possible that you have actually achieved game mastery, so changes that disturb that would naturally be unwelcome....

PS What was the 'ivory tower' paradigm?

Give people the rules, and let them figure out themselves how best to use them.

 

[jasin]

Dragons with spellcasting are a case in point - instead of flying around, clawing you and breathing fire, you have dragons sitting back and casting horrid wilting. That's not good, and any spellcasting increases the complexity greatly.

I propose two solutions if you're annoyed at dragons acting like sorcerers instead of like fighters:

1) Pick different, subtler spells which better fit the theme. Rather than enervation, give the dragon scrying. Commune rather than righteous might. Sanctuary rather than shield of faith (you just don't dare strike the dragon first). The dragon won't be as tough in a straight up, "you appear 60 ft. away from each other" arena-style fight, but they might be trickier long-term opponents. And it's not like dragons really need to minmax their spell selection to be tough even in a straight up fight.

2) Arcane Strike. Don't even bother picking spells known. There'll be clawing. Oh, the clawing there'll be!

 

[Charwoman Gene]

Edited as it was redundant.

Before you mentally crucify Monte cook for the Ivory tower paradigm, read the link to his site.

 

[jasin]

I'm interested in your product. Please sign me up for your newsletter.

Now I'm actually thinking about how this could be done in practice.

And now I find that the adaptation section for the swordsage mentions the possibility of letting them learn spells instead of maneuvers (and advises removing armour proficiency and reducing their HD to d6)!

So take that as a base, and trade the wuxia weaponmaster specials for more magical and scholary stuff, and you might be well on your way towards a true Vancian wizard...! You even get 6 skill points, plenty for all those ranks in bluff and diplomacy everyone in Vance seems to have.

Damn, I'm liking this idea more and more!

I think I'll start a new thread once I've got something more substantial.

I should mention that I've done this for a game with a single player. It's fun.

What, just allowed a spellcaster to rememorize spells whenever he got the time?

Did you notice any side-effects (good or bad) worth mentioning? For example, I'd expect the non-combat utility spells would get prepared even less often; in almost all situations in which you'll need comprehend languages, you can afford study the spellbook for 15 minutes or so.

 

[Henry]

RE: Reducing the rift between Monster Hit Dice and CR, I'm all for it. I'd rather not have them the same, but I'm more in favor of having them closer than they are, particularly as regards to some undead. Really, in the case of monsters like the Drowned (MM3), I think they are something like 20 Hit dice, but only a CR 8 or 10? A cleric who sees a Drowned is wasting his time even trying to turn that thing; he or she has no chance at all, not even on a natural 20 of the turning check! Better to give out as standard that "unholy toughness" or whatever it's called, that give monsters extra hit points based on Charisma bonus, than to just bulk them up with extra hit dice.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Still, I think it is potentially viable. Suppose, for instance, that the flight ability you used as an example is only given to monsters of sufficiently high HD that PCs would be able to have flight through spells and other means. It can work.

Well, no. No, it can't work.

Sometimes the PCs encounter small flying creatures. They can't just disappear from the game world entirely.

That being said, designers can certainly make a stronger effort to balance abilities against HD.

The CR calculations that Upper_Krust performed show that the total CR is derived from roughly 50% HD, and 50% special abilities*. Once the "total value" of special abilties started to exceed HD, they contributed less and less to its total CR.

To put it another way, a creature whose abilities are "perfectly balanced" to its HD has a more "accurate" CR rating than an unbalanced creature.

To put it another way: Yes, a coin flip creature. Exactly.

As I said, though, this may constrain monster design freedom.

Well, yes, to the extent that, "Don't make unbalanced creatures!" is a design constraint.


* This varies by creature type-- because some creatures come with more "perks" built into their HD-- like dragons and outsiders. On the other end of the spectrum, of course, are animals and vermin who have very few special abilties, so to make up their CR, they load up with HD.

 

[Roman]

Well, no. No, it can't work.

Sometimes the PCs encounter small flying creatures. They can't just disappear from the game world entirely.

That's exactly what I meant by the system imposing design constraints. It could, however, be at least partially circumvented. Small flying creatures, for example, could have d2 type hit dice. We simply do not know enough about how 4E is going to work (and this certainly could not be effectively implemented before that) to know how well it would work.

That being said, designers can certainly make a stronger effort to balance abilities against HD.

The CR calculations that Upper_Krust performed show that the total CR is derived from roughly 50% HD, and 50% special abilities*. Once the "total value" of special abilties started to exceed HD, they contributed less and less to its total CR.

To put it another way, a creature whose abilities are "perfectly balanced" to its HD has a more "accurate" CR rating than an unbalanced creature.

To put it another way: Yes, a coin flip creature. Exactly.

Is there any place where I could find the behind the scenes calculations on how these calculations you speak of were constructed? It would be interesting to have a look at.

Well, yes, to the extent that, "Don't make unbalanced creatures!" is a design constraint.

See the example of small flying creatures for more on what I meant by design constraints the system would impose.

* This varies by creature type-- because some creatures come with more "perks" built into their HD-- like dragons and outsiders. On the other end of the spectrum, of course, are animals and vermin who have very few special abilties, so to make up their CR, they load up with HD.

It is only natural that it should vary by creature. All hit dice were not created equal.