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

[hong]

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.

I don't think you understood what Wulf was getting at.

 

[Nifft]

We also have to consider context. Flight is too good to give PCs because we can expect that PCs will use flight in its most optimal way.

NPCs are under no such constraint -- they can act stupid. It can be part of their design.

Flight for a critter who only has melee attacks is much weaker than flight for a critter that has ranged attacks or effects.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Roman]

I don't think you understood what Wulf was getting at.

Actually, you are correct that I misunderstood, but I realized it only after posting.

I reluctantly concede that making CR=ECL=HD and eliminating LA is difficult at best and may not be possible without design constraints on monsters being simply too stifling.

Still, it should at least be possible to use the method to eliminate LA, thus making ECL=HD and to eliminate LA and even templates would be based on HD. CR would still have to stay separate under this system.

 

[RFisher]

1) I used to play Basic D&D, where virtually every level was a "dead level."

I've got an Expert D&D game going now!

But this "dead levels" discussion has made me realize that my group can't possibly be having fun playing Basic/Expert D&D. Nor could we have had fun with our classic Traveller or Marvel Superheroes campaigns. Not to mention our 3e or d20 Star Wars campaigns & their dead levels. How could we have possibly have thought those games were fun without getting enough "new toys to play with" fast enough?

I remember in one of my 3e games, one of the other players and I were disappointed when we levelled up because we hadn't even gotten time to try out all of our new feats yet. So in that sense, we were levelling too quickly.

I've had the same experience.

If combat could be made more interesting, people wouldn't feel the need for silly powers.

I don't know if I can explain it, but I've found that a simple system + tactical thinking + imagination = interesting combat.

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

I guess the solution to the dilemna is to conceptually divide monsters into boss monsters and mook monsters for the purposes of design. Dragons would be considered boss monsters (and may even have further special status considering it is Dungeons & Dragons ) and so would some other monsters and these could be more complex than mook monsters. Only solitary (or those in very small groups) monsters should be considered boss monsters for design purposes (though for in-game purposes DMs are, of course, free to use any monster as a boss monster).

I once again draw your attention to Spycraft 2.0 and the fantasy version that's being created.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

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.

Head to the House Rules forum and look for threads or posts by Upper_Krust.

 

[Vocenoctum]

I've got an Expert D&D game going now!

But this "dead levels" discussion has made me realize that my group can't possibly be having fun playing Basic/Expert D&D. Nor could we have had fun with our classic Traveller or Marvel Superheroes campaigns. Not to mention our 3e or d20 Star Wars campaigns & their dead levels. How could we have possibly have thought those games were fun without getting enough "new toys to play with" fast enough?

D&D doesn't have to be about constant reward of course, it's more about making the class appealing in comparison to other classes. Why remain a Ranger if you can grab PrC Archer and get the feats faster? Making the classes more of a decision is a fine objective IMO. OTOH, if you have a system where every level is a small advancement or "dead level" and it's even across the board, it's still balanced against the options.

Leveling doesn't take long in D&D, but sometimes it's not worth it just for a couple skill +1's and another 5 hp. So, sometimes I skip a level here or there and do two at once at a later time.

 

[SteveC]

Actually, you are correct that I misunderstood, but I realized it only after posting.

I reluctantly concede that making CR=ECL=HD and eliminating LA is difficult at best and may not be possible without design constraints on monsters being simply too stifling.

Still, it should at least be possible to use the method to eliminate LA, thus making ECL=HD and to eliminate LA and even templates would be based on HD. CR would still have to stay separate under this system.

No, I think you were right initially: it is possible to balance monsters to 1 monster level = 1 pc level = 1 CR, but you need to change some of the fundamental rules for how monsters are created. Each level of monster would just give one or more options for buying feats or "monster talents." It is possible to turn powers like flight into a talent tree, for example.

I would recommend this system over something more complicated like Upper Krust's system, which is amazing, but also more complicated than a lot of GMs are looking for.

I don't believe you could exactly duplicate the current system, but then I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing. There are many monsters that have CRs and/or hit dice that are completely out of balance.

This entire project would be a lot of work, but on the other side would be a unified creature system.

--Steve

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Balancing per Encounter instead of x/day per day abilities:
I like this choice. I dislike it when the party rests just become one character is out of his resources. There might be an alternative, though - ensure that all characters go equally fast out of resources. For non-spellcasters, the resource is usually hit points. But a Wand of Cure Light Wounds solves this issue quickly. There is no "Wand of Regaining Spells" or something like that. If you added such an item, it would probably unbalance the game, as spells are balanced differently than hitpoints. A 5th level spell cast by a 10th level Wizard is probably more powerful than a full attack from a 10th level fighter (the fighter can't fly with it, and can only deal 2 x 2d6+15 points of damage to a single target, instead of 10d6 to all targets within a cone).
If you want to retain the old spell system and the x/day abilities, you have to remove an item like a Wand of Cure Light Wounds, at least as a cheap item. (healing with spells in general is okay, though). Maybe an charged item with a spell with Instantaneous duration should cause a x10 market price modifier or something like that. Simply because it upsets the balance in such a system.

The way to retain some of the flavour of current spellcasting is to make it cost resources that can be gathered per encounter. Maybe to cast a x-level spells, a caster needs to gather x "mana tokens". Gaining such a token would cost actions.
The only problem are spells that are not cast in combat (or prior to combat).
A few options:
- Reduce durations of spells.
- Limit the number of spells that can be cast
- Spellcasting involves a risk.


I am currently working on a magic system for a possible IH campaign I want to master.
It will still retain the idea of preparing spells, but it will be balanced by encounter.
- Spell casters must prepare a spell to be able to trigger it at a later time. This represents their time spent to memorize the exact details, make the correct prayers, and prepare the right spells.
- Spell casting requires a special check. If the check fails, it will cause backlash (based on the spell level), and also a possible mishap (wrong target, opposite effect and so on). A 1 is always a failure.
- It is possible to gather mana tokens (in several ways). These tokens can be used to improve the check modifier. The DCs for spell casting will encourage gathering and using tokens.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

This entire project would be a lot of work, but on the other side would be a unified creature system.

Well, WotC has Mike Mearls, and they have small rooms, and presumably they have locks on the doors, so I don't see what the friggin' hold up is.