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

[El Ravager]

I like per encounter balancing...many people I think are effectively modeling it by having fewer...but more intense combats per 'game day'. Super powerful abilities should still be limited...but spell casters get hit hard by the current system. A race against time scenario has to take into account the need for characters to rest and gain spells.... and punishes the player for using a too powerful spell at the wrong time.

"Gandalf save us from the Balrog!!".
"Sorry mate I used my high level spells against the Orc with class levels....your swords will have to do".

The power level of monsters are not so static anymore...an awakened shrubbery bush in a forest with class levels could be an entirely valid and challenging encounter....let alone Goblins, Orcs, Gnolls etc with class levels.

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?!"

Really, if all these design paradigms seem to mean that the next dnd system won't be used by me. But hey, who knows how it will all be implemented. I'll just wait and see.

 

[SteveC]

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.

I imagine a change of this magnitude would occur only through 4E. Soooo, that won't most likely be until at least 2008 or 2009...

I think. however, that this sort of thing is a good example of what could be done in 4E that would make the game better, without changing it so that a lot of people didn't think it was D&D anymore.

--Steve

 

[JohnSnow]

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

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.

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."

For the record, with the game emphasis on making a "full attack," D&D isn't MUCH better. I think it would be more interesting if characters at higher levels got fewer iterative attacks but could still move. That would make for more interesting combat.

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.

 

[JohnSnow]

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?!"

"EVERYBODY RUN!!!!"

Forcing everyone to run because the wizard player is a dope isn't fun. But that's a larger complaint I have with Vancian magic in general. I'm trying to remember (outside of a Jack Vance book or a D&D novel) of a time in fantasy fiction when a spellcaster thinks: "Hmm...a lock...if only I'd prepared my open locks spell this morning." Sometimes, the spell doesn't work (*fizzle*) or the caster doesn't know it*, but that's different.

I suppose Vancian magic is fine (for those who like it) as one option for how magic works in a D&D world, but why should it be the only option?

Just my two cents. Back to your regular discussion.

* As an example:
Black: "I can't believe you have the ability to level the castle, but you can't magic open a simple lock."
Dilvish: "Hey, gimme a break! That's a very complicated spell!"
From Dilvish the Damned, by Roger Zelazny.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

In other words, what's wrong with a non-levelled creature that has 12 h.p., a BAB of +14, Con. 14, and is tiny? Or, a creature with 250 h.p., a BAB of +0, Con. 6, and is normal size? I do things like this all the time for Demons and constructs...I figure normal rules don't apply to such things anyway...why not allow this for other monsters*?

On a broader scale, what do you need to know about a monster, as DM?
- its AC and how it gets there;
- how well it can fight ("fight level", gives BAB) and how often it can attack;
- what damage each attack can do;
- its hit points;
- its other abilities (spells, natural and exceptional abilities, etc.);
- any non-standard defenses e.g. magic resistance, immunities, etc.

Using HD to try to define any of the above almost serves to complicate things.

As for CR and EL, who cares? Just chuck the critters at your party and the PCs will either win or they won't...

* - note that I say "monsters" here; this is not for normal-race PC types, and as time goes on I'm becoming more and more opposed to the idea of monsters as PCs...

Lanefan

 

[Kaodi]

I think I have a simple(ish) solution to mixing per day with per encounter spellcasting. Just say for preparation spellcasters that half of your spell slots of each level, rounded down, may be used per encounter instead of per day, and for spontaneous casters you round up. Bonus spell slots count towards this equation. So, a 1st level wizard would likely have 1 reusable and 1 non-reusable spell slot, while a sorcerer would have 2 of each. You must remorize spells each time they are cast for the re-usable slots, but it only takes the 15 minutes. However, certain spells use only non-reusable slots, and you may freely sacrafice a re-usable slot for " the day " to use one if you choose. Healing spells would be non-reusable. And 0-level spells are all re-usable.

Going up in level, an average 6th level wizard would have 2 of each 1st level, 2 of each 2nd, 1 re-usable 3rd and 2 non re-usables. The sorcerer would have 3 1st, 2 2nd a 1 3rd re-usable.

At 9th, assuming 20s in relevant ability scores, a wizard would have 4/3(3)/2(3)/2(3)/2(3)/2(3)/2(2)/2(2)/2(2)/2(2), and a sorcerer 9/4(3)/3(3)/3(2)/3(2)/3(2)/2(1)/2(1)/2(1)/2(1). I guess I'd take out the time penalty to metamagic feats to even it up a bit.

Well... it at least sounded great in conception. A prototype of a desirable route.

 

[MerricB]

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!

 

[MerricB]

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.

The problem is in the use of Hit Dice as a gauge of how tough the monster is. Why do you think that new Wizards products use CR?

Turn Undead is broken, purely and simply. It doesn't work.

Cheers!

 

[Nifft]

Turn Undead is broken, purely and simply. It doesn't work.

QFT.

It's not the only thing, though. Skill limits can be important for opposed checks, several spells check hit dice for their effect, and some of the more powerful templates grant more abilities to a higher hit die critter.

But IMHO it should be Turn Undead up against the wall first.

Cheers, -- N

 

[MerricB]

It's not the only thing, though. Skill limits can be important for opposed checks, several spells check hit dice for their effect, and some of the more powerful
templates grant more abilities to a higher hit die critter.

There's two issues there:

Issue 1: Monster abilities based on HD:
* Skill limits can be important for opposed checks
* the more powerful templates grant more abilities to a higher hit die critter

Neither of these is an actual problem. There may be a problem with the predetermined calculation of CR for the templates, but by the time of the encounter the monster's abilities are set.

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.

Cheers!