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

[Doghead Thirteen]

Oboy. This whole 'dead levels' thing is one of the big things that made me ditch a level system... brrr.

The idea of a character advancement that basically doesn't do anything is completely alien to my roleplaying experience. It would be Ground Zero for some house rules.

 

[Greg K]

If non-dead levels meant simply feat/abilityskill/spell choices , I wouldn't mind. However, I despise when designers place specific set abilities (sneak attack, rage, channel spell through weapon, bullwark defense, etc.). I don't want the designers dictating their very narrow idea of what the class should be which I consider poor class design.

 

[Roman]

If non-dead levels meant simply feat/abilityskill/spell choices , I wouldn't mind. However, I despise when designers place specific set abilities (sneak attack, rage, channel spell through weapon, bullwark defense, etc.). I don't want the designers dictating their very narrow idea of what the class should be which I consider poor class design.

I disagree. I don't want the class system to turn into what is essentially a point system of character building and advancement. Some feat options are nice, but not building a whole class based on feats only (like the fighter... which just makes him less interesting for me at least - mind you the feats in fighter's case would be OK, provided that he would also get some unique abilities [beyond specialization and greater weapon focus] that other classes lack). Instead of everything being reduced to feats, I would like to see more 'paths' for each class.

 

[shilsen]

2) Unfortunately, though, I don't like per encounter balancing of classes (and I realize I will probably be in a minority here ). I much prefer a system where balancing is done in such a way that characters do not have infinite or near-infinite staying power and that each encounter leaves them weaker for the encounters to come. This also enables designers to make tradeoffs between sustainable power of a class and peak performance, which for me makes things more interesting. Alas, they probably would not be making this move if it did not appeal to a lot of people, so I expect to be clobbered on this one.

I don't know if you're in a minority or should expect to be clobbered, but I personally like this new method. The old method of having balance based on number of encounters and classes having power in inverse ratio to the number of encounters in the day partly ties the hands of DMs and adventure designers. I run a campaign where PCs usually have only one encounter in a game day, or maybe two on rare occasions, and while I haven't had any problem doing that and challenging the PCs constantly, it's difficult to do when you're not slowly draining PC resources over multiple encounters. And it would be nigh impossible to have the PCs have a dozen encounters in the day. The "per encounter" balancing approach would make it easier for DMs who aren't very mechanically sound to run adventures with any number of encounters in a day, and I think that's a good thing.

 

[hong]

Also, Roman gets 10 points for using "paradigm" in a thread title.


Hong "who's up for milieu?" Ooi

 

[satori01]

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.

 

[Psion]

Of the OP's supposed paradigms, I'll go with
1) Good
2) Dumb

Myself.

Class benefits at every level is something some other d20 system games have been doing for a while, and I quietly sigh when I step back into D&D.

However, I feel that the endurance for power tradeoffs is a classic balance method that gives players access to some extra flash without unecessarily nerfing the powers of the class. I have not problem with classes that do use it, but it shouldn't be the only method.

Further, "encounter" is an artificial measurement medium. A good example of where this falls down is in dungeonscape, where a class gets "per encounter" abilities that are useful outside of encounters. What, if you run out of uses, do you go get into a fight so you can use it again? I haven't seen that sort of ultra-metagamey mechanic since DL SAGA, and I don't care to see it again.

 

[hong]

Further, "encounter" is an artificial measurement medium.

Which has been used since 2000; cf barbarian rage.

 

[Psion]

Which has been used since 2000; cf barbarian rage.

Barbarian rage has per day usages. So even it recognizes a need to regulate over a less artificial period.

 

[hong]

Barbarian rage has per day usages. So even it recognizes a need to regulate over a less artificial period.

Tch. The point is that difficulties like "what happens if you rage out of combat" or other supposed problems with measuring by encounters never seem to have been that insurmountable before. Nor are they that insurmountable now.