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

[Mercule]

Issue #1, Dead Levels, I'm OK with seeing classes built so that they get something every level; fighter levels 5, 7, and 11 used to annoy me every time I played one. But with a caveat: I'm fine witn including levels 3,4,6,8,9,12,15,16,18 and 20 in the calculation, because you ARE getting something at those levels no matter what class you play; it's when the only thing you get is BAB, or hit dice, or more spells, that bugs me. And I don't think it should be as one class compared to another class; it should be as one class compared to all levels.

Issue #2, the "per-encounter" shift, I DEFINITELY don't like. I don't mind it as an option, but seeing it as the way all of D&D might go in a few years' time annoys me greatly.

Agreed on both accounts, specifically with the inclusion of the 3, 4, 6, etc. levels as non-dead. Doesn't mean you can't have some really cool levels that give more than one thing, but a feat is not an empty level.

Oh, and if the problem with counting +1 caster level as a dead level comes from PrCs, that tells me that the PrCs are poorly designed moreso than the base classes.

As for the "per encouter" model, ick. I hate it -- hate it mightily. Having an occasional mechanic that functions that way is fine and adds variety. What's causing the "fight, fight, rest; fight, fight, rest" rhythm isn't daily resource management. It's all in the spell casters and the Vancian system coupled with a somewhat more deadly encounter (CR) paradigm and fewer wandering monsters.

I run two games with the exact same players. One is by the book and the other uses spell points. The spell point system is significantly less prone to fight, fight, rest while the other game usually doesn't even make a second fight in a day. Previous editions discouraged this through a combination of weaker "mook" encounters, wandering monsters attacking underwear-clad resting characters, and the understanding that spellcasters would act less often but be much cooler when they did.

I'm all for killing off Vancian magic, but some sort of ablative resource allocation needs to be kept. Spell points works, though it may not be the ideal. There has to be a good solution, though.

 

[frankthedm]

Ya, they messed up with giving many of them full spellcasting plus

Ditto. Almost no PRC should give full spellcasting unless it actually weakens said spellcasting [see alienist] or has a major mitigating factor [must multiclass 3-4 levels to get in].

 

[Jedi_Solo]

Issue #1, Dead Levels, I'm OK with seeing classes built so that they get something every level; fighter levels 5, 7, and 11 used to annoy me every time I played one. But with a caveat: I'm fine witn including levels 3,4,6,8,9,12,15,16,18 and 20 in the calculation, because you ARE getting something at those levels no matter what class you play; it's when the only thing you get is BAB, or hit dice, or more spells, that bugs me.

The problem with including these levels into the calculation is the same problem as increasing spellcasting progression: you will be getting that benefit no matter what. If you are gaining a third character level you gain the feat no matter what class level you gain. So if you are debating between a third level of fighter and something else that gives you the Fun New Ability, why take only the feat and not the feat AND the FNA? (Sure, there a lot of valid reasons to stick with fighter but my point still stands).

Taking those levels into account when trying to solve Dead Level Syndrome won't work with the current multi-classing rules. Count me as someone who says the Feats and Spell Levels shouldn't really be dead levels, but I'm not sure how to solve it when you have the A vs A + B problem.

Of course, I prefer the per-encounter mentality since it's a lot easier to calculate how many encounters anr "too many" this way and its a lot easier to keep the time crunch of a storyline (stop the ritual, etc) if a single fight goes horribly, horribly wrong (and it isn't really the players fault); so what do I know?

 

[MerricB]

Ditto. Almost no PRC should give full spellcasting unless it actually weakens said spellcasting [see alienist] or has a major mitigating factor [must multiclass 3-4 levels to get in].

One of the big problems about not having full spellcasting in a prestige class is that it weakens the prestige class to the point of unplayability. There are very few exceptions.

Quite simply, the acquisition of new spell levels is the most significant part of determining the ability of a party. A class that loses 3 levels of spellcasting is much, much weaker than you might think. For a sorcerer, even 1 level is catastrophic. There are few special abilities that make up for even one level loss.

Mystic Theurges and the like must take Practiced Spellcaster merely to attempt to be on a par with a specialist spellcaster, and even then the loss of 1-2 spell levels severely restricts their ability. Only having 3rd level spells when they should have 5th level spells? Not good at all. Versatility is a joke when you can't even cast the spells you need.

Consider the prestige classes that spellcasters actually take in your games, and how effective they are.

Cheers!

 

[Psion]

That seems rather excessive to me, though I guess I can see the logic behind it: Spellcasting is part of progression just like BAB...

That's crap AFAIAC. New spells = new things to play with, not just a numerical booster = not a dead level.

That said, I learned in a hurry that all classes that have full progressions and abilities aren't overpowered. Unless you cheese the entry into Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil, it's not ALL THAT[TM].

 

[BryonD]

There are many different ways to address the issue, but the simple matter is that if the Wizard blows through all his spells and you've got 10 more encounters before they can leave, he's going to die or be useless with his crossbow. Encounter planning, adjusting to the players, adjusting the players, or giving them options for something Per Encounter instead of Per Day can all be included in the system without removing the Per Day material already present.

And the solution to players complaining that a DM is punishing them should not reside between the covers of a book.

 

[Greg K]

I just hate it when the party wakes up, goes to the dungeon, gets in three fights, and has to retreat for the "day"--all before lunchtime. It's lame to imagine these supposed heroes cooped up in their little Rope Trick, twiddling thumbs for 20 hours. Lame!.

Well, I always thought Rope trick was lame so its banned when I run.

 

[MerricB]

New spells = new things to play with, not just a numerical booster = not a dead level.

Definitely agree. The Sorcerer, Wizard and Cleric are all fine from the point of view of "getting new stuff". It's just combining with prestige classes that can be problematic. :\

Cheers!

 

[Vocenoctum]

Previous editions discouraged this through a combination of weaker "mook" encounters, wandering monsters attacking underwear-clad resting characters, and the understanding that spellcasters would act less often but be much cooler when they did.

The CR system actually makes that somewhat easier. The problem is too many adventures that make every encounter equal to the characters level, then having the big boss be higher. There's also the problem of not having rest breaks written into the narrative.

I'm all for killing off Vancian magic, but some sort of ablative resource allocation needs to be kept. Spell points works, though it may not be the ideal. There has to be a good solution, though.

I've had a few Psionic types in games, the problem there is judging how many points to spend still though. If you max out and blast all your points, you're still screwed. It was one of the things I liked about Shadowrun, being able to manage your magic as you wished. You could blast powerful stuff with repurcussions, or you could toss low power all day.

 

[Vocenoctum]

And the solution to players complaining that a DM is punishing them should not reside between the covers of a book.

The rules can support multiple play styles, and this problem is not limited to just me or my group. This IS a discussion about such mechanics being introduced, so I guess you're objecting to the mechanics by focusing on my post of a common problem?