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

[hong]

On the contrary, if clerics received their healing "per encounter" then we could well see some first level characters enter The Dungeon of Doom in the morning, and come out at 8pm that night at 10th character level! If people used to complain about someone unrealistically achieving ten levels in two weeks, I can only imagine the fits received at that kind of paradigm-shift.

Only you can control what you complain about. Take control of your destiny today!

Site-based adventures would have to be radically altered, and encounter-driven adventures, where encounters are sparse, would have to be the norm.

Nonsense. You can do a site-based adventure just fine, it just means you no longer need to stop doing fun stuff so you can do some un-fun stuff (get some shut-eye).

If all of D&D changes to a "per-encounter" basis, XP awards will need to be shifted to "per session" than "per challenge" (say the PC's get 300 xp x level per game session or similar).

Huh?

 

[Nifft]

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.

I'm going to introduce some new terminology: externally balanced vs. internally balanced.

Externally balanced classes are those that give full goodies (for some dimension of goody-ness, like spells or BAB) and also give extra goodies which augment this dimension, but we thin they're okay because you had to take something sucky (e.g. Toughness) to get in.

Internally balanced classes are those that focus on one kind of goody (e.g. spells or BAB) but don't give as good a progression as a base class. You don't necessarily have to take something sucky to get in.

I'm also going to suggest that external balance is basically a myth.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Psion]

I'm also going to suggest that external balance is basically a myth.

I'm going to suggest you're wrong.

In the realm of arcane casters, feat selection is very important. Compelling tepid feat selections that seldom come into play in exchange for abilities that are about as potent as the upper end of a feat chain is, on the whole, balanced.

 

[Nifft]

I'm going to suggest you're wrong.

In the realm of arcane casters, feat selection is very important. Compelling tepid feat selections that seldom come into play in exchange for abilities that are about as potent as the upper end of a feat chain is, on the whole, balanced.

True. On the whole and also over 20 levels. But the "sweet spot" factor (and corresponding "suck spot" factor) manifest as meta-game mechanics -- not game mechanics. This is bad.

If you're starting at 14th level: Mystic Theurge is a decent PrC.

If you're playing from 3rd level to 9th level: Mystic Theurge is a sucking chest wound.

This is bad. There should be a PrC that's internally balanced to play well if you start at level 3 or level 15. You should be allowed to play your concept no matter what level your DM chooses. And the viability of a concept shouldn't depend on your starting level.

I don't think that "suck now, win later" is a viable balance mechanic. And I don't think you disagree with this.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Psion]

I don't think that "suck now, win later" is a viable balance mechanic. And I don't think you disagree with this.

Let's just say
1) I'm less sympathetic to what I'll call "petty player quibbles" than you think I might be.
2) I have more respect for players who don't always make the choice that's only good for them in the short term.
3) Just as I don't think all balance should be based around the supposition that play occurs at 20th, nor do I think that all play runs from 1-20 is the sole valid criteria.

I guess what it comes down to is "how sucky are you talking here"? An inferior feat choice is still a feat. A class that gives minor benefits later for minor cost now is acceptable. A class that gives the big payoff now for the big suck now is less tolerable.

 

[Hussar]

I'm a fan of the idea of "per-encounter" balancing. It really helps in level design; an EL9 encounter could be a cake-walk for a rested party, and a TPK for a party that pushed one room too far. The current mechanic encourages ultra-cautious play and regular retreats; the game actively discourages long, grueling expeditions.

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!

I would suggest that this is more a DM issue than a mechanics one. What the mechanics say is that after around 4 APL=EL encounters, you should need to rest. If you want long grueling expeditions, then start knocking down the EL per encounter a trifle and you're good to go. The problem is more one of DM's not bothering to factor that into their adventure design and then complaining when the players always want to rest after every encounter.

Perhaps a reasonable replacement is to refresh certain combat abilities between encounters, but limit the number of times a character can be healed. Like, "A character can receive a number of points of healing per day equal to 12+con bonus x level. After that, his body has suffered too much shock and any further healing spells do not function."

Make HPs the precious resource.

Going off that, perhaps use something similar to the existing spell system, but give casters who have run out of spells/day the option of burning HPs to power spells. And use reserve feats to give them the option of doing something during a round, even if they don't want to burn a spell slot.

Not an entirely bad idea IMO. However, I would take it the other way and make non-healing spells the precious resource. Allow clerics unlimited casting of the zero level healing spell - essentially a slow acting Heal spell. Then games will be based on how much the wizzie blows through his spell bag each encounter.

But, honestly, the whole idea of pacing is perhaps one that should be more explicitly explored in the DMG. Using 4 encounters/day (Which isn't totally true) as a baseline and then giving hints on how to do more or less. If you use 1 encounter/day, then jack up the EL by about 3 or 4 to reflect this. If you want 10 per day, then ratchet down each encounter by about 3 or 5 EL's.

 

[Li Shenron]

"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".

That's not very different from:

"Legolas save us from the Balrog!!".
"Sorry mate I used all my arrows against the Orc with class levels....your swords will have to do".

That's something that doesn't bother anyone...

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

Spycraft has a very well functioning approach, with abilities being usable on a session basis, mission basis, scene basis or encounter basis. It all depends on the ability in question.
Hits heal rapidly as well.

Crafty Games has begun to release fantasy material for SC. The first spellcaster released (a battlemage) has spell points per scene. Haven't playtested yet, but it looks very workable.

 

[hong]

That's not very different from:

"Legolas save us from the Balrog!!".
"Sorry mate I used all my arrows against the Orc with class levels....your swords will have to do".

That's something that doesn't bother anyone...

That's why I never bother to track ammunition.

 

[IceFractal]

I don't think there can be a perfect system for how fast abilities recharge, because different people, or even the same people, want different things.

On the one hand, per-day abilities encourage a couple hours of combat followed by many hours of resting, which is, for most genres, pretty lame. On the other hand, per-encounter abilties, if everyone has them, lead to a lack of limiting factors on how much a party can blast through in a day - it's entirely possible to rampage through an entire city without taking a break.

The main point being, sometimes the PCs should "feel the burn" of resource exhaustion, and sometimes they should be able to do what's necessary without stopping for a rest break. And there's not really a good way to deal with this, without resorting to entirely metagame measurements like sessions and scenes, which have their own problems.


I'd also like to point out that while it's often said that "the Fighter stays powerful after the spellcasters run out of slots", I don't find it to be true in most cases. Warriors need HP. They can't get their HP healed if the Cleric is out of slots, and they lose more HP when the Wizard isn't backing them up. And once they're low on HP, they either have to take a high risk of dying or hide in the back and be semi-useless. So in fact, while the warriors may last an encounter or two longer, they're likely to push for rest as much as anyone.