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

[Bagpuss]

The only issue with the dead level thing is it seems that gaining spells and access to high level spells is somehow not good enough to not be a dead level. And I don't understand why.

Because lots of prestige classes have +1 spellcaster level AND a funky ability. Hence they are noticeably better than a base class. The original design paradigm was that prestige classes should be about equal to base class just more specialised.

 

[Henry]

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

Basically, that would mean NOT running site-based adventures, unless XP awards were altered from "per challenge" to "per session."

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).

Which means that one can gain enough XP to level about 8 times before resting for the day. Even at the very least, if you follow that rule about, "you can only gain enough XP to place you just below next level." They're levelling every single session, with no break in between.

Too much ice cream gives you a belly-ache, as you know.

Huh?

What I'm getting at is that when the XP is based on "per challenge" and abilities regenerate after every encounter, then they could in theory take 100 combat challenges without stopping. There needs to be some kind of expended resource, or there is no dramatic tension. Imagine a Naxy SEAL team that never got tired, never needed ammo, and healed all injuries after every firefight. While it would make a general's dream-team, it makes for kind of boring storytelling. Feng Shui is a fantastic game, but I simply can't run an extended campaign in it - I've tried.

 

[hong]

Basically, that would mean NOT running site-based adventures, unless XP awards were altered from "per challenge" to "per session."

... or you could just stop complaining.

Which means that one can gain enough XP to level about 8 times before resting for the day. Even at the very least, if you follow that rule about, "you can only gain enough XP to place you just below next level." They're levelling every single session, with no break in between.

1. That can happen right now. In some of the AoW modules for instance, you can easily gain a level every session.

2. The DM is free to set the amount of XP on offer to whatever is consistent with what their internal timetable says is appropriate.

3. There is nothing wrong with decreeing that the end of a session coincides with the end of the day within the game world, if an in-game clock is necessary.

4. Who cares about in-game clocks? If you want ninjae to ambush the party at night, just say it happens. If nothing interesting is going to happen, then forget about it. If there is a countdown to when a Bad Thing happens, then yes, keep track of time between encounters. If not, then forget about it. The existence or otherwise of a timekeeping mechanism has nothing to do with running an enjoyable game.

Too much ice cream gives you a belly-ache, as you know.

Of course, that never stopped belly-aching for its own sake.

What I'm getting at is that when the XP is based on "per challenge" and abilities regenerate after every encounter, then they could in theory take 100 combat challenges without stopping. There needs to be some kind of expended resource, or there is no dramatic tension.

I am now wondering how those people who proclaim "I ran a game yesterday, and no combat even took place!" managed to get dramatic tension in there. Perhaps they just pretended to be excited.

Imagine a Naxy SEAL team that never got tired, never needed ammo, and healed all injuries after every firefight. While it would make a general's dream-team, it makes for kind of boring storytelling. Feng Shui is a fantastic game, but I simply can't run an extended campaign in it - I've tried.

That is possibly because you are trying to run D&D in Feng Shui.

 

[Sir Elton]

Paradigm is being misused.

New Design Intentions.

I'm not sure if I like them or not because I don't have all the books. So, there.

 

[Henry]

... or you could just stop complaining.

Then what would you have to complain about if I stopped complaining?

#1: Haven't seen all the AoW modules, but you're saying "some." I'm saying in a "per encounter" paradigm, it becomes "all."
#2. Agreed, but I'm thinking about the default rules in a few years. I don't have a problem with "per-encounter" as option, but I do have a problem with it as the default rules in a few years, which is the way it seems to be leaning, as I said earlier.

#3 & 4: Not sure of your meaning, here. I agree, but I'm just saying for those people who get annoyed with rapid levelling, they ain't seen nothing yet if all Classes go that route.

I am now wondering how those people who proclaim "I ran a game yesterday, and no combat even took place!" managed to get dramatic tension in there. Perhaps they just pretended to be excited.

Not sure I understand what dramatic tension in-combat has to do with dramatic tension out-of-combat?

That is possibly because you are trying to run D&D in Feng Shui.

Exactly -- I don't want to run D&D in Feng Shui, hence my concern for down the road.

 

[JVisgaitis]

1) Classes should gain a special ability at every level: There should be no dead levels for classes. This is in order to both make each level interesting and something to look forward to and probably to make base classes more attractive vis-a-vis prestige classes.

While I think an additional BAB or Spell is good enough for a level, I'm not opposed to giving characters an ability at every level. The more abilities a character has, the happier the players are and the more they want to advance. That certainly isn't a bad thing...

2) Balancing classes on a per encounter basis: There appears to be an attempt to balance new classes on a per encounter basis. Evidence for this can be seen, for example, in the factotum class as well as the new skill tricks.

This is something that's definitely needed to move the game forward. So many times players just end up resting for nothing more then to get their spells back. Plus, doing it on a per encounter basis is really the only way you are ever going to get CR's more balanced. While I think this changes a lot of dynamics in the game, I think it should be done so players have more stuff to do and to make encounters more exciting.

If 4e brings about these changes whenever its released, I'm all for it.

 

[hong]

Then what would you have to complain about if I stopped complaining?

I would post something else, of course!

#1: Haven't seen all the AoW modules, but you're saying "some." I'm saying in a "per encounter" paradigm, it becomes "all."

Rapid levelling is already the de facto standard for D&D. People have had ways of coping with this for years; either they like it and don't change anything, or they tweak XP awards down, or they whinge.

Further, I have no idea how you've suddenly jumped to the conclusion that balancing per-encounter means the levelling-in-13-encounters rule suddenly becomes invalid.

#2. Agreed, but I'm thinking about the default rules in a few years.

Cognitive dissonance will take care of "a few years", don't you worry. Let's talk about the here and now.

I don't have a problem with "per-encounter" as option, but I do have a problem with it as the default rules in a few years, which is the way it seems to be leaning, as I said earlier.

#3 & 4: Not sure of your meaning, here. I agree, but I'm just saying for those people who get annoyed with rapid levelling, they ain't seen nothing yet if all Classes go that route.

You are saying that per-encounter balancing does all sorts of horrible things to verisimilitude, because people can kill 1,001 monsters before lunch. I am saying who cares about when lunch takes place, because it no longer matters in strict game-mechanical terms. Have it occur whenever is most appropriate for satiating your sense of disbelief.

Not sure I understand what dramatic tension in-combat has to do with dramatic tension out-of-combat?

Oh, you were talking about COMBAT. You can still DIE in combat even with per-encounter balancing, so what are you worried about?

Exactly -- I don't want to run D&D in Feng Shui, hence my concern for down the road.

See above re cognitive dissonance.

 

[RFisher]

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.

Can we please kill the notion that a wizard is useless once he's used his daily allotment of spells? If the only thing you're bringing to the party is your spells & your crossbow, you might as well be an NPC henchman instead of a PC.

IMNSHO, of course. (^_^)

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.

See, I don't see that as a problem, big or otherwise. (^_^)

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Both of the new design paradigms (well, new for D&D, anyway) are excellent and will, ideally, excise their predecessors from the core rules of the next edition.

In particular, avoiding dead levels is something that should be obvious. I never NOT get points for completing a task in HERO, Gurps, BESM, RuneQuest, etc. Honestly, I don't think I've ever had a PC with a dead level; as soon as I see nothing in the Special column (or, worse yet, nothing more than +1 BAB or +1 to one or two saves), I start searching for another class that fits what I'm doing with the character. Spending XP to gain nothing does not appeal.

I do not agree, however, that gaining a new spell level is a dead level. There are basically no more powerful abilities in the entire game!

I can see why per-encounter balancing rubs people the wrong way - not just grognards, but
"realism" type simulationists and a certain type of gamist. I couldn't care less about the realism and prefer the tactical structures created by per-encounter balancing; as far as the story and characters are concerned, per-encounter seems, generally speaking, better, since you don't have the enforced resting paradigm to deal with.

 

[Wardo]

I'm of two minds when it comes to per-encounter balance.

On the one hand, I still remember playing my first wizard and asking, "What do I do after I cast this spell?" I'd like magical characters to be able to stay magical throughout the day.

On the other hand, the other game I play currently in Mutants and Masterminds, which is a great game, and is definitely 100% per-encounter balanced, with everyone basically being Warlocks. But I find this leads to all the PCs feeling kind of "samey" - the main difference between a fighter type and a wizard type is that one has to walk up to his enemy before he does his thing. I enjoy M&M, but I still play D&D because I feel its a distinct gaming experience. I like resource management, I like being worn down. But I hate resting every three hours.

I think reserve feats are a good middle point. You have access to real flash, but you have to conserve it to maintain your staying power. I've also found that at low levels, days last a lot longer if you just hand your wizards and sorcerors a free wand of the most appropriate combat cantrip. This also saves them from their crossbow.

Maybe there's another compromise-style solution, where at a certain point, entire spell levels become infinite uses per day. Or maybe the character can pick one spell they know to become infinite (from the max level they can cast minus 2 or something) each time they gain a new spell level. I'm sure there's spells where this is abusive (cure anything, for example) - but maybe it's a starting point.