New Legends and Lore:Head of the Class

[Gundark]

I honestly don't know where he is going with these. I thought the discussion of races kinda like classes where interesting. Being able to customize your race as you go is cool.

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Head of the Class)

I also thought it interesting that there is this recognization of the rules bloat as editions have progressed. While stating it really isn't a big deal, there seemed to be a tone that this maybe wasn't the direction to go, that maybe they had lost something by excluding those who don't want a rules bloated D&D. YMMV.

 

[AeroDm]

I think this is the first article that I've actually disagreed with. I am big fan of simplicity, but it doesn't feel like he is driving at "simple" as much as "pre-fab." If something is simple, even a new player can run through, understand the tradeoffs, and quickly make an informed decision. Building in a bunch of rules so that a pickup game has pre-fabricated characters sounds like a great job for a splat product, not the core books.

Also, this statement:
"By breaking down the math behind the game, we can judge the relative value of a power you can use once per day and a feat that gives you a bonus to all of your attacks."

No. No you cannot unless you know what a character will do in any given day in any given campaign at any given game table. "Once per day" does not a good unit of game design balance make.

 

[Gundark]

depends what you mean by prefab. Earlier editions certainly had "prefab" written on them, choices where limited. However consider Savage Worlds, a very easy game to pick up and learn where there are some choices about what your character looks like without being "prefab"

 

[Frostmarrow]

I'm afraid having basic rules and advanced rules in the same book is the same as only having advanced rules. The setup suggests you sould advance to the more advanced game as soon as possible. Gamers will make this transition before even trying the basic game. Which would be a shame for those who would benefit from playing basic.

I'd rather see a book that turns the board game Castle Ravenloft into a fully fledged RPG. But that's just me.

 

[Dragonhelm]

I don't know if it's possible, but I would like to see a D&D that could be as simple as C&C or as complex as Pathfinder. Offer something for everyone.

Color me optimistic.

 

[FireLance]

Also, this statement:
"By breaking down the math behind the game, we can judge the relative value of a power you can use once per day and a feat that gives you a bonus to all of your attacks."

No. No you cannot unless you know what a character will do in any given day in any given campaign at any given game table. "Once per day" does not a good unit of game design balance make.

On the one hand, you're right: a constant bonus and a once per day bonus will hardly ever be precisely equal. On the other hand, I don't think that level of precision is necessary to have an enjoyable game.

What I think would be useful would be to have the balancing assumptions stated upfront, so that DMs who want to can further rebalance the game elements to suit their indivdual playstyles.

For example, the net effect of a +1 bonus to hit would be that for every 20 attack rolls, one attack that would have missed changes into a hit. If it is assumed that every character makes twenty attack rolls per day (say, an average of four encounters of five rounds per day), then it is approximately equivalent to a daily ability that changes a missed attack into a hit. A DM who favors longer or shorter adventuring days can then use this information to tinker with the relative strengths of the powers if he wants to.

 

[AeroDm]

On the one hand, you're right: a constant bonus and a once per day bonus will hardly ever be precisely equal. On the other hand, I don't think that level of precision is necessary to have an enjoyable game.

What I think would be useful would be to have the balancing assumptions stated upfront, so that DMs who want to can further rebalance the game elements to suit their indivdual playstyles.

For example, the net effect of a +1 bonus to hit would be that for every 20 attack rolls, one attack that would have missed changes into a hit. If it is assumed that every character makes twenty attack rolls per day (say, an average of four encounters of five rounds per day), then it is approximately equivalent to a daily ability that changes a missed attack into a hit. A DM who favors longer or shorter adventuring days can then use this information to tinker with the relative strengths of the powers if he wants to.

See, this I agree with. But the "daily" aspect of it just doesn't work because it implies something about the nature of the adventure, not the adventurer. So if you wanted to say that a character made 5 attack per combat, leveled once every ten combats, and therefore a +1 bonus to all attacks is equal to a *level* power that refreshes each time you gain a level, you got an argument. Just make the static power 1/50th the level power and we are good to go.

Balancing things by "days" is probably on my top-5 list of things I like least about 4e and is the closest thing to the D&D ninjas coming into your house and telling you how to play the game I can think of.

 

[Anselyn]

This is as interesting as ever. My first thoughts were that MM has had a look at Ryan Dancey's colum here - or is thinking the same things.

See: Short-timers are discouraged in

http://www.enworld.org/forum/columns/306026-4-hours-w-rsd-lets-have-flamewar.html

I'm afraid having basic rules and advanced rules in the same book is the same as only having advanced rules.

It depends on what the advanced rules offer. If advanced rules offer customisation rather than optimisation then that's not necessarily the case. e.g in WFRP2, the advanced rules offer hit location and armour-by-location. It's optional, flavourful but not a must for min-maxers, or even for storytellers.

In this case, if the "pre-fab" Class-Core generalist (I guess it's a default build) is a competitive generalist then that will be fine for the drop-in player.

I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that Pathfinder effectively has a bonus system that rewards characters that haven't multiclassed. There's a reward in place for sticking to a core class archetype. You could do the same with the build idea: swings-and-roundabouts in advanced rule use.

 

[TwoSix]

Balancing things by "days" is probably on my top-5 list of things I like least about 4e and is the closest thing to the D&D ninjas coming into your house and telling you how to play the game I can think of.

The issue that I see is, if Mike was talking about making 4e 2.0, I would agree with you. (My personal belief is that "dailies" should only be available upon gathering enough resources, either during the encounter or across multiple encounters.)

But Mike is trying to stick to the classic D&D tropes with this new design, it seems, which means "more simulationism", and that's where days makes more sense. (Sense by which everybody knows that resting is recharging, because that's what resting does. It's one of those mental constructs which is so ingrained in a D&D outlook that it's nearly impossible to escape.)

 

[TerraDave]

Thread Ninjaed?!!

I mean, I GUESS anyone can just link to those posts.

I guess.