Per-Encounter/Per-Day Design and Gameplay Restrictions

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

In a horror RPG?

I think it might work out better in a horror RPG ...

 

[Celebrim]

Is there any DM who has not run a delve-into-a-tomb, fight-the-undead-guards adventure at least once?

Probably not.

But in general, my undead filled tombs are generally filled with traps and fiendish puzzles, as well as some combat variaty to the encounters - traps that summon creatures, horrid aberrations, weak outsiders, etc. I'm not going to throw a dungeon against a party that is a walkover for clerics, or a horrorshow for rogues.

I think historically this has been true as well. Tomb of Horrors is a 'delve-into-a-tomb, fight-the-undead-guards' adventure, but I'd like to see you try it without a rogue.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

You think that is simple?

No - but I do think leveling the power curve isn't ridiculously complex.

One of a rogue's 'things' is that they are a trap finder.

Something which, hopefully, will be changed specifically because of the points you lay out.

One of the cleric's 'things' is 'good against undead'. It is a basic fundamental ability of clerics and without it, it just wouldn't feel like D&D. But the common situation is 'there are no undead'.

Rather, I'd say that the common situation is "there are almost always *some* undead." Not in every fight, of course, but probably in at least a couple fights out of every adventure.

That being said, I don't believe that an "All undead adventure" is uncommon; do you disagree? I think that "Descent into the Crypts of Calalstree" is a perfectly okay thing for a DM to run.

The problem is that one base class in particular goes *hork* when the DM does this.

And if the traps show up and no rogue, then everyone is going, 'Heh, it's a trap. Almost all of my abilities are useless!'.

You may have noticed that one of the stated design goals of 4E (and expressed in Dungeonscape) is specifically to eliminate this situation.

It wouldn't be hard to site similar failures of communication for D&D. A classic example would be everyone shows up with an evil or shady PC and wants a gritty crime game, except for one or two players who wants to play noble Paladins.

Somehow, I can't seem to equate this issue with "I want to play a rogue."

 

[pemerton]

I think that D&D, as the most common first-time RPG, does have a lot to gain from trying to facilitate enjoyable play by first-time players with first-time GMs. Notions of class role and monster role, which will be in 4e, I imagine are intended to help with this.

Good adventure-design rules/guidelines can also help.

And so can designing classes well. Part of this is keeping in mind that "useful" is not the same thing as "fun to play in a game" - because while it may be satisfying for the PC, in-game, to be useful, for it to be satisfying for the player also the player must be getting some sort of pleasure out of it. What is needed, therefore, are class abilities that are useful in-game and fun for the player. If combat is going to continue to occupy the bulk of the time at the gaming player, these clearly must include combat ablities.

 

[Hussar]

See, Celebrim, you're effectively saying that to play an effective rogue, you should *not* play a rogue. That it's perfectly okay for the rules to completely hose a character class because, by choosing elements outside of that class, you can get around being hosed.

To me, it would be a FAR simpler fix to add the following line to the rogue: "When you flank a creature or when the creature is denied its Dex bonus, you gain your sneak attack bonus damage." No exceptions. The only reason there is an exception is because of legacy rules from earlier editions where backstab required a "visible anatomy" or some such wording.

Why? Why should large numbers of creatures be immune to the rogue? Is the rogue class so overpowered that it needs this limitation? Would making constructs and undead subject to sneak attack unbalance the game? Why? Why is it ok to sneak attack a dire lion, but not a zombie?

There's no real reason, other than legacy rules.

Eject the legacy rules and now your rogue character can actually be equally viable in all situations. He's not more powerful than he was before. He's not gaining anything really. He's just stopped being baggage whenever a zombie pops up.

To me, that's pretty simple.

BTW, for your edification, here is the character sheet in question: Milo

Also note, this is the first adventure to feature large numbers of constructs and the like, and, we had no warning that this would happen. Previous adventures had little or no undead or constructs (although, I do remember a shambling mound ) So, there was no real reason to build an "anti-undead" rogue.

 

[Reynard]

Eject the legacy rules and now your rogue character can actually be equally viable in all situations. He's not more powerful than he was before. He's not gaining anything really. He's just stopped being baggage whenever a zombie pops up.

In doing so, the backstab/sneak attack ability loses some of its inherent flavour and archtypical (for D&D anyway) quality and becomes a straight damage bonus. One might as well say all 4e character classes get a +xdX bonus to damage per level regardless of the circumstances. That drains the life out of the classes and the game, IMO, and means that there's little reason to choose one character type over another.

Assuming there's actually a difference between playing a fighter or a rogue or a wizard, all characters shouldn't be equally viable in all situations. Certain situations should let the fighters shine, others the rogue and still others the wizard. It is incumbent upon the DM or adventure designer (or both) to make sure that an individual adventure or session makes every character useful or viable; any individual encounter must be able to vary greatly, however, or they all become the same with a different coat of paint.

One of the problems with making the encounter the basic unit of play in 4E is that it changes the dynamic between the players and their characters. No longer is it necessary for the warrior to step back and save his hit points so the cleric can turn the zombie hoard to dust. No longer does a character for which the encounter is difficult -- like the rogue versus undead or constructs -- have to come up with ways to be helpful and useful, because they can just run up and hack away. The wizard isn't required to make judicious use of his or her spells anymore, reserving them for the BBEG or savinga few slots for knock or comprehend languages, because resources expended and encounters following are almost irrelevent to the current ones.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

In doing so, the backstab/sneak attack ability loses some of its inherent flavour and archtypical (for D&D anyway) quality and becomes a straight damage bonus. One might as well say all 4e character classes get a +xdX bonus to damage per level regardless of the circumstances. That drains the life out of the classes and the game, IMO, and means that there's little reason to choose one character type over another.

It's still a big difference whether you always get the bonus or only when flanking or surprising someone else. But the flanking/surprising part is something you can affect. Whether your opponent is an undead or a humanoid, you can't really change.

Sneak Attack is primarily a tactical option that enhances the game because you have to do something to get its benefit. If there weren't such options, all meelee warriors would ever do was standing around and making full attacks.
Just speaking of this, I think that this might be one of the greatest weaknesses of ranged combat - there are little tactical options you have there. I wonder if D&D 4 will do something about that, too.

 

[pemerton]

In doing so, the backstab/sneak attack ability loses some of its inherent flavour and archtypical (for D&D anyway) quality and becomes a straight damage bonus.

<snip>

That drains the life out of the classes and the game, IMO, and means that there's little reason to choose one character type over another.

I don't remember any rule in 1st ed AD&D or Moldvay Basic that precluded backstabbing undead and shambling mounds.

Assuming there's actually a difference between playing a fighter or a rogue or a wizard, all characters shouldn't be equally viable in all situations. Certain situations should let the fighters shine, others the rogue and still others the wizard.

Assuming by "viable" you really do mean viable, and not (for example) powerful, this is good advice only for a certain sort of game - one in which the players are prepared to endure a certain amount of tedium or significantly deferred pleasure, in return for a lot of fun later on. I'm not sure that a majority of RPGers fit this description.

It is incumbent upon the DM or adventure designer (or both) to make sure that an individual adventure or session makes every character useful or viable

<snip>

One of the problems with making the encounter the basic unit of play in 4E is that it changes the dynamic between the players and their characters. No longer is it necessary for the warrior to step back and save his hit points so the cleric can turn the zombie hoard to dust. No longer does a character for which the encounter is difficult -- like the rogue versus undead or constructs -- have to come up with ways to be helpful and useful, because they can just run up and hack away. The wizard isn't required to make judicious use of his or her spells anymore, reserving them for the BBEG or savinga few slots for knock or comprehend languages, because resources expended and encounters following are almost irrelevent to the current ones.

The problem is that what a player plays a game for is his or her own fun, not the usefulness of an imaginary person in an imaginary world. So unless the mode of PC utility is also a source of player enjoyment, usefulness is neither here nor there. Given that combat dominates the time spent playing D&D, the usefulness must be of a sort that allows the player to enjoy combat - and not just every 3rd round, but every round. Who wants to play a game in which you constantly miss turns?

So what you identify as a bug is, in fact, a feature - assuming that the players largely have the sort of preferences I have identified above.

any individual encounter must be able to vary greatly, however, or they all become the same with a different coat of paint.

Rolemaster has no rules comparable to sneak attack, which negates a major class's combat abilities against a certain proportion of foes. But I can tell you that, nevertheless, not all characters play the same in combat. In fact, my RM game has two non-spell-using twin-blade wielding fighters, and these two characters play very differently in combat, because of the various tactical, acrobatic etc techniques each has developed. 4e will (with its talent trees, per-encounter abilities etc) be aimed at replicating this sort of variation, I imagine.

 

[Hussar]

In doing so, the backstab/sneak attack ability loses some of its inherent flavour and archtypical (for D&D anyway) quality and becomes a straight damage bonus. One might as well say all 4e character classes get a +xdX bonus to damage per level regardless of the circumstances. That drains the life out of the classes and the game, IMO, and means that there's little reason to choose one character type over another.

Umm, no.

As I mentioned before, sneak attack only works if you flank or attack when the target loses its Dex bonus. That's significantly different than a straight up +xdx bonus. You are confusing mechanics with flavour. The rogue never lost his backstab opportunities because of flavour reasons, but because it was meant as a balancing issue. For some bizarre reason, some people thought that thieves might dominate combat.

Assuming there's actually a difference between playing a fighter or a rogue or a wizard, all characters shouldn't be equally viable in all situations. Certain situations should let the fighters shine, others the rogue and still others the wizard. It is incumbent upon the DM or adventure designer (or both) to make sure that an individual adventure or session makes every character useful or viable; any individual encounter must be able to vary greatly, however, or they all become the same with a different coat of paint.

You confusing being viable with being equally capable. Being viable means that you aren't sitting on your thumbs because you simply cannot do anything directly related to your character. In earlier editions, damage reduction was all or nothing. If you didn't have enough pluses on your weapon, you might as well sit it out. That forced DM's to give out magic weapons that let the players affect the creatures, if they wanted to give the PC's a chance of winning the fight, or they simply could not use those creatures. ((Again, assuming the DM wants the PC's to win the fight and not run away))

Sneak attack means that game elements beyond the player's control make the difference between contributing to a fight and warming the pines. So, either the player has to burn significant resources to overcome that limitation (and, in the process work against that archetype you are so eloquently defending) or the DM should choose different encounters to tailor to the PC. Neither option is very good.

One of the problems with making the encounter the basic unit of play in 4E is that it changes the dynamic between the players and their characters. No longer is it necessary for the warrior to step back and save his hit points so the cleric can turn the zombie hoard to dust. No longer does a character for which the encounter is difficult -- like the rogue versus undead or constructs -- have to come up with ways to be helpful and useful, because they can just run up and hack away. The wizard isn't required to make judicious use of his or her spells anymore, reserving them for the BBEG or savinga few slots for knock or comprehend languages, because resources expended and encounters following are almost irrelevent to the current ones.

Did you EVER see this in play? I've never, EVER seen the fighter PC back up to let the cleric dust zombies. Or "save his hit points" against any opponent. The fighter sees a fight and, well fights.

You are also making unfounded assumptions here about the expenditures of resources. You do not have enough information to make these kinds of statements. You THINK that per encounter resources are going to have this effect, but, you don't know any better than anyone else.

 

[Reynard]

Sneak attack means that game elements beyond the player's control make the difference between contributing to a fight and warming the pines. So, either the player has to burn significant resources to overcome that limitation (and, in the process work against that archetype you are so eloquently defending) or the DM should choose different encounters to tailor to the PC. Neither option is very good.

There's another option, which is to contribute in ways that aren't necessarily related to dealing damage. In 3.x, for example, a rogue can help flank, aid another, use his more capable movement (via tumble) to help control the battlefield, and otherwise engage in tactical play that helps the entire group be successful.

As I said before, an adventure that is designed with nothing but undead or constructs or whatever is a poorly designed adventure. Versimilitude or not, the game is built in such a way that the rogue, for example, is supposed to have opportunity to use his sneak attack a good portion of the time. But this isn't to say there are some instances in which the rogue might not be able to -- and it is during those instances that it is up to the player to continue to be a valuable asset to the group by contributing (or even staying the hell out of the way, so as not to get smashed so he can be valuable later on).

There is no reason, particularly in 3E with its myriad of tactical choices, for any character to "sit on his thumbs" in any given encounter if the player really wants to get involved. There's smart decisions, there's good tactics, but there's still plenty of opportunity for even the wizard who has cast his last magic missile to contribute. D&D is team based, not "group of individuals" based, and players that can't assume a support role in certain situations are doing their team a disservice.