Per-Encounter/Per-Day Design and Gameplay Restrictions

[Hussar]

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.

Hrm, if I wanted to give someone else a +2 bonus to hit ('cos flanking with my d4 damage isn't doing me anything) I'd play a bard. Have you ever seen Aid Another used in combat? I sure haven't. With my leather armor and d6 hp's, standing in a position to make battlefield control matter means that I'm going to get smacked around lots and, even better, I cannot hurt it back.

Those aren't exactly great options. Give someone else a +2 bonus to hit, give someone else a +2 AC bonus or stand somewhere to be a punching bag. I can't imagine why anyone would think those options are not barrels of fun.

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.

Hrm, adventuring in a thousand year old tomb is poor adventure design? News to me. Different strokes I guess.

You've yet to give an example of the player getting involved in a way that actually lets him do anything. All you've given examples of are the player doing things that at best help someone else do something.

See, the problem here isn't that the rogue is too powerful. After all, we let the rogue sneak attack 75% of the monsters out there and it doesn't seem to hurt the game. My question is, why is changing that number from 75% to 100% a bad thing? Why is it a good thing for the game for a character to only be fun to play 3/4 of the time? If the cleric cannot turn something, he's still got umpteen options for directly influencing the encounter. The rogue doesn't. At best he can indirectly have any effect by giving someone else a bonus. Why is it so bad to let him have a direct effect all the time?

 

[Reynard]

You've yet to give an example of the player getting involved in a way that actually lets him do anything. All you've given examples of are the player doing things that at best help someone else do something.

See, the problem here isn't that the rogue is too powerful. After all, we let the rogue sneak attack 75% of the monsters out there and it doesn't seem to hurt the game. My question is, why is changing that number from 75% to 100% a bad thing? Why is it a good thing for the game for a character to only be fun to play 3/4 of the time? If the cleric cannot turn something, he's still got umpteen options for directly influencing the encounter. The rogue doesn't. At best he can indirectly have any effect by giving someone else a bonus. Why is it so bad to let him have a direct effect all the time?

This is simply an issue of differing definitions of what is fun. I don't think it is necessary to keep pace with all the other PCs on damage dealth or enemies defeated for the game to be fun or for a character to be "useful". YMMV, obviously.

Also:

Hrm, adventuring in a thousand year old tomb is poor adventure design? News to me. Different strokes I guess.

Um, no. Letting versimilitude or "consistency" get in the way of everyone's enjoyment is bad adventure design. If it is a published adventure or otherwise intended for general consumption, it is bad design because it negates one of the key abilities of one of the core archetypes of the game. If it is a homebrewed adventure intended for one's own group, it is bd design because it is specifically designed to nerf one of the players.

Of course, i'd hazard to guess you knew all that.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Hrm, if I wanted to give someone else a +2 bonus to hit ('cos flanking with my d4 damage isn't doing me anything) I'd play a bard. Have you ever seen Aid Another used in combat? I sure haven't.

I did. Whenever the player knew that his character couldn't meaningful affect other monsters, but still wanted at least do something and not running away cowardly. When I see it while I am DMing, I always feel like that the player in question dislikes it (and might even wish he had a different character). Whenever this happens, I have doubts about my design of the encounter.

And I totally agree, if he just wanted to just give a +2 bonus to hit, the player would have played a Bard. And he would even have an effective character then, and one he planned on playing! (and in fact, the last player I remember running in this problem, he played a Bard in another campaign, and he didn't look unhappy then. Because he knew he did his job. Unlike a Rogue - or Executioner - not hitting his foes)

 

[Hussar]

Um, no. Letting versimilitude or "consistency" get in the way of everyone's enjoyment is bad adventure design. If it is a published adventure or otherwise intended for general consumption, it is bad design because it negates one of the key abilities of one of the core archetypes of the game. If it is a homebrewed adventure intended for one's own group, it is bd design because it is specifically designed to nerf one of the players.

Of course, i'd hazard to guess you knew all that.

Wow, talk about player entitlement issues. Now the DM is forced to amend his adventures because of a failing in the rules? If the party contains a rogue, I should very rarely use certain monsters regardless of my campaign?

Me, I'd rather make a very small change in the rules and now everyone is happy.

What I don't understand is this. It's perfectly fine for the rogue to sneak attack 75% of the monsters in the monster manual. It's not overbalancing, it's acceptable. It's so acceptable that Reynard feels that DM's with rogues in the party should almost exclusively use those monsters and not use the ones that nerf the rogue.

Answer me this Reynard. If it's acceptable for the rogue to sneak attack a Frost Giant, a Bone Devil and an Ethereal Filtcher, why is it not okay for the rogue to sneak attack a Skeleton or a Flesh Golem?

 

[Reynard]

It's so acceptable that Reynard feels that DM's with rogues in the party should almost exclusively use those monsters and not use the ones that nerf the rogue.

Not what I said. What said was designing an adventure that included nothing but non-sneak attackable foes was bad design. Not an encounter. Not a location. An entire adventure. The DM's idea of what a dusty old tomb should look like be damned, there's still players at the table and you're running the game for them. And remember, I am the rat bastard DM who rolls dice in the open and hits the PCs with alignment violation points in my Dragonlance campaign. i ahve not problem making things hard on players -- but making it hard is not the same thing as saying, "You know what, for the next 4 weeks you can't use your character's primary cool ability." I'll say that for the next four hours, or for half the time over the next four weeks, but even I am not that big of a bastard. Like Is aid, forcing players to use different tactical options is fine, and fun. Forcing players to decide they chose the wrong character over the course of weeks is bad, bad DMing and adventure design.

Answer me this Reynard. If it's acceptable for the rogue to sneak attack a Frost Giant, a Bone Devil and an Ethereal Filtcher, why is it not okay for the rogue to sneak attack a Skeleton or a Flesh Golem?

Because, the above being said, it is okay to nerf a PCs abilities now and again to create a certain atmosphere (fear, mostly) or to engage them in a different kind of play, or to ask them to do something more interesting than just, "I flank it and hit it." Anti-magic fields are awesome -- every once in a while. Creatures with esoteric DRs are awesome -- every once in a while. Good aligned "bad guys" are awesome -- every once in a while. And, yes, creatures that can't be sneak attacked are awesome -- every once in a while.

I see it this way -- and this is just a function of my DMing style, so I don't expect you or anyone else to agree with it -- if a player decides on an ability or skill or whatever, they want to be able to use it. That means, most of the time they get to use it. And it also means that they are garaunteed to run into situations where it is suddenly unavailable, and they have to deal. If a player can't come up with something interesting to do -- if they are that focused on one aspect of their character or one aspect of play, or if they decided on a character build that was so one dimensional that they are useless outside of a singular set of circumstances -- I don't have any sympathy, nor do I feel compelled to provide them with their special situation 100% of the time -- especially since chances are the character is stupid broken in tat one set of circumstances and the reason the PC is built that way is because the player wants to win all the time.

Player entitlement, indeed. Take a look at my posting history and you'll see that player entitlement is a four letter word to me.

 

[Hussar]

Reynard, I would agree with you, IF the rogue had anything to fall back on. However, the rogue doesn't. I don't see it as a bad adventure design issue, I see it as a bad GAME design issue.

Like you said, it's okay in small doses. So, why have large swaths of creatures completely immune to a players SA? We're talking a fairly large amount of the Monster Manual here. Why not either do one of two things:

1) Make sneak attack universal or

2) Make the exception to sneak attack MUCH less common.

Sure, it might be great if this or that creature was immune to sneak attack. I'll agree, that adds a certain tactical aspect. But, making entire creature types immune to sneak attack just screws a class.

Me, I'm lazy. I'll go with option 1. Now the rogue is effective (not powerful, not overpowered, just effective, just like he is with most encounters) in all encounters and as a DM, I'm free to make whatever adventure I want.

It does make sense sometimes, to have a dungeon full of undead. So, why not make the rules follow that? Everyone wins here. The rogue player is happy because his stock archetype character works and the DM is happy because he doesn't have to walk on eggshells because someone happened to play a rogue.

Win win situation.

 

[Reynard]

Reynard, I would agree with you, IF the rogue had anything to fall back on. However, the rogue doesn't.

This, I think, is our main point of contention. I say the rogue does -- not necessarily in class abilities (although those count, as do class skills) but in the basic tactical rules of the game. He's got more options, in fact, than he has ever had.

Also, the number of creatures in the MM that can't be sneak attacked isn't necessarily a direct proportion to the number of creatures encountered that cannot be sneak attacked. Giants, dragons, orcs and bandits are far more common than golems, undead and oozes in most adventures and campaigns, I think.

And as to a dungeon filled with undead: long term dungeon crawls do not work with homogenous monster types. A small underground barrow full of undead? Sure. have at it. The rogue has to think of new ways to be useful. But big dungeons get boring really, really fast if there's one type of creature inside. That's why all old school dungeons look so wierd and nonsensical: it is a game design decision, not a world design one, that makes bugbears live next to gelatinous cubes.

 

[Hussar]

I'm going to agree to disagree with you on the idea that long term dungeon crawls do not work with homogeneous monster types. After all, Keep on the Borderlands is nothing but a series of long dungeon crawls filled with the same monster type in each cave.

World's Largest Dungeon, Rappan Athuk, the original Queen of the Demonweb Pits (not entirely homogeneous, but, LOTS of demons), the Giants modules (although there were some variation there) and Dragonlance modules had some prettty heavily themed dungeon crawls.

I just don't understand a game design reason where you basically single out one player and tell him that sometimes, he's going to ride the pines. Not through any choice of his own, but, because his class is designed in such a way that he will be very ineffective in certain circumstances.

Better game design would be to give him effective options (sorry, flanking is not effective, it's a passive option that really doesn't let ME do anything) or not have those exceptions.

 

[Reynard]

I just don't understand a game design reason where you basically single out one player and tell him that sometimes, he's going to ride the pines. Not through any choice of his own, but, because his class is designed in such a way that he will be very ineffective in certain circumstances.

They are all designed that way. No class is effective all the time. They aren't supposed to be; it feeds the team dynamic to have certain character types be more or less effective in certain types of situations, and it allows every PC to shine at one time or another.

 

[FireLance]

They are all designed that way. No class is effective all the time. They aren't supposed to be; it feeds the team dynamic to have certain character types be more or less effective in certain types of situations, and it allows every PC to shine at one time or another.

I don't think anyone disagrees that PCs can be more or less effective in various situations. The key issue is the minimum level of effectiveness of the PC. Currently, many PCs can reach levels of effectiveness that some people (including myself) consider to be too low. For example, the reverse of the previously-mentioned rogue vs undead scenario, party vs trap, allows the rogue to shine, but effectively sidelines the rest of the party.

In the case of party vs trap, the introduction of encounter traps allowed each member of the party to contribute significantly to the process of defeating a trap. Even if the rogue did the lion's share of the work (and he should - it's his specialty, after all), the fighter could smash one mechanism or hold back a moving wall for a round or two, and the wizard or cleric could blast apart another mechanism or dispel some magical effect.

As a general rule of thumb, I'd say that on average, a PC's effectiveness should not drop by more than half in encounters where he is supposed to be less effective. For example, giving a rogue half his sneak attack dice against undead, elementals, constructs, plants, etc. seems alright to me.