Per-Encounter/Per-Day Design and Gameplay Restrictions

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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 think it fits the team dynamic better if the party has to work together in each encounter, instead of having an encounter where only a subset of the PCs are really required. Each has his speciality, but the speciality should be useable in every encounter. I think the 4th edition Roles will serve this purpose well.

But D&D isn't the first game to suffer from this problem. Shadowrun has always suffered the same problem - a Decker and a Street Samurai work best in totally different scenarioes, and unless you min-maxed considerably, the Street Samurai would never be useful in a Hacking/Decking scenario and the Decker is a liability in a typical firefight.
(And mages going into astral space? No teamwork there. But luckily, astral space is accessibly everywhere).
4th edition Shadowrun is probably closest to compensate this, by introducing the Augmented Reality (but it's still more as if the Hacker was a Rogue with Trap finding but without Sneak Attack)

Maybe it is "realistic" too some degree. But the problem in most RPGs is that combat takes the longest to resolve and is thus the defining part where all characters have to be useful.

 

[Hussar]

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.

As Firelance points out, there is a difference between less effective and ineffective. I have no problem with the fighter doing less damage than usual when facing something with DR. That's groovy. However, the old mechanic of "You need +x to do anything to this monster" was bad design. DR still allows the fighter to contribute, just not as well as usual, the +x restriction basically sidelines a PC unless he has the special weapon.

The same works for Magic Resistance, which isn't all that different from SR. Yes, the wizard is going to have problems directly affecting that target, however, he's likely got a fair number of spells that ignore SR (or MR) like summoning. Thus, his options may be limited, but, not completely restricted.

Even a cleric facing something with turn resistance can still whip out his trusty mace and start whacking away.

I have no problem with creatures that may have some special resistance that reduces sneak attack damage. Or, apparently, like the new 4e dragon, have special abilities that immediately kick in when a sneak attack situation comes up. That's cool. But, mechanics that sideline a PC are bad mechanics.

 

[StarFyre]

i don't think it's bad design...

my friends and I have discussed, and most agree that DR/immunities is good.

It also makes sense to us...one of my friends agreed with a quote i put on wizards.com forums a few weeks ago..

Even though this is a fantasy game, real mechanics of science/reality still exist....the difference is magic is also possible. Gravity, fire, etc still exist. So people who say 'this isn't realistic' are not to be laughed at. That said, if someone is christian, etc...do you really think, they would believe that a small dagger, i got at a store, would hurt "Michael the Archangel?"

Hell no!! We, in our campaigns, do not believe standard mortal weapons will hurt beings that are NOT based in reality (at least an orc is a humanoid for example, that could be thought of like a mutated person). Demons, Angels, other planar creatures, far realm entities, etc. If these do not have DR/immunities in 4E, we will add them back in our own modified versions (I have modified versions of many 3.5E stuff now that we do not like how they designed it).

Does this nerf a party, or sideline the fighter? I don't think so. I think design is moving to a video game style. My players, if they know they want to go to Pandemonium, will get research done in Sigil (we play a planescape campaign, although I move around planes, modify cosmology, etc as i see fit, so 4E changes I can accomodate easily if i wish) and buy stuff etc as they can afford first.

They take extra weapons, torches, magical light sources, stuff to plug ears, etc. If players DON'T want to do that, they just want a straight dungeon crawl, yes I agree, it is brutal for a fighter; but in a more "breathing, living, realistic" universe, where the characters are part of, I don't see a problem at all.

I think the main issue here is style of play for the players. I also do themed areas...what i mean is...if I send you to the abyss, except it to be harsh...expect creatures that are magical in nature, that can summon, or teleport, or have weapons that will disappear if they die, etc. If I send you to a cave with orcs, and goblins, expect a possible boss to be a gnoll or ogre styled creature UNLESS there is a reason within my background notes, why maybe something else is leading them (ie. maybe an illithid or drow or even a devil trying to illicit a war on a town, etc). These is a themed area as it 'fits' instead of having the nice werewolf, with a owlbear, with a pixie, with a treant, with a squid or whatever the example of a forest encounter wizards gave! However, it is possible that a properly themed area that 'makes sense' to all the players can put players at a disadvantage. Again, overall campaign design can fix this. If it's a pure hack n slash campaign; yeah, you're screwed. But if it's not; then there are always tons of possibilities.

Sanjay

 

[Reynard]

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..

Where was this introduced? It sounds very interesting.

 

[shilsen]

Where was this introduced? It sounds very interesting.

I don't have the book, so I'm not sure, but I think the Dungeonscape book is the source.

 

[wgreen]

They also get a mention in Design & Development: Let's Get Small: Adventure Design, Part I.

-Will

 

[FireLance]

I don't have the book, so I'm not sure, but I think the Dungeonscape book is the source.

Yes, encounter traps are discussed in Dungeonscape, and earlier, in Secrets of Xen'drik.