Rule-of-Three: 01/24/12

[Knightfall]

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Rule-of-Three: 01/24/12)

Article removed by moderator

Folks: There's nothing wrong with talking about articles, but we should not get into the habit of reprinting them wholesale. If you've got a short segment you specifically want to reference, that's okay. But for full articles on other sites, please provide a link, and let folks go read the original. Thanks. ~Umbran

 

[Lanefan]

This one has a real good news-bad news feel to it on first reading.

The good news: they're considering bringing back weapon damage types. (and if they also bring back small/large damage dice they're really on the right track!) This tells me they're looking at how mechanics and flavour interact, which is a significant and welcome change of tack.

The bad news: the amount of concern about balance. (and isn't that a wonderfully loaded question from the interviewer to prompt that answer) If the system is kept simple then at least some sort of balance should be relatively easy to achieve; if they're that worried about balance already this tells me the system is going to be complicated, not a good sign. Just design the bloody game and let the playtesters sort out the balance issues - if any.

Lan-"unbalanced and ready to topple over"-efan

 

[Number48]

WTF? Something previous editions didn't do is weapon damage types? Umm, yes they did. Don't have the book, but 3E skeletons either had blunt vulnerability or slashing resistance. His own description of how it could be used is how it was used.

 

[Incenjucar]

I'm all for Physical damage (which is currently known as "Untyped" damage), but damage types... ehhh....

 

[Tallifer]

This latest installment was all good news for me. Balance but variety. Old school flavour but new school considerations.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

This one has a real good news-bad news feel to it on first reading.

The good news: they're considering bringing back weapon damage types. (and if they also bring back small/large damage dice they're really on the right track!) This tells me they're looking at how mechanics and flavour interact, which is a significant and welcome change of tack.

The bad news: the amount of concern about balance. (and isn't that a wonderfully loaded question from the interviewer to prompt that answer) If the system is kept simple then at least some sort of balance should be relatively easy to achieve; if they're that worried about balance already this tells me the system is going to be complicated, not a good sign. Just design the bloody game and let the playtesters sort out the balance issues - if any.

Lan-"unbalanced and ready to topple over"-efan

There are no bad news for you. They are basically saying "we finally know how to achieve balance without the drawbacks of bland- or dullness."

Whether you trust them to do that or not is another matter, but that will only the final system tell you. I, for once, am always concerned about balance, so it's all good news to me.

 

[Raith5]

There are no bad news for you. They are basically saying "we finally know how to achieve balance without the drawbacks of bland- or dullness."

Whether you trust them to do that or not is another matter, but that will only the final system tell you. I, for once, am always concerned about balance, so it's all good news to me.

Agree. I dont think balance is a dirty word but I certainly understand why certain groups would like to step away from balance for campaign or play style reasons. But I fear blind imbalance more than blind balance.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

ADnD was balanced (in a certain way)
4e in adifferent
4e phb3 and essentials in another different way

3.x seemed balanced for the ordinary gamer, but many balancing drawbacks of wizads and clerics were dropped.
And I guess the designers just underestimated the effect of some changes.

So I believe balance was always a concern. But not on such a high priority as in 4e. But this high focus on balance had its roots in the charop od 3rd edition. When you see how your game is twisted and bent and tried to break, your next game will have the focus there.

In 4e the charop board does quite well. Suggesting a variety of strong but not broken builds. With guidelines.

 

[avin]

Nice to know they are thinking about damage types.

As for balance, yes, Wizards should always pursue that. Not to the point of deflavoring (does that word exists?) classes, but to the point classes should share considerable resemblance in power, at later levels.

 

[delericho]

If weapon damage types are just going to be slashing/piercing/bludgeoning, with all of 2 monsters in the game having DR/Vulnerability to one of the types, then they're a pointless distraction and should stay gone.

However, if they have certain martial powers operate differently based on damage type and/or have particular magic item properties tied to damage type, or the like, then I'm all for them making a comeback. 4e was actually somewhat on the right lines in this regard, with "Impact" weapons that did a lot more damage on a critical, etc.

Basically, if the rules are going to bother tracking some quality in the game, then that quality should be important enough for the rules to bother tracking it. Otherwise, it's just make-work and should be dropped (or moved to the "Realism" optional module).