Rule-of-Three: 03-27-12

[Fanaelialae]

Yep - it is tricky, cause you want people to start a class and feel like they're actually that class... hence front-loading.

But hopefully they'll figure out some way to make it work so you don't take 1-2 levels of several classes for the shinies.

One of the designers mentioned, a little while back, that in order to make the game easier to learn for beginners they were considering spreading "basic" class abilities over the first 3 levels. The assumption being that experienced players would simply start at level 3 with a full complement of basic abilities.

That approach would admittedly dovetail quite nicely with avoiding overpowered multiclass dips, and might also nicely mimic the experience of learning a new class more gradually (as opposed to "ding!" now I'm a wizard).

 

[LightPhoenix]

Q1: Solo Monsters

I'm not sure I get the outcry of dropping the "solo" designation. 2E had rough designations as well - the Organization entry. I'm confident that whatever direction the designers plan to take, it will include monsters designed to be a challenge by themselves, and those monsters will have that spelled out. It's been that way in almost every edition previous in one form or another. On the other hand, I did like the monster "classes" as a short-hand for their basic function, and I hope they do keep those.

What I liked about this answer was that they recognize that they're not done iterating Solo design. While I liked Solo design in 4E, there was still a lot of room to make things better. I would like to know more about 5E's action economy (if it's nailed down) in relation to monster design; one thing I felt made (some) Solos more fun was they could do a lot of stuff each turn - diversity of effects versus raw numbers.

Q2: Multiclassing

I was not a huge fan of 3E multiclassing. I was not a huge fan of 4E multi-classing. Both had systems that were relatively simple and elegant within the context of their design, but demonstrated problems that indicated they were not well thought through. What 5E needs to do in order to do well in this area is to properly iterate the system and think about/discuss the emergent consequences of each part of the system.

Q3: Cone and Line spells

I've never understood why Line spells never existed in 4E; it's a simple extension of the rules/judgement for determining line of sight. You could generally do cones the same way, but it's awkward to say the least.

Moving into the more meta area of the question, I would like to see a hybrid of the tile-based and non-mat systems. I think there's a lot of room for more of a wargame-style system that would take the best of both worlds and combine them. Something that gets rid of the awkwardness of tiles and gets rid of the ambiguity between what different people are seeing. I wouldn't be busting out rulers or anything, but I like the concept.

 

[Ratskinner]

I think 5e simply needs to start, out of the gate, with a multiclassed fighter/wizard. The idea has been around since Elves appeared in BD&D. It is such a commonly used/desired/discussed multiclass--just design one from the outset. It could be useful on its own, and as a standard for other multiclasses.

Good idea. Heck, maybe even take it farther:

If you start with the "big 4", there's only 6 two-class hybrids to worry about (and 4 three-class hybrids). That's only a total of 14. That could work well for the "blended" character concepts, depending on the customization options available.

I'd also like to have sequential multiclassing for those characters who legitimately want to start moving in a new direction. I think the Trailblazer rules provide a little help in fixing the 3e caster issues, but I'm certainly open to entertaining other options.

 

[Ratskinner]

Don't like this. A 10/10 fighter/wizard shouldn't be able to cast 9th-level spells at all. Should cast spells as a 10th-level wizard (max spell level 5). Want to cast 9th-level spells as a 20th-level wizard? Stay in the wizard class, don't multiclass into something else. That's the price you pay. (Not saying anything is wrong with multiclassing, but it's a choice. You choose to branch out, you aren't as good in your primary class anymore.)

I tend to agree in general principle, but I think the 3e penalties were two high, and the costs too low. Dipping a few levels was tempting from the costs side, but then later the loss too high. If each level perfectly stacked capability one upon the other, this would work, but it didn't. Your 11th level as a caster is far more potent than your 2nd .

 

[Ratskinner]

Q1: Solo Monsters

Not much insight. Don't understand anyone's outrage here, I did not pick up any anti-4e vibe at all.

From this and several other things....I'm wondering if they aren't playing with the idea that combat encounters have some kind of "HP budget" rather than and XP or CR budget. Maybe an enemy HP and XP are the same?


Q2: Multiclassing

Even less insight, but somehow I kinda like the things they're saying. Some bizarre action economy that lets you mix spells and sword swings could be genius (it could also be disastrous.) I just hope combat is fast, so those spells better resolve with a die roll.

My second-biggest gripe with sequential multiclassing was the front-loading of abilities, but the article didn't seem to address how they're looking at that.

Q3: Cone and Line spells

meh. If the game doesn't come with a "zone" combat system, I'll probably be writing one in a matter of days.

 

[keterys]

It's also worth note that you could optimize hideous aberrations by cherry-picking class abilities in 3e... but also that you could ridiculously cripple a character into uselessness, as well.

Someone in another forum earlier today was talking about a 12th level 0 BAB character with... no particularly good abilities (tons of knowledge skills, a few random utility spells)... that they encountered in 3e.

 

[Tortoise]

Here's the quote from the article that gives me pause.

"For example, instead of the fighter having to spend a single action to make multiple attacks, we might say that the extra attacks that the fighter gains as he gains levels are effectively free actions that the fighter takes on his turn. Thus, if my fighter/wizard picked up an extra attack through his levels of fighter, he might be able to cast a spell as his main action and then still get his extra attack, giving him the benefit of all of his class levels."

I realise they are very early in testing so I'm sure they'll see if this is broken or not.

What it makes me wonder is if the fighter multi-classed into wizard will be an attack generator while others not multi-classed with fighter will only have one attack per round. Also, will this encourage everyone to be a milti-classed fighter of some levels to get the extra attacks? Does it also imply the milti-character can cast multiple spells in a round with those extra attacks? I'm curious about their thinking on these potential drawbacks.

It sounds like it could potentially become a min/max munchkin-fest that slows combat way down. It would also do the opposite of adding diversity by encouraging anyone that wants to remain combat worthy to also min/max.

 

[avin]

It sounds like it could potentially become a min/max munchkin-fest that slows combat way down.

Wotc must pay a lot of attention to this. Even being probably my favorite D&D edition, 3.5 was a munchkin paradise... fun to players, for DM not always.

If DDN wants to attract all edition D&D gamers, and seduce 4E DMs, it must be more balanced than 3.5.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

It's also worth note that you could optimize hideous aberrations by cherry-picking class abilities in 3e... but also that you could ridiculously cripple a character into uselessness, as well.

It was exactly the problem my group had, the "optimized hideous aberration" and the "ridiculuosly crippled" characters were in the same party. Each would make for playable experiences alone, but combined created a power gap that was difficult to DM. I hope they can work out 3E-style multiclassing in 5E without causing this problem all over again. This is one of only two deal-breakers for me (the other being poor adventure support), unless they come up with something I haven't considered or encountered in other games that adds to my deal-breaker list. I'm not as worried about unknown deal-breakers as they include things like "going diceless" and "your character is a set of four questions;" things I don't expect we'd ever see in D&D.

 

[Dausuul]

Darn it, I liked many previous Rule of Threes, but this one is making me nervous again... Why did he have to go imply that they're considering even dropping the "solo" designation for solo monsters.

Because it would be nice if the same monster--an ogre, say--could be a solo for a 1st-level party, an elite for a 5th-level party, and a regular monster for a 9th-level party, without having to make three different statblocks. This was pretty standard practice in older editions. If it could be brought back while maintaining 4E's tactical depth, that would be seriously awesome.