Rule-of-Three: 03-27-12

[Fanaelialae]

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 disagree with this. While I don't think a 10/10 F/W should be as good a fighter as a 20 F or as good a wizard as a 20 W, I do believe that the 10/10 should be as good as a level 20 character overall. In 3e, that definitely was not the case.

The reason for that is that not everyone multiclasses for reasons of munchkinism. The most obvious reason for an open ended multiclass system, similar to that found in 3e, is so that players can mix and match elements in order to achieve a particular character concept that they wouldn't be able to express otherwise.

For example, perhaps a new player is fond of Lieber's writings, and decides to create a character based upon the Grey Mouser. So he takes a few wizard levels, and then a few rogue and fighter levels. He should be able to do so without negating his ability to contribute, because multiclassing that allows you to create a useless character is effectively a design trap. The player is unlikely to enjoy the game as much once he realizes that his stylistic choices have rendered him into an anchor upon the party.

IMO, choosing a level in a different class should be neither better nor worse than choosing to advance in a single class. To do otherwise is to create false choices, and a false choice is arguably worse than having no choice at all. At least if you offer no choice, a newbie isn't be punished for making the wrong choice.

 

[Janaxstrus]

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.

3.5 had the duskblade, which was a nice start. It was not, however, in any way shape or form a stand in for the Wizard, which is a requirement (in my opinion) for a multiclass fighter/mage. Not in power, mind you, but in wizardly things, especially low level

The duskblade was more of a fighter with some magical abilities to enhance his fighting, but he couldn't Identify things, had virtually no utility type spells, etc. What I am looking for is a F/M who gives up some of his fighting, and some of his raw magical talent, but is able to step in and fight in a pinch, and can also fufill the generic wizard role. This class wouldn't be slinging spells all day and accomplishing great feats, but he'd be able to drop a fireball (as opposed to 3) and Identify magic items, toss up a single gust of wind or give the party some water breathing. But once he's done, he has to go to the sword.

 

[Andor]

The only thing that worries me from this go around is that they really seem to be sold on this "Spells effect threshold" thing.

And I'm leery of it, in practice they only way it could be functional, as described, is if monster Hp is visible in game. And I don't like that. "Petrify works at 35 hp, word of death at 50, stun at 42." Bleh.

I can think of several systems I'd rather see.

4es bloodied status at 1/2 hit points is better for a start since so many different mechanics hinged off of it. You could even (if you wanted) split it up into more than 2 statuses. Healthy from full to 3/4, injured from 3/4 to 1/2, bloodied from 1/2 to 1/4 and wounded below 1/4. Maybe stun works on injured foes but death spells only hit wounded ones.

Or you could have a death spiral mechanic where the BBG gets -1 to saves for every 10% loss of hp, although that would be a pain to track.

Or you could have interacting statuses that different classes can inflict. So perhaps a fighter instead of tripping or disarming could inflict a "guard down" status that will then let the wizard hit with his beam of purple humiliation.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

The only thing that worries me from this go around is that they really seem to be sold on this "Spells effect threshold" thing.

And I'm leery of it, in practice they only way it could be functional, as described, is if monster Hp is visible in game. And I don't like that. "Petrify works at 35 hp, word of death at 50, stun at 42." Bleh.

The thing is, it actually might work better if HP were not visible. Imagine a spell that paralyzes an enemy if they are under 30 hp. If the target is not under 30 hp, the target takes 3d6 damage instead.

It means you have to guess when the enemy is nearing the point you can affect it and use it then. If not, the enemy takes some damage. It makes spells a little more unpredictable.

Though in practice, I can see some players memorizing the hps of common creatures and possibly even writing down the damage each monster takes so they KNOW when to use their SoD or SoSuck spells.

4es bloodied status at 1/2 hit points is better for a start since so many different mechanics hinged off of it. You could even (if you wanted) split it up into more than 2 statuses. Healthy from full to 3/4, injured from 3/4 to 1/2, bloodied from 1/2 to 1/4 and wounded below 1/4. Maybe stun works on injured foes but death spells only hit wounded ones.

The only real problem with this is that the idea of the hit point threshold system appears to be simulationist. A medusa will turn anyone with 40 hitpoints or less to stone just by looking at them. So all the 1st-3rd level city guards immediately turn to stone while the PCs don't have to worry about it until they've taken some damage.

If you use percentages, then all of those 1st level guards are immune to the petrification while they are at full hitpoints. Plus, it has the opposite affect against really powerful creatures. If a monster has 2500 hitpoints and you can use a Save or Suck spell against them at half hitpoints, it means you've got one spell that can effectively do 1250 points of damage. This creates the same probably Harm had for so many years.

 

[I'm A Banana]

And I'm leery of it, in practice they only way it could be functional, as described, is if monster Hp is visible in game. And I don't like that. "Petrify works at 35 hp, word of death at 50, stun at 42." Bleh.

I'm mostly with you, but this article -- and some time -- has kind of softened me on it. It might be possible to hide this behind "damage" rolls, or obscure it with other tactics, so it's not just a raw number. And if the monsters scale organically like this thread is speculating, that lessens the problem, too -- as long as assassins or disintegrates can kill an equal-level critter about half the time in one surprise hit, I'm fine with them just dealing damage to higher-level critters.

4es bloodied status at 1/2 hit points is better for a start since so many different mechanics hinged off of it. You could even (if you wanted) split it up into more than 2 statuses. Healthy from full to 3/4, injured from 3/4 to 1/2, bloodied from 1/2 to 1/4 and wounded below 1/4. Maybe stun works on injured foes but death spells only hit wounded ones.
...
So perhaps a fighter instead of tripping or disarming could inflict a "guard down" status that will then let the wizard hit with his beam of purple humiliation.

I like each of those solutions. The "different bloodied values" make sense, and the status translates relatively elegantly into "advantage."

Like most of the time, I'm into this Ro3.

 

[Odhanan]

PLEASE, keep the core of the game assumption as NO GRID and NO MINIS by DEFAULT.

I like to use miniatures sometimes. And sometimes, not. Sometimes, I just use maps and sheets of paper, sometimes I don't use anything, sometimes I will use Dwarven Forge, sometimes some tact-tiles. Keep the grid and miniatures in a dedicated module. Let me, DM, decide when they are appropriate for my game and when they aren't.

 

[MacMathan]

The part on multi-classing is a bit worrisome for me. I have no desire to return to multi-classing ala the year 2000.

IMO 4e multiclassing and hybrid rules as they stand now in 2012 are the most evolved and best version the game has ever had. I would hate to see a regression from that.

I continue to hope that the progress the RPG world and D&D has seen since 2000 and 2008 will not be thrown away to chase some sense of nostalgia (which is always elusive) in an attempt to bring back a group of gamers who are very hard to satisfy and already well served by other venues.

 

[Andor]

If you use percentages, then all of those 1st level guards are immune to the petrification while they are at full hitpoints. Plus, it has the opposite affect against really powerful creatures. If a monster has 2500 hitpoints and you can use a Save or Suck spell against them at half hitpoints, it means you've got one spell that can effectively do 1250 points of damage. This creates the same probably Harm had for so many years.

Sure, but you can fiddle with it to achieve desired outcomes. For example you can parallel 4es minion/normal/boss rules with how many status notches a monster has. So mooks are vunerable to instasquish effects even at full health, maybe normal monsters only have 'bloodied' and the 5e answer to solo monsters has all 4 status notches, or more.

So mook grade npcs are also vulnerable like town guardsmen, but the pcs are not mooks.

Or you can combine the two systems so a Medusa stones you at 40 hp or bloodied.

And frankly if a monster has 2500 hp, then it should be something like a walking Colossus of Rhodes or a Beaver the size of Pittsburgh and it will simply be immune to any status effect that can't disintegrate a medium sized city.

And really, if "Power word kill" is only effective against a 2500 hp beast after you have already whittled down 2460 hp from it, why are you even bothering to study magic?

Personally, for that kind of Fight-the-Trrasque epic boss battle I'd rather see (researchable) kill conditions that take multiple party members to pull off. First you whittle the Beaver of Pittburgh down to 'bloodied', then your rogue can get the venom of induction into it's blood stream, then the fighter stabs the enchanted copper spear into it's wound, then the Mage can hit it with a lightning storm while the Cleric chants the hymm of vital organ targeting.

And if you don't want that kind of epic fight, why gimp the mage, and the mage alone?

 

[GX.Sigma]

It annoys me how a lot of "new ideas" for 5e already existed in earlier versions.

Symbol of Death always had a HP threshold (60 each in 2e, 150 total in 3e), Power Word Kill always had a HP threshold (60 in 2e, 100 in 3e), Disintegrate in 3e dealt normal damage (only disintegrates if it deals enough to kill the target anyway), and all kinds of effects had HD thresholds or caster level thresholds.

Unearthed Arcana in 3.5 included a rules module for hex grids (which didn't really need rules anyway): Hex Grid :: d20srd.org

 

[gyor]

So far I like what I'm seeing. Getting rid of needless math appears to be improving a ton of things in the game. It appears to have made 3.x multiclassing easier to implement without,sucking, especially between casters and fighters. Leveling appears more about making your character more interesting and varied in power instead of +level or caster level or +half level.

Also this is the first time I'm excited by the fighter in the Phb. Previously I've always found fighters felt way too generic. This is the first time it felt different was the essentials fighters Knight and Slayer.