Rule of Three 3/6

[Serendipity]

Link

I like the notion of player complicit complexity, regardless of how the classes balance out, but I'm still a bit skeptical as to how they can implement this. Otherwise, I find a lot of what he says reminds me of one of the 4e design mantras (I don't recall whose it was though) "Down with needless symmetry."

 

[Savage Wombat]

To me that sounded like a lot of words to say "we're not telling you yet".

Or possibly "trust us, we're considering every issue from both angles."

 

[Serendipity]

To me that sounded like a lot of words to say "we're not telling you yet".

Isn't that most of them though?

 

[FireLance]

Me, I wonder how he can go from talking about "verisimilitude needs" in answer 1 to fighters "managing a pool of self-healing resources" in answer 3.

 

[lkj]

To me it reads like a very intelligent discussion of the various issues they are addressing and how they are thinking about them. It also explicitly acknowledges lessons they've learned from 4th edition design without being completely beholden to the 4th edition approach.

No, he isn't giving specific answers yet. But I wouldn't expect they would until the playtest is released, and even then it's supposed to be a work in progress.
Giving an explicit answer to how they are handling a given problem is tantamount to arguing they've got everything but the details worked out. I doubt they do.

In short, I found the article encouraging.

AD

 

[Sunseeker]

The first part reads to me as "we're working on advancement paths", which I'm totally cool with. While some classes may have a smidge more base complexity than others, I really do enjoy the feeling that Pathfinder gave of being able to really take the base class and run with it in any direction you want. I agree with his overall summation that what is necessary and good is to have parity, if each class can perform equally under good circumstances, then we have parity.

I heartily approve of the second message. "Some monsters are downright scary" is a good system, having a few powerful creatures with powerful effects makes them all that much more interesting to encounter and potentially defeat. In execution however, anything I'm not particularly fond of I can always handwaive away, and I have no issue with that.

I'm pretty down with resource management, for players and for monsters. The more you have to think about your next move, the more engaged in the game you're going to be. However I do feel that there needs to be some sort of out-of-combat abilities that require players to exercise resource managment in social and exploratory situations as well. Too often combat is a closely managed tactical battle, while social events are just "roll until I win". I don't like that.

Also: I'm very happy to see the several references to learning from 4e and learning in a GOOD way, not just from their mistakes. 4E may not have been perfect, and learning from it's mistakes is a good thing, but learning from it's successes is equally important.

 

[dkyle]

Me, I wonder how he can go from talking about "verisimilitude needs" in answer 1 to fighters "managing a pool of self-healing resources" in answer 3.

That part in answer 1 was about customizing fighters to suit different players' desires. Different players have different "verisimilitude needs". Some can't stand things like Second Wind. Others see it as a reasonable representation of a well known phenomenon, frequently portrayed in stories.

Those in the latter group might find pools of self-healing resources entirely verisimilitudinous. Or even don't really care about verisimilitude, in favor of whatever makes for a good game. Personally, considering how abstract HP clearly are, it's rather hard for me to ascribe any true "reality" to anything about them, whether they're decreasing or increasing.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

That part in answer 1 was about customizing fighters to suit different players' desires. Different players have different "verisimilitude needs". Some can't stand things like Second Wind. Others see it as a reasonable representation of a well known phenomenon, frequently portrayed in stories.

Those in the latter group might find pools of self-healing resources entirely verisimilitudinous. Or even don't really care about verisimilitude, in favor of whatever makes for a good game. Personally, considering how abstract HP clearly are, it's rather hard for me to ascribe any true "reality" to anything about them, whether they're decreasing or increasing.

That's the point of them being abstract. You can describe them in any way you need to to fit the narrative and your personal tastes in verisimiltudiness.

(Sorry, you used verisimilitudinous to such great effect, I had to make one up.)

 

[pemerton]

I do feel that there needs to be some sort of out-of-combat abilities that require players to exercise resource managment in social and exploratory situations as well. Too often combat is a closely managed tactical battle, while social events are just "roll until I win". I don't like that.

That's part of the rationale of skill challenge design - there is a finite number of checks, and hence each check is resource-consuming. But I don't think this was particular well conveyed in the DMG and PHB notes on the mechanic, and is not well reflected in WotC skill challenge design either, I don't think.

 

[gweinel]

A general note.
Am i the only one who thinks that more complexity will eventually lead to more power?
What is the reason for an experianced optimizer player to make a super duper complex character if he will not be a bit more effective that the simple built one?
An answer could be "the gaming experiance" of the complex character and another would be "the possibilty of a more elaborate role playing" from the complex character... but are these enough?

Just my random thoughts...