Rule of Three 5/9/2011

[OnlineDM]

Rule of Three is consistently my favorite D&D publication each week. The newest column handles three questions with (as usual) good, straightforward answers.

Will we see "Essentialized" psionics? No, probably not.

Will we see support for characters above 30th level? No, probably not.

Why do all of these new feats remove penalties like cover and opportunity attacks when making ranged attacks? They're trying to get creative with benefits without getting too fiddly with situational +2 to attack, etc.

Even if you disagree with the answers they give, you're at least getting straight talk from these columns (in general). I'm so glad they're doing these!

 

[Incenjucar]

All good answers, really, though I still think that Staff Expertise is too damned strong, and there's no real reason for any power source to remain experts-only.

The comment on epic is more evidence that they're actively thinking about epic, which is good.

 

[Colmarr]

I must admit that I smiled and thought of Aegeri when reading the third answer.

 

[Aegeri]

Rule of Three is often a mixed bag, but I appreciate its existence none the less! Especially when it has some very interesting insights/answers (like last week). This week made me especially happy for a change.

#1 Personally I wouldn't mind a psionic based classed that used PP augmented stances or something. But it's probably not required. I do find it interesting there is a clear indication of "advanced" classes compared with simpler ones in the developers mind (and that certain advanced classes should be left alone).

#2 It's a good answer, but it's really because they painted themselves into a corner and left themselves limited room to work with. Certain things though are way better than others, like how amazing staff expertise is compared to say wand expertise (which is underwhelming in comparison).

#3 Finally. I had been wondering what the developers were thinking with epic tier for some time now.

Right now, we feel we have enough issues with epic tier support that adding another layer to the game would just exasperate the problem.

Issues with epic tier support is putting it mildly to say the least, something that last year wizards were reversing and then dropped the ball on completely immediately after. I honestly can't imagine what going over level 30 in this game is supposed to look like, or what it would accomplish that was in any manner constructive.

When we get to the point that epic tier has enough options and is running smoothly, we might then take a look at expanding the game "upward".

Oh wow! That's such an awesome and pleasing sentence to read. For one thing, it really does seem that not only are the developers aware epic has major support issues, they intend to do something about them! Huzzah on both counts. That's something really tangible right there and very pleasing to read. I might be setting myself up for yet more disappointment, but I am very much looking forward to what support they might have planned.

 

[Destil]

Funny, given that the power point augmentation classes would be the easiest, IMHO, to build in essentials style. Just given them one augmentable at-will (their Power Strike equivalent) and power points. Done and done.

 

[Riastlin]

As to their Epic tier question, yes I too was pleased as it at least seems as though they are going to be actively looking to improve. On a side note, and yes I realize that I am definitely reading much more into it than is said there, the comment about "getting it up and running smoothly" and then "maybe look to move upward" may be an indication that they are not anticipating a new edition anytime real soon. Most groups, from what I've seen, will take at least 3 years to get to 30th level (assuming playing once every 1-2 weeks and using more or less standard advancement rate). Adding another tier on top of that (if they do, they certainly haven't said they would) would mean probably yet another year of play. With relatively few groups currently in epic tier, that could mean at least another 2 years for the current edition at minimum (if they were to go with the 4th tier).

The more I think about it, the more I sense that they really are trying to prolong the life cycle of 4th Ed. They are obviously moving toward a digital distribution model and I don't think they really want to risk, yet, getting most everyone on board the DDi train to only spring a new edition on them. With people paying $7 - $10 a month, with relatively few products needing to be printed, it may well be able to sustain the D&D line for some time without resorting to a new edition.

Obviously, this is all speculation, but it would seem to make some sense. They can continue to tweak the game, including errata, etc., through the online format while publishing new content at a much lower cost and still bring in steady cash. 5ed will no doubt come at some time, but perhaps its not as imminent as many have feared.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I am also glad they are thinking about epic, as I am getting near epic in one game, and the epic stuff is really really think. I think my biggest problem is where to put epic beings. They tried so hard to make the planes accessible at lower levels that there is not any really epic place to go.

 

[Zaran]

I thought today's Rule-of-Three was a bit boring since I knew that the answer to every one of them was basically "no"

 

[KidSnide]

I thought today's Rule-of-Three was a bit boring since I knew that the answer to every one of them was basically "no"

I don't mind when the answers to Rule-of-Three questions happen to be "no." One useful function of that column is to communicate what the designers are not thinking about, and that function is particularly useful when it comes with an explanation.

...which isn't to say that this week's column was earthshaking. Still, all things being equal, I'd rather that WotC didn't publish an earthshaking change of direction every week.

-KS

 

[Zaran]

I don't mind when the answers to Rule-of-Three questions happen to be "no." One useful function of that column is to communicate what the designers are not thinking about, and that function is particularly useful when it comes with an explanation.

...which isn't to say that this week's column was earthshaking. Still, all things being equal, I'd rather that WotC didn't publish an earthshaking change of direction every week.

-KS

This is true. I guess I am just being impatient. I love reading about development for my favorite hobby and have been underwhelmed lately.