Rule of Three: March 13

[Tallifer]

Link

1. I agree that tables of extra effects for critical hits and fumbles should be optional, but I do not really want them in the core books. They are not my cup of tea, and the less I am pressured to use them the better. They do add flavour, but they generally just reinforce and magnify good and bad luck more than it needs.

2. I definitely think there are far too many special exceptions to the general ruels and flow of combat in the Fourth Edition. Immediate interrupts are the most annoying of those. At least immediate reactions allow the normal action to proceed normally.

3. I like the solution proposed. Let the lowest levels be gritty and simple. Let those of us who like more heroic stuff just roll up higher level characters.

 

[FireLance]

Look, I appreciate the nod to fans of 4E, but if I were to compile a list of its "successful experiments", the rules for 0-level characters would not be on it.

Themes, on the other hand, were golden. So yes to that.

 

[Raith5]

I like interrupts but agree there are too many. But I think the main problem with slow combats in 4th ed is due because monsters just have about 20% too many hp.

What I dont get is the idea that saving throws (from previous editions) are a form of active defense. I cant see how the defensive interrupts of 4th ed are similar to saves. With interupts you active choose a power, with saves you get told by the DM which save to make.

Maybe in D&DN saves could be a specific action where you choose a couple of time per day or fight what saving throw/attribute you use rather than just target a given static defence. That is choose to use your INT to dodge the attack rather than to use your DEX, for example.

I also think the answer to point 3 is really good.

 

[pemerton]

I'm a big fan of OAs/immediate actions. In a turn-based game, they give a sense of simultaneous action, and reinforce that the turn sequence is just a mechanical abstraction. Without them, it can seem like the world is a stop-motion one.

 

[gweinel]

I have to admit that i loved this rule of the three. I loved it for the confirmation of the existance critical/fumble tables. I know its something small, a detail in the game, but a detail that i really carve for. Back in the 2e i used these charts creating the most colorful (and bloody moments)!

 

[tlantl]

All I can say about this weeks column is that it seems to be wasted space.

Let's talk about critical hit/ fumble charts, Why? They are time consuming and usually do things like target specific parts of the body, causing an injury that isn't otherwise modeled in game terms. Extra hp damage is faster and more in line with the game works.

Interrupts? New fangled grid iron thing?

I can see whole sections of combat rules that get ignored in my games, yay for modules.

Level? Themes okay. Spreading basic class abilities over three levels, not so much.

This doesn't sound very promising, especially if they decide that the majority of players will want to sacrifice two levels to being as good at their chosen field as they just aught to be from the start. It's bad enough that these games wind up being broken and no fun after ten or fifteen levels anyway, taking some of the fun* levels away doesn't sit well with me.

*Fun for me anyway. Upper level play just really takes a lot of the suspension of disbelief away when logic is tossed out in favor of unstoppable creatures and villains and out of control PCs. My players inhabit my world, the world doesn't revolve around the players.

 

[fuzzlewump]

Maybe in D&DN saves could be a specific action where you choose a couple of time per day or fight what saving throw/attribute you use rather than just target a given static defence. That is choose to use your INT to dodge the attack rather than to use your DEX, for example.

I think he was saying that interrupts and reactions should be based around saving throws, since hey, the player is already picking up the dice and having to pay attention for rolling the saving throw, might as well put reactions and whatnot there as well. I hope so anyway, as I would still like to see immediate interrupts and reactions in the game. I never found them to be that cumbersome, but we generally don't go back in time in our group, if the triggers passes, it passed.

 

[Andor]

Link

1. I agree that tables of extra effects for critical hits and fumbles should be optional, but I do not really want them in the core books. They are not my cup of tea, and the less I am pressured to use them the better. They do add flavour, but they generally just reinforce and magnify good and bad luck more than it needs.

I read that as "It's not enough to have a rule I don't like listed as an option in the DMG, it must be removed from corporeal existence lest I be forced to tell a player "No" out-loud." Sorry, but don't you feel it's ruder to tell tens of millions of people that the system they like is so vile it should not be allowed to poison your books lest you be forced to discuss it, than it is to just say "No, I'm the GM and I don't want to use that module."

Asking something be made optional? I'm all for it. Asking for something not to be printed in the base books lest it be considered 'core'? Too pathetic for words. - This mini rant is not merely directed at you btw, but at the growing trend I'm seeing on the boards that anything the poster thinks is badwrongfun should be excised from the base books and consigned to a small fanzine to be printed in Russian and distributed only at the gift shop at the "Museam of Gulags' in Siberia.

However, I'd also like to point out that themes do a lot for creating the kinds of character history that you're talking about. Themes, as presented in 4E, work best when they say something about your character's role in the world. Themes are something we want to be a core part of character creation in the next iteration of the game, chosen right alongside class and race, that adds a layer of depth to the character that we've seen great success with in 4E.

Additionally, we're looking at having the classes gradually layer in more capabilities over the first two or three levels, rather than providing a large number of class features at level 1, so that players new to the class have a short period of time to learn the basics of their class through play. Experienced players could simply start at 3rd level if they want to leap right into a more advanced starting experience.

I have to say, I like both of these thoughts. I'm not directly familiar with 4e themes but gather they are like 2e kits, which I was always a fan of. At any rate another layer of mixed fluff and crunch to be wrapped into character creation is, I think, a good thing. This sort of thing is a useful tool for both GMs and players to flesh out the world and the characters place in it.

As for the spread out clsss design, I'm all for it. One of the running battles of D&D (seen reprised on this board daily) is "What is a 1st level character supposed to represent?" Splitting the 3e style front loaded class structure up a bit to both allow the portrayal of 'zeros to heros' that some people like, and to prevent power-dipping is a good thing. Allowing the game to have a fighter class portray both Jon-boy the runaway farmhand and Sir Percy the Knight who just spent 10 years training as a squire just by twiddling the starting level two notches is even better.

 

[Minigiant]

Level 3 is the new level 1 for me then. I like naming my characters, thank you very much.

I'm likely that they are putting serious thought into what is core, what is first book modules, and what is later modules.

 

[Dice4Hire]

These are good answers. They are thinking about what is core and what should be more optional. Putting themes in core and keeping crits and 0 level out suits me just fine.