Something 3E and 4E lost (that 2E had)

[Mercurius]

I don't know... Maybe? But I guess I'm not one to believe the "They do iot so we buy more power books" idea. I mean they sell monster books too, so why then did they give us the tools to build monsters?

I've seen the developers mention that power building tends to be a little more "art" then hard coded numbers. I think the real reason we haven't seen it yet is similar to the post about the unique magic items.

If they release the tools, and give us the science, a lot of people will complain when they forgo the art, and build unbalanced powers. "But I followed the numbers WoTC! You put out garbage! This game is BROKENZ!"

That said, I kind of get the feeling they will release some guidelines later on down the road, and probably as part of the adventure tools.

Nice points, especially about the possible (probable) response of folks. LOL.

But yeah, I think you're right about design being more intuitive than hard coded numbers, although I just can't shake the feeling that some things, especially powers, are based upon formulas. I've been meaning for some time to sit down with PHB 1 and 2 to create an Excel spreadsheet that plots out the effects of every power by level, then look for the underlying pattern. I mainly want to do this to come up with a simplified improvisational power scheme. But my guess is that, yes, there is a formula, there is an underlying code that says "An x-level power does this much damage; x-range adds y-levels; a minor side effect adss z-levels, while a major side effects adds a-levels." Etc.

As for feats, it might be similar to what some use to determine whether a baseball player deserves entry into the Hall of Fame: Would he be the worst player in the Hall of Fame or among the worst players? If so, he's probably not worthy. Is the Feat noticeably more powerful than other feats? Less? That gives a starting guideline, but then there is the grey realm inbetween. But I imagine WotC has both a general set of guidelines in-house, but also the basic approach of comparing it to other feats. The same probably goes for classes and races.

 

[Scribble]

Nice points, especially about the possible (probable) response of folks. LOL.

But yeah, I think you're right about design being more intuitive than hard coded numbers, although I just can't shake the feeling that some things, especially powers, are based upon formulas. I've been meaning for some time to sit down with PHB 1 and 2 to create an Excel spreadsheet that plots out the effects of every power by level, then look for the underlying pattern. I mainly want to do this to come up with a simplified improvisational power scheme. But my guess is that, yes, there is a formula, there is an underlying code that says "An x-level power does this much damage; x-range adds y-levels; a minor side effect adss z-levels, while a major side effects adds a-levels." Etc.

As for feats, it might be similar to what some use to determine whether a baseball player deserves entry into the Hall of Fame: Would he be the worst player in the Hall of Fame or among the worst players? If so, he's probably not worthy. Is the Feat noticeably more powerful than other feats? Less? That gives a starting guideline, but then there is the grey realm inbetween. But I imagine WotC has both a general set of guidelines in-house, but also the basic approach of comparing it to other feats. The same probably goes for classes and races.

Well yeah- that's what I think is the science part. They start with some numbers guidelines (possibly something like the damage numbers on page 42) and then go from there based on experience, and modify after a play test. (I assume that's REALLY the point of all those games the designers brag about playing in the office.)

Problem is they can give us the basics but not the experience, and a lot of people tend to forget that.

I kind of have a feeling that's why they put out the monster building stuff first. Monsters don't stick around that long- If the DM messes up with the monster power level it's not that big of a deal. The numbers are "good enough" that they won't terribly over/under balance things, and chances are the little deviations won't be that noticeable.

Powers, on the other hand stick around a LOT longer. If you mess up on the power curve of the powers, it's going to keep rearing it's ugly headed again and again and again. (Even though you stuck to the unfailing numbers.)

I think if they DO release the power building guidelines later on it's because they're sort of trying to build that experience into us by default since we've been playing the system for a while. (So we don't end up saying that new monk class is WAY overpowered based on the numbers, but really it ain't by experience. )

 

[cattoy]

I don't know... Maybe? But I guess I'm not one to believe the "They do iot so we buy more power books" idea. I mean they sell monster books too, so why then did they give us the tools to build monsters?

Because the market for Monster Manuals is smaller than the market for PHBs.

Also, nobody gives a damn about monsters. WotC 4e Monsters & Races board - 101 pages. WotC 4e CharOp board - 224 pages.

If they released a class/feat/power design algorithms book, that CharOp board would freaking explode.

 

[Spatula]

I agree, for the most part. Unlike many of the previous posters I started my D&D path with 3e, although I have read a fair chunk of older material I've stumbled across. 3e may not have explicitly encouraged customization and houseruling, but it was widely acknowledged that if some part of the rules wasn't working for you or if your game needed different/additional rules that you should feel free to make changes. It was also acknowledged that you tinkered at your own risk because a lot of houserules came with unintended consequences.

Which is why a lot of people refused to tinker with it. The idea that DMs shouldn't make houserules was prevalent in 3e, too - not just that it was "the first edition of D&D you don't need to houserule!" but also the idea that everything worked together made many skittish. Change one bit, who knows what will happen elsewhere in the system?

I think WotC's push for organized play ties into it, as well.

 

[Scribble]

Because the market for Monster Manuals is smaller than the market for PHBs.

Also, nobody gives a damn about monsters. WotC 4e Monsters & Races board - 101 pages. WotC 4e CharOp board - 224 pages.

If they released a class/feat/power design algorithms book, that CharOp board would freaking explode.

Shrug? Maybe- anything is possible. I still just don't really feel like that's the reason they do it.

(Also more Players then DMs, so the part about the boards makes sense.)

 

[M.L. Martin]

If they released a class/feat/power design algorithms book, that CharOp board would freaking explode.

As I've said before, I'd love to see what would happen if we dropped some copies of the HERO System Rulebook on CharOp.

 

[cattoy]

As I've said before, I'd love to see what would happen if we dropped some copies of the HERO System Rulebook on CharOp.

Short answer: nothing.

Here's why. The hero system rulebook is the entirety of the game system and it comes with no limitations.

Therefore, anyone can abuse the heck out of it without any skill. That's not what makes the CharOps board go. These people are driven by the same mindset that makes M:tG players go tearing into every new expansion to find the broken, unbeatable combos or the solutions to last editions broken and unbeatable combos.

The fact that they can leverage a limited set of in-game constructs to create infinite damage or infinite mana or whatever is what makes people like that dig into every expansion, every Dragon article or whatever.

WoTC knows this like nobody else, so it drives their 4e design philosophy the same way it has driven M:tG design philosophy.

 

[Ariosto]

The fact that they can leverage a limited set of in-game constructs to create infinite damage or infinite mana or whatever is what makes people like that dig into every expansion, every Dragon article or whatever.

That sounds about right. It's like finding loopholes in war-game rules sets and army lists. The "official" limits are what make that game interesting. Only the big, commercial tournament lines are likely to offer much appeal in that department.

It's quite a different undertaking from working out how to adapt a rules set to the scenario or campaign one has in mind.

Of course, some rules sets are a bit better suited to some things than are sets designed to do different things!

 

[Dice4Hire]

I stopped playing pure 2E when Skills and Powers came out and dropped that when 3E came out, but the think I miss the most about 2e is the sheer insane, irritating, wonderous................


Randomness.


Potion miscibility, Deck of Many Things, chance for a dragon to be sleeping etc etc etc

It was wonderful.

 

[Desdichado]

You can talk about Freeport, or Golarion (Pathfinder), or Eberron... but none of those settings have the innovative artwork, creative design, or sheer wackiness of a 2e Spelljammer, Dark Sun or Planescape.

I disagree. I also disagree that wackiness is good.

Plus, you've also got Iron Kingdoms, Midnight, and who knows how many other settings from the OGL era.

I like a lot of 2e settings, don't get me wrong. But 2e was not the Golden Age of settings; the OGL era was. Or is, if you want to call it that.