The New Design Philosophy?

[Mark]

Command
Enchantment (Compulsion) [Language-Dependent, Mind-Affecting]
Level: Clr 1
Components: V
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One living creature
Duration: 1 round
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes
The character gives the subject a one-word command, which the subject obeys to the best of his or her ability. A very reasonable command causes the subject to suffer a penalty on the saving throw (from –1 to –4, at the DM’s discretion). A command of “Die” causes the subject to fake death. A command of "Suicide" fails because "suicide" is generally used as a noun, not as a command.

Command
Enchantment (Compulsion) [Language-Dependent, Mind-Affecting]
Level: Clr 1
Components: V
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One living creature
Duration: 1 round
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes
You give the subject a single command, which it obeys to the best of its ability at its earliest opportunity. You may select from the following options.
Approach: On its turn, the subject moves toward you as quickly and directly as possible for 1 round. The creature may do nothing but move during its turn, and it provokes attacks of opportunity for this movement as normal.
Drop: On its turn, the subject drops whatever it is holding. It can’t pick up any dropped item until its next turn.
Fall: On its turn, the subject falls to the ground and remains prone for 1 round. It may act normally while prone but takes any appropriate penalties.
Flee: On its turn, the subject moves away from you as quickly as possible for 1 round. It may do nothing but move during its turn, and it provokes attacks of opportunity for this movement as normal.
Halt: The subject stands in place for 1 round. It may not take any actions but is not considered helpless.
If the subject can’t carry out your command on its next turn, the spell automatically fails.

Hope that helps!

 

[Hussar]

Alternative woudl be to stop using the new theories and keep with the old ones. You want new, different monsters, create new and diferent monsters. Let each individual DM decide which ones to use, rather than making all monsters conform to a single design theory.

This is a bit different from how I would change the rules to be in line with the style of game I'd like to play. I like the idea of Unearthed Arcana being a set of optional or replacement rules to modify the game in such ways. I wouldn't mind seeing another one. My personal desired house rules run along the lines of a less shallow XP chart, crafting rules for magic items that involve risk as well as earning XP (old ones still apply if desired), codified XP rewards for social encounters and other things besides combat. I would probably also substitute stat damage instead of level loss for energy drainn (like I've been doing since 1E).

Little icons next to monsters like the spicy warning on menus would be good, but first the game would have to acknowledge that such things other than straight combat enoers exist.

Yes, but that leads to the problem we have now. Bazillions of monsters, the vast majority of which never see the light of day. Someone recently posted a poll about what percentage of SRD monsters people had used. The large majority had used less than half. And that's just the SRD. Never mind the MMII, III, IV, Fiend Folio, Tome of Horrors I, II and III, Creature Collections I, II, and III, Dragon, and a bazillion other sources.

Sorry, I'm tired of buying monster books and using less than a quarter of them because people design niche monsters. I'd much MUCH rather have a general monster that I can tweak into a niche.

In 3e, your rogue with 5 ranks in search will NEVER be able to find the DC25 secret door, and will ALWAYS be able to find the DC 24 secret door, with no role-playing and precious little thought involved. In 1e and earlier it depended upon your skill as a player ("I knock for hollow spaces in the upper section of the wall" / DM: it sounds hollow / "I can't be bothered with searching for secret catches, break out the pickaxes lads!")

Yes, because Calvinball is a much more rewarding experience than standardized play. :\ I so love the idea that I have to play verbal roulette with my DM in order to play a game and spend half an hour on trying to figure out how to open a secret door.

Heck, even back in the day, the players and I simply said, "Search the room for secret doors", rolled a d6 for every player and away we went. Pretty much identical to how 3e plays out.

 

[Mark CMG]

Someone recently posted a poll about what percentage of SRD monsters people had used. The large majority had used less than half.

Ah, but did they use the same half?

 

[jmucchiello]

Right. The Command menu is a 3.5 innovation; in 3E it was much the same single-word order as in 1E.

Although, from memory, the 1E version didn't allow a save... anyone confirm?

-Hyp.

Here's the 2e version:

Command
(Enchantment/Charm)

Sphere: Charm
Range: 30 yds. Component: V
Duration: 1 rd. Casting Time: 1
Area of Effect: 1 creature Saving Throw: None

This spell enables the priest to command another creature with a single word. The command must be uttered in a language understood by the creature. The subject will obey to the best of his/its ability only as long as the command is absolutely clear and unequivocal; thus, a command of "Suicide!" is ignored. A command to "Die!" causes the creature to fall in a faint or cataleptic state for one round, but thereafter the creature revives and is alive and well. Typical commands are back, halt, flee, run, stop, fall, go, leave, surrender, sleep, rest, etc. No command affects a creature for more than one round; undead are not affected at all. Creatures with Intelligence of 13 (high) or more, or those with 6 or more Hit Dice (or experience levels) are entitled to a saving throw vs. spell, adjusted for Wisdom. (Creatures with 13 or higher Intelligence and 6 Hit Dice/levels get only one saving throw!)

What I find most interesting is the 3.5e "drop" menu item doesn't work in either the 3.0 or 2e version of the spell since drop could mean drop to the floor instead of drop what you are holding.

About the only benefit to the menu version is you don't have to put up with the non-grandmotherly safe commands like disrobe or the word for "pleasure oneself". Nothing is scarier than having to describe the naked kobold and what he is doing.

 

[Banshee16]

Are you serious?. Hold person was a 2nd level Cleric spell that essentially was a Save or Die spell. At the level it entered the game there was no counter against it, 3rd level casters can't cast Freedom or Dispel magic. And in a chaotic shifting melee it is not even sure your friendly spellcaster will even notice someone being held. That is one reason to change it (and characters with low will saves are likely to stay held for several rounds anyway).

The other reason to change it is the exactly the fun factor. In our games combat takes time to play out. To be hit by a Hold person used to mean you might as well go stare at the wall for an hour or so, hoping something did not Coup de Grace you in the meantime. If you have shown up to an evenings (about 4 hours) of play, spending 1 of those hours doing nothing is really really unfun.

The third reason is that actions are the second most valuable currency in combat (the most valuable being HP). A low level spell stripping you of many rounds of action is exceedingly powerful.

Yeah, I'm serious. The chances of keeping an opponent nailed with the spell for more than a round or two statistically decrease every round.

Given the "instant-kill" attack, the coup de grace, which you use as an example of why it's an instant kill spell isn't so easy to use in the middle of a swirling melee, I'm not sure one can say the spell is instant kill. Finger of Death or Power Word Kill..those are instant kill spells.

Spellcasters depend on spells like that in order to survive...split the opponents, give time to breath so other spells may be used. What fun is it for a spellcaster to be butchered so easily by melee fighters who are so much more powerful than they were in 2nd Ed., now that their defense spells etc. have been pooched. Even their offensive spells. 2nd Ed. instituted the 10d6 max rule for 3rd level area effect arcane spells, to keep out the 24d6 fireballs etc. from 1st Ed. This was because spell damage was scaling faster than hp do. Yet in 3E the rules changed so that characters gain full HD at every level all the way through their careers. So they have significantly more hp than they did. Yet the spells haven't been changed...except to make them even weaker.

Banshee

 

[painandgreed]

Yes, but that leads to the problem we have now. Bazillions of monsters, the vast majority of which never see the light of day. Someone recently posted a poll about what percentage of SRD monsters people had used. The large majority had used less than half. And that's just the SRD. Never mind the MMII, III, IV, Fiend Folio, Tome of Horrors I, II and III, Creature Collections I, II, and III, Dragon, and a bazillion other

I don't know if I'd call that a problem. People who want the more monsters can get them and those of us that don't, don't. Besides, no matter what design philosophy they follow, it's not like they aren't going to give you and endless array of monster books anyway. So, not only do I not think that is a problem, but I don't think it pertains the issue at hand.

Now, if they did something like magic and came up with classifications for various design philosophies and markets them as such. You'd have your Noob books that only had straight up and up melee combat monsters. Your Geek books that included weird magical powers, social manipulators, and other monsters that take thought to run and fight. Then you'd have your Grognard books where save or die and other strange effects like the Rust Monster were allowed.

 

[Hussar]

*snip*

And if the party can't pool their resources to fund a restoration, you're not giving out enough treasure. That said, one change I made long ago to restoration was that one casting would get back all levels lost in a single encounter, but if you lost levels at different times you'd need one restoration for each level (or batch).

Now, this confuses me. I've been told time and time again that earlier edition campaigns didn't feature large numbers of high level NPC's. Yet, here I'm being told that finding a 14th level cleric to cast restoration is no problem. Never mind that he's going to be aged 12 years bringing Bob back up to scratch or the umpteen thousand gold its going to cost. I can simply go out and find Father Generic without any problems.

From another perspective, I usually try to make sure the campaign can survive the loss or incapacitation of one character...

I use level-drainers on a regular, if infrequent, basis - and this in a 1e-based game - but I think I've only ever run one or two Rusties...must change this...soon....

Lanefan

Agreed. THe campaign won't die because one PC does. But, that's the trick. The PC didn't die. If he died, things would be a whole lot simpler. However, now Bob has a character that is effectively useless. So, we'll make him a henchman and bring in a new 6th level character for Bob. Am I the only one who has problems with this?

"Uhh, yeah, sorry Bob, you got hit twice by that spectre. You get to stay in the back and carry the torch. THis other guy who we just met is going to get your share of the treasure from now on."

 

[Hypersmurf]

Here's the 2e version:

The Int/hit dice for a save rings a 1E bell as well.

-Hyp.

 

[FireLance]

Now, if they did something like magic and came up with classifications for various design philosophies and markets them as such. You'd have your Noob books that only had straight up and up melee combat monsters. Your Geek books that included weird magical powers, social manipulators, and other monsters that take thought to run and fight. Then you'd have your Grognard books where save or die and other strange effects like the Rust Monster were allowed.

The same philosophy should apply to other aspects of the game as well. AOOs and other advanced combat rules might go into the Geek rules, for example.

 

[painandgreed]

The same philosophy should apply to other aspects of the game as well. AOOs and other advanced combat rules might go into the Geek rules, for example.

Which was my idea for 4E (which is what I thought they should have done for 3E). Have a "Basic" set with the four base classes, simple combat, and rules light for easy access to the game by the young and new to RPGs. Then you have the "Advanced" which is not a separate game but aditional rules which includes other classes, AoO, etc. Further, you could have the "Unearthed Arcana" which are optional modular rules for things like DR armor, spell point systems, mods to make the game low magic. Such design would also come with descriptions for things like "low magic" so everybody knows what they are talking about. Somebody else mentioned (in another thread) giving monsters special iodentifiers like when food on a menu comes with one noting it is "spicy". You could have identifiers or ratings for melee, social and magic helping the DM to pick and choose the monsters to suit his campaign or adventure. Come to think of it, somebody could probably already do this in a website for the existing monsters.