The Grumpy Dwarf Looks at The Rule of Three - What's Next, What Happened, What Are You Doing?

The Grump Dwarf here.  Time to look at the latest Rule of Three from WotC.  Remember, I'm not just a Dwarf, I'm Grumpy too ;)  Original link here.

Will any products for D&D Next release this year (2012)?

 

No. We have no products planned in 2012 for the next iteration of the game. (I'm sure this surprises some folks.  This is actually very good news.  Hopefully they don't put out some lame "non-edition intro books" as a quick cash grab as they've done in the past) First of all, that would make it completely impossible for us to integrate feedback gathered from the playtesting process, something I want to reiterate is a significant priority for us. (open play test starts on may 24th folks.  don't bitch about the game when it's finally released if you don't bother at least reading the play test material and giving your feedback) Second, we want to make sure that the game doesn't release until it's ready to release, (okay, while they might actually mean this, they have a date already set "somewhere" and it will ship on that date, ready or not, here it comes!) and that means that we want to give ourselves plenty of time when working on everything from the game's design to art to layout and beyond before releasing the product.(again, I expect they believe this, but I don't believe it will ship one day later than they have already told the Hasbro Overlords)

As an aside, I'd like to note that we won't be able to talk about products related to D&D Next (in Rule-of-Three, or elsewhere) until the game is ready, so it may be a while before we start dealing with product specifics.  (Lets makes some guesses - Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide and a Monster Manual for the opening trilogy.  Do I win a prize?)

 

Whatever happened to the idea of the priest, or a cleric who doesn't wear armor and smites enemies with holy power from a distance (aka laser cleric)?  (who ever thought up the term "laser cleric" deserves a kick in the nether regions)

 

Right now, we're looking at ways to let players make that decision within a class. Choices made during character building and play should allow you to choose one type of cleric or another. An easy way to handle this is spell choice; do I choose spells that make my melee attacks better, or spells that let me zap from a distance? (I know they are trying to keep this stuff simple to describe, but "zap from a distance?")  Beyond that, we'll want some class mechanics to speak to one type of cleric or another. For example, we're tinkering with the idea that a cleric's domain choice might steer play style slightly. Take the healing domain, be the best healer. Take the war domain, be a great melee cleric. (why be a melee cleric?  isn't melee reserved for fighters to be the uber class?) Take the sun domain, be a great laser cleric. (i'm going to guess that wizards make better "lazers") It's still in process, but that's one line of thought.

What are you doing to make sure that the cleric and other magic users don't step on the toes of the other classes? If a cleric can be sneaky and use a bow, what place does the ranger or rogue have?

 

It's important to remember when talking about competence in particular areas that there is a distinction between being good at something and being the best at something. We want to make sure that each character class shines in certain arenas, and as a result while you might build a cleric who can sneak and use a bow (to use your example), and your cleric might be very good at those things, the ranger or rogue will probably still be better (wait, the ranger and the rogue are going to share skills at the same level?  i thought based upon all of these articles that D&D Doppleganger is going to be all about "niche protection", at least at the highest levels of the skill) . We want to give plenty of flexibility for people to be able to build the characters they want to build, that are good at the things they want them to be good at, while still providing ways for all the classes to have certain realms in which they are the best.

The Grumpy Dwarf Looks at the Latest Rule of Three - Feats, Skills and Monsters With Class

Fairy short set of answers in the latest Rule of Three question and answer posting.  Lets take a peek, shall we?

Original article is here

     Are themes just feat packages or is there more to them? What can we expect from feats for D&D Next—is it going to be what we're used to or are you spicing them up a bit?

The design right now delivers feats through themes—so yes, themes are the delivery device, just as themes in Dark Sun are a delivery device for some powers. (Interesting that they say "right now".  I guess there is still a hell of a lot of flux going on with D&D Next) Themes also do something great for character creation in that they really flesh out the story of your character and your character's place in the larger world. We've found (during the internal and expanded playtesting we've already done) that even experienced players enjoy that aspect of the themes, including when building their own theme feat-by-feat. (So, we no longer choose our own feats, but pick a theme?  I guess they are drawing from older editions - AD&D 2e and the Complete Handbook Series.  Hopefully themes have a better sense of balance)

As for feats, we want them to have a significant impact on how your character plays. We also want feats to allow some complexity customization (this is where we play with different editions in 5e i guess.  It's all in the feats). If you want to play a simple, streamlined character, we want to provide plenty of simple, streamlined feats for you to use. If you want a complex character, take complex feats. (I'm confused.  If the streamlined and complex feats are equal in power, why bother with the complex feats?  Flavor?  4e characters are more powerful than 3e characters, who are more powerful that 2e, and so on and so on.  If simple and complex are going to be equal, then you are going to have some disappointed players of later editions) Either way, we want you to feel like taking a feat really affects the way your character plays.

      If all characters can pick skills through backgrounds or just by cherry-picking what they want, is being the "skill monkey" no longer the rogue's thing?

We like the idea of rogues and skills being tied together as an aspect of the rogue's identity (but not the totality of that identity). (errr, o-kay.  so, rogues get skills, everyone gets skills.  so why be a rogue?)  Right now, we're experimenting with giving the rogue extra skills (but in 3e didn't rogues get like double or more the skill of the other classes?), on top of those that everyone gains, as a way to express that aspect of the class; we may also give the rogue some exclusive skills or skill-like abilities, but that is something we're still working on.  (does this mean every class can open locks, disarm traps, pick pockets and the like?  because that really is the rogue / thief niche, and to remove it removes a major reason to play the class)

      What other monster advancing ideas are you playing with beyond leveling them up with class levels?

Truthfully, we're not far enough into the game's design cycle to put too much work into monster advancement; up to this point, we've been more focused on creating the base versions of the monsters, making sure they work, etc. That said, I think we'd like to have many methods of advancing and altering monsters. Personally, I loved the idea behind templates from 3rd Edition, and really like the way we handle monster themes in 4E as a method of tinkering (please no minions and bosses bullshit.  if i wanted that I'll go back to MMORPGs). It's also pretty easy to just have rules for scaling up a monster's raw numbers.  Ideally, we're going to have a broad spectrum of ways for DMs to modify and scale up monsters, letting the DM choose his or her preferred method. (this "everything and the kitchen sink" method of building an RPG really scares me.  Do we really need multiple methods to tweak monsters?  multiple methods of gameplay?  of playing the classes?)

Cheer Bear Looks at The Rules of Three - Empowered Reactions in the Underdark

I've been told on G+ that my critique of various 

5e postings are "distasteful" at times.  To clear 

the palate for everyone,I will critique this entry 

as Cheer Bear of Care Bear Fame.  Cheer 

Bear has got the rainbow on his belly and is 

awfully nice.  Original posting is here.

In the past you've referred to wanting to boost DM empowerment in D&D Next. Can you be more specific about what this means?

In general, what it means is we want a system that makes it easy to be the DM (I like easy.  Easy as pie.  Pie is sweet), and at the same time trusts the DM to make the right call for any particular situation (I like to trust my DM.  Trust is good.  I like pie), rather than create many highly specific chunks of rules text in an attempt to cover every possible situation (chunks aren't good.  unless they are chunks of pie). Part of that is teaching the DM how to make the appropriate judgment call (teach me! Me!), and part of that is building the rules to make it so that, when the judgment call is made, it's easy to resolve (if the judgment call is made, isn't it resolved?  my head hurts.  I want pie).

As an example, let's say that the heroes are in a tavern (why can't they be in a happy field eating gummy care bears and drinking lemonade?) trying to get information out of a member of the Thieves' Guild. The smooth-talking rogue says that he wants to deceive (you should never lie!  lying is bad.  have some pie) the thief into thinking that she is a member of the same guild to earn his confidence. Alternatively, the brawny fighter wants to crush a pewter mug in his hand (you shouldnt break things, but if you do, tell your parents) to intimidate the thief into talking. If we have done a good job of educating (school is fun!) the DM, then the DM simply sets an appropriate DC for success and calls for a Charisma check (from the rogue) or a Strength check (from the fighter). Rather than call on some kind of subsystem (you can always call on a Care Bear.  we are your friends), we simply educate the DM on the best way to set a DC, and the best way to choose which ability to use for an ability check (isn't this called DM Fiat and abdul-jue-kate-on?). That also has the advantage of allowing the player to simply say what his or her character does, then having the DM respond with the kind of check to be made, meaning that players are always talking about their actions in terms of what their characters do (always do doody in a potty).

That may seem simplistic and obvious, but the subtleties of the way players and DMs interact with each other and with the rules can have a big effect on how the game functions (i'm just a small bear.  but i'm trying to stay in character.  players should try and stay in character too.  DMs must do all of the work.  work is good.  more pie). Beyond that angle of educating and trusting DMs to adjudicate many situations (zero bear likes this.  some bears don't like this.  some bears say "DM Fiat" is bad.  i like DM fiat.  I also like pie), we also want to empower the DM by providing lots of different ways for the DM to alter the rules of the game to best fit the kind of campaign and gaming group he or she has (but then the bears don't know what to expect.  this makes some bears sad.  it makes the 4th bear very sad.  4th bear like to know the rules don't change.) This comes through not only the variant rules modules we've mentioned before, but also from things like teaching the DM how to make minor changes to the existing system. (zero bear likes.  4th bear is even sadder)  (Don't think the players start with enough feats? Here is some advice on giving them more!) It also comes from educating the DM as to the impact those tweaks will have on the game. Furthermore, this doesn't have to be restricted to overarching and permanent rules changes. It could also focus on bending, breaking, and changing rules during game play (this is where 4th bear considers how bad things have become in the land of Next). (Does it seem like that difficult terrain should be even more difficult than usual? Here's how to alter the properties of difficult terrain for this instance to best fit the situation.)

Will the current system of standard, move, minor, free, immediate interrupts, immediate reactions, and no actions be retained, or is that something you look to change in D&D Next?

One of the things we're trying to do is streamline the player's turn a bit while still letting the player do something significant each turn (Cheer bear is always stignaficant.  useful too). As of right now, we have a system that states that on your turn you can take one action, and then move up to your speed. Most everything is just an action; attacks, casting spells, activating magic items, etc. "Moving up to your speed" can also cover things like climbing, jumping, and standing up from prone within that movement. We believe this is going to accomplish our goal of making combat move faster across all levels, being easier to teach to new players, and also making sure that the kinds of effects we're putting into the game are big, meaty and significant so that you really feel their impact. (cheer bears wonders how you can climb and attack)

What's the deal with the Rise of the Underdark campaign?  (cheer bear wanders off aimlessly now, as this is 4e stuff, and cheer bear does not grok 4e)

The Rise of the Underdark is a story theme that kicked off this year at PAX East, similar to what we did with Neverwinter last year. The Rise of the Underdark storyline is a series of interconnected stories, adventures, and products all related to the same storyline. I asked James Wyatt to give us an idea of what the story looks like, and he said:

Deep in the Abyssal darkness of the Demonweb Pits, the goddess Lolth is spinning a web of deceit, treachery, and ambition. Her goal is to seize control of arcane magic—a position that has lain vacant since the death of Mystra a hundred years ago. 

To facilitate this grasp for power, Lolth sent a prophet—Danifae Yauntyrr—to all the cities of the drow. Danifae is a fallen priest, a scoundrel, a seductress, and—if history is any guide—an avatar of Lolth herself. Danifae whispered to the leaders of all the great drow houses, spurring them to gather ancient power to aid Lolth's ascent. 

The drow are scouring the world for primordial relics (pieces of a dead or sleeping primordial), seeking out the remains of great wizards, gathering artifacts once sacred to Mystra, and fighting for control of magical locations on the world's surface.

As the drow gather arcane energy and channel it to Lolth, her power grows. Her web extends to cover most of the world, forming a Demon Weave to replace the sundered Weave that Mystra maintained—a new fabric of arcane magic. With that, the priests and wizards who serve Lolth have access to greater power than ever before, and their task becomes to use it. 

Across the surface world, Lolth's servitors draw on the Demon Weave to create shrouds of darkness that cover league upon league of surface lands. Under this pall of darkness, the drow can move and fight freely during what would normally be daylight hours. With this aid, they can complete Lolth's transformation and bring the world to ruin.

Additionally, you'll be able to participate in the story through three D&D Encounters seasons (Web of the Spider Queen, Council of Spiders, and War of Everlasting Darkness), play in organized play events at GenCon (Dawn of Nightchampionship adventure), PAX Prime (The Sun Never Rises adventure), and local game stores (with two Lair Assault challenges—Spiderkiller and Kill the Wizard). Products tied to the Rise of the Underdark campaign include RPG books (Into the Unknown: The Dungeon Survival Handbook, Menzoberranzan: City of Intrigue), two Dungeon Tiles sets (The Urban Underdark, Castle Grimstead), a map pack (Vaults of the Underdark), D&D Fortune Cards (Drow Treachery), the Dungeon Command skirmish board game's Sting of Lolth faction pack, and online content in Dragon issue #413 and Dungeon issue #204. There are also several novels related to the storyline, including War of the Spider Queen Volumes 1 & 2, Charon's Claw by R.A. Salvatore, and ebook exclusives: Sword of the Gods: Spinner of Lies by Bruce Cordell, Prince of Ravens by Richard Baker, Skein of Shadows by Marsheila Rockwell and Spider and Stone by Jaleigh Johnson. Find out more at DungeonsandDragons.com/drow

Looking at the Latest "Rule of Three": Modular Weapons and (Non) Combat - Or - We Simply Aren't There Yet

and here you thought that answers to questions would give you definitive answers...

What thought, if any, have you given to deciding what modular rules go into the initial D&D Next release and what rules will be released in subsequent supplements?

I chose to answer this question because my answer is going to apply to the many, many product-related questions we get for Rule-of-Three. The work we're doing right now D&D Next isn't what you would call product development (yeah, but monday's post WAS about product development) ; we are not working on books, we're trying to create the game system that is going to be featured and expanded in various products (at this point in the game I'd hope they were closer to figuring out the system and moving to the next part.  guess not.  they really did give an extremely early beta to the players and DnD Experience and apparently haven't gotten much further). As such, there are many decisions about what goes into a product that we have not even started working on because it's far too early in the process (i call BS on this.  the products are the money makers.  they have an idea of what the initial products are going to be). While we've got a running list of optional and variant rules we can include (Hit locations! Lingering wounds! Hexes! Firearms!), and many of those will likely appear right alongside the base rules in whatever products we release, no decisions have been made as to what rules variants will go into particular products.

Are we going to see mostly weapons we're familiar with, doing the same range of damage from d4 to d12, or multiples of dice? Can we expect to see a return of weapon damage types as was mentioned in a previous conversation? Also, do you expect to see any exotic weapon choices in the core or is that something you'd like to hold off for a later release?

Yeah, I'm cheating by letting these three count as one question, but they're all related and allow for relatively simple answers. I think we want weapons to meet player expectations, and some of the basic things you mention (like weapons having varying but basic damage dice) meet those expectations and function well. One area where we might make some tweaks is trying to level the playing field on a lot of common weapons, because for many players, a weapon is an aesthetic choice, and it's kind of a drag to pick a weapon for aesthetic reasons only to find out your character is somehow hampered because you didn't make another, less aesthetically pleasing choice (this makes sense.  i think there was an issue of Dragon in the late 60s that had a chart like such, which also adjusted the damage dice by class). Also, yes, right now we're looking at typing weapon damage, just like we do with spell damage. So, a mace might do 1d8 bludgeoning damage, for example.

As for exotic weapons, it's too early to know what is going to appear where. However, I would like to point out that when we talk about the "core of the game" we're not talking about the "core rulebooks" for the game. As I mentioned above, we're not working on products yet, we're trying to get the mechanical core of the system down—the basic functions of the game that make the game tick—before we start worrying about what kinds of content goes into a particular product. (yeah, but the "core of the game" will need to be in the "core rulebooks".  actually, the "core rulebooks" will by necessity be "the core of the game".  and no, i'm not referring to the exotic weapons question / comment, but the weird "core" comment)


One of the things that people worry about is combat and non-combat abilities competing with each other. Are the designers/developers of D&D Next worried about this kind of thing, and if so, what are you doing to mitigate it?

In general, we want to make sure that everyone has a baseline level of competence in all three pillars of play (combat, interaction, and exploration, for those of you who haven't read previous Rule-of-Three articles) so that they can participate in adventures that use those game play pillars in different ratios. (i really don't feel comfortable watching my game get defined in such absolutes) We want players to have a lot of freedom when choosing what to focus on. For example, in 4E if a player wants to blow all of his feats on extra languages and Skill Focus, that's totally OK. Likewise, I play a 27th-level wizard (I still can't get used to the levels that characters reach in 4e) in Chris Perkins' Wednesday night game, and I get far more exciting use out of my utility spells than I do from my attack spells (I'm looking at you, time stop). If I could trade in some of my attack powers for more uses of utility powers, I totally would. So, when it comes to customization points, we want to let people choose what they want to focus on (be that combat, diplomacy, being the best liar ever, being a super stealthy thief, or whatever) and trust the baseline competence we've built into all characters to make sure everyone feels like they can participate. (i've been told that 4e is pretty much all combat abilities, and even what appears on the surface to be non-combat, requires a combat maneuver to set it off.  have the books.  tried to read them.  wanted to like them.  never played and have no desire.  that being said, it looks like they plan to put some "role play" back into the D&D game, so it can't be all bad)

Looking at the Latest "Rule of Three": Crafting the Abstract Evolving Hit Points in D&D Next

The skeletons of dead editions of D&D reside within

 (go here for the original article)

  Do you think mundane crafting has a place in D&D Next?

Yes—but we haven't figured out exactly where yet (that's one of those honest answers that almost make you feel the game designer's pain). The goal is to make sure the rules for crafting things are present, and that you can opt into being a craftsman if you want as a player, but that doing so doesn't consume a significant portion of the resources you need for adventuring (if it happens between sessions, what adventuring resources is it occupying?  the most valuable gaming resource is TIME). We've tinkered with putting it in themes, for example, as a benefit that you just get. (but if it's a benefit you "just get", is there actual crafting involved, or do you "just get" the item?  is this another part of the streamlined D&D Next where it's "No Roll required?")

   How do you see hit points evolving in D&D Next?

Hit points are a great example of an area of the game that we don't think needs any real changes. They have remained consistent in their use throughout the editions, and we think they are one of the touchstones of the game. We might tinker with acquisition (either you get them when you level - or you don't.  not much room to tinker.  changing the Hit Die may be considered a tinker, but it's changed so often between editions I don't think anyone is married to the size anymore) and recovery of hit points (more Second Wind shit from 4e I presume?  Sorry 4e fans, but your combats last forever because the Hit Point Pool regenerates faster that a Troll on crack), but the basic concept of hit points should remain unchanged.

   It seems like we might be able to use an abstract time unit for some things - the session. Is this something you guys are looking at in D&D Next?

Right now, no. A session can vary so widely not only between play groups, but also week to week, that such abstract measurements of time make it very difficult for the DM (or the adventure designer) to predict what resources the characters will have available to them. In fact, one of the goals right now is to make it even easier on the DM to predict how draining a particular adventure will be on the party, and design the adventure accordingly (this goes back to the "One Hour Play Sessions" goal from earlier.  Balance everything in 1 hour blocks.  Bland as all shit gaming if you ask me). Real-world time measurements make that much more difficult, because we might spend one session exploring and interacting with only a single combat encounter, and another engaged in a series of combat encounters. If my character has a combat resource that is per-session (shit, this is more of that 4e at will, encounter, daily shit, aint it?.  I don't want my fighter to be a caster of fighter moves and specials, I want him to be a fighter), it not only means the character is weaker in a multi-combat session, it also makes my decisions as a player tougher, as I now need to decide when to use my resource based on the expected contents of each session of play, instead of based upon the events that the character participates in.

Notice how they've been playing these posts closer to the vest the past few weeks?  Could it be all the folks (like me) that ponder their words and try to decipher their actual direction?


Shouldn't I wait until I have the game in hand to critique it?


No, because by then in will be too fucking late to fix it.

As I've said before, WotC should make the best D&D game possible AND THEN worry about whether it includes everybody's desires.  Because it won't.  The best D&D game possible won't please everybody but will be a rocking game none the less.  A game built to please everybody will fail and please very few.


Gelatinous Cube by Malcolm McClinton

Looking at the Latest "Rule of Three": Give Me a Solo, Multi Cone Please! (D&D 5e)

You can find the original article here.

  How do you plan to improve Solo monsters in D&D Next?

There have always been some monsters in D&D that are meant to fight the party alone (at least, the first time you encounter them), so it's a safe bet that the kinds of monsters we refer to as "solo monsters" in 4E have a strong place in the future of the game (but did "solo" monsters exist before 4e, or is this a "feature" that 4e ripped from MMORPGs?  Do "solo" monsters, monsters built and powered far beyond their racial norm, really have a place in D&D.  Aren't dragons and the like effectively "solo monsters", depending on the party's level?). Right now, when it comes to monsters, we're looking to build each monster to provide the best expression of that monster's traditional experience, and in many cases that means squaring off against the heroes without any other creatures in the mix (which is pretty much what I was talking about above - if your need a solo monster for a bunch of gobbies, use a bugbear).

As far as "improving solo monsters" goes, there are some things we have learned over the course of the last few years (4e era) that are vulnerabilities that can plague solo monsters; being taken out of the fight by conditions like daze/stun/dominate (is that really so bad?  if it happens to be taken out quickly by smart players, doesn't that speed up combat and gameplay?), or lasting too long so the fight starts to drag (from what I've heard, that's very common in 4e combat), running out of tricks to pull (what tricks?  dailies and encounter powers?  same issues with vancian magic to some extent, but vancian doesn't get "at will"), being challenging for the DM to run, etc. However, not all of these are exclusively monster issues, and some can be solved by changing things elsewhere in the game. For example, if we used something like the "hit points as a threshold for affecting monsters" mechanic that Mike described for "save or die" spells in a recent Legends & Lore column, we can cut down on some of the challenges solos face because of conditions (but it does add a whole new thing for the overworked DM to track). We're looking at generally increasing the speed of combat overall (from 4e?  from 3.5e?  what is the baseline they are trying to achieve speed wise?) and finding ways to streamline monsters (Tunnels & Trolls 7.5e shows how to streamline monsters and yet still give them unique powers and abilities) while still making the experience of fighting them exciting, both of which will impact solo monsters, not to mention all other kinds of monsters, too.

   Can you give us any more insight into the multiclassing goals for D&D Next?
As with many, many other things, we're just in the earliest stages of design and testing on this, but here's what we have in mind. When you gain a level, you can choose any class and gain a level in that class, much in the same way that it functioned in 3rd Edition (with Monte behind the wheel of 5e, it's pretty much what i expected). Of course, those of you who play or played 3E know that there can sometimes be issues with this, and if you aren't careful you can build a character that struggles with effectiveness at higher levels. However, there's a lot of good that comes out of this system, including organic character growth, expansive character building options without the need for large swathes of material, and the ability to express your character's specialties through a unique mix of classes.

While there are certainly challenges with this system, a few other changes in the game make it more viable in the next iteration. As I mentioned last week, we're looking at a bounded accuracy system where accuracy (of everything, from attacks to spells) does not automatically go up with level (going back to the Lie of THAC0 - THAC0 increases in proportion to AC increases means you are just treading water.  I assume this also means that Acs won't be changing much as one levels in 5e). The discrepancies in base attack bonus between classes in 3E made some multiclassing combinations more difficult to pull off; absent those discrepancies, with the right ability score mix, the fighter and wizard classes mix together without that difficulty. Another thing we're looking at is the way we word certain abilities, making sure that disparate classes work well together. For example, instead of the fighter having to spend a single action to make multiple attacks, we might say that the extra attacks that the fighter gains as he gains levels are effectively free actions that the fighter takes on his turn. Thus, if my fighter/wizard picked up an extra attack through his levels of fighter, he might be able to cast a spell as his main action and then still get his extra attack, giving him the benefit of all of his class levels. (interesting, but I foresee game balance issues)

While this isn't the complete list of all the things we need to do to help make multiclassing flexible and easy, it's an example of the kinds of things we're looking at doing because of what we've learned from the good things and the challenges of previous versions of the game. And, of course, it may turn out to be just one option among several for how multiclassing works in the next version of the game.

   I love the Burst, Blast and Area spells in 4th ED, but I have to admit that I have been secretly praying you guys would bring back my beloved Cone and Line spells. Will you guys be bringing those effects back to mages near me?

Right now, the design of the game does not assume by default that you are using a battlemat and miniatures when adjudicating combat (now this is damn good news which I've heard before but just like to hear repeated), and as such we feel confident that spells like cone of cold could be cones, and lightning bolt could be a line, without having too many problems. However, when we present the rules for using a grid for combat, we're going to want to present ways to convert those spells into the more grid-friendly areas like bursts and blasts (why can't a "cone" be a "cone" template?  why can't a "lightning bolt" be a "lightning bolt " template?). We can also present the grid-based versions of bursts, cones, lines, etc. found in the 3.5 Edition of the game (see, why did they have to talk about converting when they already have what they need?  sigh). Moreover, we don't even have to limit ourselves to a square grid, and could present the rules for playing on a hex grid too, allowing each group to determine what fits their needs best. (why does the template have to fit the grid?  real life doesn't fit s grid.)

Catching Up With "The Rule of Three" - Complexity, Dreaded Monster Abilities and Smart Play

original article is here


What kind of steps are you guys taking to make sure we don't see a big difference in complexity between classes like the fighter and the wizard (and why shouldn't there be a complexity difference between the two?), and what are you doing to avoid the linear fighter/quadratic wizard issue ? (I have no idea what the fuck they are talking about here)

One of the challenges when talking about these kinds of issues is terminology, and the tendency for concepts to get lumped in with one another when they can be quite separate issues. Complexity is a separate issue than power; I can design an incredibly complex class that isn't very powerful, and some very simple things that are extremely powerful. Take a look at feats in 4th Edition; the original Weapon Expertise feat is an incredibly simple feat, yet many people would argue that it is one of the most powerful feats because it provides a raw numerical upgrade to accuracy that is not contingent on meeting certain conditions, and that cascades throughout the entirety of the attack system (yeah, uhm... i guess i am glad i skipped 4e). Additionally, there is a difference between symmetry and parity. When looking to design two classes, I may want to make sure that there is parity between the options available to each class, without needing to be symmetrical and give them the exact same kinds of options in the same frequency (most players can't tell the difference). Parity and symmetry can be applied to both power and complexity, making these two axes of design. Personally, my experience with games (both RPGs and board games) is that symmetry is not essential for parity, and in many cases the game can often be made more exciting by asymmetrical mechanics (funny how Mike and Monte can write and be understood by the masses, and here I feel like I'm back in college calculus.  I understand what he is saying, but there are much easier ways to say it without sounding... pompous)


The linear fighter/quadratic wizard phrase, for those of you unfamiliar with it, refers to an environment where the fighter progresses at a steady pace, with its output increasing by a relatively set amount at each level. The quadratic wizard, on the other hand, gains output increases both from additional spells (more spells = more output) but also from those spells dealing more damage and having more powerful effects (turning people to stone, instant death, etc.). Thus, the wizard eventually outstrips the fighter in output thanks to an ever-increasing series of gains over many levels (ah, the classic "weak as shit as a newbie, but a powerhouse at higher levels".  ever notice that intelligent adversaries always target the casters when the DM plays them right?).


To address the first part of the question, I think it's OK for it to be possible to have a big difference in complexity between the fighter and the wizard, if that is what the player wants. (but couldn't we just design a variant caster class, say "sorcerer", and have that be the simple wizzie?) What is important is that if the player chooses this path, we want to ensure that there remains parity in his effectiveness despite the difference in complexity. We've already shown how this is possible with the slayer fighter from Essentials; complexity of options is lower with the slayer, but the slayer can still retain parity of effectiveness with the other classes. I've said it before, but one of the best things we gained from the design and development of 4th Edition is a handle on how to examine the math behind a character's effectiveness (again, IMHO, removing the "soul" from the game), and there are even more steps we can take to accurately gauge a character's capabilities given the last five years of experience working on that game. Whether a player chooses to play a complex character or a simple character, making sure that character has parity with the effectiveness of the other members of the party should always be a goal. (does this mean everyone is just as effective as everyone else, both in and out of combat?  was there any out of combat actions in 4e that weren't "combat" with the serial number scraped off?)


When we look at providing options for character building, however, symmetry does not need to be a goal. The goal should be to provide a satisfying experience that does what the players want. Take, for example, the fighter. In a previous column, I mentioned that the fighter could serve the need for a low complexity class, and also have options to serve the needs of those who want a high complexity class. It is important when examining ways to build in that complexity that we focus not on symmetry, but on the needs of the player who plays the more complex character. I would argue that what the player looking to play a complex fighter needs (in broad, generalized terms; I full well realize that every single player's needs are different) includes things like having multiple options for things to do on their turn, have some expendable resources, have the ability to expend those resources for great effect, and have some ability to customize a fighting style to match their vision of the character. (Note that I chose to focus on combat here, but the same points can apply to exploration and interaction). Those goals can then be married with story goals, and verisimilitude (SAT word for the win) needs, and a host of other goals to, hopefully, produce the fighter that meets the players' needs. (I feel this whole paragraph is a bunch of over thinking by a game designer.  make the game fun, and the rest will take care of itself)


There is a challenge in making sure that higher-level non-spellcasters have a good variety of unique, and compelling options available to them (if the wizard can fly, teleport, and travel the planes, what does the rogue do?) (umm, roguish shit perhaps?), but that's something we solve by making available those creative options; again, parity of compelling options, not symmetry of mechanics. I think we see some great examples of compelling mechanics for non-spellcasters at higher levels in 4E, especially in epic destinies. Take the Thief of Legend's ability to steal intangible things, or to basically be so good of a thief that he can steal something and have it appear in a place of his choosing. (so, the thief in 4e gets magical powers?  now I'm really glad I skipped 4e)

I was wondering about some of the more dreaded monster abilities that made some previous edition monsters scary. Are you guys looking at the return of things like level drain, instant death effects, harmful polymorph spells or abilities, etc?

In general, I think that monsters should do what fans of D&D lore expect them to do, and if that means being really scary mechanically then so be it (good answer so far). I think there's room in the game for monsters that simply are more dangerous and deadly than others, just as I think there's room in the game for monsters whose purpose is to be interacted with, not fought. I also think it's good for monsters to exist that you don't want to face in a straight-up fight, but that you need to be prepared for or figure out a clever way to outwit rather than going in spells a-blazin'. (hey, this sounds like "Old School" gaming shit here) There needs to be an element of danger in the world in order for the game to feel exciting, and unpredictability is important for sustaining engagement. (holy crap!  does this mean characters "Can Die!?!)


We have some game tech developed for 4E that helps a lot here; for example, rather than being petrified instantly, we might use the method that requires you to fail two saving throws before becoming petrified, allowing the player (and his or her allies) to try and intervene in the process (I hope the first fail is at least the equivalent of a slow spell). And we may look at something like level drain and say, "Here's a mechanic that is both scary, and causes some game play issues," and then try and find a new solution that retains its sense of danger without using the exact same mechanics.  (I'll reserve judgement so far.  little info here)


The other important element when dealing with monsters that have scary abilities is education. We need to be able to communicate to the DM when a particular monster is suitable for a straight-up fight, and when it should be used more carefully. For example, if a medusa can instantly turn you to stone, that's fine, provided that the DM knows that a medusa shouldn't be just casually tossed into an adventure without first dropping hints to the players (allowing them to be prepared for the medusa when encountered) or being aware of the consequences of using a monster that instantly petrifies foes. (actually, this is also very "Old School" in nature.  forewarned is forearmed)

It was mentioned in the recent Legends and Lore that Vancian magic rewards smart play for wizards. What kinds of things are you working on to reward smart play for fighters? For other classes?

I prefer not to use the term "smart play," because even if I decide I don't want to carefully mete out my resources doesn't mean I'm not playing smart—it just means I am not as interested in the game-centric aspects of D&D (er, but vancian magic is about managing resources.  and D&D is still a game, right?  isn't that why they are using mathematical formulas, to prove they can balance the game). To address the question of what we're going to do to engage players of other classes looking for a more strategic play experience, it's going to depend on the class, truthfully, and the play style of the character. For example, the fighter might be concerned with things like the preservation of hit points, which not only includes making strategic choices at character creation, but also might involve managing a pool of self-healing resources, or using defense-based options to mitigate damage while still occupying an enemy's attention (thus also mitigating the damage that enemy could do to the fighter's allies) (MMORPG Tank type class) . The rogue might be more concerned with the management of risks, moving into a dangerous fray to fell a dangerous foe vs. sitting back and playing it safe, but not dropping an enemy as quickly. However, those need to be meaningful decisions; if it's always simply the right thing to do, there's no real reward for thinking strategically or tactically. (i'll accept these ideas.  they sound like fun additions to the game)


Resource expenditure is not the only source of fulfilling tactical and strategic play, but it is a perfectly valid one. Just as valid are things like target selection, knowing when to take risks, choosing the right tool for the job, knowing how to mitigate randomness, having backups ready in case of failure, and balancing a trade-off between accuracy, damage, and defenses. Moreover, it's a perfectly valid choice to decide that one wants to eschew all of that and focus more on the narrative of the character. This touches again on the symmetry issue from the first question: giving a class a fulfilling strategic or tactical play option is not about mirroring the options of other classes, but creating a satisfying experience for that class. (from what I understand, this is a lesson learned from mistakes in 4e) Who is the ultimate judge of what is satisfying? Well, you are, which is why we want to use the playtesting process to make sure we are achieving that goal.

Catching Up On "The Rule of Three": re: D&D 5e (3/12/12)

I've been neglectful in failing to keep up with the Rule of Three questions and answers series that Rodney Thompson has been doing on a weekly basis for WotC.  Why have I neglected it?  Because it was bouncing between 5e and 4e, and I have little to no interest in 4e (it's the edition that passed me by).  So when I started seeing a bunch of 4e stuff, I kinda forgot about the recurring feature.  It looks like I have some catching up to do ;)

Without further interruption, here's the 3/12/12 article, with my insightful and occasionally annoying comments.  You can peek at the original article here.


What are your thoughts on critical failures and things like injury charts and tables? Is this something that you could see living in the core of D&D Next or a module?

Those are two great examples of things that probably wouldn't be core assumptions, but could live as modules, albeit in a core book (I thought the modules were going to be published separate from the core.  and is it just me that has an issue with the term "modules" referring to optional rules after TSR and WotC have been using it to describe adventures for years?). Neither of those two have been consistent in their presence across the breadth of D&D (I'd argue they never really where there, except as optional and / or house rules), but while I wouldn't consider their presence to be core to the assumptions of the D&D game, they're prevalent enough in auxiliary materials throughout the years that they seem like good candidates for things that DMs should have available to add into their games (my lord, but this sentence is so full of fluff.  "They were never core, but enough people house ruled it in we figured we'd give you the option to play with out house rules").

   What have you guys learned about reaction and interrupt actions in 4E, and how do you think it will affect things for D&D Next?

Off-turn actions of all kinds can be a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it can be exciting to be able to break the turn order and step in when you normally couldn't, giving the player a lot more control over the situation. On the other hand, off-turn actions are one of the primary sources of game play slowdown—not simply in their resolution, but in the player's need to keep them in his or her mind all the time (this would certainly effect their "60 Minute D&D Session"in a negative fashion). We've all seen the situations where the DM is well into resolving an attack when one player says, "Oh wait! I have a power that lets me stop that."(I've never seen that, but I don't play 4e and barely played 3e) That's not so bad when a single player has a single off-turn action, but when they proliferate across multiple characters (with some characters stocking up on off-turn actions), you can see how something that is good in moderation can bring the game grinding to a crawl. (is this why 4e combat takes so long?)

I think one of the good things that off-turn actions do is give a sense of that the PC has active defenses; I don't just sit and take the punishment that the DM dishes out, I have a chance to protect myself thanks to the character building choices I made. This is one of the methods by which saving throws as presented in editions prior to 4th Edition actually have a positive impact on the players' game play experience. (I don't see how a Saving Throw is part of a character's "building choices", as it was always built on a set table based on class)

Going forward, I think we'll want to address the challenges associated with off-turn actions in a couple of different ways. First, I think we'll want to be more cautious with how many we inject into the game. ("Because we see how slow encounters have played out in 4e, and we don't want a repeat in 5e") In order to retain the benefits of the "active defense" side of off-turn actions, we can look to saving throws as a method of providing that feeling, and then build mechanics that ride on top of the saving throw if the player chooses them (I'm interested in seeing how this actually develop, as it makes no sense to me as stated, but maybe it's because Rodney "knows" but can't explain it yet)

   With 4E we saw some successful experiments with a 0 level that helps you create your character and inform you on the character's past and motivations. Is that something you'd like to see continued into the next iteration - a level 0 for bringing new people into the game and fleshing out a character?

While I don't think level 0 play will be an assumed part of the core game (0 level play is always a bit weird, as the character suddenly "levels" into a class), I think it's perfectly viable as an optional rules module. However, I'd also like to point out that themes (I don't do 4e.  are themes like kits from 2e?) 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 (but that can also result in 1st level characters that feel very "vanilla"). Experienced players could simply start at 3rd level if they want to leap right into a more advanced starting experience. (I'm sorry, but it's never right to "force" players to jump levels if they want the full game experience.  Why not add the slower ability advancement as one of their optional "modules", which they seem willing to do with critical failures and injury charts)

Picking Thru "The Rule of Three" - Looking at Damage Types

For my next trick... I'm going to take a look at the question and answer dealing with "Damage Types" and I'll be pulling out pieces and addressing them.

In previous editions, different weapon types mattered. For example, slashing weapons had different qualities than bludgeoning weapons, or worked better against certain monsters. Is this an element of D&D that you would like to see returned to the front lines?

I chose this question to answer because it's something we've been talking about recently. I actually like the idea of weapon damage types a lot, and damage types in general. Damage types are a low-impact way of conveying a lot of narrative through game mechanics. If I have a spell that deals fire damage, I immediately have an idea of how to describe it, and what other effects might be associated with it. At the same time, damage types are—by and large—simply a keyword that is referred to by other effects. They are also flags to the DM that can indicate when there is an opportunity for something interesting to happen. If I deal acid damage to a monster, the DM can easily jump in with a description of the acid spattering and weakening the floor beneath that monster—which, in turn, is a flag for the players to consider smashing the weakened floor to drop the monster through. That's an example of damage types at their best.

There have been many times since the inception of 4E where we'd wished we had some kind of damage type for physical damage, a point that was driven home especially well when we did the design and development of the Gamma World game, which does have a physical damage type. I think the step that previous editions could have taken, but didn't, is to treat slashing, bludgeoning, and piercing damage types just like acid, cold, fire, etc. damage. That way, weapon users get a few more interesting choices in the weapons they wield, just like spellcasters have when making spell selections. Plus, there's something very satisfying to me for the cleric wielding the mace to be able to step forward and smash through skeletons that are vulnerable to bludgeoning damage. While there's nothing set in stone about the next iteration of D&D, those are some of the kinds of things we are thinking about.

Damage types are a low-impact way of conveying a lot of narrative through game mechanics.

Uhm, I thought "narratives" in gaming was for "Indie" type games.  In any case, prior to 3e, there really wasn't much though put to "damage types" beyond fire, cold and lightning.  3e added a few.  Don't know 4e well enough to say.

 If I deal acid damage to a monster, the DM can easily jump in with a description of the acid spattering and weakening the floor beneath that monster—which, in turn, is a flag for the players to consider smashing the weakened floor to drop the monster through. That's an example of damage types at their best.

Great image for them to draw upon.  But then we need to see what the floor is made out of, did it make it's save, how many hit points did it have, how is the party going to damage it, etc.  I'm looking forward to official D&D modules with damage ratings for the floors, walls and ceilings ;)

I think the step that previous editions could have taken, but didn't, is to treat slashing, bludgeoning, and piercing damage types just like acid, cold, fire, etc. damage. That way, weapon users get a few more interesting choices in the weapons they wield, just like spellcasters have when making spell selections.

Do we need to bring back AC adjustments for Armor Types vs Weapon Types?  If I recall, it was in 2e, but we stopped using it as in only came into play with humanoid opponents that wore armor.  Will 5e monsters be given an equivalent AC type regardless of actual AC for damage type purposes?

there's something very satisfying to me for the cleric wielding the mace to be able to step forward and smash through skeletons that are vulnerable to bludgeoning damage. 

That was always called "slashing / piercing do half damage to skellies".  Blunt weapons were therefore twice as effective.

Do we make opponents harder to hit with the Armor Type / Weapon Type chart, or do we use a Damage Resistance / Reduction effect?