|
1 year ago ::
Apr 09, 2012 - 9:10PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Sep 30, 2006
|
Rule-of-Three (2012 April 10th)by Rodney Thompson You've got questions—we've got answers! Here's how it works—each week, our Community Manager will be scouring all available sources to find whatever questions you're asking. We'll pick three of them for R&D to answer. Talk about this news here. 
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 09, 2012 - 9:33PM
#2
|
|
|
Completely uninteresting Rule of 3 (no new relevant information, except for saying that they won't do real-time-based measurement units). Did anyone really expect that hit points would be different? (Not that they shouldn't be different: I'd prefer a Vitality/Wounds system, but I never really imagined D&D would consider that, at least not for core).
Anyway, the best part of this week's Ro3 is still coming: HAIKU TIME! Where are you, wrecan?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 10, 2012 - 5:19AM
#3
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 10, 2012 - 5:48AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Oct 24, 2007
|
Part 3 is probably correct about the disadvantages of linking hit point and ability recovery to real word events like "once per game session". On the other hand that doesn't eliminate the option of linking recovery to story or adventure based events, such as "once per encounter", "once per milestone" or "once per adventure". Personally, at least in the case of an adventure based campaign, I think recovery based on story driven events is superior to basing recovery on in-game time units such as "once per eight hours" or "once per 24 hours", etc. Under that sort of system players are able to take the appropriate type of recovery based on where they currently are in the adventure, sacrificing a minimal amount of freedom in resting for greater predictability in terms of pacing and adventure balance and construction. Of course under that sort of system DMs would still always have the option to allow for more extended rests as appropriate if the players make a reasonable argument for why it should be possible, so such a system doesn't totally eliminate voluntary resting as an alternative. It simply mitigates issues such as the one-encounter-adventuring day in a campaign designed around multiple encounters per day on average.
Anyway there's lots of other threads on this sort of topic. I mainly just wanted to clarify that not having real world event timing doesn't preclude the possibility adventure-based timing. Also note that it's quite possible to have more than one rules module to handle recovery, with one having "per day" and "per hour" and another having "per encounter" and "per adventure", etc. Overall having a few different modules for recovery for different campaign styles might be the best way to go given that different groups have different preferences when it comes to resting.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 10, 2012 - 6:37AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Mar 18, 2009
|
I like how the answer re: hit points is "we're not going to change anything," despite the fact that there's a pretty significant difference between 4th Edition HP and pre-4th HP. The amount you get in 4E is tied to a very specific set of game mechanics not shared by previous editions, so one way or another they are going to change how HP are handled.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 10, 2012 - 6:48AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
I like how the answer re: hit points is "we're not going to change anything," despite the fact that there's a pretty significant difference between 4th Edition HP and pre-4th HP. The amount you get in 4E is tied to a very specific set of game mechanics not shared by previous editions, so one way or another they are going to change how HP are handled.
The numbers, proportions, and amounts of hitpoints changing doesn't mean that what hitpoints mean is changing. That's what his point was.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 10, 2012 - 6:53AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Mar 18, 2009
|
I like how the answer re: hit points is "we're not going to change anything," despite the fact that there's a pretty significant difference between 4th Edition HP and pre-4th HP. The amount you get in 4E is tied to a very specific set of game mechanics not shared by previous editions, so one way or another they are going to change how HP are handled.
The numbers, proportions, and amounts of hitpoints changing doesn't mean that what hitpoints mean is changing. That's what his point was.
Which is fine, except that the article also says they may "tinker with the amount or acquisition of hit points," and that is necessarily going to involve underlying mechanics. Basically, it's a non-answer all around.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 10, 2012 - 6:54AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Wait.
They said they aren't changing the general concept of hitpoints, but they might change the specific numbers and mechanics. How is that a non-answer?
You do realize they haven't written the game yet, right?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 10, 2012 - 7:50AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
May 26, 2005
|
To be honest I'm actually more curious about their plans for HP recovery than I am for the raw numbers of HP that you'd get. 4th did something kind of intriguing with the healing surge idea, it might not have been perfect but I liked the idea of healing surges representing how much 'rebuilding' your body could handle, that maybe using healing effects taxed the body so there were finite limites on how often it could be used. And using certain monsters that could drain healing surges actually seemed a lot better than level drain, at least in that games context. If they add in some kind of regen system that could be cool too but the recovery method is probably going to do a lot with class interaction. Are all classes going to have some means of self recovery with a few classes being able to help others? The healer archetype is almost intextricably linked to the HP system and that makes me wonder what their system will look like since it will probably have to be developed in tandem with the healing classes.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 10, 2012 - 8:12AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
The real innovation of the healing surge mechanic is that it added another timescale for durability. There's the encounter timescale, where if you take more damage than you can heal your character dies due to acute, short-timescale wounds. What healing surges did is also add the daily timescale, where the gradual wearing down of your character leads to death over a much longer period.
This allowed a truly large disparity in long-timescale durability between classes, such as between a Warden and a Wizard. A Warden could very well have over twice the healing surges and be much more efficient at using them. This leads to an enormous difference in how much punishment the Warden can take over the course of a day, but the gap between how much damage the Warden can take during a fight is much smaller, so that encounter balancing and design are easier. Furthermore, it is the healing surge mechanic that is the true representative of a defender's durability - damage taken on a wizard costs the party more resources to heal than the same amount of damage on the warden. As far as the monsters are concerned, if they're really thinking strategically, avoiding the -2 penalty for the mark isn't really the biggest reason not to attack the warden. It's that it just won't actually hurt that much.
I'd definitely like to see some sort of representation of these concepts that allow defenders to really be tougher in a meaningful way, rather than simply being a wall of nigh-impenetrable defenses that can be easily ignored.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
What's Next in crafting?
What's Next in hit points?
What's Next in timespans?
