Post/Author/DateTime	Post
WotC_Bart 02-10-06, 06:23 PM	Hi folks, The following thread is for the Design & Development article series: Adventure Design, Part 1: Let's Get Small (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060210a), Part 2: Gnoll Limits (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060223a), and Part 3: Delve Format (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060317a). Many thanks, Bart Carroll
taski 02-10-06, 06:38 PM	The link doesn't work.
Board_Rider 02-10-06, 07:14 PM	I have a trap but it isn't quite "thought out". Anyways I liked the article. It is true about the locks lacking keys and its good to know the R&D guys have noticed it too. I loved the Drow rant. Again..good article.
Flame_Drake 02-10-06, 09:54 PM	I liked it too. One of the things I really like about these articles is how honest they seem to be. There's no, WotC powns you all, everything we do is great. The fact that R&D both recognizes and actually acknowledge that there is something wrong with the system is great. My personal belief with traps is that you make it flavorful. Either you see them or you find them, and when the PCs do, you make sure that they can disabe them in an intelegent way. Drake
Zulithe 02-11-06, 01:29 PM	Why aren't the Design & Development articles available in PDF? I'd find it very useful for offline reading.
Caelan 02-13-06, 02:03 AM	:) That's a great atricle, I really enjoyed it and am looking foward to seeing the next installments. I will dig through my traps files and see what i can come up with. Any plans from the R&D to try and fix the Drow? I'm working on an underdark campaign right now and would love to see some suggestions to help out my drow villans. Tell David, Jesse, Chris, James, and Robin that they did an awesome job on the DMG 2. I recently bought it and am very glad that i did. Keep up the good work. :D
Dragonteuthis 02-13-06, 05:23 PM	I loved the article, and when I got to the section on the Drow, I almost felt that article was written expressly for me. I've almost never used traps or locks, mostly because of the reason the article states. Mechanical traps, especially do not seem D&D-esque to me. Typically a treasure chest or important passage will have a glyph of warding on it, and that's about the extent I go to. Things that need to be locked typically receive an arcane lock, infinitely better and cheaper than the best lock. This has probably hurt Rogues in my campaigns, but almost no-one I know plays a Rogue, and nobody has complained to me. Perhaps that's one of the reasons I don't have many traps and locks. I've noticed the mechanical CR problems with Drow. My solution has been to make them a CR +0 race, and lump them in with Devils, Demons, and Dragons as "Monsters the players are often prepared to fight." And hey, they're also in the "Deadly D's" so it works for me. This change makes them difficult encounters, but since I always leave hefty clues for the players pointing to Underdark elves, they typically have time to prepare. Things like antitoxin, daylight spells, and even possibly preparing spells that ignore spell resistance like Melf's acid arrow or blast of flame. I've never had Drow ambush the party, but if I did, I would probably bump the XP reward up to compensate. I'll have to play that one by ear...
Paiku 02-14-06, 08:55 AM	Another excellent article from the Design & Development column -- thanks guys! I'm pumped about the prospect of a series of articles on writing adventures, a facet of the game in which sage advice and shared experiences are always welcome. I have been guilty in the past of railroading the players. Gee, writing an adventure is not like writing a novel! Player left-turns have also left me stumped (to my players' perverse delight). A bit of advice I recently read in Heroes of Horror seems to be the key to success: figure out how events would proceed without the PCs; then in-game, modify that plan according to the PCs' actions. I look forward to applying that principle in my next creation. Keys: why didn't I think of that? A lot of our pre-conceptions about what an adventure (or 'module' as we old-schoolers still call them) can be, was formed in the early days of monster-(trap)-treasure-repeat dungeons. Ideas of realism (would a gelatinous cube be allowed to roam around in an inhabited orc stronghold?) came later, and are still coming. "Monster esponse" is a good example, and Noonan has some great suggestions on balancing realism with playability. We're maturing from purveyors of gratuitous Dungeon-Porn to creators of fine, cooperative literature. Looking forward to the next installment. Thanks guys,
Dragonteuthis 02-26-06, 10:59 PM	Okay, first impressions on the new installment: ...cleric levels are nonassociated... :uh-huh: That doesn't make any sense. Gnolls are a physical, martial race, and one that typically hunts in packs. What's a cleric do well? He enhances and heals physical, martial creatures. I think that's a rather bad assumption on the author's part. Clerics have so many tricks, they really should be an associated class for almost every creature, possibly excluding arcane-types like the Rakshasa and Illithid(and only possibly). (finishes reading article) Good stuff. I can definitely see why these guys stay in business. Their work is excellent. Thanks, Dave and Jesse!
danhenneke 03-05-06, 02:33 PM	I have a small problem with the way traps are CRed. My party ran into a book that was trapped with a 10 D6 fireball, and it was CR 6. This fireball incapacitates half of the party, and out right killed 2 members. Granted, a scythe trap can do the same thing, but it has to hit first, and then roll damage. Magic just hits. The magic traps need to be examined to make sure in line with the nonmagic traps.
Dragonteuthis 03-07-06, 09:33 AM	danhenneke, I'm curious: What level was your party?
Nom 03-07-06, 05:55 PM	...cleric levels are nonassociated... That doesn't make any sense. Gnolls are a physical, martial race, and one that typically hunts in packs. What's a cleric do well? He enhances and heals physical, martial creatures. I think that's a rather bad assumption on the author's part. Clerics have so many tricks, they really should be an associated class for almost every creature, possibly excluding arcane-types like the Rakshasa and Illithid(and only possibly).I think you are misunderstanding the term "nonassociated". It doesn't mean "is redundant". It certainly doesn't mean "grants no synergistic benefit to allies". What nonassociated means is that the primary abilities of the class do not directly advance the primary abilities of the racial HD or operate in a different manner, and vice versa. For cleric augmenting fighter, you have something of a point, in that two levels of cleric can be almost as useful to a melee character as two levels of fighter. However, Dave is not building a "fighter/warrior with dip in cleric", he's building a "cleric with dip in warrior". The racial levels provide the character with almost no benefit in terms of his primary clerical abilities; although they do add some hit points and some saves. CRs are something of a black art, even more so than pricing magic items.
Wotc_Mark 03-07-06, 07:18 PM	Why aren't the Design & Development articles available in PDF? I'd find it very useful for offline reading.We usually only PDF articles that would be usefull game aids for playing D&D. We will however think about it. MJ :cool:
Kalrin 03-17-06, 11:38 AM	I like this article. It brings up an interesting idea though: Would it be possible to write a text editor of sorts to write out dungeons? I.E. the format would have a grid in the center for the room being identified, and then the sides of the page would be clear, or have empty word boxes to write the relevent info on. Seems to me that if WotC's changing their dungeon format, having a computer program which lays all of this out for use would be nice (Templates are good :)).
Halzebier 03-18-06, 09:32 AM	Wow! I absolutely love this column and still you manage to outdo yourselves! The Dungeon Delve concept is *exactly* what I need. I don't have much time to prep and hate it when a session is spent flipping around in the books and everything grinds to a halt. Even if this format took up more space (what with the photos and all), I'd say: so be it. I'd rather have ready-to-run (and easy-to-run!) premium content to hack and slash after a hard day's work than having to read up on monster abilities and a module in the time until the pizza arrives (or worse, during combat). (I'll print out the Chraal room, set aside the required minis, and run it at first opportunity, i.e. when someone is late for the game.) Regards & Rock on Hal
wmcduff 03-31-06, 10:51 PM	I think this format is very interesting indeed; as a visual person, I find it works a lot better for me, though things aren't quite consistent. Monster, set-up, and description are all in the same place, but not everything else as of yet. The article author wrote that he was working on further adventures in this format, slightly modified. I'd like to see the updated format when it's ready. Will there be information on which adventures these will be and when/where they'll be out available soon? Could we get a sample page, or if copyright prevents this, perhaps a version of the classic "Orc and Pie" done in the modified format? Or perhaps "Goblin, Rat and Pie" as I'd like to see what the set up for multiple monsters is as well. I'm currently writing an adventure myself, and love to have it in this format, but I'd like to convert it to standard...
Ancillary 04-15-06, 07:27 PM	I just skimmed through the proud nails feedback article. There were several excellent points. It is always interesting to see how people overcome problems. The knowledge for creatures I agree with. I think tying the creature types to the knowledges was brilliant, and added a lot of relevance to the skills. But not being able to ID certain creatures is kind of silly. My fix is that a seperate DC 20 check will give a name to a specific monster. Circumstance bonuses are definitely in order. No crunchy bits unless the relevant check is made though. The person that had the problem with tripping had part of the rules wrong. When you provoke from standing up you cannot be tripped with that AoO. I am disappointed, since that situation is a common one, and now the people who read this article will get the wrong idea about it. As for non-associated class levels, I think they are a myth. It is a fact that two levels in any casting class will improve any non-casting class more than an additional level in a non-casting class. The caveat being that it is reasonable to get the minimum ability score to cast the spells the class will allow. With the introduction of swift spells and such, it is even more true. I would also say that in the low to mid levels the reverse is generally true. A 2 for 1 may be relevant if you put sorcerer levels on a gnoll and have him magic missile things. I think it insults the gnoll though. If I was a gnoll who short brutal life depended on my spell selection, I would choose reasonable spells to complement my existing skill set such as shield, enlarge person, or true strike. If you build the gnoll in a way that respects its ability to make reasonable decisions, you will find that it is not a disabled creature that needs its CR arbitrarily reduced. I would leave CR reductions to real disabilities like a missing arm or blindness. (And honestly I believe, that just as in RL, creatures with those could mould themselves in a way that would make them practically the same threat as a normal creature) I guess non-associated class levels is a proud nail to me. :)
Festivus 04-16-06, 12:46 AM	I was just going to comment on the tripping thing as well. It is one of the more confusing aspects of combat, and too see it referenced this way only serves to confuse more. If you are tripped, you can stand up, which provokes an AOO. But that AOO is an interrupting action that happens BEFORE you actually stand, so a trip attempt there is a waste. You would be re-tripped, but then just stand up after the AOO resolves.
stembolt 04-16-06, 11:52 PM	I am glad to see that others had the same issues with some of the “inapplicable” proud nails. Trip and mystic theurge are just wrong. As for disliking grease or bigby I think the person would have an easier time to simply get over their silly hangup (btw magic missile compared to missile weapons). The critical hits one is another example of “fixing” something that’s actually working the right way. If you need a 20 to simply hit, you should only be criting one out of 20 times. It is unfair to the incredibly high ac. The vampire thing is merely an overlooked rules instance, not a proud nail. Some of the others are good examples.
ArnimThayer 04-17-06, 12:15 AM	One thing that's always bugged me concerns the Knowledge skill. From the SRD: "In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster's HD. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster." Evidently, the tougher a monster, the more difficult it is to identify! I can just see it now, applied to the real world: Whack: Try appling the following formula instead: In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster's CR. CR isn't always based solelt on HD, and as such sometimes makes a difference. If all else fails, you can change the base to 15, and apply that a modifier based on class (i.e Clerics get a +2 on Knowlege-Religon checks vs. Constructs & Undead; Druids apply the same for Animals, Vermin, Fey, and Elementals; Wizards apply the modifier to Constructs, Undead, Extraplanar creatures and Magical Beasts; Sorcerers apply the modifer to Magical Beasts & Dragons). This may help.
Dragonteuthis 04-23-06, 12:48 PM	I find it humorous how the developers consider the Mystic Theurge to be a proud nail, even though they completely ignored the community when it was first unveiled. Countless well-reasoned suggestions and pointers about the problems inherent in the class were revealed by players, yet the class went into the DMG without modification. Perhaps it was inertia. Maybe the revised DMG was too far along in production to change the Theurge. Either way, this should give the designers a clue that the community isn't full of idiots. While it's true that they proliferate, there are actually reasonable gamers there, and they are always worth listening to. Oh...and it's "rogue" not "rouge," WotC.
stembolt 04-23-06, 01:53 PM	I find it humorous how the developers consider the Mystic Theurge to be a proud nail, even though they completely ignored the community when it was first unveiled. The MT is either underpowered at high levels or broken with classes like Ur Priest or Nar Demonbinder (because those classes are broken). So what are you talking about?