Forced Movement

Caves of Chaos Plot Ideas

2012-06-07T12:52:00.001-07:00

As many of you know, the recently released D&D Next playtest packet came packaged with the Caves of Chaos “adventure.” I put the word “Adventure” in quotes there because Caves of Chaos (hereafter referred to as CoC) isn’t really an adventure in the modern sense. Instead it’s a loose sandbox left open for you, the DM, to fill with your own goodies.

I get why WotC included this as the “adventure” in the playtest. It is open and unrestricted which would allow different groups to add their own flair and their own style to the scenario.

However, for those of us that want to playtest this thing, but don’t have a ton of time to figure out what politics and interactions we want the different factions to of the caves to have it would have been nice to have had a bit more structure than the simple hooks at the beginning of CoC.

So to that end I’m going to try to give some more in depth plot structures to the CoC that DM’s can simply drop in. These won’t be full blown adventures, or even delves. What I’m offering here are some simple plot threads that are a bit more structured than the small hooks in the front of the CoC pdf. I’m not going to go into the minutiae of planning the fights that take place, the CoC pdf can handle that pretty well. Instead, I want to give everyone a good story to frame their playtest around.

Surrounding Area

An adventuring site is only as good as the civilization that is nearby. Without one, where would the characters spend all that gold they sto... I mean obtained?

So the first thing to do is to add a home base for your characters - a place they can limp back to when they get their butts kicked, a place to hawk some stuff they found, and a place to spend some of that coinage they picked up while exploring the CoC.

For this purpose, I will suggest that you either grab a copy of the original B2: Keep on the Boarderlands or you head over to the WotC website (http://www.wizards.com/dnd) and grab the DDI article called “Keep on the Chaos Scar”

Both of these give a description of a small keep that is positioned near a cave riddled ravine, so both of them work very nicely as a starting point for your adventurers. Going forward, I’ll be assuming that we’re using Keep on the Chaos Scar.

Getting to the Keep

Each of the following scenarios will need to introduce the characters and get them to the Keep on the edge of the Caves of Chaos.

Scene Objectives:

Get the party to the Keep and establish a base of operations
Introduce the characters to each other (and to each others players)
Give the PCs some time to interact with friendly NPCs
Allow the PCs that have interesting Background benefits to utilize them

Start the players off with something similar to the following boxed text:

The cart you have been accompanying sways back and forth as it hits the small bumps and ruts of the dirt road, groaning with each. The sun is beginning to set, and the unmerciful heat of the day is beginning to wane when you and your travelling companions finally reach the small fortification you spotted earlier in the day.

The small fortress has high walls, and a dry moat with a draw bridge. The bridge is currently pulled shut, leaving no entrance. But as you approach a voice from above calls down, “State your business!”

The merchant you have been traveling with whispers something to the drover of the wagon, who answers back in a dusty voice, “Passing ‘froo. Gots us some wares that need passin’ on, and we need us a place to bed down for the night whereas we won’t get stuck or robbed!”

After another second or two the great bridge begins to move, and slowly it grinds open. A small troop of guards comes fanning out of the keep and escorts your group inside.

At this point, have one of the guardsmen take the group of adventurers to the side, and ask them their name, what their business is in the area and collect their weapons.

This makes a great place to introduce the characters in a more “meta-gamey” fashion. Have each player make up what their character looks like, where they’re from, and what their real motivations are in the area.

After this, let them free from the merchant - who might give each of them a small payment for the protection. Consider giving each character 10gp, so they have some cash for spending in town today.

From here the plots splinter off, depending on where you want your characters to go. Most of the players will want to look for the nearest Inn, which is a great (albeit cliche) way to introduce the characters to the plot.

Plot 1: Finding the Heir

The current lord of the keep, Lord Drysdale, has his head set on creating an empire from this once nearly abandoned keep. As such, he has been hosting dignitaries from the neighboring kingdoms to wine and dine them.

However, recently a caravan that carried one of the foreign dignitaries and his retinue has gone missing. A dire situation for any budding nation to be in, but Lord Drysdale is a resourceful man and he probably could have talked his way out of a few missing noblemen. That is if the missing dignitaries were just noblemen. This particular dignitary was the second son of a neighboring kingdom - but on his way to the keep, his eldest brother died in a tragic accident, which made him into the new (and only) heir of his kingdom!

This dignitary, along with all others, are under Drysdale’s protection while travelling to and from his keep. So now Drysdale faces the potential wrath of an angry nation at the loss of their heir. It probably won’t turn into an immediate war, but it will definitely strain relations between the two entities.

Due to this, Drysdale is trying as hard as he can to find the heir. He has put out an open call for all able and willing men and women to help find this missing prince.

The PC’s might become entangled in this mess by hearing a town crier or perhaps they are approached as they enter town. How they are swept up in this mess is up to you, but this is a great place for some interactions with the locals.

Drysdale's intelligence reports that about 3 days ago, the prince's caravan was waylaid by a band of kobolds and an ogre. They killed all the guards and servants (except one) but their goal seemed to be taking prisoners. Further, it’s common knowledge that the kobolds live in the area known as the Caves of Chaos to the northeast. Drysdale hopes that the abductors do not know exactly who they have nabbed, and wants the prince found as soon as possible.

To this end the characters are hired to rescue the prince, and their prize for success is a knighthood and a small plot of land to call their own within the new kingdom that Drysdale is founding.

From here the players will need to locate the abductors. The characters can either pick caves at random to try and find the prince, or they can attempt to track him from his point of abduction. I will assume the latter.

When they do find and defeat the kobolds located in cave A, they find that the prince is no longer being held by them. He, along with most of the captives, was traded away to the band of goblins (in area D) and the tribe of orcs (Areas B and C) that live in the ravine as payment for their services defending against the Hobgoblins in area H. However the characters are unsure which set of monsters he was traded to. They will have to decide which group to attack next.

In reality, the prince was traded to the orcs though he didn’t stay there long. The orcs offered the whole lot of the captives to the cult of Zehir that has taken root in the caves recently as sacrifices. However, the orc tribes have only recently banded together (after a particularly nasty beating from the nearby group of bugbears and the ogre) and it should be obvious that the tribes are split on the decision to give away the captives. The fact of the matter is that one of the cheiftains of the tribe has been charmed by the cultists. This could make for a decent little non-combat encounter, to try to get the other chief to take over and help rid both tribes of the cults influence.

As for the cult of Zehir, they have placed a hidden agent in the keep - a brother Benwick that is offering healing and care to the needy. Through him, they have learned of the lineage of the prince, and they plan to sacrifice him as a focus for a ritual that will enslave the mind of the prince's father and mother. What they plan to do with that control, however, is up to you...

Plot 2: The Devil You Know

The treaty as always stood: Send monthly tribute of food, ale, and gold to the caves - followed by a yearly tribute of a hale young sacrifice on the summer equinox, and the keep goes unmolested. Those were the terms set down by the tribes of the Caves with the dwarven brigands that once occupied the keep so many years ago, and to this day they have stood as law in this unforgiving place.

The keepholders have upheld their end of the bargain, but the tribes that dwell in the Caves of Chaos have recently begun attacking holders and travellers as they go to and from the keep. And just last week, a large contingent of Gnolls attacked and razed the surrounding area.

The holders of the keep now live in constant fear. Worse yet, due to the recent attacks the travelling merchants that form the lifeblood of commerce for the keep have stopped coming.

This is when the PC’s arrive, and it should be immediately obvious that something is wrong. Everyone is on alert, and the arrival of a band of adventurers is a big deal.

Soon after their arrival, the PC’s are approached by Lord Drysdale directly. He wants the characters to go to the Caves and find out why the treaty has been broken. Furthermore, he wants the characters to attempt to re-establish the treaty with the leader of the tribes, a medusa named Sitherax. If that is not possible, he wants the characters to find some other way to stop the attacks, and authorizes them to offer up to double the amount of the original treaty if need be. If nothing else, Drysdale would not be upset if the PC’s could simply bring him back information regarding the situation.

Drysdale tells the PC’s that he has sent 2 groups of dignitaries ahead of them to try and open communications with Sitherax, but that neither of them have returned. He fears the worst for them, and that is why he wants to send a group of capable adventurers instead of more diplomats. And of course, if the PC’s could bring back any of those lost dignitaries, it would only be met with additional praise.

The characters are granted a small group of guards as escorts. It might work best if these extras stay behind and secure a campsite outside the caves - a place nearby that the PCs can run to if they need to rest. But these guards are not enough to repel a full tribes attack should it come to that!

The truth of the matter is that Sitherax has been usurped by an evil cleric named Von Urich, that has recently moved into the area. He is a powerful man that worships an even more powerful god. He, like the medusa before him, rules the tribes through fear but , unlike the medusa, has little interest in goods or gold.

Von Urich and his acolytes seek to create an evil artifact of great power - a sphere of annihilation. But to do so, they must enact a ritual to their profane deity that requires the utter annihilation of a large amount of victims. And over the course of the last few months, Von Urich has been strangulating the keep of all hope by commanding the tribes to attack all those that would travel to and from the keep, and now his ritual is almost ready.

The new moon is about to rise, and when it does Von Urich will complete his ritual by sacrificing the once powerful medusa. The ritual, fueled by the despair of the inhabitants of the keep, will consume all of the people living within the keeps walls. First during the first stage of the ritual the keepholders will begin to turn on each other, despair turning to anger. That is when the tribes will attack - and the resulting slaughter will be complete. At its culmination, the ritual will consume the death, anger and despair of the holders, as well as the bloodlust, victory and lives of the tribes members to form the sphere.

The PC’s don’t know it yet, but it is up to them to stop this from happening...

Looking Forward to D&D Next Part 2

2012-02-28T16:04:00.001-08:00

Now D&D Next is in the works, and it appears that it will hew closer to 3rd edition and 2nd edition then to 4th edition. That doesn’t mean, however, that we 4th edition fans are going to be left out in the cold. 4e taught the devs, and in fact the whole industry, some very important lessons about tabletop games. In the this group of posts I’m going to cover some of the lessons that I think should have been learned, and hopefully show how that lesson could be applied to D&D Next.

The next lesson is right after the jump!

Lesson 2: Codification can Constrain the Imagination
As discussed over on the Legends and Lore column by Monte Cook, 3rd and 4th editions of D&D codified a ton of rules that had existed in one form or another for a long time in D&D. 4e much more so then 3e, but both helped distill these rules in some form.
For example, 4e bought with it a set of easy to understand conditions, very quantifiable combat roles, and several other categorization that helped the players understand what was going on in the game. These things made a kind of psudo-language that the players and DM could use to speak about things, making communications easy and quick.

No longer would the question “What are you playing?” have to be met with “I’m playing an X. So I basically do Y, but in some instances I do Z when A is happening. And sometimes I do Q if B, R, and J are up and running. I also have...” Instead, that question could be quickly answered with “I’m a Primal Defender.” Everyone understood what a defender does, and because it’s primal you’ll basically understand the ascetics and how it’s going to get done.

All these classifications also helped players and DM’s describe the in game effects of your actions, specifically with the different conditions. You no longer needed to explain that, “this creature can only take actions that take less then 3 seconds to complete.” or “he is lit on fire. Lets find out what that means exactly... (page flipping)” Instead you could simply say, “... and he’s dazed.” or “And he takes ongoing 5 fire damage until he saves.” These things made the vernacular of the game extremely easy once you understood it - everything falls into one category or another, and everyone understands what those things are meant for. This significantly increases the speed of the game in some cases.

The major drawback here is that soon everyone is speaking in this vernacular, and the story elements of the game get lost. Instead of a scene playing out like this:

Player: “I hit him with my Fiery Spell of Fiery Doom”
DM: “Whoa, what does that do?!”
Player: “It says he takes 4d6 damage and catches on fire! Take that ugly!”
DM: “Ouch! What does him catching on fire do?”
Player: “Let me see... ( minutes of page flipping later) … he takes 5 damage each round until...”

Most exchanges play out like this:

Player: “I hit him with my Power: Fiery Doom”
DM: “Whoa, what does that do?!”
Player: “It says he takes 4d6 damage and takes ongoing 5 fire damage (save ends)! Take that ugly!”
DM: “Ouch! Okay, next player...”

In the first exchange, everyone listening has an image of the monster being “lit on fire.” Then that story must be translated into rules after the fact. In this way, the presentation of the rules helps to foster a shared image of what is happening in the scene.

In the second exchange, the same actions took place, a character hit a monster and lit him on fire. However, it happened without ever saying “lit him on fire.” Instead the vernacular of “Ongoing 5 fire damage (save ends)” was used. This works fine from a mechanical standpoint - everyone understands what that means for damage and calculations. However, in 4e terminology Ongoing fire damage can represent multiple effects, such as lighting someone on fire or just simply standing on a very hot surface. So each person is left to their own understanding of what happened there. To be sure, the second exchange happened faster and with less book research, but much of the story element of what was happening was lost, and without a compelling reason (read: mechanical reason) to describe the narrative of those actions, nobody at the table will get a picture of what’s going on. Eventually the game just becomes a bunch of people sitting around throwing dice and quoting jargon at each other.

It’s for this reason, that at my tables I always describe monster actions first, then once I finish with the narrative, I quickly quote the effects of the power as a side note.

In fact, I am so attached to this idea that when I play as a PC (a rare occasion) I actively try to never describe my actions, the effects of my actions or my abilities using any jargon. So when my turn comes around, instead of “I use a melee basic attack on this kobold... it hits so I use Dancing Fire on that minion over there, which deals 3 damage and makes him grant combat advantage.” I will attempt to say something much more flavorful, like “Using my rapier, I strike out at the Kobold immediately in front of me (pointing to figure and rolling)... as the blade finds flesh I run my wand down the length of the freshly bloodied blade, the friction acting as a component for the quick flame spell I weave around the feet of the Kobold’s underling that looked about ready to pounce...” Then when the DM goes, “OK...” I say quickly “This Kobold takes 9 damage from the sword and that one takes 3 damage and grants combat advantage from the Dancing Fire spell.”

Of the two options, I would rather spend an evening listening to the second option. But more often then not, I get an evening of the first.

What to take away from this lesson:
So codification has both it’s good points and it’s bad points. On the one hand, it speeds play and removes the need for most at-table research. On the other hand, it can strip out a whole lot of the built in imaginative, storytelling elements of the game. So a balance needs to be reached for the next iteration so we get the best of both worlds.

What about for D&D Next?
My proposal here is to just bring the description of each spell/power down into the spell/powers effect line. This was beginning to happen in the Essentials line of products, but I still think they could go even further. For example: Hit: The target takes 4d6 fire damage and is lit on fire (taking an ongoing 5 fire damage) until it is put out with a saving throw.

What do you think about game term codification? Do you love it, or do you think it robs the game of it’s narrative?

Should Weapons have Damage Types?

2012-02-02T17:58:00.000-08:00

One of my favorite designers, Robert J. Schwalb wrote a little article today on the D&D Next group blog about weapon damage types and whether they are good to put back into the game or not.

My response to that article after the jump.

For those of you who don't understand weapon types, and I assume that's few of you, here is a quick rundown. Weapon used to have damage types, so a spear did piercing damage, an axe/sword did slashing damage, and a mace did bludgeoning damage. Much the same as a fireball does fire damage and a lightning bolt does lightning damage.

Then certain monsters would have damage resistances to these damage types, like "DR 5/slashing" or "immune to Piercing". Again, just like monsters having "DR 5/fire" or in 4e "Resist fire 5".

So in a way, it was giving the non-magical types a little taste of the selection process that a magical type went through when they picked their spells.

Where this falls down is that a spell caster has only a specific number of spells per day and so their selection of damage types was (theoretically) limited. On the other hand, the fighter could just get a big ol' dufflebag and shove a bunch of different weapon types into it so he'd be assured to have the right kind of damage at the right time.

This leads to what many called your "golf-bag fighters" or your "dungeon caddy" were the fighter just selects the right club to bash the monster in with.

I don't know why this is a problem really. If a Wizard's player spends time putting together his spell/power list to allow him for maximum coverage of damage types, and then gets "rewarded" for it by not finding himself nullified by a monster's resistances, why should it be any different for the Fighter?

Some people say the reason there should only be a single physical damage type is that it doesn't make in game sense for a weapon to deal just one kind of damage. A sword could be used to "pommel smash" or "broadside" an enemy, thus it can deal bludgeoning damage right? You could also skewer an enemy with your sword, so you know... piercing damage.

That line of reasoning is crap, sorry.

Damage types are an expression of "expected" functionality within the strictures of the game rules - not realistic ways of using an attack.

For instance, lets take some of the "accepted" damage types: fire, lightning, cold etc. and apply the same logic to them. They are simplifications of what would "actually" happen if you used a specific ability right?

So why aren't there people jumping up and down screaming for spells to loose their damage types? I mean think about it, a spell that hits someone with "thunder damage" really should be doing physical damage because "thunder" isn't a type of energy right? It's just a concussive force pressing rapidly against the object, thus causing bruising and breaking right?

If you ask any gamer what type of damage a fireball would deal, I can bet most of them would answer "Fire damage" right? But really, we now understand that most of the damage done from an explosive force isn't from "fire" specifically, it's actually the concussive force of displaced particles in the air that usually kills people next to the blast. And even still, with the fireball spell, couldn't you technically aim it at the ground so that it blasts your foes with shards of earth? Then, using the reasoning that a weapon should be able to deal any damage type depending on how it's used, a fireball should really have the "thunder", "fire" and "physical" damage types right? But when it really comes to it, isn't the sun just a big ball of fire? So lets also tack on the radiant damage type too, because it does also emit a big blast of light too.

I think my example went on long enough for you to get the picture. If it's okay to categorize spell damage type into a simple, easy to understand type, it should be okay to do the same for weapons.

The real issue here isn't about damage types. The real issue is about resistances, accessibility of the different damage types and class differentiation.

In older editions when weapon damage types were used the resistance system that was attached to them were either overly restrictive, or else wasn't used, and so the damage types always felt like a vestigial rule.

For instance, in 3e many fighters carried a boat load of different weapons with them and for the most part, they never got used. This is because most monsters you would come up against didn't have weapon based damage resistances - so you'd just keep hacking away with the weapon you liked to use and never thought about it's damage type.

But then the DM would throw out a skeleton, or an ooze or something that is just immune to the damage type you're dealing and the character would do one of two things - happily switch out his weapon and continue hacking away with a slightly smaller bonus and again never think about his damage type -OR- if he didn't have the right damage type, he'd just sit around waiting for the Wizard to mop up so he can fight things that aren't specifically made to negate him.

So obviously that scenario isn't really ideal, right? Here you've got a corner case rule, that if you didn't catch it when reading your class (if the designers were nice enough to even tell you) you could find yourself up the creek without a paddle (or axe as it may be). And even if you did catch it, all you've got to do is flop out for a different weapon and forget it ever happened.

That's not fun or compelling right?

So is the issue there with the damage types, or is it with the way those resistances work? Perhaps we could make the damage types matter more (like energy types) and having more monsters resistant or vulnerable to the types of damage would alleviate this symptom. Because if you're fighting both a skeleton, a zombie and a wraith all of which have different resistances, vulnerabilities and special little rules regarding weapon damage types the fighter would have to be pulling weapons left and right and paying attention to what weapon he has in hand at that point.

Then if you give different effects that key off the damage type you're using (just like a Wizard can get) your fighter becomes a lot more interesting to play, and your weapon damage types don't just become a vestigial rule, it becomes one of the center focuses and a reason to wield different types of weapons.

Which brings up the next point - but you can just plunk down a chunk of gold and have every weapon type so, unlike the Wizard, the Fighter can just have all the damage types at his fingertips.

My answer to this is two-fold. Firstly, is that so bad? I mean it showcases that the fighter is more versatile in his area of expertise (combat) then the Wizard is, plus he isn't really stepping on the Wizards toes at all right?

But if that bugs you, give characters a set number of "weapon slots" that they can have. The explanation here could be that if you're trudging though muck, hellfire, and magical snowstorms all the time, your weapons (and armor) is really going to take a beating. You've got to upkeep those things, and the knowledge of how to upkeep, and the extensive amount of time it takes to upkeep your weapons limits how many you can carry and keep balanced and useful in combat. As you level you get better/faster at this task and can reliably upkeep more weapons.

That system also brings along the idea that magical weapons must have small tweaks to their auras on a daily basis, by prayer or small rituals or whatever, which explains away the whole "But magic items don't break!" argument.

So boom, your Fighter/Rogue/Ranger has a number of up-kept weapons they can fall back on and an in-game reason for having the cap. And they could even let one fall to disrepair, and begin working on anther one after a rest... you get the idea.

So the last thing is really class differentiation. The Fighter shouldn't be as cool as the Wizard right? They shouldn't be getting to pick what kind of damage they do -- they get their one damage type and they had better be happy we gave them that! If they want to dabble into the world of alternate damage types, and cool mechanics they'll have to rely on magic!

Really? I'm not even going to dignify that thought with a response because I think you all know where I'll go with it.

So what's your reason for disliking physical damage types? Are you sure your reason for disliking it isn't due to some other deficient game mechanic or some other reason?

Looking Forward to D&D Next Part 1

2012-01-30T18:26:00.000-08:00

So now that DDXP is over with, and the WotC development team has shared their ideas with us on how they foresee the next iteration of the game working I’ve finally got some stuff to say about it.

From everything the dev team said, it sounds like D&D Next will be going back to the yesteryears of D&D in it’s feel and implementation, and that a whole lot of the mechanics that were established in the 4th edition of the game are going to be removed.

Now, I’m a huge fan of 4th edition, as evidenced by the other (admittedly sporadic) posts on this blog, and the sometimes 3-4 games of it I run on a weekly basis.

But to anyone that has DM’ed, played in or even read older editions of the game, 4e doesn’t really feel like Dungeons and Dragons.

But as far as a game goes 4e made huge advancements in balance, approachability, rule stability and tactical combat that most of the current D&D community do not want to see go away.

Now D&D Next is in the works, and it appears that it will hew closer to 3rd edition and 2nd edition then to 4th edition. That doesn’t mean, however, that we 4th edition fans are going to be left out in the cold. 4e taught the devs, and in fact the whole industry, some very important lessons about tabletop games. In the following posts I’m going to cover some of the lessons that I think should have been learned, and hopefully show how that lesson could be applied to D&D Next.

The first lesson after the jump.

Lesson 1: Combat Balance is Good, but not All Important
One of the things I loved so much about 4e is how balanced the system is. 4e put intra-character combat balance above all else, and as a result many of the gripes from editions past were put to rest (like Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards).

In addition the math of the combat system was not only better balanced but almost fully exposed - supposedly allowing players to not fall into traps, and for DMs to better understand how to tweak the system to their liking without destroying game balance.

But it was a good friend and old DM of mine that described the major problem with placing combat balance on your top priority list. What he said to me was, “... 4th edition is a well oiled gaming machine, nobody could argue that point. The problem is, I just don’t feel like I’m running it anymore, and I’m just not interested in playing that kind of game.”

With placing combat balance highest on the list of priorities, the game unintentionally made combat the most important part of the game. Sure, the PHB and DMG never explicitly stated that role playing and storytelling was not allowed, or that it should take a back seat to combat statistics. In fact, very little is actually said about RP at all in the core books taking the approach that mechanics should be completely separated from the fluff of the game world.

For those of us that have been playing for a while, this complete separation of mechanics and fluff was strange but we learned to love it as a liberating experience - we could describe this stuff how we wanted, and make these fiddly bits mean anything.

But for new players who had no prior experience playing a roleplaying game, and no notion of what the RP part of the game meant or those players that don’t like to (or cant) imagine what mechanics could/would mean in the game world, loosing the RP guide of the books proved problematic. To them, the game became an endless string of numbers, code words and tiny single line canned descriptions.

This posed a problem to the rest of us too. Now you’ve got a whole generation of gamers that are “trained” to look at the game more like a board game, that are uncomfortable thinking outside the box of the designed rules. The more experienced, RP oriented, crowd can feel like their attempts at RP or creating a rich story are stifled by a "built in" gamist mindset and a strict ruleset that can only be “spiced up” by descriptions.

Worse, because all the math was so exposed and the players are so intimately aware of it, there is an understood way to play and any tweak to the system the DM would make on the fly could be seen as “cheating.” If I had a nickel for every time someone at my game table said something along the lines of “Well, I guess you ARE the DM so it’s TECHNICALLY in your power to change that, but the rules say...” I would be a rich man. You know who you are...

As a result of such an explicit and tight set of rules mathematics, the DM might feel they are shackled by the system, as it basically runs itself.

What to take away from this lesson:
Older editions taught us that having classes that are unbalanced against one another can create a situation were some players feel like they are being overshadowed. Especially for the gamists among us.

Fourth edition proved that intra-party balance has a positive effect on the fun of the table, giving everyone something to do all the time. Even for those people that want a more story driven game, having a balanced system only helps tell a better story. However, it is important to note that placing so much emphasis on combat balance, without supporting it with in game world examples or story, can lead to a view that combat numbers are the most important aspect of the game.

In addition, exposing the math of the system so blatantly does help balance the game, but it can also destroy some of the trust that players share with their DMs, and it does nothing to help the new players and less imaginative players; which, in turn, can damage the verisimilitude of the game world even further.

So what about D&D Next?
In D&D Next, using a more narrative style of writing, coupled with a bit more veiled mechanical system and plenty of leeway for adding your own twist to what’s written the devs could create a game that is just as balanced and open to reflavoring as 4th edition, while also keeping the “base” descriptions of actions interesting and story driven.

As long as the devs and DM’s have a strong mechanical base, and solid math to base new rules on, the game should run just as smoothly as 4e while capturing the DM/player interactions of older editions.

Tune in next time for Lesson 2: Codification can Constrain the Imagination. And let me know if I’ve gotten this lesson all wrong, or if you agree with it. Just like the D&D Next devs, I love the feedback!

Editorial - Communism vs Capitalism in XP

2011-07-28T10:54:00.000-07:00

There was an interesting set of blog entries over at the Id DM and The Dungeon Maestro regarding the difference between giving out XP only to players that show up for the session (Or Capitalistic XP) and the system of handing out equal XP to all members of the party regardless of participation (Communistic XP).

Interestingly enough I was just having this conversation with my players last night. Because I use Communistic XP for my group, but I play in a group that uses Capitalistic XP.

I suggest that you head over to Dungeon Meastro's arguments on the subject before continuing. And reading the Id DM's thoughts could be interesting for you too.

My thoughts after the Jump.

I'd like to preface all of the thoughts below: These thought are geared toward home games. As in non-LFR, non-sanctioned games.

The major arguments for Capitalistic XP (other than I'm American so - Eff Communism :) ) is that it gives an incentive for players to keep coming to games on a regular basis. A reward for those that work hard and fight hard.

The major argument for Communistic XP is that it keeps all party memebers at the same level, and saves a bunch of headaches for everyone.

To balance the power disparity that comes along with Capitalistic XP some folk suggest that you should compensate for lower level character's XP by tacking on an extra 15%. That seems to make sense, they fought a harder fight, they get more XP. Eventually, with some hard work, they can climb back up with their higher level breathren, right? Sounds good, but then the whole system is based on do more get rewarded more right? Didn't the higher level players contribute more? I mean that system seems like rewarding the least for the efforts of the greater. Sorta like if I worked my butt off on a project at work, and the intern got a huge bonus for my skilled hard work.

And in practice, lower level characters die more often - unless the DM is cheating. And so if they die, and come back as a new character at the same level digging themselves out of that hole becomes next to impossible and, frankly, no fun.

And besides, doesn't awarding more XP to lower level players simply help remove the level disparity you introduced to begin with? Why all the extra trouble? Aren't there other, easier to track, ways to reward attendance? Or is there another reason it needs to be XP?

Ah...

The Maestro asks, "...why should I show up tonight for the big dragon fight and risk death when I’ll get the XP for it anyway?"

My answer to that is two fold - first if you're character didn't show up that night, you also may not get to partake in the treasure (which is bad enough as it is) unless your fellow players portion you out a bit of it out of the good of their hearts. Sure, that's a bit of power disparity too - but the players get to manage that themselves, not the DM enforcing it on them.

Secondly, who really wants to miss the fight with the big dragon? The biggest reward for making it to a session shouldn't be character advancement. It should be playing the game and hanging out with your friends (or like minded co-hobbyist at the least).

And the last argument I get around the table is one of verisimilitude - "He wasn't there so why does he get the same experience as us? We fought a dragon, we should grow in power more!"

But let's not go down that road, because my next question is always "Then what was he doing?" and then we gotta talk about why a character can suddenly disappear mid-dungeon. Suffice to say, it's a game so we all agree that this is mostly a rules/meta-game issue.

The biggest benefit you can get to giving XP only to attending players is that those players get a feeling of prestige - and that can go a long way to keeping those players coming back. But then again, aren't those the players that are going to be coming regularly anyway? They're dedicated, and obviously enjoy the game enough to make it all the time. But the player that is a bit more casual and shows up when he can (ie work isn't hammering him, girlfriend isn't giving him trouble, or san-girlfriend he isn't about to get laid) suddenly finds himself unable to hit as often, he's unconscious a bunch, and he runs out of powers before all the other players - what incentive is there for him to come back next week just to be shown, again, that his character is worse than everyone else's character?

In theory, he'd have the incentive of "If I keep playing I can catch back up!" but remember, because he's missing sessions anyway, he's probably a more casual player and it's just easier for that player to drop something that isn't fun for him anymore. So congrats, you've dismissed a player, you a-hole. :)

I guess to me, having differing levels only hurts all involved, The player that is lower level is hitting less, and so the other players have to compensate - unless, as mentioned in the comments section of the Id DM by the Meastro, the DM is putting additional stress on himself to compensate for a rule that has no real point anyway, because that player will catch back up soon or else the monster stats fluctuate and in that case, the reward isn't a reward to begin with.

And in reality, the only fair way to go about having party members at different levels would be to have the encounter based off the lowest party member - that way your 1337 players can feel powerful, and the player you don't care about can still contribute in a meaningful way. In this case the lower level character will catch up because he has less XP to his next level, and the lower amount of XP seems like more to him.

So my question is this - why not save all the headache, and just give a solid amount of XP to each character? What are you really loosing?

Rule Zero: Playing Phoelarches

2011-06-30T17:33:00.000-07:00

Phoelarch first appeared as monsters in the Monster Manual 2, and I loved the concept of them so much that I thought, "Hey, why can't I play one of those?"

So for all of those people out there that are like me - here is a set of bloodline feats that allow you to fulfill your part-Phoenix fantasies.

More after the jump.

Born with the soul of an elemental, Phoelarches are treated as outsiders from normal society at best, and as monster at worse. The trading of souls between a Phoelarch and its Phoera soul-mate is a connection that transcends planar boundaries. This connection gives the Phoelarch an insatiable wanderlust, and an unnaturally long life lived in a precarious sort of harmony, making most Phoelarches ideal adventurers.

Download the article here

Review: New Hybrid and Multiclass Options

2011-06-10T14:01:00.000-07:00

So over on DDI the team at WotC has given us a playtest of the mulitclass and hybrid options for some of the classes presented in the first Essentials books, as well as the classes from Heroes of Shadow.

And if you don’t care to read much further - they’re great. Of course there is always some tweaking that needs to be done. Those tweaks come after the jump!

First lets get a breakdown of the article, as it’s pretty lengthy, then I’ll delve into the issues I see with the rules presented.

The article opens up with a great picture of a hybrid vampire (maybe a warlord vampire?) wielding a flail. I only mention this because I’m sure that image is almost exactly what most players thought about when a Vampire class was announced. Then there comes the crunch I’ll give my rundown of the highlights:

Executioner and OAssassin: The R&D team took care of the number one gripe I hear when people talk about the Executioner: “It’s not enough shadow for me!” Well now you can mix and match your Executioner and OAssassin abilities to taste with the Executioner Guild option for the OAssassin and the new class feature Master of Shrouds for the Executioner. The new Guild allows the OAssassin to pick up the Assassin’s Strike power and loose out on their other Encounters - an interesting trade. And the new class feature allows an Executioner to get more shadowy by replacing Attack Finesse with the Assassin’s Shroud class feature.

Past all that, there is a handful of feats (a small handful mind you) that allow you to multiclass into Executioner and pick up some poison uses instead of dailies and to tack on some extra d8s once per encounter. Solid.

Hybrid: The hybrid option for the executioner gives your character 2 at-wills from your guild and a slower progressing Assassin’s Strike power. You also get the extra d6’s that tack onto your MBA’s and Assassin powers. Pretty standard stuff. However, the Executioner (and many of the subclasses) have a restriction that I have mixed feelings about. It says that when you choose Executioner Hybrid you cannot then choose another Assassin class as your second hybrid option. I’ll talk more about this in my feedback section though.

Vampire: The multiclass option I’ve heard most folks go on about wanting is actually kinda interesting. It also takes up a pretty sizable amount of space in this article. First there is the Vampirism Multiclass feat that gives your character the Child of Night class feature with a few restrictions - namely the mechanical bonuses. It also gives you Blood is Life and Enduring Soul. Basically all the ingredients needed to dress your character up as a blood sucking monster. The most interesting thing about it though is that it also messes around with your character’s healing surge total, but what it does exactly is a bit misty...I have some issues with the phrasing of that part of the feat - but that’s for the feedback section! Past that it gives a bunch of feats that pair up with the other power source you’ve picked up - like the Arcane Vampire feat that adds Charisma mod to damage if you spend a healing surge, or the Divine Vampire that allows you to use your healing powers to instead take healing surges from your allies. In addition, all of these feats allow you to steal a healing surge 1/encounter when you hit with a power from your non-vampire class.

Sounds fun.

Warlock: The warlock got some interesting feats that allow any warlock (from any of the subclasses) to pick up a pact blade from your pact. So you can take the Icy Skewer if you’re a fey pact Warlock from the PHB, or you could pick up the Scourge of Exquisite Pain with your Gloom pact binder. The best part? You also get the associated at-will power for that weapon without having to give anything up for it (other than the feat of course).

There’s a whole lot more to this article (yay for content!) but I’m not going to go over the whole thing!

Feedback:
I haven’t actually used any of this content in game, so all of this is going to be speculative from reading the article. I hope to be able to use some of this soon, and then be able to provide my feedback to WotC from that.

Firstly, I dislike that each hybrid section places a specific hybrid restriction. I agree with the idea that you shouldn’t be able to make an Assassin | Executioner but I don’t know if it needs to be specified in the write up of the hybrid entry for that character. If I’m not mistaken in the rules of the hybrid system you cannot take the same class twice (ie you couldn’t hybrid a Bard | Bard or a Fighter | Fighter that would just be silly) so why is it that it needs to be said that I cant be an Assassin | Executioner specifically in the entry to the hybrid? At most, a sidebar or a small section at the beginning of the article titled “A note on Subclasses” or something would be fine for those players that immediately think about “breaking” the system with such shenanigans. By specifying this in each hybrid entry, WotC further reinforces the idea that the Executioner/Blackguard/Sentinel/etc are not actually a subclass, but are instead completely different classes with arbitrary reasons for not mixing with other classes. I say remove the restriction and add an overall note like “Subclasses count as their progenitor class for the purpose of choosing hybrid classes.”

Now on to the Assassin stuff, which I mostly loved. However, I feel the Practiced Killer Multiclass feat could do with a prerequisite or two. Perhaps a Dex of 13 would suffice? Maybe even a skill training? I dunno, just not everyone should be able to pick up the Executioner.

As to the Vampire stuff, I have some issues with the wording of the Vampirism feat. It says “In addition, reduce the healing surges granted by your class to 2.” Does that mean that you now have a total of 2 healing surges? Which is what I think it means. Or does it mean that you now get 2 + Constitution Modifier? Which could also be an interpretation. I am of the thought that because you gain the Enduring soul and the Blood is Life class features for this feat, removing all but 2 of your healing surges makes sense. But a clarification either way would be nice.

Also on the Vampire, the Blood Thirst feat allows the character to swap out an encounter power for blood drinker. The issue I see here is that blood drinker only keys off hitting an enemy with a vampire melee at-will attack power. First of all that’s a pretty narrow trigger to begin with, but given to a non-vampire the power becomes useless. I guess you could give up the feat slots (because they have no use with a vampire) so you can paragon multiclass and gain an at-will. Or else you could be a half-elf I’d suppose. Either way, I’m sure that wasn’t the point of the feat. Adding “You may use the blood drinker power after hitting with a melee basic attack, or with a melee at-will power from your class.” would fix this issue in my opinion.

I also dislike the secondary effect of the Martial Vampire feat, because I just don’t see it being used that often. I guess it does make your character a bit tougher - but compared to the utility of the Psionic Vampire feat, or the static bonus of the Primal Vampire feat it just seems to fall flat. Perhaps adding “Once per encounter, while you have regeneration granted by the Enduring Soul class feature, you may spend a healing surge to add your Constitution modifier to your regeneration.” or perhaps “Once per encounter, after you hit an enemy with a martial exploit you may spend a healing surge to deal extra damage equal to your Charisma Modifier.” Something.

I have mixed feelings about the Warlock feat “Pact Blade Manifestation” because, to me, it now feels like the lines between the Warlock and the Hexblade have really blurred. But on the other hand, I love blurred lines in most cases! For whatever reason, I just feel like this particular blurring is a bit much, because the pact blade was the Hexblades whole shtick - and suddenly any warlock can summon one up. A small complaint I guess.

My last remark is this: Why the &*@# does the Sentinel hybrid get a fully functional animal companion when the Beast Master Ranger’s hybrid animal companion gets negatives? It isn’t as if the Ranger’s beast companion is that much better than the Sentinel’s (as far as I can tell). I agree that the animal companion shouldn’t have to suck, so I expect errata to the Hybid Ranger. ‘Nuff said.

Realization about Essentials

2011-05-03T14:32:00.000-07:00

So around the Wizards community boards, and also around my tables both digital and physical, there has been a resistance toward the new design direction introduced in the Essentials line of products that D&D has been moving toward.

The biggest concern posed by those that are opposed to the new design direction is that it removes the value of choice from character creation. Or phrased a different way, the new design direction strips the player of meaningful choices at every level. After examining this argument, and after watching many different players playing and different characters being built, I have come to realize that this is not the case. The new design direction does not strip the player of meaningful choices; it simply removes the substandard choices from their options. In this way, the new design direction really displays that the old design standards were merely an illusion of meaningful choice instead of any actual meaningful choice.

I first discovered this when I spoke to a player of mine who had become quite upset when I suggested that his assassin concept may have been better realized by using the Executioner version of the assassin. At first, he held to the fact that he really wanted a very shadow powered character and that the Executioner just didn’t fit his theme. A valid concern, to be sure; however, after repeated instances of his character wanting or needing to climb things, poison food, or dispose of bodies – I again told him that the Executioner Assassin may fit his style a bit better. His reaction to this was the he just doesn’t like Essentials style content because he likes to make meaningful choices at each level.

At the time, I shrugged my shoulders and accepted that as the truth – because I had skimmed through the Heroes of the Fallen Lands and Forgotten Kingdoms and I had agreed that compared to the “old 4e” these books striped away some of the characters options.

But the concept of Essentials striping choice stuck in my mind, and it bothered me for some reason, but as I read through the Wizard community forums and the blogosphere there was a sort of general consensus on that topic, so I just went with the herd. I really don’t play that often, and when I do it’s usually only for a session or two anyway, so I didn’t have any firsthand knowledge of these supposed “Meaningful choices” that all the players were feeling they lost in the Essentials product line.

Then, at a later time, I was having a conversation with another player, from a different table that I was actually playing at. We talked about my choice of character for the evening, a hybrid Sorcerer/Paladin, and how it actually ended up working pretty well compared to some of the other hybrids he had seen played. This other player had the assumption that hybrids were always less than the straight class builds, by a far margin and my build had turned that assumption on its head.

I laughed at this and began recounting some of my other hybrid builds that worked out just fine (Bard|Rogue, Avenger|Swordmage, Swordmage|Shaman, etc. ) and he made the comment that I don’t play that often, so I must just always play hybrids. He wondered why that was.

This got me to thinking – why did I always end up with a hybrid character? Did I just love the hybrid rules that much? Did the image attached to the hybrid class page just get me thinking so much I couldn’t help myself? Or was it because the hybrid system offered me more meaningful choices then any straight class could hope to manage?

Then I went through the process in my head that I usually go through when building a character. Remember, I rarely get to play in long term games, so many of my characters do not get much RP time (which I am sad about to be honest) so I try to choose a character that will be beneficial to the party first, interesting to me to play second, and fun to build third. I always built about 5 characters before landing on the hybrid that I eventually would play, and each time I would build a character it would be the same process.

This process is the one that, as far as I can tell, most players would see as being meaningful choices, but that to me, as I thought through the process, just seemed like busy work. This process is simple:
1. Pick a class
2. Pick a race that compliments that class (or human if you dislike the options for your class)
3. Pick a build option for your class
4. Distribute the basic ability array based on the build of your class
5. Choose the two at-will released to compliment your build
6. Pick the one encounter power for your build
7. Choose a daily power that fits your build (or else the only good one because the rest suck)
8. Choose the feats that compliment your build or make it workable
9. Buy equipment (usually dictated by build)
10. Name the character

After realizing this, I came to the conclusion that the old design standard really didn’t give much more choice than the new design direction. Because the classes were both build dependant, and stat dependant the actual choices presented to a character were next to nothing. Sure you could take some of the other powers or feats, but why would you?

But I didn’t want to believe this at first, and so I started to watch the character builds on the forums, and I started to ask about the characters around my own tables and at the tables of those around me.

And guess what – 90% of the time a Brawler fighter (which I am using as an example here) would take every encounter power he could that keyed to grabbing an opponent. And then he would pick up one of two types of feats: generic feats (like improved defenses or toughness) or else class specific feats. Other classes were the same – Dragon sorcerers took powers with riders that keyed to being a Dragon sorcerer, Int based Avengers took powers that had Int based riders, and Predator Druids took beast form powers that had Predator riders.

The only instances where I found this to be untrue (so far) are those off-cases were a player has built a character that does only one thing in exclusion to all else, usually what we would term as an “optimized” build, or else a hybrid character that does something unique that no other class could accomplish.

In other words, most players will pick a build of a class and they will go with it as intended. Sure, they could build a Brawler fighter that takes a random encounter power that relies on using a shield. Sure that player could build a Predator Druid that takes a swarm power or two – but from my own research (which of course isn’t conclusive) most players don’t, because those would be sub-optimal choices.

So, with this data I took another look at the Essentials subclasses, and what I found was that these builds don’t strip meaningful choices from the player. What they have done is to strip the poor choices out and in so doing, Wizards has removed the need for “system mastery” to build a workable character.

In addition to this, Wizards has included many of the “feat tax” style feats into the class features of the new classes. If a class is going to be based off of Dex, but will still use basic attacks pretty regularly why make that player take Melee training (for that matter why require that player to know melee training exists?) when the designers could just include it up front?

So in my informed opinion – All the new design direction has accomplished is to remove the poor choices, and built in the “choices” that were not really choices to begin with. Essentials just removed the illusion of choice, in favor of a straight forward mechanic that builds in all the necessary pieces so that the player doesn’t have to wade through a huge selection of bad choices and can instead get right into the story.

So now it’s your turn – do you agree with me? Am I full of it? If you disagree, I’d like to see examples of how I’m wrong. Things like how each class had true meaningful choices in the game before Essentials.

Know Thy Enemy: The Narrative C*ck Block

2010-11-11T12:46:00.000-08:00

Recently, I was reading on the wizards community forums and a question got posed that got me thinking: "How do you make sense of knocking prone a Gelatinous Cube?"

I've heard this argument before, mostly as a way of claiming that 4E has issues with its mechanics because "logically" a limbless, shapeless creature would not be able to be "knocked prone." In the same vein I have also heard (at my own tables no less) that a mindless undead creature should "logically" be immune to all fear effects, or that a halfling rogue shouldn't "logically" be able to daze a giant.

All of these issues stem from the same enemy - The Narrative C*ck Block. Basically, this enemy will nerf your character choices because in our world (AKA, "IRL", Earth, Real Life) such things seem very close to plausable, but still seem impossible. Or on the flip side, this enemy can rear his ugly head because some author somewhere said that it shouldn't work. But really, this issue stems mostly from certain game elements having misleading names, or those names being taken too literally. But to me, the biggest problem with this enemy is that it sits really close to a game-play virtue: verisimilitude.

It is sometimes hard to tell when verisimilitude is taken too far and turns into a Narrative C*ck Block. But basically, when a player (or DM) begins making up narrative reasons for a character's (or monster's) mechanical abilities to not function as expected - you've taken verisimilitude too far.

In past editions, and in fact in many other systems, the designers attempt to give individual mechanical definitions to all the possible things that could happen in a situation. This system can lead to either bloated rule sets or to the players having to create new rules for each situation. Neither, I'd like to point out, is an "incorrect" way to play and can carry their own rewarding play experiences.

However, 4E took a different route. Instead of attempting to model reality with slightly different rules for each scenario, the designers took a more abstract route. They created a set of "conditions", or generic negative mechanical packages, that could be applied to a creature. These conditions were given names that would correspond to a narrative situation in which they would mostly likely apply to. In this way, a single condition could be applied to a wide variety of situations in which a similar set of mechanical penalties could be utilized. Plus, its more evocative to say prone, rather then "Condition Set 14."

So for the condition of "prone" you've got to look at it as a condition that imposes a -2 penalty to attack rolls; grants adjacent enemies combat advantage, and imposes a -2 penalty on ranged attacks made against the target, instead of "the creature is laying on the ground."

It is a bit of a shift. But when looked at in this light, it makes sense that a power would be able to apply a -2 penalty to a Gelatinous Cube, allowing adjacent allies to gain combat advantage against it, and impose a -2 penalty to all ranged attacks against it. This is called, in game terms, making it "prone" for ease of use. And this can be said of any condition, or other game element.

So, to make sure you don't push your games verisimilitude into Narrative C*ck blocker-y - don't get hung up on the name of a game element, look at what that game element does and dust off your imagination! You can come up with a narrative way to explain all those mechanical penalties!

Sure, you really can't make a limbless, amorphous blob fall flat on its face. But the same attack that may do that to a humanoid creature, when employed against an ooze, might just make the creature jiggle violently, slowing its movement and making it easier to hit up close, and harder to hit from far way, until it takes a move action to stop the jiggling of course!

The important thing to remember is that you shouldn't penalize your players (or yourself) for taking a mechanical element, because it doesn't immediately "make sense" to you how it could "logically" work. Or if you are going to, make sure to tell your players in advance - so they can weigh that mechanical option against other, less situational options.

DDI Review: Silverlight Character Builder

2010-11-10T10:49:00.000-08:00

In case you haven't been keeping up with the latest news from WotC. Here's the low down:

The much beloved Character Builder software is going to be moving to an online only subscription based service run in Silverlight.

There is all kinds of controversy regarding this move, and below you can read my take on the whole thing.

I think the online only model has both pros and cons, and whether it effects you or not depends on how you use the program. If you use the program at the table, as an interactive character sheet then this change will limit your ability to play in your preferred way while in the mountains or in someones basement. Granted, you can still print those characters to PDF, and use them from your laptop - but that isnt exactly the same. For me it makes absolutely no difference, aside from not being able to utilize iplay4e with essentials material. My primary use of the character builder has been to create characters and then print them (or use iplay4e) I dont just "dabble" in character creation - because my out-of-game game time is spent developing adventures and scenarios for my characters to hack their way through :).

And the benefits to an online only based model are that your character is backed up on their servers, so when a cat drops water on your laptop you dont loose all your characters. Also, for those of us that dont have laptops it means that you can access your characters from any internet enabled computer. Which a quick Google search shows is greater then 70% of all US households.

Also, for those people that cannot install the program for some reason, like owning a Mac, being on a computer that does not belong to them (ie work computer) or cannot figure out how to install .NET, an online only solution gives them easy access to the builder without a need to install.

Plus, from a technical standpoint users will never have to update their builder again (a process that was a nightmare for some) and the development team wont have to package update modules which means they can spend that extra time developing NEW functionality instead of just updating content. A single database is a whole world easier to update than pushing content patches.

Then there's the elephant in the room - piracy. An online based system will ultimately cut piracy. And while people may still be able to hack the system and run their own databases and such, it becomes much easier to send S&D letters to a person running an illegal server than to try and go at the torrent sites. Legal battles with torrent sites always become nightmareish, and the people running them know it. Will more people pony up the money for a product they previously stole? Perhaps. But from Wizards stand point, those people were not making them any income, and if even one person begins paying for it because its no longer easy to find and use then they win. And when Wizards wins (ie makes more money) we win because that means Hasbro will spend more on development of a flourishing franchise.

In all, I'm not sure its a step backwards nor a step forwards. I really feel like if they can deliver on the export feature within 1-2 months (we'll give them the benefit of that extra month with the holidays coming up) then this update is really more a shift the the side. 100% better for some, and a need to shift game play for others.

Game breaker? I dont think so. I can not foresee a situation that this would ever get me to stop playing the game system I so enjoy. Unless the whole reason you started playing D&D was to utilize their character creation tools.

Rule Zero: Morale System

2010-06-10T17:17:00.000-07:00

I was sent an article the other day from Dice of Doom that attempted to tackle one of 4th editions biggest downfall, "The Grind." I've spoken at length about how I feel the grind might be alleviated, through better encounter design or through spacing out powers and such, but the folks over at The Dice of Doom blog have come up with a system that is at once effective, both mechanically and narrativly, and simple to implement.

I am speaking about their Morale System.

I was skeptical at first - "A morale system for D&D?" but then I remembered that a morale system has been in place in most editions of the game from the beginning, its just that no one ever used them because they were a pain in the butt. So I gave it a quick read through (as I suggest you do as well) and I thought to myself "Wow, that sounds like it could be really, really fun!" But I did have one or two quibbles with the way it was worded so I am going to basically re-write it here, in my own terms with a few extra rules thrown in to flavor.

I mean think about it, during the high action combats that take place in your game, the miniatures and the dice rolling are used to determine the outcome of a grand battle taking place in a fantasy world. This imagined battlefield is ever changing and extreamly dangerous, every 4-6 seconds swords are clashing together in showers of sparks, and spells are completed that send their deadly energy burning through the air. In this environment it is important to memeber that, while the Player Characters are fearless heroes who throw caution to the wind, most of their adversaries are living, breathing (and often times) sentient beings, who have their own best interests at heart. So when the chips are down, or the situation seems dire, these enemies may break ranks and flee! That is what the Morale System is for.

I haven't been able to playtest this system yet, but I hope to in the near future.

Click through to the full article to read the Moral Systems I've come up with!

The Morale System:

War Band:
All allied monsters in a combat are considered to be a "War Band." If a monster is part of a War Band they gain a benefit based on the Strength of the Band (See War Band Strength).

War Band Strength:
To determine a War Band's Strength, you total up how many standard monsters are present in the Band. Remember that Solos count as 5 standard monsters, Elites count as 2, and that minions count as 1/4th of a standard monsters. Always round down when determining War Band Strength. For example, a War Band consisting of 1 Elite monster, 3 Standard monsters and 3 Minions would have a War Band Strength of 5. If the Strength of a War Band is greater than the number of PC's present, all members of the War Band gain a +2 to their Morale Checks. If the War Band Strength is less then half the number of PC's present all members of the War Band take a -2 penalty to their Morale checks.

War Band Leaders:
When designing a War Band, the DM may designate a single creature in that War Band as the "War Band Leader." This monster could represent anything from a small Orc tribe's Cheif to an entire armies General. While the War Band Leader is still fighting, all the members of it's War Band gain a +2 to all their Morale checks. This creature gains no additional benefit from being designated the War Band Leader other then that he will never have to make a Morale Check due to his War Band's leader being defeated.

Morale Checks:
When a creature is first bloodied, at the beginning of its next turn, it must succeed on a saving throw or become Frightned (save ends) (see below). In addition, all creatures in a War Band must make Moral Checks, at the beginning of their next turn, when one of the following conditions are met:

The War Band is brought to half its original Strength.
The designated "War Band Leader" has been defeated.

Of course, the DM may call for Morale checks whenever he deems it appropriate.

New Status Effect: Frightened

This creature will use its Move action to disengage from combat, even at the risk of drawing attacks of opportunity.
If the creature has more than 1 hp remaining it takes 5 damage per teir at the beginning of their turn. A creature can never fall below 1 hp as a result of this damage.

Brave, Cowardly, and Fearless Creatures:
The DM may, at his discresion, apply the Brave, Cowardly or Fearless keywords to a monster. A Brave monster gains +2 to all Morale checks and a Cowardly monster takes a -2 to all Morale checks. A creature that has the Fearless keyword never makes Morale checks, this keyword can represent anything from crazy cultists or mindless undead to extreamly powerful creatures and gods.

Intimidate and Morale Checks:
The Intimidate skill gains the following uses when using the Morale System:

Forcing a Morale Check:
Forcing a Morale check from a bloodied creature is a Standard action with the following terms:

Opposed Check: Intimidate vs. Will+10. If you can’t speak a language your target understands, you take a –5 penalty to your check.
Success: You force the target to make another Morale check.
Failure: You failed to intimidate the target you can’t try to force a Morale check again against that target during this encounter.

Demoralize a War Band:
To demoralize a War Band is a Standard action with the following terms:

Targets: Each enemy that can see you.
Opposed Check: Intimidate vs. Will+10. If you can’t speak a language your target understands, you take a –5 penalty to your check.
Success: The target takes a -2 to the next Morale Check it makes.
Failure: The target gains a +1 to Morale checks for the remainder of the encoutner. Also, you failed to demoralize the target, and can’t try again against that target during this encounter.

Common Morale Check Penalties:

Encounter Leader is present .............................................+2
War Band Strength is greater than number of PC's............+2
War Band Strength is half the number of PC's ...................-2
Creature has the Brave keyword.......................................+2
Creature has the Cowardly keyword.................................-2
Creature has been demoralized with Intimidate skill............-2
Player fails to demoralize a creature...................................+1

Another way of doing this, that is a bit less elaborate would be to just pull out the new Frightened status effect and add an "infecting" mechanic to it. Then attach some new traits to each enemy to express all the stuff above. This is interesting in the fact that it is alot simpler, and can be a whole lot more flexable if done correctly. Also, this allows players that are into monster knowledge checks to determine what will demoralize an enemy. It's a bit more dynamic, but also a bit more up front work for DMs. I am going to give a few sample traits here that would mimic the system above, but each monster could have one of many different demoralizing traits attached to it.

Trait Based Morale System

Add to each monster one or more of the following traits:

Demoralized (Standard)
No action, when first bloodied
The creature is Frightened (save ends);

Demoralized (Tough)
No action, when first bloodied
The creature grants combat advantage (save ends);
First faild save: The creature becomes Frightened (save ends);

Team Demoralization
No action, when more than half the creatures allies are defeated
The creature triggers its Demoralized trait.

Leader's Countenance
Aura 10
Allies within the aura gain a +2 power bonus to saves vs. Frightened. When this creature falls to 0 hp, all allies within Leader's Countenances aura become Frightened (save ends)

Stand Your Ground!
Aura 1
Allies within the aura gain a +5 power bonus to saves vs. Frightened.

Brave
The creature gains a +2 to saves vs. Frightened.

Cowardly
The creature takes a -2 to saves vs. Frightened.

Fearless
The creature is never becomes Frightened due to Frightened allies.

New Status Effect: Frightened

All creatures save against Frightened at the beginning of their turns, instead of at the end.
This creature will use its Move action to either disengage from combat or to move adjacent to one of its allies, even at the risk of drawing attacks of opportunity. Once adjacent to at least one ally that is not Frightened the creature will end its turn or use the total defense action.
If the creature has more than 1 hp it takes 5 damage per teir at the beginning of their turn. A creature can never fall below 1 hp as a result of this damage.
Any allied creature that starts its turn within 2 squares of a Frightened creature also becomes Frightened (save ends).

Overall, either Morale System should speed up 4e combat, allowing a defeated band of monsters to break rank an flee. But in these systems the PC's can feel like they contributed to making the enemies flee, and not that the DM just got bored with a fight they were loosing and decided to end it early. Also, because the PC's can understand how to trigger a Morale roll/Frightened condition they have additional tactical options to help win an specific encounter.

Well, what do you guys think? Does it sound like either of these systems would add anything to the game? Or do they both seem to add a bunch of rules for not a lot of gain? Let me know in the comments!

Editorial: Things I enjoy from other systems

2010-03-19T12:21:00.000-07:00

So I have been playing a lot of D&D 4e lately. And I mean A LOT.

1 monthly game,
1 weekly game,
2 bi-weekly games,
and a D&D Game day this weekend...

That's enough to burn anyone out, especially since I run all but one of those games! And when I'm feeling a bit burnt out on D&D it becomes a bit tough for me to even look at the cover of one of my rulebooks, let alone actually put any thought into the story lines or characters that are in those games.

But that leaves me with nothing to occupy my brain, because usually D&D is like the mortar that holds the bricks of my thoughts together, it takes up all my extra computing power as it were, and so if suddenly I can't bring myself to think on it, all the other thoughts in my head become kinda disjointed and my world takes on a sorta odd bent.

Click on the title of this post to read how I cope.

So what do I do? I cant possibly bring myself to think about D&D, but I love role playing in general so I dust off one of my other system source books. Exalted, Hero 6th Ed., Shadowrun, and most recently I picked up The Song of Ice and Fire Role playing game.

So I figured I would compile a list of some mechanics and ideas from other role playing systems that I really enjoy, and perhaps at a later time I'll spend some of that extra brain power to figure out how to implement these things into 4e. So here we go:

1) Exalted - Stunting and Co-operative map-building: One of the best things about Exalted, and indeed about many of Whitewolf's games, is that the mechanics support their world - not the other way around. I wont go into all that that means to me, but most importantly Exalted has the stunting system. If, during an intense scene, like combat or what D&D would call a skill-challenge, you describe the action your character is taking more than "I attack" or "I use X power" the system gives you an extra die to roll. If you describe it in a more intense fashion and use the environment (which you can make up as long as it doesn't interfere with something the GM has already stated) then you get two extra dice. And if your description literally leaves the entire table in awe, you gain 3 extra dice. This is great. This is wonderful! Because here you have a mechanic (that is in the core rulebook BTW) that encourages the players to role play their actions. This really helps alleviate "Game Mode" as I have talked about before, but because the system assumes that the players will be able to make up terrain and world features the players don't have to feel so constrained to the battlefield as presented. Plus, the GM doesn't really have to spend all his time on the minutia of map making and such, he can just say "Your fighting in a market" or "The bridge is swinging over the ravine, and its about 30 ft long" instead of in D&D where those must both be marked out. Granted this comes along with its own issues, like "Where was that guy again?" or "Hang on, there are chickens here?"

2) Shadowrun/Exalted - Powerfully weak PC's: Okay so in D&D the HP system is a great abstraction of combat fortitude and the ability to dodge an attack. And I know the system is based around heroic individuals and such but I cant help but feel that sometimes the idea of HP can degrade some otherwise tense situations. I found this quote at another blog http://www.gamegrene.com. It pertains to 3E but the concept still rings true in 4E:

"Most players cannot help but see a situation in the following way: The assassin standing across from me is holding a crossbow pointed directly at my chest. Even if he criticals and rolls maximum damage I can't die, and I can attack him before he gets away. Therefore the fighter charges even though such a thing would be totally unrealistic (and yes, I know it is a fantasy game, but it should still be at least believable).
Every player knows his character's strengths, and will compare them to their foe in combat. This means they will make decisions their characters probably wouldn't. You know how many hit points your character has, and you suffer no penalties for taking damage until death. That's just not realistic. Hell, if I get a black eye or a cracked rib you can bet that will affect my concentration. Yet in D&D a Firbolg with a two handed sword can deliver a critical hit, and if you are a high level fighter you won't bat an eye. "

But in both Shadowrun and Exalted (and Hero to an extent) that isn't the case. Shadow runners are extremely potent individuals in and out of combat, but a well placed bullet or knife and they are either dead or rendered useless from the pain/disorientation because when it all comes down to it, their body is still "just human." This feel enables all kinds of situations (like the Mexican standoffs) that just plain cannot happen in D&D.

3) Hero/Exalted/Shadowrun - If you build it.. : In 4E your character build is very important. I love the role system, and I love that the game is built around everyone working in a team, I could write a whole article on this topic - and I might! But there is something to be said about a system that allows you full control over what your character can and cannot do. Sure in D&D there are enough classes and races to put together anything you could possibly think up, and the fluff is always changeable. But it you build a character that is sub-par or isn't optimized, you're not only hurting yourself but the other 3-4 players at the table. But in many other systems that are not based on combat (don't lie, D&D is based on combat and that's why we love it.) your character's abilities could really be whatever you want, and that's okay as long as you enjoy playing it. I think also that the other player tend to back off a bit as far as your build goes because in the end, as long as they feel they have built a character that they enjoy and that wont die quickly then they don't care what you've got going on.

Anyway, that's that. I wish sometimes I could do more then just dust off these old systems, but I've got neither the time nor the players to try any of this out... Hopefully I get out of this funk and back into the game soon. Lucky for my players I've already got some stuff planned for out next few sessions!

Know They Enemy: Game Mode

2010-02-25T14:19:00.000-08:00

This enemy is one of my most hated enemies – and I’ve mentioned it once or twice before. Game mode is defined as the state of mind that most players enter into, as soon as a battle map is drawn, or dice begin to roll. They zero in on the game aspects of D&D and usually forget about roleplaying or the world that their characters live in.

More on this insidious multi-headed demon after the jump!

Identifying The Enemy

Game Mode is like a half trained attack dog, in that it can be a great ally at some times, but if you happen to have a slab of meat in your pocket it will turn on you faster then a cowardly rouge when faced with a great red dragon. Worst yet, it tends to ride in the wings of out last entry, The Grind, and it rides shotgun on a few other enemies we have yet to get to. Game Mode can be a great thing to help move the game along in combat, or even outside the combat model by pushing players to move their characters. But it becomes an issue when it breaks storytelling immersion, or destroys character actions. Common symptoms of Game Mode include: Starting fights with random NPC’s just to try out a new power; Asking to use Athletics to prove your point in a social heavy skill challenge and slaughtering every enemy in a fight with glee, but forgetting that the local government punishes all manslaughter as murder.

Alleviating Game Mode as DM:

Okay DM’s lets be honest – the best way to bring the players out of Game Mode is to make sure you don’t go there too! Some things to help you keep your mind where it should be (half on narrative and half on game mechanics) as as follows:

Make sure to play your monsters to their intelligence scores. A monster with a score of 4 is going to act a little more like an animal then a creature with an intelligence score of 10-12. In the same token, look at their wisdom scores too – because if they are sorta dumb, but really wise they may better choose their prey.

Describe, describe, describe. Everything. All the time. I cant stress this enough, to make sure that your combat or skill challenge feel less like a group of rolls with modifiers and more like those awesome high action battle sequences that you always see in the movies, describe it as such! The players only really have a single window into the world, and that’s you – Mr. DM – so make sure that what they see on the other side is as good as what they see on the other side of the movie screen!

Change your vocabulary to exclude certain Game Mode enduceing words/terms. Such as : “Uses the power…”, “Slides/Pushes/Pulls your character…”, and “Makes his perception check…” Instead use terms like these: “Swings his huge axe overhead…”, “Clashes swords with your character before hurling him…” or “With his heightened senses…” These small things will be like a constant reminder that the characters are locked in heated combat, instead of just playing a game of chess!

Alleviating Game Mode as Player:

Players, this enemy targets you! So you must be vigilant, you must stay wary, and you must keep your head in the game! Or is it out of the game? Anyway, your advice is much like the DM’s advice but a bit different, here we go:

Don’t just read the mechanical description of your powers, think about what your power looks like when preformed and describe it! Try to use the environment in the descriptions too as this makes for some really memorable moments! It is a common misconception that taking too much liberty with the descriptions of your abilities will grate on your DM. It might, depending on how your DM plays, but I know for myself I love it when my players take the initiative and describe their powers/skills or whatever. Now there is a bit of a catch to this one though – make sure that you are just describing the power, not attempting to gain additional mechanical benefit from it. Sure your character may use a lightning based power on an enemy that is half submerged in water, describe how awesome that effect is with all the dancing arcs of electricity and burning monster flesh smell, but don’t then ask the DM if it can deal extra damage! Some systems (like my second favorite RPG Exalted) reward players mechanically for descriptions – and as much as I would like to pull this thought into D&D, the numbers just don’t work out that way.

Have your character engage in playful banter with other characters at the table. Don’t go with full on insults or speeches – just some quick character interaction between yourself and your friends. If you’re playing the Cleric and you heal a character that happens to disbelieve in the gods, throw out a quick “Good thing my god exists now, isn’t it” with a wry smile. Or if you’re a martial character and you slide an enemy, describe it as a good push/throw and comment in character how that was one of your best throws yet! Think about the scene in Lord of the Rings with Gimli and Legolas counting kills, that can really build character bonds, and also help keep your head in the world your DM has spent time building for you!

Now for the disclaimer: Not everyone dislikes being in Game Mode – sometimes that is what they enjoy most about D&D. That’s fine, and a perfectly valid way to play. But I make the assumption that those that play D&D usually are looking for more than a mini’s game, otherwise they would just play a mini game. So I assume that they want to keep themselves immersed into a living game world, at least to some degree.

What other tips do you feel will help alleviate Game Mode symptoms? When was a time that you noticed yourself or your DM slip into Game Mode? Leave me some comments to let me know!

Know Thy Enemy: The Grind

2010-02-22T09:08:00.000-08:00

The Grind, The Slog, Sammich combat - its been called many things, but they all refer to the very same enemy. Fourth edition brought us many new ways to play the game, and it's combat system was one of the biggest changes. But along with those changes came an unwanted side effect. The Grind happens at the end of combat, after all the players have used their encounters and are either out of dailies or sitting on them for the next encounter, and the Artillery have been delt with, the enemy controller is dead, and the PC's Striker/Defender is at-will mopping up the hard to hit, low damage output Soldier monsters. The end of the encounter is a hand, the PC's have won - but there are still over two hundred hp to finish up with on the board. This state of affairs is what I will refer to as "The Grind."

After the jump we will identify the Enemey and then learn some Combat skills to fight it!

Identifying The Enemy

Sometimes it can be hard to identify this enemy, because he rears his ugly head after the intensity of combat. And as an added complication, there are two different degrees of The Grind. Usually, the DM will feel the Grind set in first, due to the fact that the DM can see all the numbers on the board, and can feel when the combat is over. For the Players, the Grind can set in much later, because usually they have just taken down the biggest baddest thing on the field and now they turn their eyes to the minions (not litterally those should be dead by now). To them, sometimes it can feel like the combat is theirs, but they only have to swing a few more well placed hits to finish off the remaining 3 monsters! The scenario becomes the Grind two to three rounds later, when the PC's realize that these remaining enemies are not trouble enough to warrent using their "interesting" powers on (ie Dailies, and magic items) and so they just throw down at-wills and slowly grind the remaining monsters to dust. This is the definition of "The Grind".

Alleviating The Grind As DM:

There are many different ways to alleviate The Grind as a DM. One of the easiest tricks to have in your back pocket as the DM is to have the enemies run away from the PC's. I personally like this meathod because it doesn't break the flow of combat - and it makes sense in the narrative of the story. But as I have found, having every encounter end with the enemies fleeing will leave a bad taste in your players mouths, and will be very unsatisfying in the end.

The Grind usually starts as a flaw in the encounter design, so we as DM's need to look out for it as we are putting together our encounters. One of the easiest ways to create DM Grind is having only a single monster on the grid that has intersting and threatening powers. Try to avoid an instance where the "boss monster" has 3 encounter powers that are all really cool and scary but his 4 cohort monsters are just brutes that have a single, low hit, high damage attack. Because in the end, if the boss monster goes out in the fourth round, you now have a bunch of uninteresting brutes to slog through the next hour to an hour and a half with. So in other words, dont put all your eggs in one basket. Also, make sure you use a good mix of monsters to start with, I perfer using Artillery over almost any type of enemy because their damage output is so much higher on average then normal monsters, but their defenses and hit points tend to be lower. So in the end Artillery monsters are threatening, and pull a whole lot of agro from the Players, but dont take too long to slog through once the PC's get to them. I try my best to aviod Soliders without marking ability - and if I do use a Solider without the ability to mark, I usually add that ability in some way. To me, a non-marking Solider is the worst thing you can do for Grind, because they tend to have a boat load of HP and really high defences but usually they dont have very many interesting attacks or even attacks that are more then annoying to PC's. So in my experience they become the "Mop up" fodder at the end of the encounter because the PC's usually see the Artillery and Controllers as the real problems. Now, if the Soldier can mark, and punish those that ignore the mark, then we have an interesting monster, because these guys can make sure that the PC's keep off of their more intersting allies, which stops the PC's from having to slog through the Soldiers at the end, and keeps your more intersting monsters on the board longer for you to play with.

Another way that I have heard of a whole bunch on the internet lately for how to alleviate grind is to just finish the combat narratively after you know its over. The issue I have with this is that even in those last few boreing rounds of combat, the PC's have a good chance of loosing some of their resources, be it HP or surges or whatever. So another set of DM's out there have suggested having the PC's pay a "Grind Tax" as it were, soemthing like spending a healing surge and then ending the combat narratively, or perhaps having everyone take 2d6 damage and then just ending. I thought this to be a great idea, until I presented it to my players - who looked like I had somehow violate them! I as the DM, saw another 20-30 minutes of Grind in the near future and offered the PC's a way out of it, but to the Players they had this in the bag and wanted to finish! Plus, most of them saw the battle grid and knew that if they slogged through the next few minutes, there was a good chance they wouldn't take any damage or loose anything at all, their tactical positions were too good, and the monsters didnt have the right stuff to really threaten them - so all they would need to do is throw down the damage! So be warry of this "narrative ending" way of alleviateing grind, I know I probably wont use it again.

Aleviating The Grind As a Player:

So while most of the Grind responsabilty is placed on the DM there are a few things that the Players can do to make it easier for the DM where this is concerned. First of all, have a candid attatude about the whole thing, and remember that your DM is playing this game just like you are. If the DM decides to try a narrative ending, or has the monsters break rank and flee try to see if for what it is: the DM is telling you that he foresee's a section of the game that he is not going to enjoy and likely you wont either. Again, it's really not fair to ask your DM to slog through a boring set of attack-hit-attack-hit rounds because you cant stand to have the encounter end when you feel your on top. You should be able to trust your DM to not do this every time - but when this does happen, try to see it from his perspective!

Another thing you can try doing if you find your group runs into a whole bunch of Grind is to space out your powers. The Grind for players usually happens when all the PC's blow off their encounter powers right at the beginning of combat and there are still enemies standing when the dust settles. So instead of jumpping into the battle with all the force you can muster to try and deal the most damage as possible in the shortest time possible, try spacing them out. Try to look at the battle with a bit of a narrative eye too, use At-wills to "set up" your larger attacks narratively. Instead of your rounds looking like this: Encounter, Encounter, Daily, At-will, At-will, At-will. Try to spread that out a bit, Encounter, At-will, At-will, Encounter, Encounter, At-will, Daily. The same amount of damage is being delt, its just that it's now happening over the course of combat instead of a super intense damage orgy up front and then a bunch of slow grind at the end! Sure this means you may not use all your encounters in every fight, but if the fight was fun who really cares right?

That's it for now about The Grind, but as I do combat with this beast myself I am sure that more and more information will begin cropping up!

Custom Creatures: Priest of the Dark Eclipse

2010-02-05T13:55:00.000-08:00

The Priest of the Dark Eclipse is a modified version of the Initiate of the Dark Eclipse, which was printed in the RPGA adventure "The Black Knight of Arabel", with the Avenger class template applied.

Stats and explanation after the jump.

Now usually I don't agree with just slapping a class template on a monster and calling it an Elite. Usually, I will also add a way for that Elite to shore up some of the action differences that it is going to experience due to being only one monster. Things like a standard action double-attack or a minor action attack. But in this case I added the template and specifically chose to go with the Retribution theme to the Avenger, because it comes along with the interesting ability to deal some damage to the PC's out of turn - if they choose to attack it. This helped shore up the difference in damage output and actually almost killed one of the PC's - a Ranger that took his full compliments of attacks against the Priest right after starting his turn next to him the round after the Priest unleashed Avenging Echo. Nasty amount of damage, and the monster didn't even have to do anything.

I also added the "Dark Eclipse Chakram" power as another way to increase the threat of this Elite. Because the Avenger on average should crit double as much as a normal monster this power has a good chance of actually seeing use -- again, I wouldn't usually count a critical hit only power as a potential threat to the party as the chance of the DM actually rolling a critical in any given combat is so low, but in this instance it seemed appropriate. And in fact, that power did come in quite handy when the party first joined the combat.

So if you're looking for a nasty, 1st level baddie to throw at your party and dont mind punishing your PC's for attacking then this monster may be right for you.

DDI Reviews: The Ruthless Reach Barbarians

2010-02-05T11:40:00.000-08:00

Article: Class Acts: The Ruthless Reach Barbarians

Ruthless reach barbarians are a strange idea, strap a long weapon on a damage dealing machine and let it loose, but not one that I am not unfamiliar with actually.

More after the jump.

My current party has a Warforged Barbarian, M.E.T.A, that uses a glaive - a rather 'effective' combo already, but almost specifically because he can dish out massive amounts of damage from behind our equally 'effective' Paladin.

Anyway, while I started to read through these reach themed barbarian powers, that on average seem to deal less damage then the already printed powers but with interesting effects like pushes and slides, all I could think was: "Kinda missing the point of the Barbarian class aren't you?" I mean, I've not yet met anyone that chooses to play a Barbarian primarily for any reason other than the massive, easily accessible damage output. But as I continued to read through the article I realized that with the Barbarian, WotC has already hit the nail on the head, as it were, and this article is for those players that want a different kind of Barbarian. Perhaps to play a primal themed warrior instead of just a massive damage factory.

I kid but this build does introduce a new secondary option for Barbarians as a controller. Not a strong secondary option, but the option is there. For instance the new at-will 'Savage Reach' that deals 1[W]+Str and slides the target 1 square, 2 while raging. It's not your typical Barbarian power, but the applicability of it is undeniable - if you're going to be using a reach weapon that is as it requires the use of one. I was also looking for some crazy synergy with a multi-class fighter/ polearm momentum cheese, but it seems that the worst you got is while raging 'Savage Reach' will also knock the enemy prone. Not bad, not broke. But the thing that really caught my eye was new Heroic tier feat 'Brutal Reach,' which basically makes any attack you make with your polearm at its reach increment brutal 1. I would consider that a good use of a feat, albeit situational at best.

All in all a decent "off the beaten path" type of build for the Barbarian. I wont expect to see many of them played at my local RPGA events, as the damage output isn't high enough for the players to flop over, but I think some of these powers and feats will find their way onto M.E.T.A's character sheet soon enough.

Bust out the map: Terrain Experiments

2010-01-24T18:30:00.000-08:00

So recently my party, "The Clearwater Knights" found themselves able to finish a retelling of an encounter with "and then we killed her with a boat!" And I was just as flabergasted when it happened as they were.

More after the jump.

Basically, the Knights were looking to reclaim some elementally powered fan boats (think Florida Everglades style boat) from a local extortionist/loan shark for a contact in town. I had originally planned the fight to be a "Waves" style combat, where not all the enemies are present at once, the show up at predetermined points throughout the combat. But during the roleplay that was to preceed this battle (or circumvent it if the PC's had found the right hitch) our Artificer decides to sneak out and get the boats himself.

Well it hit the fan then. But now the party was split - everyone was in a small building and the Artificer was rowing a dingy out to try and magically hot wire the fan boats. Soon some members of the party went after the Artificer splitting the party even more. It actually made the battle seem like a TPK, but instead of backing off, I made sure to stick to my guns and try to finish the PC's. That was when the inginuity to use the hot-wired boat as a weapon happened. Lucky there are ramming rules in the AV...

I can tell you this, I never thought that encounter would go that way. And my first reaction was to do some "on the fly" modifications to the encounter to take into account the party splitting. But I guess that just goes to show you one thing: Players can be very very creative when they need to be.

Afterwards I had a look at that encounter and after some thought I came up with what I think made that session so great (aside from the fact that they killed an enemy by ramping a fan boat off a dock into her chest) So on this installment of Bust out the map, we'll talk about how this kind of thing could happen at your table.

Lots of times when battle starts, players begin to crunch numbers. They go into what I call "game mode." Basically what I mean is that players vision becomes squares, powers, and attack bonuses. Although you may place some cool features in your battle map like difficult terrain, ropes to swing from, or teleportation squares; most players will break the map down into a grid that has "Walkable" and "Non-walkable" spaces, and the scenery becomes "fluff." And its understandable, a player puts most of their prep time for the game into building their characters mechanics for combat.

So lately I have been trying to crack that "game mode" shell. Not that I want my players to start heavy roleplay during combat - quite the opposite, when combat starts I want them to be absorbed into the combat - but what I am aiming for is to break them out of "game mode" enough to see the other options available on the board.

Here is how I have been attempting to do this:
1) Place interesting things on the map. Breaking the players out of "game mode" is no good if there is no reason to look at other options. Make sure you place enough stuff that there is a variety of options, and make sure they are sufficiently awesome when used - so that when you describe the objects being used the player not only got a mechanical benefit from utilizing a terrain feature but also got a great visual of their character.
2) Give a great description of the features you think the players should be looking at. If at all possible make something physical to represent the thing your showing them. In the session mentioned above, I drew the cranes on a seperate sheet of paper and cut them out. I pinned them to my map with push pins and allowed them to rotate.
3) Make the monsters use them when possible. Monsters rarely have anything really interesting to do, the usually blow their encounter powers off and then grind down to basics. So have them know how best to use their environment, and describe it in an interesting way. Perhaps the Orcs that live in this cave know that if you shoot the stalagmites they fall, so they lure the PC's to the right spot, and then unleash the stalagmites on them. It will only happen once before the PC's figure it out - but now they can use the same trick! Sorta illustrating the useage of the feature to the PC's will enable the players to feel more confident about using the features in their strategy.
4) Play your monsters like a living being. I am going to write an entire article on this point later (making a note now) but for this one, before each movement try to get into the monster's head. With the above Orcs, they know that the stalagmites are dangerous to stand under, but perhaps that is a secondary concern at this point because there are 5 people hurling fireballs and swinging swords at their heads. So they retreat to a spot that happens to be under some stalagmites! Time to turn the tables on them PC's!
5) And lastly, try to make the terrain features something that is easy to use.Things that function when an enemy is pushed into them are great for controllers, and features that enable extra movement for no more than a simple move action are most strikers best friends. Basically, make the features something that could just add onto the things the players would be doing that turn anyway.
I am just starting to experiment with these concepts myself, but they were the things that I saw about the "killed her with a boat" session that made it stand out from the rest.

Give it a try and let me know how it went!

Rule Zero: Combat Ritualist

2010-01-13T15:18:00.000-08:00

I've always thought that the ritual system needed some tweaking - and I'm not sure what I would do to make rituals more acceptable in non-combat situations, but we here at Forced Movement have come up with a way to use Rituals in combat. Based on the Alchemy system, these new items - called Combat Rituals - key off of a specific ritual, and require the caster to have the Combat Ritualist feat.

Combat Ritualist
Prerequisites: Ritual Caster
You can create and use Combat Rituals.

Combat Rituals
Your character has learned the art of tweaking a ritual so that it can be cast in the heat of battle. A combat ritual is a new type of magic item that only a character with the Combat Ritualist feat and the proper ritual memorized may create and use.

Creating a Combat Ritual:
Creating a Combat Ritual takes half the amount of time it would normally take to cast the full ritual, during which the character spends time scribeing the nessesary components onto a specially prepared scroll. The cost of these special scrolls and component is given on each Combat Ritual, and can usually be found for sale at most places that sell ritual components.

Sample Combat Rituals:
Immediate Repose:
You use a small portion of the healing ritual Gentle Repose to staunch a friend's bleeding.
Level 1
Price: 20gp
Required Ritual: Gentle Repose

Power (Consumable): Minor action. You succeed on the next Heal check made to stabilize a dying ally.

Protective Circle:
You intone the final words of the Magic Circle ritual that you began earlier, with slight variations and a circle of blue-white ethreal runes shoot out around you.
Level 5
Price: 50 gp
Required Ritual: Magic Circle

Power(Consumable): Standard Action. This power creates a zone in a close burst 2 that acts as difficult terrain to any creature of a type, chosen when this power is used. This zone lasts until the end of the encounter or for 5 minutes.

Arcane Reserves
Your eyes glow softly as you refocus some of your energy to ease your minor cuts and bruises.
Level 1
Price 20gp
Required Ritual: Simbul's Conversion (FRPG)

Power (Consumable): Move action. Gain 1d8+half your healing surge value in temp hp. While you have these temp hp you take a -2 to all the damage you deal.

Deadly Pyrotechnics
You have learned how to turn these otherwise harmless child's playthings into deadly weapons.
Level 2
Price 25gp
Required Ritual: Pyrotechnics

Power (Consumable): Standard action. Ranged 10; +5 vs. Reflex; on a hit the target takes 1d10+3 damage and ongoing 2 fire damage (save ends).

Fatefull Attack
The power of fate guides your hand but cares nothing for the risks involved.
Level 4
Price 35gp
Required Ritual: Hand of Fate (PHB)

Power (Consumable): Minor Action. +4 on your next attack roll and a -2 to all defenses until the end of your next turn.

Illusionary Ally
Using the magic stored within this ritual you create the illusion of having more friends then you have.
Level 12
Price 500gp
Required Ritual: Hallucinatory Creature

Power (Consumable): Standard Action. Close Burst 2; targets all enemies in burst; + 15 vs Will; On a hit the target grants combat advantage until the beginning of the target's next turn.

Instant Bonds
You cast your hand out with the final incantations of this ritual, and spectral chains burst forth wrapping themselves around the target.
Level 10
Price 300gp
Required Ritual: Tenser's Binding (DR. 366)

Power(Consumable): Standard Action. Ranged 5; +13 vs Ref; On a hit the target is restrained (save ends) and cannot teleport (save ends)

True Teleportation
Using this ritual's power your attack is everywhere at once.
Level 28
Price 85,000gp
Required Ritual: Linked Portal

Power(Consumable): Move Action. Until the end of your current turn you may determine targeting for a single power from any square on the battlefield, regardless of line of sight or effect. For powers the rely on enemies being adjacent to you or your powers effect, you must choose a single square. At the end of your turn you may teleport yourself or any one ally to any unoccupied square.

January 2010 Content Calendar

2010-01-06T09:40:00.000-08:00

After a quick look at the content calendar this month, it looks like it's promising to be a very "Class Acts:" heavy month, with six classes getting some more love. I am really glad to see the Artificer finally getting some attention, as one of the "non-core" classes it tends to get left out of a lot of the articles and such.

I dont have time to give my thoughts on every entry on the calander (I'll do that as the articles come out) but real quick I saw a few that interested me instantly:

On the 19th we get a full look at the hybrid rules that will be presented in the PH3. I am currently playing a hybrid and there are some definite things that need to change - I have no idea what and right now they work mechanically okay, but instead of feeling like I am making a new "Avenger | Swordmage" class I really feel like I am just a cruddy Avenger and a cruddy Swordmage. Now the combinations you can come up with are interesting and varied and all but the features still just seem to distant from each other...

So of course on the 22nd they are giving us some more Artificer-y goodness. I hope to see a more melee focused set of powers, or perhaps a full on alchemist build, you know like an at will that is quickly mixing the correct components and then throwing the vial to see it either explode or freeze the enemy or become a sticky goop. We shall see, but most likely it's gonna be some new daily powers and a new familiar or something like that - just to spite me. :)

The 22nd must be my birthday - well okay I mean to say Jan 22nd because the 22nd is my birthday just in a different month... Anyway, on that day WotC is hitting us with a Winning Races: Humans. I was actually just ranting to my group the other day about this, how there seems to be a lack of Human love going on around R&D at Wizards. Like how in 3.5e they where releasing the "Races of..." books and when it finally came around to "Races of Destiny" the human book, most of the book was about the Illuminati or whatever they where.

And finally on the 25th, there is an article called "The Art of Binding." I saw that title and nearly exploded with joy. In 3.5e I never did get to play my all time favorite class, the Binder, nor did any of my players ever actually play one. My big baddy at the end of my campaign was a Binder, but that is a far cry from actually playing one. Then 4th ed. hit right after it was released and I never looked back (yet). I know it's probably not what I think it is, its not the resurgence of the Binder class, obviously they already gave the distinction to the Warlock with his Visage pact and such. But I was saddend by that move - it makes sense totally and completely - but one of the things I loved about the Binder was the act of Binding the Visage and then the resulting quarks that came over your character as a result. Also I have a bit of a thing against playing a Striker (even though I think when I have played instead of DM I usually get that role) and the Binder of old was so versatile... Oh well, either way the title has peaked my interest.

And the other articles look great too! Cant wait, to see all this month holds!

Dark Awakening : A Solitaire Adventure

2009-12-18T13:14:00.000-08:00

Article: Dark Awakening : A Solitaire Adventure

This article is very interesting. When I first heard we were getting a solo adventure I thought that perhaps it would be an adventure that could be run for an individual player - you know one DM one Player.

This article could be used that way, but that isn't the intention. This adventure is actually an adventure that you play by yourself. You are both the DM and the player. At first I didn't like the idea, but I figured that I may as well give it a go. I'll give you my impressions of it, and try not to spoil anything in the process.

First lets talk about how the system works here. You play as both the DM and the PC's - so going into it with a mindset of "let the dice fall where they may" and a very firm "It's too late" rule in place is really the only way to play this thing. During combats they give you a section that details the options you have during that combat, things like knowledge checks and objects to interact with. Each of these options has a corresponding paragraph in the back of the article that tells you what happens when you do that thing, or make that check. This felt really good actually, like I had a DM who knew things I didn't. All monsters have a set of basic tactics that they follow in lieu of anything more interesting, and then each individual monster has specific tactics they follow when possible. If you follow these as close to the letter as possible, running the monsters becomes pretty quick and easy. Then at the end of each combat there is a conclusion section that basically gives you your next steps - like a "Choose Your Own Adventure" book. These choices also refer you to the back of the article, which then directs you to which part of the adventure to read next. Rinse, Repeat.

The adventure starts when you find yourself and your trusty companion Splug, a cowardly goblin, waking up from a dead sleep in your adventuring parties camp and being attacked by these mottled black roots. Combat ensues. Without giving anything away after that, Splug follows you as you delve into a small dungeon filled with all kinds of baddies, but you had better be nice to him or he wont put up with your crap, and trust me you want Splug with you because as long as he is cringing behind you, your character gets to make additional attacks in his stead. This is an interesting mechanic, and one I rather enjoyed. It gave me more actions so that I could stand up to the baddies, but it wasn't just "Oh and because you are in a solo adventure you get two standard actions a round." It worked and it really made me feel connected to Splug by the end of this thing. Plus this way I didnt have to run all the baddies, and two fully fleshed out characters. I think this mechanic makes the whole thing a viable system really.

So when I started to think about a character for this adventure, the article says to play whatever you want. In all honesty I wanted to play Splug most of the adventure, his abilities and stats are actually pretty good. But he is a support character and I made sure to follow his directions as close as possible. So I played a class build that I have never seen in action - more out of curiosity than anything else - I played a Dragonborn Cosmic Sorcerer. The ability to deal damage to enemies that start adjacent to my character proved to be invaluable...

As I started playing it felt a bit like playing chess with myself. But once I got into it I was able to effectively split my mind into "me and them" and a few times I actually ended up finding out that I had moved my PC into an non-advantageous position and the monsters rejoiced in that mistake.

Anyway, long story short - I got to the last enemy had him bloodied and on the ropes before I died. Thats right my PC lost. TPK. But actually, it was still a hell of a lot of fun, and I may actually play through it again with a different PC. The whole thing took me about 3 hours, including character creation and setup. I used Maptool (http://www.rptools.net) for my maps and pieces, which I will post for you guys in another article once I get them put together enough to be used by anyone but me.

So after everything is said and done, it was a great time, and I would suggest it if you have a few hours to kill and want to try out a new character build.

Channel Divinity: The Traveler

2009-12-17T08:41:00.000-08:00

Article: Channel Divinity: The Traveler

This is a very interesting choice for a Channel Divinity article. Though it seems to me like WotC must be getting a whole bunch of feedback from people that want to play evil god worshiping characters because there have been quite a few Raven Queen oriented articles the last few months and now they move over to Eberron (finally) and they pick the god that is the most evil-but-only-by-association type deity there is.

So this article starts out talking about the followers of the Traveler, a character concept I'll be honest I had never thought of this way. Basically, it talks about them being agents of change - not just agents of chaos - that pick a direction and go just to see where they land. When they get there, they believe it is destined for them to invoke some sort of change in the area so they go to work. Once they have stirred up a bunch of change they just quietly slip out the back to move on and do it again.

Conceptually this sounds very interesting. But as far as a player goes, I could see this concept getting you into a bunch of trouble at the gaming table. As a DM I love this style of player/character. The instigator they call them. This character would almost have to be that way, as they are just looking for a change -- something to do, someplace to go. I as the DM love them so much because they drive the story forward, and frequently they pull the game off track, heading in directions I never thought of. This gets me into improv mode, and these character/player types tend to be able to roll with the improv stuff without thinking too much about it.

But, as a player at the table sometimes this type of character concept can lead to bad blood. I have known more than one player that is rubbed the wrong way by the character that isn't a team player. When roleplay comes up, instead of doing what the party thinks is best to pull the story onward this character could say or do anything. Plus, an instigator type character tends to take front and center with their character most often, which can lead to other players feeling left out.

So my advice to anyone thinking of playing the "Agent of Change" style character would be this: Remember that you are playing in a collaberative game with your friends, so dont build your character's personallity to be a chaotic loner. Also, remember to step back and let your party take a whack at deciding where to go and what to do every once in a while, and just step up with the crazy change instigation when the party seems to not know what to do next.

Back to the article now, they also give a single paragon level Channel Divinity feat and a new paragon path: Traveler's Harlequin. The paragon path is a little weak in my opinion, because most of what it gives your character is the ability to freely multiclass like a bard and the changeling's ability to change shape.There are some reroll options there too, but really if your a Changeling Bard who multiclasses into Avenger for the oath you pretty much are this paragon path. I know thats a very specific thing to say, and this paragon path does probably open up some additional character breaking-ness along the way due to the fact that now anyone that took the right background and a single multiclass feat can start ripping through mulitclass powers like candy without the downfall of having your main class be Bard, but all in all I just wasn't that impressed with it.

As for the article as a whole, its a good article and I would suggest you give it a read. If for nothing else then to better understand another god of Eberron.

More Toys for Assassins

2009-12-15T08:08:00.000-08:00

Article: More Toys For Assassins

The article title really says it all on this one. This article is refreshing in that it has only what you would expect, new options for the assassin class - which up till this point was lacking in substance.

My first thought when scanning through this article was disappointment because they added almost nothing but racial feats at the heroic tier, and those are okay, except that I am thinking of playing a Genasi Assassin which feat wise, is yet unsupported.

Content wise, the article is solid - with the racial feats of heroic making each race feel very different from each other; Paragon feats really step up the Assassin's sneaky factor, and Epic feats essentially making him a ghost for all intents and purposes.

The ki focuses that are listed in this article only really wet our appetite for true ki focus support. There are only 6 of them but most of them have very interesting and flavorful properties that go along with them. I dig the ki focus having more properties rather than Daily powers, it feels more like the focus is channeling your characters inner energy and changing the way your character acts at all times, rather than just a single power you can use daily.

On the negative side of things some of the feats could use a little more explanation, such as the feat Killer in the Crowd - the way it is written it would seem that your character is always considered to have cover from your enemies. I believe it meant to say that your enemies grant you cover as your allies do. I can just hear them at the local game store now, "Are you sure? It just says 'You gain cover from your enemies. Period'"

Other then that, I did enjoy the bit at the beginning that talked about the forums and the blogs - which just means that they really do listen to us! And I also rather enjoyed Mr. Mearls saying, almost literally, forget the fluff on this one - Assassins, its time to play!

Player's Handbook 3 Debut: Ardent

2009-12-14T20:01:00.000-08:00

Article: Player's Handbook 3 Debut: Ardent

With the release of the Ardent Class, there is now one less known unknown from the PB3's lineup of classes. The Ardent is a Psionic Leader, with Cha/Wis and Cha/Con builds. Between the ability scores used, and the class flavor based around manipulating emotions, the Ardent seems custom-made by WotC to highlight the strengths of the Kalashtar and Half-Elf races by matching their ability scores and underlining their racial narratives as the "emotional" and "people-person" races, respectively.

So, what can we expect an Ardent to look like in battle? Well, it's a melee leader who starts with proficiency in martial melee weapons, chainmail, but no shields, which means Ardents will tend towards two-handed weapons, especially since they often won't have the Strength to take shield proficiency feats. Polearms should be especially popular, because they work well for leaders who often appreciate the ability to hide behind tougher melee allies. Unfortunately, Ardents will usually lack the Dex or Str needed for the great polearm feats like Polearm Gamble (15 Str) and Polearm Momentum (15 Dex).

The Cha/Wis Ardent also has a great basic "shtick." It grants all allies within 5 squares a bonus to defenses against opportunity attacks equal to the Ardent's Wisdom modifier. This bonus will generally start at +3 to +4, which is very nice, but at high levels it eventually becomes +7 to +8. A higher-level Ardent's comrades will find that they can almost ignore opportunity attacks, and enjoy nearly unlimited freedom to walk multiple squares in combat instead of shifting just one, which should be a huge advantage.

Some quibbles:

1) The Cha/Wis Ardent is yet another build with terrible secondary defenses (low Reflex and Fortitude). The Cha/Wis clerics and bards of the world can at least hide in the rear lines, but the Cha/Wis Ardent joins the Cha/Wis paladin on the front line, where it will find its Reflex and Fortitude frequently targeted, and easily hit, by numerous foes.

2) Although the article says they changed the way humans gain a bonus psionic at-will from the Psion write-up, the text indicates that they still seem to be stuck with a single unaugmentable 1st level at-will, which is pretty weak. All other classes get 1st level at-wills that scale at 21st level, so they stay useful throughout the PC's career. But psions and ardents are supposed to replace their 1st level at-wills with higher level at-wills, and thus their 1st level level at-wills don't scale. So humans will still find their best racial trait devalued highly for these classes.

3) The Ardent's healing shtick is pretty dull. It heals the same amount as the Warlord (healing surge plus a d6, scaling at higher levels) and adds either +1 attack or +1 to defenses until the end of the next turn. +1 is pretty minor, and kind of forgettable, especially as compared to the interesting heals most other leaders get, which are either stronger, more flexible, or have other useful boosts like the bard's bonus movement. Note that the Heartening Surge feat Ardents can take makes the boost into a +2, which will make the effect much, much more noticeable.

So, all in all, and interesting new class which should stand out on the battlefield from other leaders, due to different weapons, different passive boosts, and the flexibility provided by power points and augmentable powers. Also, a build that really highlights the Kalashtar, which is nice.

Class Act: Invoker

2009-12-14T08:17:00.000-08:00

Article: Class Acts - Invoker

This is a very interesting article. It presents only a single feat - but it still manges to fill up 3 pages of content. This feat is called "Awaken God Fragment" and what it does is allows the Invoker to create an even deeper connection to their deity. This deeper connection is, mechanically, represented very much like a familiar for Arcane characters, but without all the rules for active/inactive and movement, because the God Fragment cannot leave your person.

Most of the Fragments grant a solid +2 to a skill or two, or some other interesting benefit, such as the ability to roll two saves of certain kinds of effects. This is about standard for the usual Heroic Tier feat. Then each Fragment gives the Invoker an extra benefit when they use an encounter or a daily power, things like granting a +2 to defenses or allowing friends to teleport a short distance. These effects are really where the concept can get interesting, in my opinion.

Only the core Deities are covered, but I hope soon to see both the Eberron and Realms pantheons covered. In the mean time, I think I'll start thinking up some of those on my own (which I'll post of course).

Overall, its a great article. Gives the Invokers a bit more flavor, and some mechanics to showcase their connection to their god, not that they where lacking that. I also like the way this article takes the game, because it shows that in the future we may end up getting more of these "sub mechanics" for the existing classes. I think this could give us some more mechanical depth to our characters, if we so choose, but doesn't require us to pick up one of those new fangled psionic classes.

Bust Out the Map: Minion Factory

2009-12-12T12:00:00.000-08:00

I originally didn't like the idea of minions in D&D. I thought for sure that they would just bulk up the amount of actions I as a DM had to take every round, and that book-keeping would be a nightmare.

Well, I have warmed up to minions, and use them quite frequently. Almost every combat as a matter of fact, because I think they are a great strategic advantage for the monsters, and they let the players feel nice and effective when they clear 3-4 of them in one attack.

When my newest group of players got together the DM at the time ran a very interesting combat that I really enjoyed that sort of focused on minions. In this combat, there was a sort of Shamen type character that stood on a ledge something like 25 squares away and played his drums. Then on a large open space on the battle grid he spawned 4 zombie minions each round at a set initiative, that would then attack. These minions would then hold us down while nearby Artillery pounded us with ranged attacks. Our goal in this combat was not to sit and kill minions, it was to take out the Shamen and Artillery and stop the minions from spawning.

We did this sort of "Minion Factory" style combats a few times more in his game and each time they seemed very appropriate. So when it was my turn to start running the game, I gave it a try. I dont remember my first Minion Factory combat that I ran, but I have done many of them since, and my players seem to still enjoy them. Here are some basic guidelines for a Minion Factory style combat:

Minions in this combat are spawned from something else - perhaps a trap or another monster. Therefore, it is not appropriate to give experience for each minion killed.
Spawn a number of minions each round on a set initiative, this need not be the same initiative as the minions are moving on. Also, set a cap as to how many minions you are allowed at one time and stop spawning them after that. I usually make it a fairly large number, like 20. This way it wont get too out of hand, but will still feel like an unlimited supply when the players are killing 2-3 each round.
Have a stop point in mind. This could be killing a certain monster, shutting down a trap or just surviving a certain number of rounds.
Describe the minions, and their deaths. Minion Factory combats should feel more cinematic than usual due to the large number of enemies the PC's are mowing through.
Don't overuse the Minion factory or it gets boring. And each time you do use it make it wildly different from the last time.