Legend & Lore: Fighter Design Goals

In case anyone is still not in the know, Monte Cook is out of the game, and the open playtest starts on May 24th. Though Mearls states that they will “roll out the fighter, cleric, wizard, and rogue, along with the human, elf, dwarf, and halfling”, we are getting pregens instead of the rules necessary to build your own characters. I wonder what the level cap will be, and if we will get enough rules to choose our own stuff beyond a simple pregen. There is also the question of monster variety, environmental hazards, and magic items. I really hope that they do not skimp on that, instead relegating us to a pregen adventure, too.

As an added bonus we get the fighter’s design goals, which I felt were better defined and sensible than the cleric’s. The quick summary is that the fighter is intended to be the best at fighting without needing to rely on magic items or spells–even to the point of surpassing those who try to use magic to bolster their own capabilities–yet ultimately being able to perform seemingly supernatural feats in the vein of Beowulf or Roland. As an added bonus, they will also purportedly be the toughest, remain on par with wizards at all levels, and also have more flexibility with weapons (ie, archers can be explicitly called fighters without having to “settle” with a ranger by another name).

No mechanics, but it is good that they are sticking with 4th Edition in terms of overall efficacy and weapon mastery (they were the only class that comes to mind that had exploits with bonuses for using specific weapon categories), especially without having to resort to magic in order to make it work. Do not get me wrong, I loved the warblade and swordsage out of Book of Nine Swords, but it is refreshing to see a mundane swordsman hold his own post level 5. What does surprise me is that the fighter is going to be the toughest class. Really? Even more than the barbarian? If the fighter can out-fight and outlast their more savage brethren, then what does that leave them?

Rage-swimming?

DDN: Tone & Edition

I find Rob’s proposal and reasons for adding race frequency to the game very…odd, to say the least, especially with 5th Edition’s purported goal of unifying all the editions. Tagging races as common, uncommon, rare, or whatever does nothing to inform the DM how these might fit into her campaign. It just sets a bar. A bar whose only purpose seems to be passive-aggressively enforcing someone’s idea of what races we “should” be using.

What makes this proposed mechanic even more bizarre is that 2nd Edition saw the introduction of numerous campaign settings that included more exotic races, such as: half-devils, half-angels, half-elementals, half-organic walking shapes, bug-people, half-dragons, bird people, hippo-men, and more. This begs the question, if tieflings are rare, but I am running Planescape, do I tell players that the common and uncommons are okay, plus tieflings? I guess I could just say common, uncommon, and rares are all good…but then what about warforged? Kalashtar?

And then there are the DMs that create their own campaigns. What if I create a world where tieflings and dragonborn are the most common races to be found, doing that whole war between Bael Turath and Arkhosia bit? What about a campaign that is largely restricted to mountains, with dwarves, minotaurs, genasi, and the odd warforged here and there (built by dwarf artificers I guess)?

I get that Rob grew up being exposed to certain media, and so prefers his game one way. Other players did not, or do not like the same things. Arbitrarily labeling races that he was “shocked” to see as being in 4th Edition’s first Player’s Handbook–while still ignoring the gnome write up in Monster Manual, I might add–as rare seems like he is both pushing an agenda and making assumptions about the game world, as opposed to the 5th Edition mantra of giving us the tools and then getting out of the way.

Ultimately this rule has no purpose or benefit. At best it is harmless; good DMs are just going to ignore it and give their players footnotes on what they can and cannot play in a homebrew campaign, and if issues arrive then hopefully they will come to a mutually fulfilling conclusion. Even in published campaigns DMs might still just ignore racial restrictions, such as if a player provides a compelling reason or the group comes to the realization that it is their game and they can do what they want. At worst it is hazardous for new groups, whose DMs might needlessly enforce it in a misguided attempt to “play by the rules”.

I think the only thing that needs to be done is to add a footnote somewhere in the rules, that gives DMs that for some reason need it the “go-ahead” to ban/create content for their table.

DDN Blog: Resilient Heroes

It’s good to see that the vast majority are in favor to at least some form of limited self-healing. Personally I had grown tired of relying on the casters to keep the game going last edition, and 4th Edition made it easier–I would daresay possible–to manage without a healer at all, or at least without having to burn through cash stocking up on healing potions and wands (the latter of which required characters to spend ranks on Use Magic Device).

The thing is that if hit points do not–and never did–simulate physical trauma, then there is no reason to severely cripple their “natural” recovery rate. 2nd Edition did this at 1 point per day, though 3rd Edition allowed you to get away with 1 per level, so long as you got a full day’s rest. A Heal check might have been involved, as well.

Healing surges provide a nice, solid mechanic for giving players an idea of how much more punishment they can endure, as well as providing a resource that could feasibly be used for other things, such as fueling rituals and/or abilities. For example, what if sorcerers got at-will spells, but no encounter or daily magic, and instead had to spend healing surges. This could work for other spellcasters, representing them becoming exhausted. It would also work for martial types.

Some players claim that healing surges can strip out the drama of a situation, since players can crawl out of a pile of rubble and “magically full-heal”, but this does not seem much different from just having a cleric spam cure whatever wounds until the character is topped off (or drinking a bunch of potions). Heck, give her a few levels and she can just conjure up free food and water, and also instantaneously alleviate ability score damage and level drain (assuming the characters did not burn cash on items that can do all that, anyway).

Things that might help is preventing characters from using all the surges that they want. After a battle characters might be able to spend just one, or could only spend enough to get to a certain percentage (say, bloodied value or 3/4s or something). An extended rest would allow them to exceed this amount, but to avoid a lengthy nap resetting all their stats to full, you could also cap the recovery rate. So, fighters might get 4 + Con modifier back, wizards 2 + Con modifier, or characters might only get back their Con modifier (so tough characters still recover faster). This way characters would still want to be stingy with their hit points and not just blow through surges willy nilly.

There could also be rules for extended injuries, so characters could suffer penalties for taking critical hits (perhaps in lieu of extra damage, similar to that mechanic in Dresden Files that lets you keep going, but at a cost). Things that healing surges cannot fix. I think this would work for grittier games, even going so far as specifying what sort of injuries that curing spells can fix (something I remember from 2nd Edition). The balancing act would be making it so that an injury is cumbersome, but not adventure-stopping. I would also like to avoid the whole ability damage fiasco of 3rd Edition; just give me flat penalties so I do not have to go back and re-factor my attacks, damage, skills, etc.

Rule-of-Three 04/24/2012

Looks like the action economy might tank harder than America’s, which apparently is being reduced to “do one thing, and you can also move if you want”. I know that fighter bonus attacks were being pitched as free actions, so that characters multiclassing into fighter could still benefit from them, but I wonder how they will handle that if other classes can use them.

For example, what if rangers can use free actions for extra arrow attacks, wizards being able to unleash a salvo of magic missiles, druids making extra attacks with their animal companions/summoned minions, monks making their flurries, and so one and so forth.

I barely even remember how actions worked in 2nd Edition. I guess you could move and do something, because I recall moving up to a monster and then whacking it. 3rd Edition seemed to have a better handle on how to deal with things, with multiple types of actions that made it easier for a player to know what it would take to do something. There were some corner cases, such as drawing a weapon; normally it took a move action, but a foot note states that you can combine it with a move action if your Base Attack Bonus is +1 or higher. Later the game added in swift and immediate actions, which were both kind of like once-per-turn free actions.

4th Edition continued the idea that not all actions are equal, which made it easy to balance abilities and also prevented having to repeatedly write in exceptions for actions that can be used when you do one thing, do not take up your turn, or can be done once per turn, but not when you do something else, etc. Given that 3rd Edition eventually added in more action types–which retroactively changed plenty of previous content, such as Quickened spells–and I am guessing that this will likewise change during the public playtest (if it does not beforehand).

Side Trek: Death & Taxes

As a side trek, most of this is going to be spoilers.

---

Ever since 5th Edition was announced I have not paid much attention to Dragon or Dungeon, largely because the sparse offerings really have not interested me until now. I’m a pretty big fan of Aeryn’s work, so figured I would give it a shout out.

Death and Taxes is basically an extended encounter–part social interaction and part combat challenge–in which the characters need to avoid being tricked by a treacherous knight, using the tried and true method of “pretend you need help with your wagon, and then ambush the shit out of would-be helpers”.

The social role-playing part, while not a skill challenge, gives the characters a chance to figure out that something is amiss and avoid being surprised (which also affects creature placement on the map). Characters with any emphasis on History, Insight, and Perception will really shine here, and while there is not any advice on using other skills I would highly recommend allowing players to creatively use skills to figure stuff out.

The rest of the encounter is a pretty tough fight, partially because its 2-3 levels higher than the recommended adventure level, but also because the enemies have the terrain advantage. On the bright side, if Sir Tyros is taken down then there is a chance that some of his allies will flee (though the non-minions try to leg it anyway when bloodied).

The haul at the end is pretty nice, totaling about half the total treasure that a level 5 party is expected to get, and as an added bonus there are three hooks for expanding the adventure.

Not bad for a “side trek”.

Legend & Lore: Cleric Design Goals

More good than bad, this time around. The bullet list I can get behind, although some people are contending the part about relating to “archetypal characters, stories, legends, and myths”. What is more interesting to me is the second list; A cleric’s abilities being reflected by her god? I like that. I also like the idea of subtle, indirect magic. Fits the mantra god(s) working in “mysterious ways” and what-have-you (though summoning monsters, animating the dead, and calling down divine fire do not particularly sound subtle).

What I am more iffy on is the parts about being an armored warrior and healer.

When it comes to armor clerics have always been able to wear the heavy stuff, whether it was up to plate (OD&D and 3rd Edition, maybe 2nd?), or stuck with chainmail (4th Edition). While the article just mentions them wearing armor and packing shields, it seems to be, ahem, “heavily” implied that it will be up to plate again. My question is…why does the cleric need to wear heavy armor? Clerics of Moradin, Heironeous, or Bane I can see, but what about Melora, Obad-Hai, Sehanine, and other gods of natural forces? How about Ioun, Yondalla, or Vecna? Do you envision clerics of Olidammara (god of rogues, yo) running around in heavy armor and smacking things with maces?

I think that what a cleric can use should be defined by her god. Nature-based clerics probably wear leather and hide armor, perhaps something a bit heavier, and generally use spears, bows, sickles, etc. Clerics of knowledge and/or magic might wear no armor at all, perhaps having something like armor of faith to bolster their AC, or just be plain easy to hit. Clerics of shadows or rogues would stick to light armor and weapons. Inspiration can be drawn from the invoker and avenger, but I think that the nature- and shadow-clerics might tread on the toes of the druid and assassin…

…which makes me wonder how much his sample bow-using, leather armor-wearing, stealthing cleric of Apollo differs from the ranger (especially after buffs). They have made it clear that clerics and wizards will no longer be able to buff themselves up and outclass the fighter, so hopefully the ranger is likewise not left out in the cold. I am also wondering if said cleric was able to trade out her heavy armor proficiencies for something else, or if it is just “wasted” class features.

For similar reasons about heavy armor, while I know that clerics are “supposed” to have access to healing, but I do not think that they all need it by default. 3rd Edition clerics could opt to spontaneously cast inflict wounds spells, and did not have to take healing at all. I do not mind this so long as clerics who want to heal can get away without dumping cure spells on the fighter, which quickly stopped healing enough to make it worthwhile.

DDN Blog: Backgrounds and Themes

Backgrounds in 4th Edition were introduced in the Scales of War adventure path, as an option that gave characters a dash of flavor material as well as a small bonus (usually +2 to a skill or something similar…usually). Themes came about much later with Dark Sun Campaign Setting, and were also much more complicated; you got a bonus encounter power, and the option to swap out powers for theme powers and also nab theme-only feats. Later themes not only gave you the free power, but also minor bonuses at level 5 and 10. Basically they gave you variable mechanical benefits at no cost, with the side effect of potential flavor material if you wanted to bother with it.

5th Edition backgrounds and themes on the other hand, well…they sound like prepackaged skills and feats. Like, you pick soldier and theoretically gain skill training in four skills related to doing whatever it means to be a soldier (Athletics, Endurance, something knowledge of military hierarchy and tactics?), and a slayer theme and theoretically gain a damage-boosting feat (perhaps an encounter- or daily-based maneuver?). 

While I can kind of get behind the idea of grouping things together to speed up character creation/ease new players in, the fact that you can just ignore them anyway and pick whatever you want makes them feel kind of pointless. I mean I can already do the skill part by just letting my current players pick whatever skills they want, and the second would require lots of combing through feats looking for thematic packages (or just making up whatever I want).

The flexibility of any skills is nice. Certainly it will help players better make the characters they are looking for (though 4th Edition’s multiclassing and Skill Training mechanic made it stupid easy for minimal cost). I am wondering if the themes really will just be lists of feats, or if they will add in unique class features. If the former then I am pretty meh on the whole thing, and hope that books do not waste too much page space on them. I really enjoyed paragon paths and epic destinies as no-charge perks for focusing your character and mechanically justifying what you do, so hopefully they turn out more like that.

Edit: I just realized that these sound like more heavily encouraged “builds” from 3rd and 4th Edition. Again nice for players scoping out a class or looking for iconic styles, but unless there is something more to them I hope we don’t get too many pages devoted to them.

DDN Blog: Paladin Versus Cleric

As I said the last time paladins and clerics were brought up, on the concept level they are both very similar. A previous blog post stated that the paladin feels more martially inclined than the cleric, and that they are “exploring” the creative and mechanical space between the cleric and fighter.

A good idea, but only if the end result is not something that can be cobbled together by building your own cleric/fighter. Reading this post it seems like they are trying to ensure that it is not so easy, but I do not think that highly situational benefits are the way to go.

In 3rd Edition paladins got few alignment based class features–sensing and smiting evil–but also Charisma-based save bonuses and healing, the ability to summon a magical horse, remove diseases, a reduced ability to turn undead, and low-level divine magic. Personally I do not think that alignment-based bonuses are the way to go, and I am surprised to see that they are considering giving the paladin more, as well as still emphasizing the special mount.

I am guessing that with lots of evil-thwarting goodness that the paladin is intended to be “better” than normal when fighting them. Does that mean she will have the expected output against Neutral, or even Good opposition? In other words, will it make her outclass the rest when it comes to fighting evil? Will she still be able to meaningfully contribute otherwise?

I also do not think that paladins should be automatically good at mounted combat, as mounts can be tricky to work into a campaign (as well as maintain). I would rather have a class feature option, or a feat or talent tree. With a retraining mechanic players could even test it out and go another route if they do not like it. In any case having variant and/or scaling mounts (Defenders of the Faith and 4th Edition cavalier summon mount feats) would be great. 

What I would like to see is a continued focus on melee combat and defensive abilities that we have seen in 4th Edition, including smiting powers that do not require an alignment to work. Perhaps a reduced effect on Neutral/Good guys, like the extra damage might always be non-lethal or otherwise penalize them, so that they can be subdued instead of slain.

I am also curious if paladins will champion gods or causes (kind of like an inverse of 4th Edition blackguards). Regardless, I would like to see alternate class features instead of lay on hands and curing diseases; a blessing of war that gives out a damage bonus, the ability to inflict contagions, extra saves against magic for God of Magic-serving paladins, etc. Having angels (or devils?) pop in to help out as a higher-level option also sounds cool.

I guess we will have to see what souvenirs they get from Crazytown.

A Sundered World: Episode 109

Scale reference.

Cast

• Iron Jack (male human Joshian warlord)
• Lothelle (female moon elf bladesinger)
• Danh (male goliath serpent shaman)

The characters make their way toward the glowing beacon, located in the center of a crater. They experiment with it using Arcana and the litmus test of “throwing things at it”; Lothelle is temporarily blinded by massive amounts of condensed magic, but it does not respond to their salvo of rocks. Jack touches it, causing an explosion. Lothelle and Danh are thrown back, but after the dust clears Jack is standing in the crater, his broken leg healed and glowing with a golden light under magical scrutiny. The rain stops and the clouds begin to part, revealing a blood red sky.

As they continue exploring the ruins, Jack feels himself being compelled towards a dwarven castle. They find a passage underground, and as they prepare to enter an ancient blue dragon flies overhead, apparently heading towards where the golden light used to be. The underground sections, formerly flooded, drain out as they explore. They find a cache of what Jack describes as “liquid sex”, and deeper down the Axe of the Dwarven Lords. Deciding to wait for the dragon to go somewhere else, they continue to explore and eventually find a golden skeleton, orichalcum scale armor, and around 5,000 gp worth of ancient dwarven coins.

Unsure where the dragon is and loaded down with treasure, they figure that their only chance is to make a run for it. They load up the slaughterstone behemoth and make a run for the nearest edge, and see a 60-foot tall, metallic humanoid drifting towards the mountain crest. Its head has one glowing red eye, its mouth is a circular portal, and dozens of metallic, insect-like constructs flit about.

It was Autocthon.

Sprinting down the cliff in the vain hope of finding the ship, they are continuously intercepted by clockwork horrors that blast them with searing rays before trying to crash into them. They manage to dodge the brunt of the attack, but eventually find themselves surrounded. Danh activates the behemoth’s blade array, causing it to grow six limbs armed with adamantine fullblades, and charging the line. Lothelle’s fire shield deflects much of the damage, and the behemoth manages to break the line.

Then Autocthon lands.

It asks them to vacate the machine, as it would prefer to examine it for mass fabrication. They refuse, and it attempts to smash them. Jack throws the Axe, destroying part of its hand. It hesitates to examine the damage, and then proceeds to try and smash them again…

Behind the Scenes
The skill challenge of running down the mountain was epic. Lothelle kept her actions ready to dampen the searing rays, while Danh had to operate the controls. Jack gave bonuses to skill checks, as well as axed the horrors that got too close. They were really surprised to see what the blade array did, though I did borrow a page from Asura’s Wrath.

The session ended with me saying something like, “Autocthon looks at its damage hand, and says Well that happened, and then continues to bring its fist down…aaand we’ll call it for the night”. They have no idea what is going to happen, but are all pretty sure that they are dead despite me telling them that they are level 9.

D&D Next Blog: Monstrous Musings

Clearly defined mechanics and flavor text is a good thing, but does it have to come at the cost of 3rd Edition monster creation? 4th Edition made the process quick and simple, providing clear guidelines on what a monster should do at what level. Of course the “official” books did not always cleave to the formulas, and you could tweak them how you wanted, it was just easier to do so without accidentally wiping out the party and building monsters on the fly.

3rd Edition monsters were basically player characters. You chose the monster’s type and subtype, which determined Hit Dice and how various stats like Base Attack Bonus and saving throws scaled. You had to also determine ability scores (which affected everything else), spend skill points, and buy feats. The drawback–aside from all the book keeping–was that if you wanted a monster to challenge a party of a certain level, that it require various degrees of tweaking.

For example fey had a wizard’s attack bonus (ie, the worst). So if you want to make a fey critter good with a melee attack, you had to ramp up its Strength and/or Hit Dice. The problem with this is that spells and spell-like abilities–among other things–are derived from Hit Dice, which could make them harder to resist than its Challenge Rating would suggest. That and their own saving throws could make it easy for them to shrug off most effects.

Basically a lot of 3rd Edition monsters where pretty swingy, and building your own could require a lot of tweaking (and bullshitting racial, natural, and circumstance bonuses) to get them where you wanted. Oh, you could also add templates and classes to them, which often resulted in an even bigger mess. I would prefer to retain 4th Edition’s simplicity, coupled with monster themes and the degree of flavor we got out of both Monster Vaults.