Legends & Lore: Managing Magic & Complexity

Magic is one aspect of Dungeons & Dragons I have never fully enjoyed, so when I hear Mearls make references to “fighting with tools designed for previous wars”, and that they are kind of, but not really changing magic, I just apathetically sigh.

The added flexibility is all well and good, but I feel like they are not really making the most of this playtest by giving us numerous spellcasting systems to play with, and/or some optional rules to really spice things up. At this point I would settle for a mechanics that, if a wizard tried to explain it to someone, would make sense, or at the least some interesting flavor.

As it stands the mechanics are boring, predictable, and safe, things that I would not normally associate with magic. Let us see the variant magic systems we keep hearing about. Bring back the sorcerer and warlock, and maybe some other classes while you are at it. Throw some optional rules like exhaustion, sacrifices, or other variables at us and see what sticks (3rd Edition’s Unearthed Arcana has a lot of this stuff, by the way). This is a playtest, so let us try something out besides pseudo-Vancian.

While I am less than thrilled about the current state (and the future) of magic, I am more optimistic about giving the players the choice to enhance existing abilities or pick up new ones. Assuming everything goes to plan, this could allow players that want complex characters to branch out, or just stick to a handful of stuff if they do not want to bog themselves down with too many options. The problem is if they design abilities that are too good to simply not pass up, such as an accuracy or damage boosting option, particularly one without a cost.

I think that this–as well as flexible NPC stat blocks–would be a great way to avoid a kind of entry bar, without saddling the new player with a simple and ineffective class like the fighter. 4th Edition’s Essentials line made classes even simpler, but did not sacrifice efficacy. I am running a 3rd Edition Age of Worms campaign at work, and while I wanted to introduce a new player by having her roll a fighter so as to avoid overwhelming her, I instead opted for a warblade because despite it being slightly more complicated it would be effective for a much longer period of time.

Really if you want to make it easy to teach new people to play the game, make sure that you create a kind of cheap, “red box” product to go with it from the start. Star Wars: Edge of the Empire made it very easy for both the players and game master to learn as they go, and there is no reason why you could not do the same and allow players to ease themselves in. In fact, you could do something like this for each mode of play as people become more familiar with the system.

Legends & Lore: Combat Superiority

3rd Edition gave us fighters that purported to have lots of flexibility, but ultimately failed at doing what they were supposed to be doing; you had no way of effectively stopping monsters from attacking the more dangerous characters, rangers could do the two-weapon schtick better (and easier), and numerous spellcasting classes could just buff themselves beyond anything a fighter could dream of, in- and outside of combat.

Really unless you wanted to ineffectually “button-mash” attack over and over, your only non-optimized option was to go with archery (though I hear spell-buffed rangers still got the monopoly, there).

4th Edition reined in spellcasters and gave fighters complex and meaningful options, allowing them to dominate the arena of weaponry (and tanking). No longer could clerics and wizards slap on a bunch of buffing spells–while still being able to bypass the hit point mechanic entirely and do other things–and no longer could druids wildshape into exotic animals that allowed them to make multiple attacks at their full bonus, before the fighter could even make a second attack at a huge penalty.

Players were rightfully concerned that the fighter was being dragged back into a darker age, where all they could do was fumble about and hit things for a brief period of time in which they could do it reasonably better than some other classes (or, more accurately, longer in an “adventuring day”). Classes that had skills, interesting features, and/or spells that let them affect groups of monsters, make skill checks that they normally could not (often with a bonus when it was not outright success), fly, boost their stats, and more.

Given that we were only shown a low-level snapshot, I cannot say for certain if the Next fighter was going to be like that. With the flat math, better skill distribution and flexibility, and heavier reliance on ability scores it is possible that a fighter might have fared better. They even got multiple attacks at level 2, albeit only twice per day, but at least it was without a penalty and could be used for more things than just attacks. However, wizards were still reliant on pseudo-Vancian magic, and fighters did not have any attack options except “hit it” (though to be fair, it was a crapload of damage).

For those concerned about going back to boring fighters, I think that this is promising news; fighters get dice that they can spend to add extra damage, reduce damage that they are taking, block attacks, and presumably much, much more. They refresh each round, which kind of reminds me of the warblade from Book of Nine Swords, though they had to spend an attack action to refresh their maneuvers, so it was more like every other round.

Most people are making comparisons to Dungeon Crawl Classic’s Mighty Deed of Arms, which basically lets you make a kind of special attack based on your description and the GM’s permission whenever your attack die–a die that you roll in place of a flat attack bonus value–comes up 3 or higher. Example deeds including things like gouging out a basilisks’ eye, impaling two monsters on one spear, and disarms. I would also comapare it to Stunts in Dragon Age, which you could use if the Dragon Die came up a certain number or higher.

I like it because it avoids going with a static bonus and provides the fighter with a simple resource to manage, both of which makes them more interesting. While I do not think that each class needs a unique resource management system, I think this is fine because it operates in a similar manner to 4th Edition in that it grants a sense of “narrative control” (and, ironically, the rate at which you gain maneuvers is similar to 4th Edition). I also like it because for those who want a simple fighter, you can just opt to use them for a damage bonus and call it good.

Dragon’s-Eye View: Wandering Monsters

This week we get a reveal that there will be a new weekly article coming out next week, where James Wyatt will talk about the “story behind the world”. Hopefully this means that we will get some semblance of a default campaign setting, though I am stoked about getting a peak into general flavor content. Jon also wraps things up by asking a familiar question; what does a paladin look like?

As with the wizard that depends on a bunch of factors: race, country of origin, upbringing, climate, culture, how she became a paladin (did she choose, or was she chosen?), what god does she serve (if required), etc. Given all of these factors, I can make a case for a paladin to dress, wield, and act almost any way she wants (and “appear” like most any class).

The whole “knight in shining armor” look, while iconic, should not be necessary. In “vanilla” campaigns I could see paladins of Pelor, Moradin, and Erathis going that route, but not necessarily Sehanine or Kord. A paladin might wear simple clothing, donating all but the necessities to those less fortunate. She might wear an elaborate tabard befitting her station. A champion of a nature deity might clad herself in rough-hewn skins, while one of a god of death would shroud herself in dark colors.

When compared specifically to the fighter it could be really hard to differentiate the two. I mean, both can wear holy symbols, the same armor, and wield the same weapons. A code of honor is not just a class feature, and neither is a particularly chivalrous personality; the fighter and paladin could be mistaken by those who tend to judge stereotypes, especially if the fighter likes to keep her gear clean and the paladin follows the tenants of Moradin, drinking it up in a tavern and causing brawls after hours.

The main difference that I can infer from what we have been told is that the fighter will be more skilled with weapons, while the paladin will be able to levy divine retribution.

I would like to see an edition where paladins are not all wearing full plate, packing longswords, and/or riding atop horses. You can give us that, but also something different, like that Wayne Reynolds drawing from Defenders of the Faith of the guy on the armored lion; show us paladins from a variety of races, cultures, and gods. Like, halflings with shortbows on riding dogs, elves with spears on stags or wolves, etc. Most importantly, cleave to 4th Edition and give us options that still work.

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?

Fighting The Good Fight

Fighters are a tricky business. I remember in older editions (ie, 2nd and 3rd Edition) it was the go-to class for the new guy, a kind of simplistic training-wheels archetype that let you get your game on and pick up the rules as you go. 4th Edition gave it a major overhaul, finally putting its power consistently on par with spellcasters, making it a viable option at all levels of play. Scaling damage, multiple attacks that could actually hit, the ability to actually stop monsters from attacking your allies and impose conditions required that it become more complex. This move was either a feature or a bug depending on who you ask, but the slayer and knight subclasses (introduced in one of the Essentials books) proved that you could make a less complex class that was still viable.

In preparation for a potentially sucktastic new edition (or ideas to pitch whenever the playtest actually starts going), my group is cobbling together a kind of 4th Edition hack using some of the stuff I’ve talked about previously. One of the things I am stuck on is just how complex to make a 1st-level fighter. In past editions they basically made melee attacks over and over again, gaining multiple attacks at higher levels. 3rd Edition added in attack-like options in addition to feats and feat-trees that could modify attacks and actions, as well as give you entirely new things to do. At the end run Tome of Battle brought in a fighter-esque class that got stances and recharging special attacks. Some people were upset that 4th Edition gave the fighter daily abilities (despite there being plenty of mundane classes with daily features in both 3rd Edition and Pathfinder), though later subclasses removed all of these in lieu of encounter-based exploits.

So…how much is too much? I think that as a baseline a fighter should be wear any armor and wield most any weapon, as well as some feature that lets her focus on a weapon (or weapon group) at the start…but what then? Bonus feats? Talents (with talent trees)? Class features? Stances? Some kind of special attack/exploit/maneuver(s)? An entirely new mechanic, like stamina or stunt points?

Class Compendium: Heroes of Sword and Spell Preview

November’s Ampersand opens up by reminding you to buy Beholder’s Collector Set before telling you what we already knew about the Character Builder going web-only, which is fine in case you’re the type of person that only goes to the D&D homepage to learn about the going-ons. The part that gets good is the Heroes of Sword and Spell preview, which unfortunately does not seem to be so good.

It’s a bare-bones book that features five classes–almost all the martial plus wizard, and for some reason cleric–and that’s about it. No races, no skill descriptions, no gear. Instead, they direct you to Heroes of the Fallen Lands or Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms if you want to wrap things up. I’m guessing that the classes are going to take up a lot more space than Essentials?

The classes are presented Essentials-style (ie, tables by tier) which is entirely unnecessary since every class in the book follows the exact same progression: get a utility power at level 2, get an encounter power at level 3, etc. I understand that they’re trying to maintain the theme of using tables to illustrate progression, which was fine because classes out of Essentials books didn’t all get the same thing, but this just seems like that they’re doing it for “tradition’s sake”. Speaking of tradition, they’ve previewed the Heroic tier of the fighter-renamed-weaponmaster, which is a fighter that only gets to pick between the two weapon talents (that fighters got when 4th Edition came out). It otherwise operates exactly as a fighter does, same class features and powers.

From what I’ve gathered, this is what you get when Wizards of the Coast takes a fraction of Player’s Handbook and repackages it. Its got all the “base four” classes, plus the ranger, but nothing more. The question is, why get it instead of Player’s Handbook, which has all that and more? From what I’ve heard, this has all the errata’d powers and class features. Unfortunately, its got a lot less content than Player’s Handbook (by several classes at the least) and not much cheaper (five bucks…woo).

On the other hand, as with the Essentials books, they go into a lot more detail on individual powers and concepts. For example, cleave gets a few lines that further explain what it does as well as indirectly when it’s a good idea to do it. Powers still have their descriptive text built-in, but they get a bit more. Perhaps this will help make things seem friendlier, or easier to explain to people who have a hard time understanding concepts like daily powers.

At this point, I’m tentatively on the fence. I like the idea of having an updated, compartmentalized book, but I don’t like having to go back and forth between books to pick races, figure out what skills do, etc. Well, I personally don’t, since I know all that already. I’m talking about new players who haven’t had the luxury of years of play experience under their belt. It’ll also depend on how many powers are given to each class; if it’s the same or less than Player’s Handbook, it’s going to take quite a bit to sway my vote.

I will say this: it does have a bitching cover.

Essentials Fighter Preview, Part 2

Shazbot got around to it before I did, but I still want to offer up my thoughts. The first thing I notice is that despite it being categorized under the fighter heading, its actually a martial striker, the striker mechanic being that they get to add Dex to every damage roll they make. This is very good for the class since it revolves around the use of Strength and Dexterity. On the downside (for some) it just means that you’re going to want to stick to heavy blades. I like swords, so I don’t give a fuck. In all seriousness, the knight seems to be Strength- and Constitution-focused, and since they are building classes around themes my guess is that they are trying to parse the weapon selection as much as possible.

Does this make sense? Well, when I think slayer I do start out with swords first and foremost. Axes tend to come second, and for a ranged weapon I envision a crossbow for some reason. Maybe its too much Vampire Hunter D? However, when I think knight I still think sword. At any rate, I don’t know if Essentials fighters will get anything out of their ability scores when it comes to weapons. Feats still apply, but its yet to be seen if their powers will say anything to the effect of, “when using a heavy blade/axe, add your Dex/Con modifier to whatever.”

Moving on, the Weapon Talent class feature is also featured on the knight, but not explained: it grants you a passive bonus to all weapon attacks. This is better than old fighters, who had to pick how many hands were required to squeeze the bonus out of their weapon, if they even got it at all (you could pick to instead be badass with two weapons, or to keep getting more hit points when you got hit).

Fighter stances, as explained in the knight article, are at-will powers that modify how your basic attacks work (since martial classes now rely on basic attacks that get kickers from their at-wills). There are two stances previewed: the first, berserker’s charge, grants you a +2 bonus to Speed and attack rolls when making charges. Since its a power bonus, it stacks with the +1 gained from charging in the first place, so its a good way to make sure your charge hits. The other one is unfettered fury, which imposes a -2 to hit in exchange for a +4 to damage. Good if you’ve got combat advantage and want to make the modifiers a wash, I guess. Finally, the last level 1 class feature is power strike, which is identical to the knight’s (encounter power that lets you deal extra damage on a hit).

Essential Fighter Preview

Well technically, its a knight. Shazbot mentioned that the podcast mentioned that the fighter knight wouldn’t get at-will exploits, but instead have abilities that would modify melee basic attacks, and from the looks of things thats true. The knight is proficient in every sort of armor out there (as opposed to having to burn a feat on plate like actual fighters), but otherwise looks to be on par in terms of class traits.

She gets a laundry list of class features at level one,  only a couple of which are even touched on: Defender Aura constantly marks any non-marked enemy adjacent to you, but it doesn’t look like she knight gets the freebie attacks. Instead of at-will attacks, you instead get two Fighter Stances: battle wrath gives you +2 damage, while cleaving assault works like cleave, except that the damage is based on Con instead of Strength. Power Strike is cited as a class feature, which is actually them just choosing your level 1 encounter for you. It also modifies melee basic attacks, dealing +1[W] damage as a free action after you hit something.

Again, the essential classes look to be thematic characters that make most of the decisions for you. The knight’s only key ability scores are Strength and Constitution, instead of the usual Strength and maybe either Constitution or Dexterity, perhaps with some Wisdom on top that the usual fighter possibly demands (I’m guessing the slayer will be linked to Strength and Dexterity only). Again, I think these are going to be great for newer players, or players looking for that nostalgic feel without all the save-or-fuck-all bullshit of past editions.

Class Acts: Fighters

Shield fighters just got a looot more interesting. For starters, they get 13 new exploits that all demand the use of a shield. Each attack is basically a shield slam in various flavors, often invoking some form of forced movement, but there is a healthy variety of interrupt and reaction attacks that evoke a fluid image of a fighter parrying an attack only to follow up with a shield-uppercut.

There arent a lot of feats, two for Heroic and Paragon tiers, but they back quite a punch. Encouraging Shield is a heroic feat that gives you a Will bonus from your shield, while Ubiquitous Shield is a paragon feat that always negates combat advantage if you have a shield equipped.

Dayam.

The most humorous thing about this article is the snapping testudo paragon path, which requires that you use two shields. You can burn an action point to gain a considerable defense boost, get a passive AC and Reflex boost while carrying two shields, and eventually at level 16 grant an ally superior cover from ranged attacks. The exploits granted by the path all require two shields to use. The attacks target Reflex and have slide, daze, and prone kickers. The utility lets you slide enemies around that you hit.

There are four magic shields, which basically have properties that let them double as magical weapons of various categories.