Legend & Lore: DM Rules & Exciting News

While I agree with the bullet list on the first half of the article, the part that really caught my eye was the bit where Mearls not only passes the column off to Monte Cook, but also states that he has been brought onto R&D. While I am familiar with Arcana Unearthed, I had a much greater exposure to Planescape, which I was not even aware he was part of (hey, it has been awhile since I checked the books). Really the part where I both stopped caring and was glad to see him go, was when he openly stated that he deliberately designed “trap” options in 3rd Edition to promote system mastery.

Thankfully someone found a new article where he admits that that way of thinking was not good, and I guess since then he has moved past “ivory tower” design (his words), so hopefully this means that he will not–or will not be able to–drag the game back into the past. At this point I am about where I was back when 4th Edition was announced; I hope that the game will be fun, but am unsure without seeing what Wizards of the Coast’s plan on the whole is for the game, as well as how much clout Monte carries to the table. It could be possible that even if he wants to go back to an edition with save-or-die effects and where spellcasters are pointlessly overpowered, that he will be “vetoed” by the majority rule.

I guess that despite the sinking feeling of uncertainty I am glad that there are still some book releases left to go with an already extensive library: if 4th Edition moves in a direction that I do not like or if 5th Edition comes out and it sucks, then I will still have decades of comfortable gaming ahead of me. Of course, maybe his ideas coupled with more modernized game design will yield positive results? I wish that Mearls would come out and clarify some nagging details and/or be more transparent, but until then this is yet another “wait and see” instance.

Rule-of-Three 09/12/2011

I might have already said this, but I appreciate Mearls entrenching himself into the festering cesspool where the worst of the vocal minority lair, readying piles of vitriolic feces to hurl whenever he dares to open his mouth. Surprisingly this week’s thread is pretty tame, but which I mean to say that there is roughly an even mix of actual conversation and thoughtful consideration mixed with the hate, sarcasm, and logical fallacies.

Anyway, here is my thoughts for this week:

Why were craft skills removed from D&D in 4th edition?
Around four years ago WotC released two preview books–Races & Classes and World & Monsters–where they mentioned that craft skills were getting cut. This caused some to complain that WotC was either getting rid of their definition of role-playing, and/or that they used them “all the time”. I remember even one of the writers at Paizo claiming that he was writing an adventure where the Profession (butcher) skill could be used to discover a clue, making it the only 3rd Edition adventure that I can recall where a Craft/Profession skill had a direct impact despite the fact that you could not use Profession skills untrained and had to buy each skill individually.

The one time I used a Craft skill–when I was not making a weekly check to gain gold due to an abnormal duration of downtime–was when we were constructing a raft to try and make it easier to wade into a swamp. We all, took 10, stacked a bunch of Aid Another bonuses, and waited for the DM to declare the arbitrary length of time it would take to build it and get on with something actually interesting. Using Craft was never really “dangerous” when you could take 10 to auto-succeed at a task. If you had to roll then your only risk was potentially losing out on some cash and/or materials.

While I think it is thoughtful of Mearls to admit that maybe they could have added in a sidebar recommending you to add in a pre-adventuring job if you wanted to, it is kind of sad that players needed permission in the first place, especially those that claimed to play in older editions where such skills did not even exist (not that my character couldn’t have a work history involving work in 3rd Edition despite not burning skill points on Profession skills).

Many players have a problem with the idea of a feat tax—feats like the expertise feats that address a deficit that all characters have. Are you looking at ways to fix issues without adding more feat tax or ways of fixing the feat tax issue in general?

“Many” in this case probably translates into “more than a few”. One poster stated something that I think is true; a minority of the gaming community is even aware of a “math error” when it comes to character attack bonuses and monster defenses. Of that group, only a minority give two shits. Case in point I know that people online bitch about math issues and feat taxes, but few players in my group (or at Encounters) ever pick up either Expertise feats or defense boosters, and things progress just fine.

It is because of this I actually like Mearls’s response: if you do not like it, then houserule in a bonus to attack rolls and defenses (or reduce the attack rolls and defenses of the monsters if you do not want to do that). I mean if there is actual communication going on with your group, then this should honestly not even be an issue, though I expect more than a handful will continue to make it an issue.

Combat can take a long time. The new monster math has helped speed things up, but are you working on anything else to encourage speedy combat while keeping it fun? Do you have any tips for keeping combat moving swiftly?

Whether a combat challenge takes a long time is going to vary from encounter to encounter and from group to group, so I was not expecting a “hard” solution. Even still the tips are definitely good things to know, especially for newer DMs. I recall a fight from an actual adventure that involved a bunch of grells with a dazing aura. I could see this being an issue in a “normal” party, but with a group of three and only one striker? Drag city. In my games I am only too happy to just end a fight if it is blatantly one-sided, or to have intelligent creatures surrender and/or run away, I just wish some of my players would remember that Intimidate can be handy to force it.

Legend & Lore: Player vs. Character

When it comes to skills I greatly prefer the approach of later editions: let the player tell you what they are generally trying to do, and then let a combination of dice and the character’s modifiers to determine the outcome. Mearls argues that this approach detracts from immersion because it causes players to focus on their sheets rather than the environment. I would argue that it actually helps maintain it because characters good at stuff that the players are not are still likely to succeed, and things that the player is good at but the character is not are more likely to fail.

In other words it helps sustain the players’ beliefs that the players are pretending to be someone that are not themselves.

On the topic of the environment, in past editions I guess the players had to engage in a combination of 20 questions and Zork in order to find…whatever it is they are trying to find. Personally I started with Basic and recall having to make ability score checks to do stuff like snatch food out of Axel’s hand or keep him from getting pissed off but, eh. At any rate the attention to detail is utterly irrelevant to the mechanics used to interact with it. If I wanted to I could describe all the furnishings in a room, and even allow players to state in excruciating detail what they are doing with it. My main problem with this route is time.

Maybe in some games players enter a room and declare that they are going to search it and just make Perception checks–which is fucking fine by me because it strips out the endless torrent of queries–but usually in my games players actually call out specific things in a room to investigate, in which case I go into additional detail and/or call for a skill check if appropriate. Here I find that being able to make a Perception (or Dungeoneering, History, Arcana, etc) check to indicate important details and/or secret shit a huge time saver, as rather than going down a list of search criteria I can encapsulate it all with a single dice roll and more accurately simulate the character’s ability to search and find things–often resulting in the party missing out on important things much less often.

Finally, I feel that this approach helps level the playing field between newer and veteran players. As Mearls states in the article, older editions required the player to actually learn information about monsters; the cited example was the weakness of trolls, but I recall that OD&D made it so that you had to try charm spells on monsters until you figured out which ones it worked on. The problem was that once the player figured this out, she could either use it in future games with other characters, or have to pretend not to know and “stumble” upon the information (probably in a contrived manner). In this instance immersion is reinforced by the fact that the book-worm character has a chance to know this sort of thing instead of figuring it out via trial and error.

Legends & Lore: Skills in D&D

My response was “somewhere in the middle”, because it seems like a good part of what Mike Mearls is musing about already exists in the game–just written in a different way and/or in a different spot–and the other stuff seems fairly situational (likely making it harder to remember, especially if you get a lot of “talents”). I do like the idea of making it more explicit as to what abilities can do; 4th Edition kind of glosses over them and sticks to direct benefits, such as telling you what defense or skill(s) it affects as opposed to giving a broader explanation.

As it stands you can play Dungeons & Dragons without skills at all and just default to ability scores (for example instead of Athletics, just use Strength), and characters can already at least try any skill application except for detect magic (Arcana) or reduce falling damage (Acrobatics). Aside from that being trained in a skill just drastically increases the odds that you will succeed. With the proposed system you still get small bonuses, but you also get some sort of passive benefit.

I like the concept that Mearls is going for. Groups that want a skill-less game can do so, while groups that want skills can choose their complexity (skills as bonuses, skills with benefits, etc). Even better groups can dial the complexity up and down as they want without having to switch between editions. The problem is that groups can already do something very similar with relative ease by removing skills from the game (modifying DCs, of course), sticking with skills, or using skill powers.

My final verdict would depend on whatever edition of the game this ruleset is actually intended for; in 4th Edition I would not like it because players already have to deal with a lot on their plate, and adding skill talents to feats and powers would just bog down things even further. I recall something similar near the end of 3rd Edition, though I never used it and I do not think it was particularly popular. In a theoretical 5th Edition though, who knows?

Legends & Lore: Setting the Bar

Mearls contines to expound upon his concepts for a modular game system, and the more he talks about it the more I am in favor of it.

I think.

My understanding is that every class, or perhaps power source, starts at a baseline level of power. Groups that desire more complexity do so, effectively increasing their level of power. For example, fighters can add in an exploit system like 4th Edition has, while wizards get a more complicated spell system (something like rituals, perhaps).

As with all Legends & Lore columns it is a hot topic with gamers asking questions, voicing concerns, deriding the concept without knowing how it will work, and speculating if this will be a new edition entirely or just a new rules supplement.

One gamer asked about how classes will be balanced across the board. For example, if fighters get to use exploits, how will that work out for wizards, clerics, and the rest? Well, as Mearls puts it in the article, “each other class also gains access to a rules module that makes it more powerful (wizards might get more spells, clerics gain access to domain abilities, rogues could get maneuvers like fighters or a trick or stunt system).”

So for groups that went to maintain an equal degree of balance between power sources the solution would be quite simple, assuming the system works as intended, while groups that want to simulate magic being superior could feasibly get away with that by giving spellcasters more “modules”, while leaving martial characters high and dry. How does the DM deal with this varied and scaling power? By “dialing-up” the monster difficulty. Two examples given were to increase the number of monsters, or use tougher ones.

Other things of interest were using “double-feat” rules, adjusting the amount of XP required to level up or going “XP neutral”, as well as packing rules into modules with identifiers to allow you to pick and choose your rules to suit a campaign. This very much sounds like it could be done using the current edition, especially since Gamma World seems to have been very rules light experiment, though I could just as easily see them cleaning up 4th Edition for the next edition.

They do have products slated for next year, though, so who knows what is going to happen. I am kind of excited to see where this goes, and if I do not like it I have enough D&D material (and Gamma World) to last me a life time as is.

Legend & Lore: Head of the Class

Classes with scaling customization sounds like a pretty interesting concept that has not been explored before.

Basically a new player/player with little interest in making lots of decisions during the character creation process can opt to stick with a “core” character, similar to a build in Player’s Handbook (or an archetype from Shadowrun), while others can make a few more choices similar to an Essentials subclass, and so on and so forth until they are customizing every aspect of their character like a “normal” class. The best part is that no matter how many decisions you make–or don’t–each character would remain viable throughout the entire game.

Pre-packaged characters would also be handy for pick up games, Encounters, one-shots, delves, or players that have their character killed off and need to roll up something quick to get back into the game before the night is over–and after the game is over I’d allow the player to map out their choices in more detail after the fact to get the character they want. There is also talk of making races into classes to evoke archetypes, such as “dwarves” as super tough fighters and “elves” as multiclassed fighter/wizards.

The big question is whether or not this new type of class design requires a new edition? Builds have been in 4th Edition since it was released, and Essentials subclasses were partially a step in this direction in that they dole out class features at specific levels. I think that WotC could pull this off without ushering in 5th Edition, but we will have to wait and see.

Legends & Lore: Minimalist D&D

I think I get what Mearls is trying to say here: rather than have values derived from your ability scores, why not just use their values? In one example, he posits that instead of have a Fortitude defense derived from your Constitution score that you could just use Constitution. Interesting idea, though I wonder how it will handle stuff like skills; will trained skills give you a bonus to a roll, will everyone be able to try a skill and just use the ability mod (removal of skills), will having a trained skill enable you to make the roll at all, or something else? My main concern is a lack of specializing or focus, but this will have to be one of those “wait and see” instances.

In response there is now a very lengthy thread on the forums filled with uninformed statements and speculation on 5th Edition, and some mechanics brainstorming: stripping down ability scores from six to three or four, removing ability score increases, some or all of feats, comparisons of giants pushing each other around, and more. There is currently almost 20 pages to muck through, so I am sure I missed a lot. I think that people are expecting to see a greatly simplified game with modular rules that groups can utilize if they want more complexity.

For example, you have the “basic” game where your abilities basically function as your bonus and defense to help you resolve stuff. Anyone can try to do almost anything they want, but if gamers want to add skills there would be rules to tack them on. Perhaps the same thing with feats, multiclassing, rituals, higher levels, and more. I think that having a modular rules system would present some issues, especially for meeting new groups, pick up games, adventure writing, and the like, but we will have to wait and see where things go from here. Could be a D&D variant, could be 5th Edition, could be nothing.

Battle Cleric Options

Courtesy of Mearls, there’s now additional options for Strength-based clerics to the tune of a variant class feature, variant Channel Divinity power, and sixteen at-will and encounter attacks ranging from levels 1-27. This is a hefty addition, and I’ll need to let my Saturday game’s dwarf cleric player do some retraining (especially because she even went so far as to take Scale Armor Proficiency). Lets take a look at the alternate features and powers, first.

• Battle Cleric’s Lore gives you a shield bonus to AC and proficiency with scale. That right there is nice, essentially a small bundle of feats (except that you do not actually have to carry a shield), but it also grants allies an attack bonus instead of bonus hit points when you heal them. This basically gives you a hands-free defender’s AC, but your healing words still get some extra perks on the side. As it stands it seems a bit too good, especially compared to Healer’s Lore (bonus hit points healed equal to your Wisdom modifier).
• You can swap out  divine fortune for favor of the gods, which gives one creature a free reroll before the end of your next turn. It isn’t something you can use when they miss, you target them with it on your turn, and if they miss they can opt to give it another shot. Kind of like a more conditional version of divine guidance, and I like it a lot more than divine fortune.
• You can swap out turn undead for punish the profane, which is a weapon attack that deals radiant damage and immobilizes the target. It also deals half damage on a miss and has a secondary effect that targets all undead within an area of effect, dealing a small amount of radiant damage and pushing them on a hit. This one I don’t necessarily like more than turn undead, but seems very flavorful for a battle cleric.

New Cleric Powers 

There are two at-wills, and both work better with simple weapons. Battle cleric’s weapon mastery, in addition to needing a shorter name, has a built-in attack bonus and gives you a damage bonus if you are using it with both hands. It is basically a souped up melee basic attack. On the other hand, weapon of divine protection deals an extra d6 damage if you are using a simple weapon, and grants allies next to you a defense bonus as an effect. So, that’s pretty leader-y.

The rest is a bunch of encounter attacks that extend all the way to epic tier, two per level. They all follow the general theme of gaining an attack bonus (ie, Strength +1 vs. AC) and damage bonus if used in two hands, or just one or more d6’s if you are using a simple weapon in general. Some of them are just improved versions of themselves (for example, sundering might and divine beacon), and I would have preferred if they just used the formatting that they use with powers that scale if you take them at a higher level.

These new encounter attacks really seem like Mearls just going through the motions of trying to wrap up support for a class concept, which is actually very good because despite the fact that any competent DM or player could have done the same thing: I know many people do not allow something that didn’t come out of a book–specifically, an official D&D book, and sometimes not even then. 

You will like it if you play clerics in general (especially for the alternate features), but obviously if you want to emulate a warpriest then this should have you covered.

Legends & Lore: The Core of D&D

In this week’s Legend & Lore column, Mearls begins by submitting that in the early editions of Dungeons & Dragons it was easier for DM’s to modify the rules: one might just make shit up on the fly, while another might put a lot of time and effort into reaching a conclusion. He goes on to submit that with 3rd and 4th Edition rules became more comprehensive and easier to use, and that consequently DMs began to simply rely on them rather than modify them.

In my personal experience I have found that recent editions–well, almost exclusively 4th Edition since I was basically the only one in my group that would run 3rd Edition–have made it so easy to modify rules and make rulings that not only are DMs in my group (myself included) doing it more often, but we also are not coming up with “broken” rules and rulings in the process. For example, if a player wants to try and flip over a table it would be very simple to come up with an on-the-fly ruling with little experience or chance of making table-flipping “too good” of an ability (Strength check to tip, followed by an attack versus Reflex with some damage and prone on a hit, monster standing adjacent to table on a miss).

Yeah you could make a similar ruling in all editions, but depending on your DM the number(s) needed to succeed and results could very wildly, and as editions progressed I think that DMs adhering to either extreme of the spectrum of usability became much less likely.

The other part of the article are the “essentials” of D&D. That is, stuff that would remind you of D&D, even if you saw it in another game:

• The six ability scores—Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma—as the categories for measuring a character’s abilities.
• Armor Class as the basic representation of a character’s defense.
• Alignment (Law v. Chaos, Good v. Evil) as a personal ethos and a force in the universe.
• Attack rolls made using a d20, with higher rolls better than lower ones.
• Classes as the basic framework for what a character can do.
• Damage rolls to determine how badly a spell or attack hurts you.
• Gold pieces as the standard currency for treasure.
• Hit dice or level as the basic measure of a monster’s power.
• Hit points as a measure of your ability to absorb punishment, with more powerful characters and creatures gaining more of them.
• Levels and experience points as a measure of power and a mechanic that lets characters become more powerful over time.
• Magic items such as +1 swords as a desirable form of treasure.
• Rolling initiative at the start of a battle to determine who acts first.
• Saving throws as a mechanic for evading danger.
• “Fire-and-forget” magic, with spellcasters expending a spell when casting it.

Aside from initiative, I pretty much agree with the entire list. Palladium’s line of games cribbed quite a bit in an attempt to be like D&D, but that just makes me think of D&D all the same anyway. I could live without alignment, especially in favor of having personality traits for helping players judge what their characters might do, as well as Vancian magic, which I’ve never really liked. The rest of the list makes me feel very optimistic about future editions, as it features game mechanics that make it easy for me to create adventures and accurate challenges for my players without bogging down play too much.

Some posters think that Mearls has a fixation for OD&D to the point where he is going to steer 5th Edition back to basics, but I seriously doubt anything remotely close to that is ever going to happen.

Who Wants to Play the Cleric?

Not it!

In all seriousness, my experience with clerics can be briefly summed up as, “I never played one before 4th Edition.” Ironically, it was the first character I actually played as part of a two-man delve, run by a person that had never ran D&D before, and it was a shitload of fun. Being able to smash and blast things while giving my ally bonuses (but still be able to heal), was so much better than standing behind the fighter and keeping him propped up and letting him get all the glory; people in my games just never got as excited about rolling 8 hit points of healing as they did over critting for 29 damage (or instantly slaying a dragon with a single spell and botched saving throw).

On another note, apparently writing free articles talking about D&D’s history–something he specifies in vain each time at the top of the column–is garnering Mearls forum hostility. That’s not surprising as doing pretty much anything makes you fair game for internet rage, and while I can understand that you might not find them interesting remember that you are also not paying for it (nor is it eating up pages out of the admittedly leaner-looking Dragon or spartan Dungeon). What I find only slightly surprising is the claims that Mearls is going somewhere with this that we don’t want to go, perhaps with a 5th Edition that will play more like 3rd and/or lack a cleric class–this is sadly a refreshing change of point-of-view from past columns where he allegedly attacked 4th Edition.

Personally I’m taking these columns as a D&D enthusiastic just, you know, talking about the game–even if it’s about gaming history that some of us experienced first hand (most of my running time was in 3rd Edition, so I got the end of this particular lesson). Yeah he’s a WotC employee, but that doesn’t mean that he can’t post shit on the site that doesn’t have some sort of ulterior motive.