Rule of Three: Tactical Combat, Maneuvers, and Vancian Magic

While two out of three is normally a pretty good ratio of success, the part that I did not like was the one that mattered the most to me:

Despite owning Players Option: Combat & Tactics for many years, I never used the rules on facing. Actually I never used most of the rules, though if I did facing would be a pretty low priority. It makes me think of combat in Final Fantasy Tactics, where you took turns with enemies running around each other like some kind of reverse-prison-rules-murder-dance. I like that the rules packages are presented more  “cafeteria style” as opposed to bundles; your group can decide to give tactical combat a whirl, but strip out things like facing. If you are feeling particularly perverse, you can instead just use facing.

Maneuvers sound a lot like a transition spot between 3rd and 4th Edition: there is a base group of things that anyone can try to do, like grab, trip, pushing, etc, in addition to options that anyone can pick up that let them do those things plus an attack (the example cited being tide of iron). People have voiced criticism in how the fighter can avoid sucking in games without feats (or when compared to classes that get their toys and more), but I guess somewhere Mearls specifically mentioned that fighters will get things besides maneuvers. I am curious as to how flexible maneuvers will actually be; will most anyone be able to buy and use them, or will the end up being trap-like options?

So far so good, but then we get to…vancian magic. Again with the pseudo-Vancian magic.

The last time I voiced my opinion of this, someone posted a link with a decent explanation of actual Vancian magic from one of the Dying Earth books (I assume). While I liked what I read, Dungeons & Dragons does not convey that kind of flavor. Rather than making them seem like living entities with a hard limit that wizards can retain (like, four), it just kind of glosses over it and sums things up magic as a fire-and-forget per-day resource (oh, and depending on what edition wizards cannot wear armor for some reason…unless they can). I guess it is a difference of how Yoda explained the force in Episode V and how it was chalked up as micro-organisms in Episode I.

Currently the wizard sounds like it is set to pseudo-Vance, though I am hoping that the final result has wizards that have better explained mechanics (ideally with no more spell levels), or a variant magic system to satisfy those with different cravings.

Rule-of-Three: Clerics, Advantage, and Tactics

Full article can be found here.

Clerics & Domains
Though I liked how 3rd Edition made it easier for clerics to be the heal-bot by swapping out spells for healing magic on a whim, I did not like how being Good required you to channel positive energy, while evil required negative energy (which made it harder to be an Evil cleric yet function “normally” in a group). In a similar vein, while I liked how 4th Edition made it easier to play a cleric that did more than funnel hit points into the fighter so that she could stay propped up, I did not like that all clerics could heal as a default choice.

Domains are pretty cool, though. Ideally I would like to see spell lists set entirely by gods and/or domains, so that not every cleric can necessarily heal, have ready access to healing, or heal in the same way; for example, clerics serving a god of war or protection might not be able to heal, but simply avoid or ignore damage (kind of like how some creatures can fight at negative hit points), while a cleric of death might be able to devour souls to heal herself and/or allies.

I do like that a cleric of war “gains proficiency in heavy armor and shields”. I had been hoping that they would go the route of doling out other features on a case-by-case basis.

Advantage/Disadvantage
Now this I do not like. Basically if you have advantage from a bunch of sources, it still only takes one disadvantage to render them all obsolete. With a lack of conditional modifiers, I would prefer to have it where you stack them all up and whichever has the most “wins”.

Tactical Combat Module
Predictably this sounds like a cluster of rules that adds 4th Edition’s level of grid-oriented combat back into the game, though the mention of facing makes me think of 2nd Edition’s Combat & Tactics book (I wonder if they will include rules for dueling and/or called-shots?). I am hoping that the rules make it very easy to turn this on and off, so that I can run free-form encounters and then switch over to a grid for something that I feel “deserves” it. I also hope that some of the individual portions are easy to strip out, so that I can disregard facing (or other rules) if it bogs down things too much.

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).

Rule-of-Three: 04/03/2012

On one hand, I think it is good to see that many of the best parts of 4th Edition are at least being considered for inclusion in 5th Edition; themes, exploits, at-will magic, rituals (though I recall that being in 3rd Edition in some form or other), non-magical healing, etc.

On the other hand, I would love to know which version of 3rd Edition Rodney is talking about when he mentions that druids and–of all things–bards were “capable” healers.

Oh yeah, it was nice that our bard was able to heal all of 2 hit points per day at 1st-level. We really needed that. I guess the druid would have done alright if that’s all she prepared, but come on; clerics could swap out any spell for a healing spell, were harder to hit, and could turn undead. Maybe he means 2nd Edition? Having not played that in a very long time maybe they were just as good.

So ignoring that I really hope that they still include forms of non-magical healing, even if an optional rule (or “dial” on the Grit-o-meter). Moving resources from an encounter-basis to an adventure basis has some appeal; most players in my campaigns tended to hoard daily powers for use on the presumed “boss” battle, or instances where it is basically life or death.

Rule-of-Three: 03/27/2012

So it looks like character progression is regressing back to 3rd Edition, which conceptually I actually have no problem with. Conceptually. I prefer the concept and execution of 4th Edition’s multiclassing mechanics because it seemed a lot more “realistic” in that you did not spontaneously gain a working knowledge of a multitude of weapons, spellcasting, or heck, even an animal companion. Instead when you multiclassed you basically got a small taste of the class, and could opt to spend more feats later on in order to swap out more things or take other feats to modify the stuff you picked up.

Now In case you have not played 3rd Edition, at the start of the game it operated very much like 4th Edition; pick your class, get class features, spells, hit points, skill points, etc. When you leveled up instead of being locked in your class, you could nab a level from any class that you were not restricted from, as some classes made it so that if you picked something else you could not go back, or had alignment limitations. The main difference between starting as a class and picking it up were not getting four times the usual number of skill points. This was a problem.

Say I start out as a human fighter. I have a working knowledge of all forms of armor, most weapons, I get bonus feats, plenty of hit points, and can basically max out a pair of skills (the 4E equivalent of training in them). Halfway through exploring a ruin I gain a level. In 4th Edition I would be a 2nd-level fighter. In 3rd Edition? Well…why not take a level in wizard? By doing so I get everything that a 1st-level wizard does. Everything. This includes a spellbook with all 0-level spells, a number of 1st-level spells based on my Intelligence, the ability to prepare and cast spells, and I can even summon a familiar. In comparison in 4th Edition I could burn a feat on being a wizard and gain training in Arcana and the ability to cast an at-will spell once per encounter.

Which seems more realistic?

You could argue that “real” role-players would not do this, but instead would make sure that it was known in game that they were studying magic for…who the hell knows. Wizards in 3rd Edition had a pretty hefty age modifier under the assumption that magic was hard to learn. Even still, the fighter goes from having absolutely no talent or magical capabilities to being able to fire off several magic missiles, detect magic, and more per day. Hell, by the next day he could even have his own enchanted pet.

The other problem is scaling modifiers. In 3rd Edition monsters have Challenge Ratings, similar enough to a monster’s level in 4th Edition, and like 4th Edition it is intended to let a DM simply eyeball a monster and get a rough idea of just how tough the monster is. The problem is that monsters do not assume multiclassing. A level 2 fighter has a +2 bonus to attack rolls, just from her class, while a level 1 fighter/level 1 wizard only has a +1. Seems like a minor difference, but the higher level the characters get, the bigger the gap becomes. At level 10 the fighter will have a +10 to hit, while the fighter/wizard will be at only a +7, not to mention that the core fighter will have more bonus feats to help further boost her attack and damage modifiers.

Oh yeah, the wizard’s spells are also two spell levels behind what they should be at. Spells in 3rd Edition (and past editions) scaled differently than 4th Edition. All spells were grouped into levels–ranging from 1-9–and these levels set a DC that monsters had to beat in order to reduce or eliminate the spell’s effect. The multiclassed wizard can drop a 5d6 fireball on her foes, while a core wizard would be doling out 10d6. Of course, she could also opt for a higher level spell that might not even allow a check to reduce the damage, or do something else entirely. Plus she would also be able to cast more spells and have a higher caster level check for overcoming spell resistances.

The monsters might as well all have honey badger templates for all the shits they don’t give. CR 10 monsters are assuming level 10 bonuses and modifiers (if you are lucky, the old CR system was very swingy). Your fighter/wizard will have a harder time hitting them, especially without the right spells, feats, and planning. This was the kind of stuff you hear players complaining about, planning their characters levels in advance, sometimes all the way up to 20, or using builds off of CharOp.

Now they are talking about flattening the math, which alleviates some of the issues. If there are less modifiers, then having a half-fighter, half-wizard is not that big of an issue. I am guessing that a core fighter will deal more damage on a hit, or be able to hit more enemies, but if the character can at least land blows then that is a plus. I even like the idea of a wizard being able to cast spells and followup with some “free action” fighter attacks. That sounds pretty damned cool in my mind, especially since as I had mentioned before that a good barometer for 5th Edition would be being able to make a viable fighter/wizard from the get go.

Hopefully they prevent multiclass inflation. I would rather see a character going fighter/wizard gradually pick up new abilities, instead of suddenly learning how to wield most weapons and wear armor, or gaining a gross understanding of magic.

Oh yeah, I guess solo monsters will still be in the game, even if by another name.

Rule-of-Three: Pixies

In addition to Totem Expertise and Two-Handed Weapon Expertise, the other content tidbit from Heroes of the Feywild is that pixies will have a flying cap of 1 square. Reactions and interpretations are varied, with some stating that WotC should have waited for a better solution, and others expecting as such. Others are confused by what a height limitation of 1 square actually means, despite Rules Compendium explicitly stating that it means they can fly one square above the heads of Medium critters. As for myself, I was trying to make a pixie race for Liz because she played on in 3rd Edition, and am actually surprised that one of her balance pitches was exactly this (another was to impose an attack or defense penalty while hovering).

While I am reserving judgement until I actually see and use the final product, I think that being limited to one square off the ground is a pretty good deal; you get to ignore difficult terrain, hazardous terrain, and traps and hazards that trigger on the ground, but basically anything can still go after you in melee. Despite the aerial limitation, they can still fly well above the 1 square-ceiling, they just have to find a safe landing place before their turn ends to avoid falling. While this can make it handy to get to some hard to reach places, I cannot think of many situations where any other character could not do the same thing given another round or two, and a sufficiently high Athletics check. Now there might be more to it then just this, we will just have to wait and see.

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.