My Next Wishlist

When I got the first playtest packet I was pretty underwhelmed, but still hopeful. Yeah the characters were pre-gens, the system looked like the worst of what 3rd Edition had to offer, and the adventure made absolutely no sense, but despite the protests of my group I figured that this was just the initial release: it looked bad now, but it would get better over time.

And it did.

For awhile, anyway.

More packets came out and we saw the “classically” boring fighter gain maneuvers, sorcerers and warlocks had a lot of promise (and their own magic system!), and you could pick not only pick any four skills you wanted, but there were also neat background traits to go with them. The game still had a very long way to go, but each packet seemed to build on the previous ones bit by bit, making the game better in some places, worse in others. Even so I was still hopeful that these issues would be addressed down the road.

They were not.

Races saddle you with a bunch of features at the start but do not influence your character down the road (and like 3rd Edition, might not even be relevant or usable), classes are largely and needlessly predefined, magic makes no sense, is boring, and does nothing to evoke the concept of the classes that can use it, skills have been replaced with absolute knowledge, feats can instantly make you a “master” in certain fields, heavy armor is pointless when you can just max out Dexterity, combat is boring, monsters are boring, magical healing is necessary…the list goes on.

Honestly I want to like Next. I thought I would, but right now it offers absolutely nothing to a gamer like me. Maybe the game will change down the road, or maybe a module will be added that will cater to my playstyle. Since the public playtest is wrapping up I decided to make a wishlist of things I would like to see in Next, whether by default or with a module, with the caveat that modules do not take a lot of time and/or effort to implement.

NOTE: Obviously I cannot say for certain that without these changes I would not play the game since it is not out yet, but I think it is a safe bet that the less there are the more likely I am going to pass (especially given other games like 13th Age, Numenera, and Dungeon World). Also this list is not complete, it is just the stuff that immediately comes to mind.

• Race need to matter more, not less. Or rather, players should have the choice to help determine how much race impacts their concept. 4th Edition is an excellent model for this (especially with race/class feats), and even 13th Age lets you spend feats to boost racial traits. I could even see a case for 3rd Edition’s racial levels, which could allow some people to play a “dwarf” or “elf” class.
• Halfling fighters need to be at least competent. I call out halfling fighters, but feel free to swap it out for half-orc wizards, gnome barbarians, and any other unconventional combination that did not work in editions before 4th. Right now they can work out just fine, though with all the other 3rd Edition-isms I am concerned that racial penalties might make a comeback. I am fine with races being better than others at certain things, but any race should be able to play any class and at least hit the bare minimum.
• Classes should allow you to make meaningful decisions. Defining most of a class ahead of time, even in a “basic” game, is pointlessly boring. It is entirely possible to allow players to make decisions when creating a character and/or when they are leveling up. You do not have to overload characters with 4th Edition’s options at the start, even letting players make one or two choices would add some much needed diversity without adding too much complexity to characters. Of course you could take a page from 13th Age and rate classes based on their complexity to better prepare characters. Plus it would be nice to see a complex fighter and simple spellcaster.
• Adventurers in general should be competent. Running around with enough hit points to sustain one, maybe two hits is not enjoyable, even if you are a wizard. I get that the world of Dungeons & Dragons can be a scary place and all, but it makes it difficult to run a game where the pace is something other than exploring rooms at their leisure and/or there are not lengthy periods of downtime.
• I want to be able to feasibly realize a kind of fighter/wizard within the first two levels. This means that either at 1st-level I have an option to pick up a cantrip or two, or at 2nd-level I can just take a level in wizard. I do not want to have to wait two or more levels for the wizard apprentice/hedge mage aspect of my background to kick in. It does not have to be anything extravagant or fancy: a fighter that can fire off a ray of frost, conjure light, or shield herself with a plane of force will do.
• While we are on magic, I want a magic system that makes sense. I say this at every packet, and I will say it again: pseudo-Vancian magic makes absolutely no sense. It never has. This by itself is bad enough to turn me off, but it also utterly boring, inflexible, and predictable. There are a variety of much more interesting and evocative magic systems out there to draw from, including Vancian magic. Why not draw from sources that Dungeons & Dragons claims to use for inspiration, like Conan or H.P. Lovecraft.
• Unify task resolution. I am not one of those people that thinks that just because magic systems use the same rules for hitting things and climbing walls, that it somehow makes it less “magical”. There are plenty of games where magic uses the same mechanics for other forms of task resolution–4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons, 13th Age, Shadowrun, Dungeon World, Numenera, to name a few–and I greatly prefer this method for its consistency. I see no reason why attacks, skill checks and some spells follow one set of rules, while some other spells demand saving throws.
• Skills should be assumed, preferably how Next was going to have them (pick any four things), but I would settle for 13th Age’s background points (spend 8 points on anything), or even 4th Edition’s trained/untrained model (though, again, let people pick anything they want). If you want to use skill dice, please do not make it universal based on level. 
• Armor that people will actually want to wear. As it is the best route is to max out Dexterity and go with light armor, since you do not suffer Stealth disadvantage or a speed reduction (this also has the benefit of increasing your Dexterity saves, ability checks, and initiative). Include class features for armored archetypes–fighters, paladins, some barbarians, etc–as well as a more in-depth masterwork system. While you are at it, throw granular damage resistance on at least the heavy stuff to really make it stand out.
• Realms management, specifically one that does not assume or even require that high-level characters are at the reins. In other words, I should be able to hand characters a keep somewhere in the level 1-5 range and have it work out. In fact, that sounds like a good idea for a campaign…
• Magical healing cannot be mandatory just to adventure and keep the pace going. A party should be able to work with largely whatever the players want to play: no one should be relegated to the role of a healer. For that matter, there needs to be other healing methods besides magical.

Legends & Lore: D&D Next Goals, Part 4

Over the past few weeks Mearls has talked about the two key goals for D&D Next, as well as what the basic and standard rules might offer. This week we get an idea of what to expect from the advanced rules. Before I get into that, here is a quick recap:

The basic rules, basically, have you roll stats, pick a race, and pick a class. Feat-like benefits will be baked into the class reflecting an iconic archetype, and they might let you roll skill dice for ability score checks related to your class. This reminds me of a slightly less complicated 2nd Edition, as you could pick out proficiencies, so maybe it is more like 1st? Basic?

Going from basic to standard seems like a pretty small step. As I said last week, it reminds me of 3rd Edition’s degree of complexity in that you get to pick skills, feats (or a specialty), and actual class features. So while you might like a mace-wielding cleric, you can break out of that mold. I am guessing that wizards will get to pick traditions, rogues schemes, and so on.

Advanced rules on the other hand open up a floodgate of possibilities, from ways to awarding XP, to hirelings and animal companions, to alternate magic systems, and more. He likens it to 3rd Edition’s Unearthed Arcana, which is great because that is one of my favorite 3rd Edition books, stating that the game is designed from the ground up to encourage rules hacking.

I also liked that the rules are categorized according to how complicated they are to implement and use. Dials are fairly easy to implement (but can still impact a game quite a bit). The two examples were removing all magical healing, and awarding XP for stuff completing quests or the more nebulous “doing things related to your class”. Modules do not change existing things, but just add more stuff to the game like henchmen and animal companions, as well as the oft-mentioned “tactical combat”.

The more dials you spin and modules you add makes the game more complex, and will likely slow things down, but Mearls assures that you can go crazy with them without breaking your game. This is all well and good, but what about the third category?

These rules did not have a label, but unlike dials and modules changes the core of the game so deeply that perhaps they were never meant to be named. Unlike dials and modules, which play well together, Mearls warns that employing more than one “core” change requires some careful consideration, as they are designing them with the assumption that you are using one at a time. To delve further is to invite madness, or dig up a balrog. Something like that.

In all seriousness I am glad that Mearls is being open about this, and hope that like in Unearthed Arcana the final product includes sidebars that explain to you the potential ramifications that these changes can bring about (bonus points if they mention other sets of rules that work well/not at all with them).

The focus list at the end is full of awesome. With the exception of facing and hit locations I like all of it, in particular per-encounter resources, mechanical benefits for character motivation, action points, variant XP rules, fast-combat rules for hordes, magic item crafting, armor with damage reduction, variant magic systems, and horror/sanity.

D&D Next: Legends & Lore, Part 3

This week Mearls gives us a glimpse at what we could expect from the “standard” rules. Before I get into that,  I want to point out (in case you somehow missed the news) that Wizards of the Coast has apparently begun offering pdfs from every edition on DriveThruRPG. There are currently some freebies, like B1: In Search of the Unknown and H1: Keep on the Shadowfell, though I do not know if those are temporary or not.

So, rules.

As a quick refresher on the character basics, players build them by rolling stats, picking a race and class, and…that is it. The standard rules, on the other hand, ratchet up the complexity to something more akin to 3rd Edition: skills and feats are a thing, and you can break out of the more traditional concepts. He uses the cleric as an example, stating that a basic cleric would use a mace and turn undead, while a standard one might worship Thor, wield a warhammer, and blast foes with lightning.

This sounds great in theory, as in my group some players prefer something simple and straightforward, while others enjoy trying to break the mold or even “power-game”. Tastes can change over time as a player becomes more familiar with the rules, or sometimes you are doing a one-shot and putting a lot of effort into construction a character is just not worth it. One issue that comes to mind is the standard characters being more powerful than their basic incarnations (and, by extension, advanced being better than the rest). While I am not assuming that it will not generally be the case, I think that over time optimizers will find potent combinations.

3rd Edition style multiclassing and prestige classes are back in. While I like the system because of its flexibility, there were plenty of issues with it, specifically with class-dipping (where you take one or two levels of a class for the front-loaded features), spontaneous feature explosion (where you suddenly learn a bunch of stuff, like every 0-level spell and a bunch of 1st-level spells over night), underpowered or non-viable character combinations (fighter/wizards), or classes that only exist as vehicles for better classes (fighter, sorcerer, wizard, etc).

I think they are at least aware of the first issue, what with the “When you create a character whose first class is [name], you gain these benefits” clause in the Classes document. Maybe picking up a new class gives you a different or reduced starting suite? Maybe you gradually pick up everything over a slightly more lengthy period of time? Maybe a specialty allows you to nab more or everything, similar to 4th Edition’s hybrid classes and the Hybrid Talent feat?

Actually with the exception of all feat cost, I mostly preferred how 4th Edition handled multiclassing: you spent a feat to gain just a bit of another class, and could gain more bits over time if you spend more feats. It handled the second issue, where a fighter with no magical background or training just suddenly got a spellbook with every cantrip and a bunch of 1st-level spells (or, conversely, a wizard was able to suddenly use most weapons and every form of armor).

It is nice, at the least, to see Mearls admitting to the third issue that can arise from all of this (the first of many challenges listed further down), so maybe this time around public playtesting will help weed it out, or at least mitigate it. I do think that it is important to note that not just power-gamers like breaking down a character into component parts: players interesting in a very specific concept or the narrative will almost certainly get some enjoyment out of building a character bit by bit.

For Dungeon Masters, the standard set of rules lets you create monsters 4th Edition style, using a set of damage, hit points, defenses, etc benchmarks. Given my past experience with 3rd Edition, this is great news as I found that 4th Edition made it very easy to create monsters on the fly. There will also more detailed rules added to the core for stuff like wrestling, swimming, etc. The breakdown is that the basic rules are for DM’s who prefer to improvise, while the standard set is for DM’s that like to tinker.

This could work out really well for people that want to start DMing, as several players in my group have tried but can get bogged down with too many rules and numbers. Even better is that you will apparently be able to mix and match rules complexity, so newer DMs (or those that prefer a looser game) can stick with the basics, while players can customize every facet of their characters, and vice versa.

Finally, Mearls lists a bunch of challenges that include the aforementioned multiclassing balance, as well as trying to ensure relative balance between options (including casters and non-casters), permitting some degree of optimization without allowing a massive gap, and allowing players to create characters based on a concept or story without making them too weak, as opposed to picking what you are “supposed” to. The only really odd “challenge” on the list was expanding the roster beyond four races…that sounds like it should be pretty easy, so hopefully we will see new stuff with the next packet.

Speaking of new stuff in the new packet, it looks like that the mystery class is the barbarian. Not much is mentioned, but apparently it differentiate itself from the fighter with a power-boosting rage and a more reckless fighting style. All things to be expected, but I am curious to see how it is conveyed in the mechanics. Personally I felt that the 3rd Edition barbarian was fairly similar to the fighter, while 4th Edition’s take had clear mechanics that made them act and play much, much differently. I especially liked the berserker subclass, which could act like a fighter sometimes, but then go into a frenzy as the situation demanded.

The bit at the end about customizing your rage really excites me: the idea of being able to choose whether to stick with more mundane brute strength effects, or change your shape sounds awesome (especially since both a bear and earth elemental are mentioned). Absorbing the warden into a barbarian type works for me.

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.

Monster & Morale

As you open the door, you see a pair of goblins arbitrarily standing there, ineffectually wielding spears made of a stick and somewhat sharpened rock, and shields made out of a few planks of wood tied together. They see you, and snarl savagely as they prepare to rush you.

This is one way that The Twisted Halls can open with: a pair of goblins middling about in a room, with a hex hurler and guard drake off camera for a round or two. These goblins are not only outnumbered but also out-gunned, as the party will either be utilizing obviously superior arms and armaments, or hiding behind someone using them. Unfortunately, whoever is doing the hiding is most certainly capable of dropping arcane ordinance. Goblins are pretty cowardly creatures, so it’d make sense of them to run for help, if not for their lives. No, they stand their ground, waiting for backup to arrive. Though the hex hurler jumps in almost immediately, the guard drake only shows up if someone opens the door to the room that its for some reasoned locked in. This costly delay results in a one-sided battle against the goblins, who even when bloodied are content to throw away their lives.

Why don’t they beg for mercy, or simply run? Is it because its not in the rules? 2nd Edition had a morale check, though I don’t remember what it did. I think one aspect of it is morality. If the monsters are begging for their lives the players might be reluctant to kill them, and even feel very bad for doing so. If they’re all too eager to kill the characters, however, it becomes an easy decision rooted in self preservation. Since I like to play D&D as a pleasurable hobby, the latter is preferable even if it means that the world is populated largely by simple-minded antagonists. After all, I’m not trying to write a novel, but provide a few hours of entertainment a week. If this means that I focus my creative efforts on the plot and a handful of major NPCs, I think I’ll live.

Another big factor is probably having the players deal with surviving monsters. Do they tie them up and take them to the authorities, chase them off in the hopes that they doesn’t return (possibly at an inopportune time, or with reinforcements), or simply put them to the sword when all is said and done? This could lead to a lengthy discussion about how to handle survivors that might just bog the game down, especially if the party doesn’t agree on how to handle prisoners. I’d rather not have the players explain that they are going through a routine of slitting throats, burning corpses, or stabbing nuclei. Even if I did, it would become one of those things that everyone agrees happens automatically without anything needing to be said.

On the other hand, leaving someone/thing alive could prove useful, which has been demonstrated in my current campaign on several occasions (especially since I don’t require a monster to be killed to garner a XP award). If the party interrogates an intelligent monster they might learn something useful about the dungeon and/or its inhabitants. This information doesn’t have to be accurate, and you can use it for foreshadowing. It can also speed up combat. If a monster surrenders, then you can reduce the grind. This could fail if the party takes a long time arguing over one what to do with the survivor(s). After the first batch of successful surrenders, its likely that your players will be quick to reach conclusions. Survivors might come back to haunt the characters, or assist them. Ultimately it leaves the potential for social role-playing opportunities. Just don’t over do it, or they’ll just go back to gutting the losers like fish in a factory.

When, if ever, should monsters surrender? In my games I try to run monsters logically, basing their combat behaviors off of what I think they’d do. I don’t have a hard system for it, instead playing it by ear unless a monster is bloodied, in which case players can try the Intimidate route (as its already in the rules). That being said, I do have some guidelines:

• Upon being encountered animals might not attack immediately, and could be dissuaded from fighting at all through the use of skills such as Nature, Intimidate, Diplomacy, Bluff, Insight, and others. If combat does break out, I generally have the animal strongly consider fleeing once its bloodied so that it can live to be arbitrarily thrown into another random encounter another day. If the animal is protecting young or its lair, it might fight to the death. Depends on the animal and location.
• Programmed/bound guardians like animated objects, golems, elementals, devils, undead, and others don’t play that way. They are created or compelled to protect an area or fulfill a function. Intelligent guardians do what is tactically advantageous, and some might try various forms of persuasion in order to fulfill their tasks (there could even be a dialogue exchange before and during combat). Unintelligent guardians, like golems, just go after whoever is closest or dealing the most damage. They never give up, even in the face of destruction.
• Intelligent creatures are a lot more complex. You have to consider race, intelligence, and sometimes other factors like culture and religion. As I mentioned above, goblins are a cowardly lot. When most of them are dead and/or bloodied, I like to have some of them surrender or book it (perhaps to warn another group). Orcs are very bloodthirsty and not prone to giving up. Most major villains probably have a high self-preservation instinct.

My questions are, do you have monsters that surrender? How do your players react to it? How do their characters handle it?

July Rules Updates

Thats…a lot of changes, and not simple ones, either. For starters, magic missile now always hits but deals less than half damage than before, dispel magic becomes an encounter spell, and lead the attack only lasts a turn even if you hit. And thats just a few of the changes out of Player’s Handbook. All told you’re looking at 20 pages of errata, so I’m glad that Character Builder gets updated as well. This means that unlike 3rd Edition I don’t have to print out the pages (or check the interwebs) so that I can reference them when making a character.

Error: Rule Not Found

I have no idea why people think that older D&D editions are somehow more intuitive or easier to houserule. They come to the bizarre conclusion that since 3E and 4E had rules for stuff, that you are now somehow utterly incapable of performing actions that dont specifically have rules spelling it out for you. While I think 3E took things a bit too far by having rules for virtually everything (like crafting and professions), 4th Edition provides some good solid advice on about how to accurately peg a task depending on the level of the character and how hard you want it to be.

And you know what? This isnt bad. It provides an easy-to-reference foundation for what players should expect when trying to do something not covered by the rules. This has the effect of speeding up game rulings while also preventing the DM from making a bad call, even unintenionally, since not all DMs are concerned with fucking over their party and actually want to progress a story. Just saying, is all.

I’ve been very pleased with the Skill Focus articles at Dungeon’s Master, as they are all very good examples on how to take a skill and apply it to areas that fall outside the defined function of the skill (for example, using Heal for torture or Endurance for remaining conscious at 0 or less hit points). I think that everyone should read these and use them. A lot.

One of my players, Josh, often tries to perform many unorthodox maneuvers that while not as tactically efficient as another action, are generally pretty cool for the narrative. Stuff like flipping over tables or flying drop kicks. We had a druid use…whatever the fuck that at-will vine attack was to grab a zombie troll and yank him into a set of gears to pin him into place.

In all situations, it was very easy to invent a simple task resolution so that there is a chance of failure and so that he can feel like that his choice had actual merit. In the case of the drop kick, it was a Strength vs. AC attack that did unarmed damage and knocked the enemy prone if he made a successful Acrobatics check (hard DC).

Completely on the fly, and allowed him to do something useful and cool. Was it more powerful than an at-will attack? Not really, but it wasnt so weak as to force him to waste a turn in order to do something flashy: he could be flashy and functional at the same time. I could not say the same for 3E and older games, where generally in order to do something like that would likely involve an attack penalty, an opportunity attack, and probably dick for damage assuming it worked.

I think that the open and flexible nature of skills and level-based DCs allows for a lot of interpration and creativity in the use of powers and skills, such as using scorching burst to create a fire or ray of frost to freeze water. Simple stuff like that, that players might not try since the power doesnt explicitely state otherwise. Would this be game-breaking? I dunno, but if a player wanted to use ray of frost to freeze water in a pipe and cause it to rupture, I’d probably call for an Arcana check to see if she could properly channel the necessary magic to make it work.

I’m not a fan of handwaving rolls unless the task itself is fairly trivial. For example, climbing a fucking wall. Its tedious, and if there isnt any real threat involved them I’m not going to waste time forcing them to make a series of simple Athletics checks in order to try and “keep it real”. I’ll keep the skill checks for the times where it counts. Maybe if they were attacked by a flock of harpies, a gang of ninjas, or…ninja harpies.