tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33426401738174589012024-03-05T11:43:31.190+01:00Square FireballsA site for discussing Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition rules and newsPericohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12414348870266960204noreply@blogger.comBlogger245125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3342640173817458901.post-16448520156568663632014-08-08T08:38:00.001+02:002014-08-08T08:41:48.734+02:00Game Design (X): Balancing monster defenses, resistances<p align="justify">One of my favorite innovations in 4E is the fact that, unlike previous iterations of the game, there are well defined formulas for combat math, and they are nicely laid out in the DMG for DMs and players to see. This is great for making informed decisions regarding character building or combat tactics, but there is a flaw in the plan: some very relevant stats are left out of the fun. It’s straightforward to find out when you have a good AC, or how much damage it takes to kill a monster of your level, but once you need to know whether you should take an attack power that targets Fortitude or Will or which flavor to choose for an Armor of Resistance, you are out of luck. In today’s article, I will discuss how the contents of a Monster Manual can affect character effectiveness, and suggest ways to make this influence more consistent, predictable, and transparent to the players. </p><span id="fullpost"> <p align="justify"><strong>The problem</strong> </p> <p align="justify">There are two problem areas: defenses and damage types. I will address them in order. The issue with defenses lies in a lack of definition of their relative importance - looking at the DMG tables, one can’t tell that there’s any difference in expected values between Fortitude, Reflex, and Will. It turns out that, although the values for average defenses are well known, there are no useful guidelines regarding which defenses should be stronger or weaker for a given set of monsters. The DM guide actually suggests deriving this from the monster <em>Ability scores</em>, which are mostly useless stats with arbitrary values to begin with. For practical purposes, defense generation using this method can be modeled as a random process. If this randomness resulted in an even distribution across different defenses, it would all work out just fine, and I wouldn’t be writing this. Unfortunately, when we <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?229092-Lots-of-statistics-from-the-Monster-Manual">look at the data</a>, monsters have a tendency to be big, dumb brutes (regardless of whether they are actual Brutes), and as a consequence, average defenses skew heavily towards strong Fortitudes and weak Wills. This means that a player character picking an attack power that targets Fortitude will be at a significant disadvantage (equivalent to roughly a -2 penalty to hit!) compared to an attack power that was otherwise identical but targeted Will instead. This is a huge difference, and one that isn’t documented anywhere on the PHB or the DMG - you’ll only find it by checking the stats of monsters in your Monster Manual (or, for that matter, in your adventures), and averaging them out. </p> <p align="justify">Conversely, the defenses targeted by monster powers don’t seem to follow any rules other than what feels right to the designer in each case. One would expect AC to be the target for most attacks, with Fortitude, Reflex and Will taking an even share of the rest. However, <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?229092-Lots-of-statistics-from-the-Monster-Manual">this is only true in part:</a> AC seems to be the predominant defense, with Fortitude and Reflex showing in similar numbers, but Will tends to be underrepresented. </p> <p align="justify">Similar issues arise when we look at damage types: the <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?229092-Lots-of-statistics-from-the-Monster-Manual">types resisted by monsters</a> (or that they are vulnerable to) and the types used by monster attacks are chosen on a case-by-case basis. And, again, this results in highly skewed numbers. For most damage types, resistances and vulnerabilities only show up in small numbers, but there are a few major outliers: there are a lot of monsters that are resistant or immune to Poison and Necrotic (and, to a lesser degree, Fire), or vulnerable to Radiant damage. This is mostly due to the Undead effect: Undead represent a very important portion of the monster population, and are almost universally resistant to Poison and Necrotic damage, and vulnerable to Radiant. Thus, we can conclude that player powers using Radiant damage will have a significant advantage over the rest, whereas Poison and Necrotic powers are severely crippled. Once again, this is an undocumented feature. As for the damage types used in monster attacks, there is a predominance of Fire, Necrotic, Poison and Psychic damage, relative to other types. That said, this is a far less relevant issue than the previous ones, as it only comes into play in the relatively rare scenarios where player characters have resistances. </p> <p align="justify"><strong>What should be done</strong> </p> <p align="justify">With the above points in mind, I have defined some requirements that a fixed system should have: </p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify">A predictable distribution of defense values and resistances/vulnerabilities for monsters. This distribution should be known to players and DMs, so that they can properly evaluate each defense or damage type. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">A method to generate this distribution in newly-designed monsters. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">A low-effort method to retrofit current monsters to use this distribution. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Equivalency between defenses and between damage types. I strongly believe that Fortitude, Reflex, and Will values for monsters should have similar values, on average. Likewise, each damage type should be, on average, equally useful in damaging monsters.</div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Monster stats should make sense and meet player expectations. </div> </li> </ul> <p align="justify">On the other hand, I have given up on some related issues, as I think they harder to solve, and not relevant enough to be worth the effort: </p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify">Balanced distribution of damage types in monster attacks </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Balanced distribution of targeted defenses in monster attacks </div> </li> </ul> <p align="justify"><strong>Fixing monster defenses</strong> </p> <p align="justify">I should start by clarifying that, when I talk about monster defenses, I refer to fortitude, reflex, and will. AC works properly under the current rules, and will need no further tweaking on my part. With that said, “just” fixing fortitude, reflex and will is a daunting task, as it involves adjusting stats for all of the thousands of monsters out there. The only realistic way to achieve this is by generating these stats from simple rules derived from some monster property, such as race or role. Here, I monster role becomes the natural fit for defense generation, since it is already used for other basic stats such as AC, hit bonuses, or damage. </p> <p align="justify">For simplicity’s sake, we’ll assume that all monster roles show up in similar numbers. This is not entirely accurate, as Artillery and Lurker monsters are underrepresented, appearing only half as often as other monster roles in the monster manuals. Nevertheless, I consider this a good enough approximation for now - and I will try, at some point in the future, to study this role disparity  and maybe try to address it too. </p> <p align="justify">Anyway, the new defense generation guidelines work as follows: for each of Fortitude, Reflex, and Will, a monster role can have an “average” score (the defense value suggested by the DMG tables), a “strong” score (equal to the average score + 1) or a “weak” score (equal to the average score -1). In order for all defenses to be roughly balanced, each defense will have as many roles with “strong” scores as with “weak” scores. I suggest the following values: </p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify">Soldier: <font color="#008000">Strong Fortitude</font>, Average Reflex, Average Will </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Brute: <font color="#008000">Strong Fortitude</font>, <font color="#800000">Weak Reflex</font>, Average Will </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Skirmisher: <font color="#800000">Weak Fortitude</font>, <font color="#008000">Strong Reflex </font>, Average Will </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Controller : Average Fortitude, <font color="#800000">Weak Reflex</font>, <font color="#008000">Strong Will</font> </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Lurker: Average Fortitude, <font color="#008000">Strong Reflex </font>, <font color="#800000">Weak Will</font> </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Artillery: <font color="#800000">Weak Fortitude</font>, Average Reflex, Average Will </div> </li> </ul> <p align="justify">I included AC values to give a better view of each role’s relative defenses. If we organize the scores by defense rather than by role, they look as follows: </p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify">Fortitude: </div> </li> <ul> <li> <div align="justify">Strong for Soldiers, Brutes </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Weak for Skirmishers, Artillery </div> </li> </ul> <li> <div align="justify">Reflex: </div> </li> <ul> <li> <div align="justify">Strong for Skirmishers, Lurkers </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Weak for Brutes, Controllers </div> </li> </ul> <li> <div align="justify">Will </div> </li> <ul> <li> <div align="justify">Strong for Controllers </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Weak for Lurkers </div> </li> </ul> </ul> <p align="justify">Note that, although each defense has equivalent scores on average, some show different degrees of variance. In particular, Will has a single Strong and Weak role (rather than 2 of each, like the other roles). This lets me give the Soldier role above-average defenses (with no weak score), and the Artillery role below-average defenses (with no strong score). </p> <p align="justify">These values should provide a good baseline that can be applied to all existing monsters, or be used when designing new ones. As an option to add some variety, I suggest applying a +1 modifier and a -1 modifier to any two defenses (other than AC) to each individual monster, as the designer or DM sees appropriate. </p> <p align="justify"><strong>Fixing monster resistances</strong> </p> <p align="justify">Under the current rules, damage types are unbalanced because certain large groups of monsters get built-in resistances or vulnerabilities. Removing these resistances/vulnerabilities is not a very compelling option: on the one hand, they add a good deal of flavor and variety to monsters and, on the other, there is little point in having a damage type system unless we embrace resistances and vulnerabilities in monsters. The solution, then, is to go the opposite route, with a caveat. We will add many new group-wide resistances and vulnerabilities, but ensuring that for every damage type that is resisted by a monster group, there is another monster group of comparable size that is vulnerable to it (and vice versa). The result should be a system where damage types are relevant more often, but without having types that are clearly stronger or weaker than the rest. </p> <p align="justify">We use the following assumptions as a starting point: </p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify">Most Undead monsters are vulnerable to Radiant damage, resistant to Necrotic damage, and immune to Poison. About 15% of monsters in the game are Undead. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Many monsters are resistant to Fire damage, including Devils and Fire-based monsters. </div> </li> </ul> <p align="justify">We decided to apply the following changes: </p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify">To streamline monster design, we implement resistance/vulnerability guidelines. Whenever the majority of a monster group tends to have a resistance or vulnerability, we make an explicit rule stating that all monsters of the group should have that trait. Hence: </div> </li> <ul> <li> <div align="justify">Undead monsters have Vulnerable Radiant </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Devil and Tiefling monsters have Resist Fire </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Ooze monsters have Resist Acid </div> </li> </ul> <li> <div align="justify">To balance damage types, we change some current resistance/vulnerability guidelines, and add some new ones as well: </div> </li> <ul> <li> <div align="justify">Undead and Construct monsters have Resist Poison (instead of immunity) </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Fey, Plant, and Swarm monsters have Vulnerable Poison </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Aberrant, Immortal, Blind and Plant monsters have Resist Radiant </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Shadow monsters have Vulnerable Radiant, Resist Necrotic </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Undead monsters that are not of Shadow origin no longer have Resist Necrotic </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Immortal monsters have Vulnerable Necrotic </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Fire monsters have Resist Fire (in some cases instead of immunity), Vulnerable Cold </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Cold monsters have Resist Cold </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Cold and Plant monsters have Vulnerable Fire </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Water monsters have Resist Acid </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Construct monsters have Vulnerable Acid </div> </li> </ul> <li> <div align="justify">Finally, we add a few resistances/vulnerabilities for flavor purposes </div> </li> <ul> <li> <div align="justify">Aberrant monsters have Vulnerable Psychic </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Construct, Plant and Eladrin monsters have Resist Psychic </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Dwarf monsters have Resist Poison </div> </li> </ul> </ul> <p align="justify">If <a href="http://squarefireballs.blogspot.com/2014/04/game-design-ix-resistances-and.html">our proposed rules for resistances and vulnerabilities</a> are used, these are resistances/vulnerabilities with no damage limit. Otherwise, add a resist/vulnerable value appropriate to the monster’s level (e.g. 5 per tier).</p> <p align="justify">Our balancing takes into account the number of monsters of each type currently in the <a href="http://www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/database.aspx">Compendium</a>. You can check out the numbers we used in <a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zgEtHmABM3d8pqpmHiqRCGO_gq3fd24OdK9V5GuLLHY/edit?usp=sharing">this spreadsheet</a>. It is not really possible to achieve a perfect match between monster types and damage types without introducing some awkward flavor, so a few damage types still have a predominance of resisting monsters or vulnerable monsters. In particular, Poison slightly weaker than average, while Radiant leans on the stronger side. However, this effect is much smaller than with the previous rules, and not as one-sided - Poison becomes very useful against some fairly common monster types, whereas Radiant loses a lot of effectiveness against many foes. </p> <p align="justify">To be honest, my ideal system for damage types would involve cutting the number of types by half or so, but that would take even more effort, and destroy any semblance of backward compatibility. </p> <p align="justify">With our suggested changes, the resistances and vulnerabilities for each damage type end up as follows: </p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify">Poison -  R: Construct, Undead, Dwarf; V: Fey, Plant, Swarm</div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Radiant - R: Aberrant, Immortal, Blind; V:Undead, Shadow </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Psychic - R: Construct, Plant, Eladrin; V: Aberrant </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Necrotic - R: Shadow; V: Immortal </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Fire - R: Fire, Devil, Tiefling; V: Plant, Cold </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Acid - R: Ooze, Water; V: Construct </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Cold - R: Cold, V: Fire </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Lightning, Thunder, Force - no group-wide resistances or vulnerabilities. </div> </li> </ul> <p align="justify">Or, organized by monster type: </p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify">Undead - R: Poison; V: Radiant </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Fey - V: Poison </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Immortal - R: Radiant; V: Necrotic </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Shadow - R: Necrotic; V: Radiant </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Aberrant - R: Radiant; V: Psychic </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Devil - R: Fire </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Construct - R: Poison, Psychic; V: Acid </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Blind - R: Radiant </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Fire - R: Fire; V: Cold </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Cold - R: Cold; V: Fire </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Ooze - R: Acid </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Plant - R: Radiant, Psychic; V: Poison, Fire </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Water - R: Acid </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Tiefling - R: Fire </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Eladrin - R: Psychic </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Dwarf - R: Poison </div> </li> </ul> <p align="justify"><strong>A note on Variable Resistance</strong> </p> <p align="justify">A monster mechanic that is very relevant to the topic at hand but hasn’t been considered so far is the trait shared by all Demon monsters, Variable Resistance. The wording on this ability is rather ambiguous, and depending on your interpretation, Variable Resistance can vary in effectiveness between a minor, situational boost, to an almost permanent resistance for the five elemental damage types. I suggest using a new wording for this ability that makes it less ambiguous and a bit weaker, so that it can be considered as neutral for the purposes of damage type balance.  </p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><strong>Variable Resistance</strong> - <em>At-Will - Free Action <br /></em><strong>Trigger</strong>: The character takes damage of one or more elemental damage types (elemental damage types are acid, cold, fire, lightning, thunder). <br /><strong>Effect</strong>: Choose one of the triggering damage types at random. After the damage is resolved, and until the end of the encounter, the character and all allies with this ability gain Resist against that damage type, and Vulnerable against another elemental damage type chosen at random. This effect ends when the monster or an ally use Variable Resistance again. </p> </blockquote> <p align="justify"><em>Note: A character with this ability must use it whenever it triggers. If the ability would trigger simultaneously for several allied characters, only one of them chosen at random can use it.</em></p></span> Pericohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12414348870266960204noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3342640173817458901.post-65245464270254913052014-04-05T11:01:00.001+02:002014-04-25T11:09:25.695+02:00Game Design (IX): Resistances and Vulnerabilities<p align="justify"></p> <p align="justify">A wizard casting an elemental protection spell on his allies. An skeleton shrugging off an assassin’s poisoned blade. A walking tree consumed by a fireball. Resistances, vulnerabilities and mechanics that care about types of damage in general are a great way to add flavor and variety to a game. On top of that, they open up some neat tactics and interactions: casting elemental bursts centered on top of a conveniently surrounded fighter with an Armor of Resistance, figuring out how to make the most of a few Acid Flasks when fighting a band or trolls, moving a tiefling character into flaming terrain…</p> <p align="justify">And yet, not all is well with the way 4E handles these elemental rules. Figuring out attacks with multiple energy types against characters with many resistances or vulnerabilities is far from intuitive, and too favourable for the multicolored attack powers. Mundane attacks are left out of the fun, due to the lack of a way to define physical resistance. And attacks that deliver damage in multiple small packages (such as ongoing damage, or sustainable zones) are excessively affected by both resistances and vulnerabilities, which tend to make them harmless or overpowered, respectively. And don’t get me started about the unholy mess that is the <a href="http://squarefireballs.blogspot.com.es/2009/10/toning-down-resistances-vulnerabilities.html">immunity definition</a>.</p> <span id="fullpost"> <p align="justify">Veteran readers will remember that I dealt with most of these issues in a <a href="http://squarefireballs.blogspot.com.es/2009/10/toning-down-resistances-vulnerabilities.html">past post</a>. Today’s installment follows the same principles, but  proposing a full redefinition for these rules (rather than a mere patch to be used with the existing books). This way, we get cleaner and more balanced mechanics, and open up some new design space, at the cost of requiring very minor tweaks to work with existing monsters and player material.</p> <p align="justify">To summarize, these are the main issues that I want the new rules to deal with:</p> <ul> <li>Remove scenarios where resistances/vulnerabilities become either too good, or irrelevant. </li> <li>Simplify interaction between multiple resistances/vulnerabilities and multiple damage types. </li> <li>Change balance of multiple resistances/vulnerabilities so that having attacks with multiple damage types is not always the best strategy. </li> <li>Allow resistances/vulnerabilities to scale automatically with level </li> <li>Enable resistances/vulnerabilities for physical damage. </li> <li>Clarify Immunity rules. </li> <li>Balance Insubstantial rules. </li> </ul> <p align="justify">The new rules are described below.</p> <h4 align="justify">Character Traits</h4> <p align="justify"><u><strong>Resistance</strong></u></p> <p align="justify">A character with <strong>Resistance</strong> takes reduced damage from attacks or effects with a certain <strong>Damage Type</strong>. A Resistance always includes the Damage Type to which it applies. Optionally, a Resistance can also include a numeric <strong>Limit</strong> for the damage it can mitigate, and a <strong>Condition</strong> that must be met to apply the resistance. </p> <p align="justify">A Resistance works as follows: for each attack, if the Condition is met (or there is no Condition), damage of the specified Damage Type is reduced either by half or by the Limit, whichever value is lowest. In addition, a character can also apply a Resistance against environmental effects that deal damage but are not attacks; against such effects, damage of the specified Damage Type is reduced by the Limit or, if the Resistance has no Limit, the damage is completely negated.</p> <p align="justify">From the above definition, we have four possible ways to specify a Resistance:</p> <ul> <li>Resist Damage_Type </li> <li>Resist Damage_Type (Condition) </li> <li>Resist Damage_Type (Limit) </li> <li>Resist Damage_Type (Limit) (Condition) </li> </ul> <p align="justify"><em><font color="#0000ff">Designer’s Note: The way Resistances work against environmental effects is different from how they apply against attacks (or, for that matter, how Vulnerabilities work against environmental effects). The purpose of this rule is to allow creatures with elemental resistance to survive in areas of elemental hazard.</font></em></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#0000ff"><em>Examples of resistances:</em></font></p> <ul> <li><font color="#0000ff"><em>Resist Fire</em></font> </li> <li><font color="#0000ff"><em>Resist Physical (No Advantage)</em></font> </li> <li><font color="#0000ff"><em>Resist Poison 5</em></font> </li> <li><font color="#0000ff"><em>Resist All 5 (Not Silvered)</em></font> </li> </ul> <p align="justify">The elements of a resistance are described as follows:</p> <ul> <li><strong>Damage Type:</strong> The damage type against which the resistance is applied. This must be a valid damage type, or “all” if the resistance applies to all damage regardless of type. </li> <li><strong>Limit</strong>: The maximum amount of damage that can be mitigated by this resistance. This is a number, usually a multiple of 5. If no limit is specified, the resistance always mitigates half of the damage dealt from an attack (or, if the damage is not dealt by an attack, all of the damage). Note that a resistance can never mitigate more than half the damage from an attack, regardless of its limit. </li> <li><strong>Condition</strong>: A resistance with a condition only applies against damage that meets that condition. The most common types of conditions are: <ul> <li><em>No Advantage</em>: Damage from an attack without Combat Advantage </li> <li><em>Critical</em>: Damage from a critical hit. </li> <li><em>Ongoing</em>: Ongoing damage. </li> <li><em>Not Silvered</em>: Damage from an attack not using a Silvered weapon or implement. </li> <li><em>Not Epic</em>: Damage from an attacker of level lower than 21. </li> <li><em>Not Paragon</em>: Damage from an attacker of level lower than 11. </li> </ul> </li> </ul> <p align="justify"><strong><u>Vulnerability</u></strong></p> <p align="justify">A character with <strong>Vulnerability</strong> takes 50% extra damage from attacks or effects with a certain <strong>Damage Type</strong>. A Vulnerability always includes the damage type to which it applies. Optionally, a Vulnerability can also include a numeric <strong>Limit</strong> for the damage it can add, and a <strong>Condition</strong> that must be met to apply the Vulnerability. </p> <p align="justify">A Vulnerability works as follows: for each attack, if the Condition is met (or there is no Condition), damage of the specified Damage Type is increased either by half or by the Limit, whichever value is lowest. In addition, Vulnerabilities also apply for environmental effects that deal damage but are not attacks, increasing damage of the specified Damage Type either by half or by the Limit, whichever value is lowest.</p> <p align="justify">From the above definition, we have four possible ways to specify a Vulnerability:</p> <ul> <li>Vulnerable Damage_Type </li> <li>Vulnerable Damage_Type (Condition) </li> <li>Vulnerable Damage_Type (Limit) </li> <li>Vulnerable Damage_Type (Limit) (Condition) </li> </ul> <p align="justify"><em><font color="#0000ff">Examples of vulnerabilities:</font></em></p> <ul> <li><em><font color="#0000ff">Vulnerable Fire</font></em> </li> <li><em><font color="#0000ff">Vulnerable Cold (Advantage)</font></em> </li> <li><em><font color="#0000ff">Vulnerable Poison 5</font></em> </li> <li><em><font color="#0000ff">Vulnerable All 5 (Critical)</font></em> </li> </ul> <p align="justify">The elements of a Vulnerability are described as follows:</p> <ul> <li><strong>Damage Type</strong>: The damage type against which the Vulnerability is applied. This must be a valid damage type, or “all” if the Vulnerability applies to all damage regardless of type. </li> <li><strong>Limit</strong>: The maximum amount of damage that can be added by this Vulnerability. This is a number, usually a multiple of 5. If no limit is specified, the resistance always adds half of the damage dealt from a source. Note that a Vulnerability can never add more than half the damage from an given source, regardless of its limit. </li> <li><strong>Condition</strong>: A Vulnerability with a condition only applies against damage that meets that condition. The most common types of conditions are: <ul> <li><em>Advantage</em>: Damage from an attack with Combat Advantage </li> <li><em>Critical</em>: Damage from a critical hit. </li> <li><em>Ongoing</em>: Ongoing damage. </li> <li><em>Silvered</em>: Damage from an attack using a Silvered weapon or implement. </li> <li><em>Epic</em>: Damage from an attacker of level 21 or higher . </li> <li><em>Paragon</em>: Damage from an attacker of level 11 or higher. </li> </ul> </li> </ul> <p><u><strong>Resistance reduction</strong></u></p> <p align="justify">A character with <strong>Resistance Reduction</strong> can partially ignore enemy resistances against a certain <strong>Damage Type</strong> when attacking. A Resistance Reduction always includes the Damage Type to which it applies, and a <strong>Value</strong> for the amount of resistance that can be reduced. Resolve attacks with Resistance Reduction as follows.</p> <ul> <li>If the defending character has no Resistance for the Damage Type of the Resistance Reduction, nothing happens. The attack resolves as normal. </li> <li>If the defending character has Resistance for the Damage Type of the Resistance Reduction, and the Resistance has no Limit, the defending character becomes Vulnerable against that Damage Type. This vulnerability has a Limit equal to the Value of the Resistance Reduction. </li> <li>If the defending character has Resistance for the Damage Type of the Resistance Reduction, and the Resistance has a Limit, the defending character becomes Vulnerable against that Damage Type. This vulnerability has a Limit equal to either the Value of the Resistance Reduction, or the Limit of the Resistance, whichever is lower. </li> </ul> <p align="justify"><strong><u>Damage Immunity</u></strong></p> <p align="justify">A character with a <strong>Damage Immunity</strong> ignores damage from attacks or effects with a certain<strong> Damage Type</strong>. A Damage Immunity always includes the Damage Type to which it applies. </p> <p align="justify">The elements of a Damage Immunity are described as follows:</p> <ul> <li><strong>Damage Type</strong>: The damage type to which the Immunity is applied. This must be a valid damage type. Note that “all” is NOT a valid type for a damage immunity. </li> </ul> <p align="justify"><font color="#0000ff"><em>Example of damage immunity:</em></font></p> <ul> <li><font color="#0000ff"><em>Damage Immune: Poison</em></font> </li> </ul> <p align="justify"><strong><u>Condition Immunity</u></strong></p> <p align="justify">A character with a <strong>Condition Immunity</strong> ignores a negative condition. A Condition Immunity always includes the Character Condition to which it applies. Optionally, it can also include an activation <strong>Condition</strong> that must be met to apply the Immunity. </p> <p align="justify">The elements of a Condition Immunity are described as follows:</p> <ul> <li><strong>Character Condition</strong>: The character condition against which the immunity is applied. This can be a condition from the list defined <a href="http://squarefireballs.blogspot.com.es/2012/12/game-design-vi-character-conditions.html">here</a>. In addition, this can also have as a value “forced movement”, in which case it makes the character immune against push, pull and slide effects . </li> <li><strong>Condition</strong>: The immunity only applies against attacks or effects that meet the specified condition. </li> </ul> <p align="justify"><em><font color="#0000ff">Example of condition immunity:</font></em></p> <ul> <li><em><font color="#0000ff">Condition Immune: Stunned</font></em> </li> <li><em><font color="#0000ff">Condition Immune: Forced Movement (no burst/blast)</font></em> </li> </ul> <p align="justify"><strong><u>Nondamage Immunity</u></strong></p> <p align="justify">A character with <strong>Nondamage Immunity</strong> ignores all effects other than damage from attacks with a certain keyword. A Nondamage Immunity includes the <strong>Keyword</strong> to which it applies.</p> <p align="justify">The elements of a <strong>Nondamage Immunity</strong> are described as follows:</p> <ul> <li><strong>Keyword</strong>: The keyword against which the immunity is applied. Attack keywords include damage type keywords, and others such as Fear, Charm, or Gaze. </li> </ul> <p align="justify"><font color="#0000ff"><em>Example of nondamage immunity:</em></font></p> <ul> <li><font color="#0000ff"><em>Nondamage Immune: Poison </em></font></li> <li><font color="#0000ff"><em>Nondamage Immune: Charm</em></font> </li> </ul> <p align="justify"><strong><u>Damage Trigger</u></strong></p> <p align="justify">A character with a <strong>Damage Trigger</strong> generates a special effect when receiving damage of a certain Damage Type. A Damage Trigger always includes the <strong>Damage Type</strong> which triggers it. . Unless otherwise stated, a Damage Trigger is applied after the attack or effect causing the damage is fully resolved. Damage Triggers are mandatory, and require no action to resolve.</p> <p align="justify">The elements of a Damage Immunity are described as follows:</p> <ul> <li><strong>Damage Type</strong>: The damage type which triggers the Damage Trigger. </li> </ul> <p align="justify"><font color="#0000ff"><em>Example of damage trigger:</em></font></p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify"><em><font color="#0000ff">Damage Trigger Cold: The character is slowed until its end of its text turn.</font></em></div> </li> </ul> <p align="justify"><font color="#0000ff"><em>Designer’s Note: Damage Trigger is intended to cover all previously existing Vulnerabilities that had an effect other than adding damage, e.g. Vulnerable Cold: Slowed until end of turn. Now Vulnerabilities will be limited to extra damage, and other effects will be treated as Damage Triggers.</em></font></p> <p align="justify"><strong><u>Insubstantial</u></strong></p> <p align="justify">A character with <strong>Insubstantial</strong> gains the following abilities:</p> <ul> <li>Resist physical </li> <li>Resist non-physical (no Advantage) </li> <li>Vulnerable all (Advantage) </li> </ul> <p align="justify"><font color="#0000ff"><em>Example: A creature with insubstantial would take damage as follows:</em></font></p> <ul> <li><font color="#0000ff"><em>Physical or non-physical, no Advantage: Reduce by half </em></font></li> <li><font color="#0000ff"><em>Physical, with Advantage: normal damage </em></font></li> <li><font color="#0000ff"><em>Non-physical, with Advantage: Increase by half</em></font> </li> </ul> <p align="justify"><strong><u>Swarm</u></strong></p> <p align="justify">A character with <strong>Swarm</strong> gains the following abilities:</p> <ul> <li>Resist all (no burst/blast) </li> <li>Vulnerable all (burst/blast) </li> <li>Vulnerable Poison </li> <li>Condition Immune: Forced Movement (no burst/blast) </li> </ul> <p align="justify"><font color="#0000ff"><em>Example: A creature with Swarm would take damage as follows:</em></font></p> <ul> <li><font color="#0000ff"><em>non-Poison, not a burst or blast: Reduce by half </em></font></li> <li><font color="#0000ff"><em>Poison, not a burst or blast: normal damage </em></font></li> <li><font color="#0000ff"><em>Any type, burst or blast: increase by half</em></font> </li> </ul> <p align="justify">Regiment</p> <p align="justify">A character with <strong>Regiment</strong> gains the following abilities:</p> <ul> <li>Resist all (no burst/blast) </li> <li>Vulnerable all (burst/blast) </li> <li>Vulnerable Psychic </li> <li>Condition Immune: Forced Movement (no burst/blast) </li> </ul> <p align="justify"><em><font color="#0000ff">Designer’s Note: Regiment is a new keyword, intended to provide swarm-like rules for huge groups of humanoid monsters. It should allow DMs to use lower level humanoids as opponents to Paragon or Epic parties, without needing to resort to Minions.</font></em></p> <h4 align="justify"> </h4> <h4 align="justify"> </h4> <h4 align="justify">Resistances, Vulnerabilities and Immunities in combat</h4> <p align="justify">The base rules for Resistances, Vulnerabilities and Immunities (described above, under Character Traits) can be directly applied on most combat scenarios. However, some clarification is needed when using creatures with multiple Resistances and Vulnerabilities, or when resolving attacks with multiple damage types. This section provides guidelines for these special cases.</p> <p align="justify"><strong><u>Default damage type: Physical Damage</u></strong></p> <p align="justify">When an attack or effect deals damage without specifying a damage type, that damage has the physical damage type. </p> <p align="justify">An attack or effect with multiple damage types can also have physical as one of its damage types. In that case, “physical” must be explicitly listed among the damage types for that source.</p> <p align="justify">Physical damage works like other damage types for the purpose of resistances, vulnerabilities, and other effects, with one important exception: whenever an ability or effect allows a player to “choose a damage type”, that player cannot choose physical damage as an option. If the ability or effect allows to “choose a damage type, including physical”, then physical becomes a valid option.</p> <p align="justify"><strong><u>Choosing between multiple Resistances or multiple Vulnerabilities</u></strong></p> <p align="justify">If a creature has multiple Resistances or multiple Vulnerabilities that can apply against the same damage type, proceed as follows:</p> <ul> <li>Discard Resistances or Vulnerabilities whose Condition is not met. </li> <li>Of the remaining Resistances, if there is one that has no Limit, choose that one. Otherwise, choose the one with the highest Limit. If multiple Resistances are tied (with no Limit, or with the highest limit), you can choose any one of them. </li> <li>Of the remaining Vulnerabilities, if there is one that has no Limit, choose that one. Otherwise, choose the one with the highest Limit. If multiple Vulnerabilities are tied (with no Limit, or with the highest limit), you can choose any one of them. </li> </ul> <p align="justify"><font color="#0000ff"><em>Example: An attack without Advantage deals 27 Fire to a creature that has the following resitances</em></font></p> <ul> <li><font color="#0000ff"><em>Resist Fire (Advantage) </em></font></li> <li><font color="#0000ff"><em>Resist 10 Fire </em></font></li> <li><font color="#0000ff"><em>Resist 5 All</em></font> </li> </ul> <p align="justify"><em><font color="#0000ff">Of these, we discard the first one because its condition is not met. From the remaining ones, the Resist 10 Fire has the highest Limit, so we choose that one. The damage is reduced by 10 (since the Limit is lower than half of 27). If the attack had Advantage, no resistance would be discarded, and we would choose the first one, Resist Fire (Advantage), which has no Limit. The damage would then be reduced by 13.</font></em></p> <p align="justify"><strong><u>Simultaneously Applying Resistances and Vulnerabilities</u></strong> </p> <p align="justify">If a creature has both a Resistance and a Vulnerability that can apply against the same damage type, proceed as follows:</p> <ul> <li>Calculate the damage mitigated by the Resistance, using the original damage as reference. </li> <li>Calculate the damage added by the Vulnerability, using the original damage as reference. </li> <li>The final damage is equal to the original damage, minus the damage mitigated by Resistance, plus the damage added by the Vulnerability. </li> </ul> <p align="justify">If a creature has both an Immunity and a Vulnerability that can apply against the same damage type, the Immunity prevails, and the creature receives no damage of that type.</p> <p align="justify"><font color="#0000ff"><em>Example: An attack deals 17 Fire damage to a creature with Resist Fire, and Vulnerable 5 Fire. The Resistance mitigates 8 damage (half of 17), and the Vulnerability adds 5 damage (since the Limit of 5 is lower than half the original damage). The total final damage is 17-8+5=14 Fire damage.</em></font></p> <ul> <li><font color="#0000ff"><em>Note that when applying a Resistance and a Vulnerability without Limits, or a Resistance and a Vulnerability with the same Limits, the final damage will be equal to the original damage. </em></font></li> </ul> <p align="justify"><strong><u>Resolving attacks with multiple damage types</u></strong></p> <p align="justify">If a creature receives damage with multiple damage types, proceed as follows:</p> <ul> <li>Make a list of all damage types for that damage source. </li> <li>To calculate the damage added from Vulnerabilities, choose the two damage types in the list for which the creature has the highest Vulnerabilities. For each of these damage types, calculate the damage added by its corresponding Vulnerability. The total added damage is equal to the sum of the damages added by these two Vulnerabilities, divided by two. </li> <li>To calculate damage mitigation from Resistances, choose the two damage types in the list for which the creature has the highest Resistances. As a special case, if the creature has Damage Immunity against a damage type in the list, treat it as a Resistance that mitigates damage equal to 100% of the original damage. For each of these damage types, calculate the damage mitigated by its corresponding Resistance. The total mitigation is equal to the sum of the damages mitigated by these two Resistances, divided by two. </li> <li>The final damage is equal to the original damage, minus the damage mitigated by Resistances, plus the damage added by the Vulnerabilities. </li> </ul> <p align="justify"><em><font color="#0000ff">Example 1: An attack deals 17 Fire and Cold damage to a creature with Resist Fire, and Vulnerable 5 Cold. For the Vulnerability calculation, we choose Cold (+5 damage) and Fire (+0 damage) as types, for a total of (5+0)/2=2 added damage. For the Resistance calculation, we choose Fire (8 damage) and Cold (0 damage), for a total of (8+0)/2= 4 mitigated damage. The total final damage is 17-4+2=15 damage.</font></em></p> <p align="justify"><em><font color="#0000ff">Example 2: An attack deals 17 Fire, Cold and Acid damage to a creature with Damage Immune: Fire, Vulnerable 5 Cold, and Vulnerable Acid. For the Vulnerability calculation, we choose Cold (+5 damage) and Acid (+8 damage) as types, for a total of (5+8)/2=6 added damage. For the Resistance calculation, we choose Fire (17 damage) and Cold (0 damage), for a total of (17+0)/2= 8 mitigated damage. The total final damage is 17-8+6=15 damage.</font></em></p> <p align="justify"><em><font color="#0000ff">Example 3:: An attack deals 17 Fire and Cold damage to a creature with Resist Fire, and Resist All 5. For the Resistance calculation, we choose Fire (8 damage) and Cold (5 damage, from Resist All 5), for a total of (8+5)/2=6 mitigated damage.</font></em></p> <p align="justify"><strong><u>Changing the damage type of an attack</u></strong></p> <p align="justify">When an effect allows a character to change the damage type of an attack, resolve it as follows, depending on the text of the effect:</p> <ul> <li>The attack gains (damage type) as an additional damage type: Add the new damage type to the list of types the attack previously had. If the attack had no explicit damage type (i.e. it dealt physical damage), the attack now has the new type and physical as its damage types. </li> <li>The attack becomes (damage type) instead of its previous damage types: Replace all the previous damage types with the new type. </li> </ul> <p align="justify"><font color="#0000ff"><em>Designer’s note: By default, most game effects should add damage types rather than replace. Items like Flaming Swords should be adjusted to read as adding a new type, and replacement should be reserved to truly exceptional cases.</em></font></p> <p align="justify"><strong><u>Adding extra damage to an attack</u></strong></p> <p align="justify">When an effect adds extra damage to a character’s attack, resolve it as follows depending on whether the extra damage is of a specific damage type:</p> <ul> <li>If no damage type is indicated for the extra damage, simply add this extra damage to the damage of the original attack. The attack’s damage types remain unaffected. </li> <li>If the extra damage has one or more damage types, add these types to the types of the original attack, and the extra damage to the damage of the original attack. </li> </ul> </span> Pericohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12414348870266960204noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3342640173817458901.post-11483483858533203672013-06-12T11:33:00.001+02:002013-06-12T11:33:21.486+02:00Game Design (VIII): Minions, elites and Solos<p align="justify">Like a kind of messier, deadlier game of basketball, the default combat scenario in a 4E encounter has 5 guys on each side running around and beating on each other. As a consequence, your <strong>average monster</strong> is roughly <strong>equivalent to a single adventurer</strong>. Now, to spice things up a little, the game also includes the option for trading normal monsters for lots of weaker critters (i.e. <strong>minions</strong>), or for fewer, stronger opponents (<strong>elites</strong> or <strong>solos</strong>). And this is a brilliant idea that adds depth and variety to encounters, but suffers from a less than ideal implementation. Simply put, <strong>non-standard monsters aren’t</strong> all that well <strong>balanced</strong> relative to standard ones: elites rarely perform as well as two regular creatures, solos require a ton of work from designers and DMs to be credible threats, and minions are mostly harmless. In today’s article, I’ll discuss what’s wrong with the rules for these monsters, and how to address it.</p><span id="fullpost"> <p align="justify"><b><u>The value of a monster</u></b></p> <p align="justify">First, let us go over the relationships between different monster types in theory, and in practice. The game assumes the following to be true:</p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify"><u>Standard</u>: One standard monster is a match for a single adventurer</div> </li> <li> <div align="justify"><u>Minion</u>: One standard monster is equivalent to <strong>4 or 5 minions</strong> (depending on level).</div> </li> <li> <div align="justify"><u>Elite</u>: <strong>2 standard</strong> monsters are equivalent to one elite monster</div> </li> <li> <div align="justify"><u>Solo</u>: <strong>5 standard</strong> monsters are equivalent to one solo monster</div> </li> </ul> <p align="justify">All these comparisons are based on same-level characters, and are valid for any given level. </p> <p align="justify">How does all this hold up in real play? Unfortunately, not all that well: </p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify"><u>Standard</u>: The standard monster-to-adventurer equivalency is mostly true, and the glue that holds together 4E as a game. To be fair, PCs are quite a bit stronger than their monster counterparts, but this is only to be expected - the players <i>should</i> win same-level encounters most of the time, and this is fine as long as combat remains moderately challenging and some degree of risk exists. For the most part, <strong>Standards are at the right place</strong>, power-wise.</div> </li> <li> <div align="justify"><u>Minion</u>: Here is where things start to go wrong: <strong>minions fail miserably at threatening adventurers</strong>, even when in large numbers. Interestingly, their base stats are fairly well tuned, and they would actually meet the game’s expectations (being worth 20%-25% of a standard monster) if adventurers were limited to regular attacks and the occasional area explosion. The problem is, the PCs tend to cheat in this regard, <a href="http://squarefireballs.blogspot.com.es/2011/08/my-minion-rules.html">turning minions into a joke</a> - there are way too many powers that let you kill minions by the droves, with little effort involved, and no risk of failure. Simply put, anything that lets a character deal even a small amount of <strong>automatic damage</strong> (auras, stances, conjurations) will make a mess of any minion in sight and, to make matters worse, the current game balance makes such powers highly desirable for adventurers (even without taking minions into consideration), virtually guaranteeing their presence in most parties. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify"><u>Elite</u>: Close, but not good enough. Though elite monsters sure take punishment as well as two regular monsters, and likewise tend to dish out about twice the damage of a Standard, they are effectively<strong> twice as vulnerable</strong> to any kind of <strong>negative condition</strong>, or penalty - and those both are extremely common and have a huge impact in encounter outcomes. If stunning a single monster is usually crippling, negating a big bad that takes up two monster slots with no additional effort is, more often than not, devastating - and Elites have barely any advantage over smaller monsters to make up for that. To make things worse, as is often the case, this Elite weakness is something that you can already notice when playing with casual parties, but is extremely aggravated when any kind of character optimization takes place (since one of the optimization rules for 4E is “take stuns over just about anything”).</div> </li> <li> <div align="justify"><u>Solo</u>: See Elites, above. Solo monsters have the same problems of their weaker Elite cousins, turned up to 11. Any <strong>penalty or condition</strong> imposed by an adventurer gets turbo <strong>boosted</strong> to <strong>5</strong> times its usual effectiveness, and while solos often include rules aimed at mitigating these (such as the saving throw bonuses, or the newer dragons’ resilience to stuns), it is clear that these mechanics fall way short: they are usually limited to a subset of the wide variety of nasty tricks available to adventurers, and anything that falls through the cracks (say, an immobilization, or a -5 penalty to attack) will reduce the Ultimate Villain to a vaguely intimidating bag of hit points, inviting adventurers to come collect some free experience and treasure. In order to put Solos up to the standard of, well, Standard monsters, they absolutely need to have a way to <strong>reliably mitigate</strong> any and all kinds of <strong>effects</strong> that adventurers can impose - yet, and this is the tricky part, in order for players to enjoy fighting said Solos, these mechanics should <strong>not just give a blanket immunity</strong>, but merely reduce condition effectiveness by about 4/5. <br />As a side note, it is interesting to note that, as it happened with minions, once we take away the one flawed mechanic (i.e. condition vulnerability), the stat block of a Solo has the right power level. This may not be all that intuitive, since in their current form, Solo monsters are equivalent to 4 Standards in survivability, and between 3 and 4 Standards in offense - but they take the place of 5 standard monsters. However, it turns out that concentrating all that much power in a single unit (again, if negative conditions didn’t exist) is much more effective than spreading it out, since the Solo’s ability to damage the party doesn’t decrease as it takes damage - so giving it 75% the raw stats of its lesser counterparts is a fair deal, after all. </div> </li> </ul> <p align="justify">So, to summarize, Standards are our reference benchmark, minions need to stop blowing up with automatic damage effects, and Elites and Solos need a reliable way to resist negative conditions. In order to achieve this, I came up with the following rules:</p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><b><i>Minion Elusiveness: </i></b><i>Whenever a minion takes damage from a source other than a hitting attack, it can make a saving throw. If the saving throw succeeds, the damage is negated and the minion is knocked prone.</i></p> <p align="justify"><b><i>Elite Resilience:</i></b><i> At the start of its turn, an elite or solo monster can choose to take damage equal to 10 per monster tier, ignoring resistances and immunities. If it does, it can choose a condition (other than marked) or penalty affecting it, and make a saving throw; on a successful save, the monster can ignore an instance of that condition or penalty until its next turn. This ability can only be used once per round.</i></p> </blockquote> <p align="justify">Veteran readers will recognize <strong>Minion Elusiveness</strong> as a streamlined version of <a href="http://squarefireballs.blogspot.com.es/2011/08/my-minion-rules.html">my previous houserule for minions</a>. It’s something I have long used for my campaigns, and I believe it provides minions with the right amount of survivability, and it weakens auto-damaging effects in a way that players can find fair and flavorful. </p> <p align="justify">As for <strong>Elite Resilience</strong>, it’s a rule that needs to solve a complex problem, and it has gone through many iterations. There are several aspects of its implementation worth discussing. First, there’s the slightly awkward text about “ignoring” the condition or penalty for a turn, rather than simply ending it. Though it is easy to come up with alternatives that are more elegant and intuitive, most of them fail to address a crucial issue: we want to give monsters a way to deal with powerful effects from daily attacks without rendering them pointless - so just shrugging off a condition that’s supposed to <strong>last for the whole encounter</strong> is out of the question. In order to avoid such effects, a monster will need to roll to save (and take damage) every turn. Speaking of which, the damage aspect is a way to compensate players for having their powers failing to work - granted, 10 or 20 extra damage may be a poor consolation for a lost stun, but it all adds up. As for the saving throw part, it means that, barring any modifiers, you will be able to stick your worst condition on an Elite monster 35% of the time, whereas Solos will only be affected 20% of the time - a difficult maneuver to pull off, but a highly rewarding one.</p> <p align="justify">Not by coincidence, both new rules make use of the saving throw mechanic, which barely saw any use before. This presents some interesting design opportunities when I get to introduce new monsters and new player content. I’m particularly interested in leader-type monsters boosting the saves of nearby allies, but also in separating controllers from other roles through the use of save penalties.</p> <p align="justify"><i> </i></p></span> Pericohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12414348870266960204noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3342640173817458901.post-40753057004983251612013-01-16T08:22:00.001+01:002013-01-16T08:24:16.867+01:00Game Design (VII): Character conditions, patch notes<p align="justify">On my <a href="http://squarefireballs.blogspot.com.es/2012/12/game-design-vi-character-conditions.html">previous article</a>, I dropped a ton of variant rules with very little in the way of comments or explanation (though the <a href="http://squarefireballs.blogspot.com.es/2012/12/game-design-v-character-conditions.html">broad guidelines</a> had been established before). Furthermore, it may be hard to make out what has really changed from anything but a very in-depth read. What follows is a list of changes, with some <i><font color="#0000ff">design comments</font></i> along the way.</p> <span id="fullpost"> <p><u><strong>1. Miscellaneous changes</strong></u></p> <p><b>Total defense</b>: Defense bonus increased from +2 to +4, is now typed (power).</p> <blockquote> <p><i><font color="#0000ff">This is intended mostly as a way to weaken attack-denying conditions. Losing a turn worth of attacks should be slightly less painful now, and stunning a character over several turns should be significantly harder. Note also how I gave the bonus a type - I want to really cut down on stacking bonuses.</font></i></p> </blockquote> <p><b>Condition source</b>: No functional changes. Introduced new keywords and definitions for clarity: ‘condition source’, ‘dominator’, ‘grabber’, ‘marker’, ‘swallower’.</p> <blockquote> <p><i><font color="#0000ff">I wanted to be able to reference the source of a condition in a clear way, for the definition of marked, dominated, and other conditions.</font> </i></p> </blockquote> <p><b>Multiple instances of a condition</b>: </p> <blockquote> <p><i><font color="#0000ff">Two reasons for this change. On the one hand, I wanted to change how dominations, grabs, and especially marks work when applied by multiple characters on a single target. On the other, I intend to provide Elite and Solo monsters with built-in ways to remove conditions (which I’ll describe on a future article), yet allow PCs to counter this by applying several instances of a given effect.</font> </i></p> </blockquote> <ul> <li>Defined ‘condition instance’. Now a character can be subject to multiple identical effects (previously, only the longest one applied). Each condition only applies once, but multiple instances are relevant for determining duration, and impact of effects that end conditions. </li> <li>Rules now support characters being dominated, marked or grabbed by multiple enemies. </li> </ul> <p><b>Penalty types and stacking</b>:</p> <blockquote> <p><i><font color="#0000ff">Typed bonuses work great for the game, and I see no reason why penalties shouldn’t follow the same principle. In this new framework, ‘untyped’ penalties should be reserved for self-inflicted penalties (e.g. power attack).</font></i></p> </blockquote> <ul> <li>Penalties now have a type: cover, concealment, power, or untyped. Penalty stacking is resolved like bonus stacking. </li> <li>Cover and Concealment modifiers now treated as typed penalties. </li> </ul> <p><b>Opportunity attacks: </b>Opportunity attacks can now be made against unseen enemies.</p> <blockquote> <p><i><font color="#0000ff">This is here to make the blinded condition a bit less harsh. Note that the -5 concealment penalty would apply to these opportunity attacks, and that a character could use stealth to become untargetable by them. This also weakens invisibility, which is fine by me.</font></i></p> </blockquote> <p><u><strong>2. Condition changes</strong></u></p> <p><b>Blinded:</b></p> <blockquote> <p><i><font color="#0000ff">Opportunity attacks were changed to make the condition weaker. The perception change is just to make the modifiers more reasonable.</font></i></p> </blockquote> <ul> <li>Perception penalty changed from -10 to -5 </li> <li>Blinded characters can now make opportunity attacks </li> </ul> <p><b>Dazed: </b></p> <blockquote> <p><i><font color="#0000ff">Dazing was previously way too effective, considering how common it was. Removing combat advantage here not only weakens the condition, but also goes a long way in making combat advantage less ubiquitous in the game. Dazed characters now also enjoy an extra minor action, which is particularly important for healing leaders and characters with sustained powers.</font></i></p> </blockquote> <ul> <li>No longer grants combat advantage </li> <li>Can now use a minor action on top of the single action per turn </li> </ul> <p><b>Deafened</b></p> <blockquote> <p><i><font color="#0000ff">This was previously irrelevant, but also given almost for free in some powers. Combat advantage is an effect with an adequate power level, and the condition is scarce enough that this will not significantly hurt my goal of minimizing combat advantage overall. Again, perception modifiers were changed in order to work better.</font></i></p> </blockquote> <ul> <li>Now grants combat advantage </li> <li>Perception penalty changed </li> </ul> <p><b>Dominated</b></p> <blockquote> <p><i><font color="#0000ff">The strongest condition in the game receives a vicious nerf that leaves it as... the strongest condition in the game. I wanted to prevent the </font></i><a href="http://squarefireballs.blogspot.com.es/2010/11/domination-and-forced-attacks.html"><i><font color="#0000ff">easy exploits</font></i></a><i><font color="#0000ff"> of dominated characters provoking opportunity attacks and violating marks, which I have played with for a long time - but that was only the beginning. I never liked how domination breaks the economy of actions, so I changed dominated actions to work like those of summoned creatures. Finally, I took away the combat advantage from the condition, and added a clause to break the condition upon receiving damage - so no more dominating a foe while beating down on it. Despite all these changes, if you want to stop someone cold, domination is still your best bet.</font></i></p> </blockquote> <ul> <li>No longer grants combat advantage </li> <li>Damage on dominated character now grants save vs. domination </li> <li>Dominator now needs to spend actions for the dominated character to attack or move </li> <li>Movement and attacks while dominated count as forced (don’t provoke, violate marks, etc.) </li> <li>Dominated characters can’t attack themselves </li> </ul> <p><b>Exiled</b></p> <blockquote> <p><i><font color="#0000ff">A rare condition, I tried to make its use a bit clearer, and make it slightly weaker by allowing exiled characters to use actions to heal or defend themselves.</font></i></p> </blockquote> <ul> <li>New name (was “removed from play”) </li> <li>Clarified that character does not occupy space, returns to previous position when condition ends. </li> <li>Character can now take actions (previously couldn’t take any actions). </li> </ul> <p><b>Grabbed</b></p> <blockquote> <p><i><font color="#0000ff">One of the rare conditions that actually got better, grabbing was rendered almost useless by forced movement under the previous rules. It should now be much more competitive with straight immobilization.</font></i></p> </blockquote> <ul> <li>Characters are now pulled adjacent to grabbers, when grabbed </li> <li>Forced movement now allows escape check rather than automatically breaking grabs. </li> <li>Escape check no longer grants free shift. </li> <li>Multiple grabs now possible. </li> </ul> <p><b>Helpless: </b>No changes</p> <p><b>Immobilized: </b>No changes</p> <blockquote> <p><i><font color="#0000ff">No direct changes, but the new rules for Total Defense impact this condition quite a bit.</font></i></p> </blockquote> <p><b>Marked</b></p> <blockquote> <p><i><font color="#0000ff">Changed to better support multiple defenders in a party. A character can now be subject to several marks (and/or defender auras), without each defender stepping on each other’s toes. Also, defender auras will now work properly with any rule that references marks. The mark violation clarifications are intended to make multiattack powers interact with marks in a similar way to how areas and bursts work, and to prevent some cheesy exploits involving interrupts.</font></i></p> </blockquote> <ul> <li>Multiple marks now possible </li> <li>Defender Aura now treated as a mark </li> <li>Defined ‘mark violation’. Clarified many confusing or broken mark scenarios <ul> <li>A power with multiple attacks now only violates a mark if each individual attack violates it. This applies to multiple attacks made simultaneously as well as in sequence. </li> <li>Target redirection effects no longer cause marks to be violated. </li> <li>Marks inflicted while interrupting an attack are no longer considered to be violated by that attack. </li> </ul> </li> </ul> <p><b>Petrified: </b>Petrification resistance changed to match new resistance rules - damage is now simply halved while petrified.</p> <p><b>Prone</b></p> <blockquote> <p><i><font color="#0000ff">The status of Prone has changed quite a bit since the original rulebooks - originally a somewhat rare condition, it is now often present in at-will attacks, which does not really match its moderate power level. I made minor tweaks to the combat advantage and defensive bonuses, but the big change is a free square of movement upon standing up. This makes it much harder to lock melee characters out of attack range by knocking them prone.</font></i></p> </blockquote> <ul> <li>Standing up now allows 1 free square of movement. </li> <li>Combat advantage now granted to adjacent enemies, rather than on all melee attacks. </li> <li>Defense bonus is now cover bonus, applies against all attacks from non-adjacent enemies, rather than just ranged attacks. </li> <li>Attack penalty is now typed (power). </li> </ul> <p><b>Restrained: </b>Attack penalty is now typed (power).</p> <p><b>Slowed: </b>Now each square moved costs double (previously reduced speed to 2).</p> <blockquote> <p><i><font color="#0000ff">This one got a bit better in some scenarios, and worse in others. The fixed speed of 2 didn’t work well with a variety of movement-granting powers (e.g. “shift 3 squares”), so I went for a more general effect. Slowed characters can now move slightly farther than before when not running, but they lose the ability to shift 1 square. This means that slowed is no longer such a one-dimensional effect, since it becomes quite useful against characters already engaged in melee.</font> </i></p> </blockquote> <p><b>Stunned: </b>Can now take a single action per turn (no attacks or movement) - previously couldn’t take any actions.</p> <blockquote> <p><i><font color="#0000ff">Though getting stunned is still not by any means a pleasant experience, it no longer just reads “skip a turn”, which is important in my opinion. Characters can use total defense (now an actually pretty decent option), but also use Second Wind, sustain powers, or use utilities, if any.</font></i></p> </blockquote> <p><b>Swallowed: </b>New condition</p> <blockquote> <p><i><font color="#0000ff">This effect was previously just present on a handful of monsters, but with inconsistent rulings that didn’t work as well as they could. This is well worth its own condition, in my opinion, which makes it easier to use it more liberally in monsters, and potentially make for some truly awesome PC power.</font></i></p> </blockquote> <p><b>Unconscious:</b></p> <blockquote> <p><i><font color="#0000ff">Non-dying unconscious characters now wake up when damaged. The condition still provides potent action denial, but can no longer be used to enable a whole party to severely beat up on a foe, which was too strong and, in my opinion, didn’t have the right feel.</font></i></p> </blockquote> <ul> <li>Condition now ends when taking damage, if above 0 HP. </li> <li>Removed defense penalty </li> </ul> <p><b>Weakened: </b>Added new effect - healing on character halved</p> <blockquote> <p><i><font color="#0000ff">A bit of an experiment here, by adding a completely new dimension to the condition. Characters that don’t really care about damage, or that attack through others using leader powers can no longer completely ignore the condition. Also, I wanted some common mechanic to interact with character healing (now that monsters also get it), and this looked like a good place for it.</font></i></p> </blockquote> </span> Pericohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12414348870266960204noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3342640173817458901.post-9295008280711280992012-12-15T08:41:00.001+01:002013-01-16T08:07:01.314+01:00Game Design (VI): Character conditions remade<p align="justify"><em><font color="#0000ff">Update (16/01/13): Added revision to opportunity attacks, tweaked effect of prone, added “cannot flank” to some conditions.</font></em></p> <p align="justify">After the discussion on character conditions in my <a href="http://squarefireballs.blogspot.com.es/2012/12/game-design-v-character-conditions.html">last article</a>, I’m putting these ideas into practice and rewriting the condition framework from scratch. The condition names remain unchanged for the most part (I want, after all, to maintain backwards compatibility), and their effects should be quite familiar to players, though there are many subtle changes. Since this is, by far, the largest chunk of rules provided to date, I will show you the new rules right away, and provide additional commentary and an overview of changes (think of patch notes) in the following article.</p> <span id="fullpost"> <p align="justify">I start by providing some general rule changes that affect how conditions are treated in the game. The list of conditions and their effects is at the end of the article.</p> <p><strong><u>Maneuver change: Total Defense</u></strong></p> <p align="justify">Change the text of the Total Defense maneuver to the following.</p> <blockquote> <p align="justify">Total Defense. Standard Action. Effect: You gain a +4 power bonus to all defenses until end of your next turn.</p> </blockquote> <p align="justify"><b><u>Condition source</u></b></p> <p align="justify">We define <i>condition source</i> as the entity (typically an enemy character) imposing a given condition on a character. </p> <p align="justify">The effects of certain conditions are dependent on their condition source. In these cases, the source is referred by a condition-specific name for convenience - as an example, the source for the grabbed condition is called <b>grabber</b>. A list of source-dependent conditions, and the associated source names, is given below:</p> <p align="center"><b>Condition - Source</b> <br />Dominated - Dominator <br />Grabbed - Grabber <br />Marked- Marker <br />Swallowed - Swallower</p> <p><b><u>Multiple instances of a condition</u></b></p> <p align="justify">A character can be affected by multiple instances of a given condition. In this case, the character is treated as having a single instance of the condition: condition effects are not cumulative. However, players should keep track of each condition instance on their characters separately. The following rules apply for ending conditions in these scenarios: </p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify">A character is affected by a condition until all instances of the condition have ended on him. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Each condition instance ends when its duration expires. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">An effect that ends ‘a condition’ on the character (e.g. by allowing a saving throw) only ends a single instance, when multiples are present. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">An effect that ends a condition type on the character (such as slow, or stun) ends all instances of that condition. </div> </li> </ul> <p align="justify">It is possible to have multiple condition instances, each with a different condition source. For conditions that depend on their source, this means that some condition effects need to be evaluated against each source. The following rules apply:</p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify"><b>Dominated: </b>A character dominated by multiple sources can be forced to move or attack by each dominator. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify"><b>Marked</b>: A character marked by multiple sources does not violate any mark as long as his attack includes at least one marker. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify"><b>Grabbed</b>: </div> <ul> <li> <div align="justify">A character grabbed by multiple sources that makes a Escape Check chooses one grabber, on a successful check, only condition instances associated with that grabber end. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">If at any time, a grabbed character is no longer adjacent to one grabber but remains adjacent to other grabbers, only condition instances associated with the non-adjacent grabber end. </div> </li> </ul> </li> </ul> <p align="justify"><b><u>Penalty types and stacking</u></b></p> <p align="justify"><i>(Note: This topic will be further developed in a separate article. I include this here since some conditions now reference penalty types)</i></p> <p align="justify">Like bonuses, penalties to rolls can have penalty types that determine how they stack with each other. The following rules apply:</p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify">There are three penalty types: <b>cover penalty, concealment penalty, </b>and <b>power penalty.</b> In addition, a penalty can have no type, and be an <b>untyped penalty</b>. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">When two or more penalties of the same type would apply to a roll, defense, or stat, use only the highest one. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Penalties of different types stack with each other. </div> </li> </ul> <p align="justify">The rules for cover and concealment have been changed to match the new penalty types. Instead of the original attack modifiers for cover and concealment, use the following:</p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify">Concealment: -2 concealment penalty to attack roll </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Total Concealment: -5 concealment penalty to attack roll </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Cover: -2 cover penalty to attack roll </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Superior Cover: -5 cover penalty to attack roll </div> </li> </ul> <p align="justify"><b><u>Opportunity Attacks</u></b></p> <p align="justify">In the power description of Opportunity Attack, replace ‘an enemy you can see’ with ‘an enemy’.</p> <p align="justify"><b><u>List of Conditions</u></b></p> <p align="justify"><strong>Blinded</strong></p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify">Grants Combat Advantage </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Cannot Flank </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Treats other characters or objects as having total concealment </div> <ul> <li> <div align="justify">-5 concealment penalty to attack rolls, perception </div> </li> </ul> </li> <li> <div align="justify">No line of sight to anything</div> </li> </ul> <p align="justify"><strong>Dazed</strong></p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify">Cannot Flank </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Cannot use Opportunity or Immediate Actions </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Each turn, can use only: </div> <ul> <li> <div align="justify">One minor action, and </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Either one standard action or one move action </div> </li> </ul> </li> </ul> <p align="justify"><strong>Deafened</strong></p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify">Grants Combat Advantage </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">-2 concealment penalty to perception </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Automatically fails perception checks and passive perception against characters or objects outside of line of sight. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Not affected by effects requiring hearing </div> </li> </ul> <p align="justify"><strong>Dominated</strong></p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify">When damaged, can make saving throw against domination, condition ends on successful save </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Cannot take actions</div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Cannot flank </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Dominator can spend a move action to make the dominated character move its speed. This counts as forced movement. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Dominator can spend a standard action to make the dominated character use an at-will attack. This counts as a forced attack. </div> </li> </ul> <p align="justify"> </p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><i><u>Sidebar: Forced attack</u></i></p> <p align="justify"><i>Certain powers or effects allow one character to force an enemy to make an attack. Such attacks are considered <b>forced attacks</b>, and use the following rules:</i></p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify"><i>If there are different attack powers that meet the requirement for the forced attack (e.g. basic attacks or at-will attacks), the character forcing the attack is aware of all available options and can choose any of them. </i></div> </li> <li> <div align="justify"><i>For the chosen attack power, the character forcing the attack can make any relevant decision, including (but not limited to) targets, area of effect, forced movement caused by the attack.</i> </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify"><i>A character forced to make an attack cannot target himself with the forced attack.</i> </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify"><i>Forced attacks ignore the marked condition. A character making a forced attack counts as not marked, for the purposes of that attack.</i> </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify"><i>Forced attacks never trigger opportunity attacks.</i> </div> </li> </ul> </blockquote> <p align="justify"><strong>Exiled</strong> (was “Removed from Game”)</p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify">When exiled, a character disappears from its current position. When the condition ends, the character reappears on this position or, if not possible, in the closest ground square of his choice, unless the exiling effect states otherwise. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Does not occupy a space. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">No line of sight to and from other creatures or objects unless the exiling effect states otherwise. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">No line of effect to and from other creatures or objects unless the exiling effect states otherwise. </div> </li> </ul> <p align="justify"><strong>Grabbed</strong></p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify">When grabbed, character is pulled adjacent to grabber </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Condition ends if at any time the character is not adjacent to grabber </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Can spend a move action to make an Escape Check (see sidebar). If successful, condition ends. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Cannot move </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">If forced movement would cause the character and the grabber to no longer be adjacent, character can make an Escape Check (see sidebar) as a free action. If successful, condition ends. If the check fails or is not taken, the forced movement is negated. </div> </li> </ul> <p align="justify"><i></i></p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><i><u>Sidebar: Escape Check</u></i></p> <p align="justify"><i>Characters can make Escape Checks to end conditions like Grabbed or Swallowed, usually by spending a move action.</i></p> <p align="justify"><i>Check: choose one of the following:</i></p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify"><i>Acrobatics vs Reflex of condition source</i> </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify"><i>Athletics vs Fortitude of condition source</i> </div> </li> </ul> </blockquote> <p align="justify"> </p> <p align="justify"><strong>Helpless</strong></p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify">Grants Combat Advantage </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Can be attacked with Coup de Grace </div> </li> </ul> <p align="justify"><strong>Immobilized</strong></p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify">Cannot move </div> </li> </ul> <p align="justify"><strong>Marked</strong></p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify">-2 mark penalty to attack rolls of attacks that violate mark (see sidebar) </div> </li> </ul> <p align="justify"><i></i></p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><i><u>Sidebar: Violating marks</u></i></p> <p align="justify"><i>An attack violates a mark if it targets one or more enemies and does not include the marker as a target. The following exceptions apply:</i></p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify">If multiple attacks are made simultaneously as part of the same attack power, none of the attacks violate the mark as long as the marker is the target of at least one attack. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">If multiple attacks are made in sequence as part of the same attack power (e.g. primary and secondary attacks), once an attack is made that includes the marker as a target, none of the subsequent attacks violate the mark. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">If an attack initially includes the marker as a target and is later prevented from including the marker as a target by an effect controlled by an enemy (e.g. a power changing attack targets), this attack does not violate the mark. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">If a character is marked while making an attack (e.g. by an Interrupt power that marks), that attack does not violate the mark. </div> </li> </ul> <p align="justify"><i>Note: Any power or effect that triggers when a marked character makes an attack that does not include the marking character as a target should be updated to trigger when a marked character makes an attack that violates the mark, and use the rules described above.</i></p> <p align="justify"><em></em></p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><i><u>Sidebar: Defender Aura</u></i></p> <p align="justify"><i>The text on defender aura should be replaced with the following:</i></p> <p align="justify"><i>“Enemies in the aura are marked”</i></p> <p align="justify"><i>(Note that the new rules for stacking conditions mean that a mark no longer overrides other marks or defender auras, and a character can be simultaneously marked by multiple enemies).</i></p> </blockquote> <p align="justify"><strong>Petrified</strong></p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify">Grants Combat Advantage </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Cannot take actions </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Cannot flank</div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Gains Resist (all) <i>[Note: New rules for resistances will be added in a future article. For the purposes of this condition, read this as “halve all damage taken”].</i> </div> </li> </ul> <p align="justify"><strong>Prone</strong></p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify">Condition lasts indefinitely until character stands up</div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">When condition is applied, if the character is not on solid ground, he falls. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Character can use a move action to stand up. This ends the condition, and lets the character move 1 square afterward. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Grants Combat Advantage to adjacent enemies. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Against attacks by non-adjacent enemies, gains Cover (-2 cover penalty to attack rolls) or, if already in Cover, gains Superior Cover (-5 cover penalty to attack rolls) </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">-2 power penalty to attack rolls </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Can only move by crawling. Characters can crawl 1 square, or their crawl speed (if any). </div> </li> </ul> <p align="justify"><strong>Restrained</strong></p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify">Grants Combat Advantage </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Cannot move </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Ignores forced movement </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">-2 power penalty to attack rolls </div> </li> </ul> <p align="justify"><strong>Slowed</strong></p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify">For each square moved, must spend an additional square of movement </div> </li> </ul> <p align="justify"><strong>Stunned</strong></p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify">Grants Combat Advantage </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Can only take one action per turn </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Cannot attack </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Cannot move</div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Cannot flank </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Cannot use Opportunity or Immediate Actions </div> </li> </ul> <p align="justify"><strong>Swallowed</strong></p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify">When swallowed, a character disappears from its current position. When the condition ends, the character reappears in a square of his choice as close as possible to the swallower. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Can spend a move action to make an Escape Check (see sidebar). If successful, condition ends. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Does not occupy a space. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Cannot be swallowed by a different swallower. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Can only take one action per turn. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Only has line of effect and line of sight to and from the swallower, and other characters and objects swallowed by it. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">The inside of the swallower, and swallowed characters and objects, are in total darkness unless otherwise specified. Swallowed characters can use any light source to illuminate the inside of the swallower and all characters and objects swallowed by it. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">When using a burst or blast power, the swallower and all characters and objects swallowed by it are included in the burst or blast. </div> </li> </ul> <p align="justify"><strong>Unconscious</strong></p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify">When a character falls unconscious, he is knocked prone. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">When damaged, if the character has 1 or more remaining hit points after receiving the damage, the condition ends. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Grants Combat Advantage </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Can be attacked with Coup de Grace. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Cannot take actions</div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Cannot flank </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Cannot see. </div> </li> </ul> <p align="justify"><strong>Weakened</strong></p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify">Damage dealt is halved </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Healing received is halved </div> </li> </ul> </span> Pericohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12414348870266960204noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3342640173817458901.post-51623077395652771162012-12-05T18:56:00.001+01:002012-12-05T18:56:35.112+01:00Game Design (V): Character conditions<p align="justify">You are lying on the ground. You can’t move. You can’t see. You have been turned to stone. Character conditions add a lot of variety to the tactical gameplay of D&D 4E, providing a nice catalogue of ways for adventurers and monsters to get temporarily crippled while they try to kill each other. In a handful of keywords, the game codifies common and evoking combat effects, which can then be conveniently combined with other simple mechanics like bonuses, penalties, and forced movement to make up the thousands of powers and monsters in the game. Today I will discuss character conditions, why I think they are good for the game, and what is wrong with their current implementation.</p><span id="fullpost"> <p align="justify"><u><strong>The importance of Disruption</strong></u></p> <p align="justify">At it’s core, D&D combat is about adventurers and monsters hacking at one another to reduce their opponent’s hit points to zero. That could get boring very fast, so the game adds some additional elements like movement, resource management, and the subject of this article: character conditions. </p> <p align="justify">If one goes over the list of conditions and their associated rules, an evident theme emerges: character disruption. First and foremost, conditions are about hindering certain actions from adventurers and monsters, or preventing them altogether:moving less, or not moving at all, getting weaker attacks, or being unable to react. The main purpose of these mechanics is to prevent characters from doing what they want - and, strange as it may sound, this makes battles all the more fun.</p> <p align="justify">They say that no plan survives contact with the enemy, and this is particularly true in D&D 4E. No matter what you intended to do when the combat started, after a turn or two, chances are that an enemy attack left you unable to move within range to your target, or too weakened to use your big daily power at the right time, or incapable of blocking opponents from moving towards your fragile allies. You need to reevaluate the situation every turn, adapt, and prepare a new plan, which is likely also doomed to a short life. And it works both ways, so that both heroes and monsters are subject to this. When the system works, you get varied fights, great strategic depth, and tons of fun.</p> <p align="justify"><u><strong>When the system doesn’t work</strong></u></p> <p align="justify">So far, so good. Unfortunately, there is a catch: though restricting player actions and forcing them to adapt can be a fun and interesting experience, it is certainly possible to go overboard and cripple characters to the point that they can’t really do anything of significance. And there lies the real problem: <b>skipping turns is the opposite of fun</b>. And under the current condition framework, making opponents skip turns (or virtually skip them) is often too easy and, to make things worse, extremely rewarding, from a strategic point of view.</p> <p align="justify">It boils down to this: the strongest conditions (stunning and dominating) are way too powerful, to the point that you will be hard pressed to find a competitive alternative to a power with these conditions whenever it is available. As a result, these relatively rare game effects will turn up in way more games than you’d expect given their rate of appearance in powers. Also, it is not too hard to replicate the effect of a hard stun through a combination of conditions or penalties: some common, yet extremely efficient combos include daze+prone (to neutralize melee characters), or blind plus any attack penalty.</p> <p align="justify">The solution, in my opinion, is to tone down the strongest conditions a bit, while limiting the impact of multiple milder conditions.</p> <p align="justify"><u><strong>Other issues</strong></u></p> <p align="justify">Aside from the one big flaw that I find in the condition system, there are other lesser issues that, though not game-breaking, could do with some fixing. They are the following: </p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify"><strong>Domination</strong>, apart from being inherently the most powerful thing you can do in the game, has very exploitable interactions with opportunity attacks and marks, as discussed in <a href="http://squarefireballs.blogspot.com.es/2010/11/domination-and-forced-attacks.html">this article</a>.</div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">The <strong>marked</strong> condition interacts oddly with its spiritual successor, the Defender Aura mechanic. Also, the game doesn’t handle well parties with multiple marking characters, nor marked characters making multi-target attacks that are not bursts or areas.</div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">I think that <strong>stacking penalties</strong> are bad for the game. Some very common attack penalties come from conditions.</div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Gaining <strong>combat advantage</strong> is too easy for my taste, and this is in good part due to the many conditions that grant it. I’d like to cut down on that, too.</div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">The <strong>grabbed</strong> condition is trivial to neutralize through forced movement.</div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">The <strong>deafened</strong> condition is a joke. It should have some substantial effect, or be removed from the game altogether.</div> </li> </ul> <p align="justify">All this, and more, will be dealt with in my following article: <strong>Character Conditions Rewritten</strong>.</p></span> Pericohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12414348870266960204noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3342640173817458901.post-72303721345053970252012-11-22T18:36:00.001+01:002012-11-22T18:36:29.691+01:00Playtesting SF: Initial Package<p align="justify">After the first batch of articles on game design and variant rules, I now have enough material for an initial playtest. At this stage, the game is little more than a glorified 4E mod, so what follows are a bunch of rules changes you can apply on your D&D games. If this goes well, we will then proceed to work on more substantial systems, like character conditions, and the mathematical framework. </p><span id="fullpost"> <p align="justify">These rules have all been introduced in previous articles, but are put together here for your convenience. I am interested in all kinds of feedback, including obviously game experience, but also general impressions, and theoretical considerations. Note that, although I keep falling behind in answering article comments, I still read them, and intend to provide answers as soon as I can.</p> <p align="justify">Enjoy!</p> <p align="justify"><strong><u>Proposed rules changes</u></strong></p> <p align="justify"><u>1- Monster Healing</u></p> <p align="justify"><a href="http://squarefireballs.blogspot.com.es/2012/09/game-design-ii-simulating-combat.html">Introduction and discussion</a></p> <p align="justify"><em><strong>Monster Commander</strong>: Before every encounter, the Game Master selects one of the monsters (usually the most powerful of intelligent one)as the Commander of that monster party. The commander gains the Commanding Word power:</em></p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><em><strong>Commanding Word</strong>. Minor Action (2/encounter, 1/turn). Close burst 5. Target: You or one ally in burst. Effect: The target regains hit points equal to 5+ (2.5* its level).</em></p> <p align="justify"><em></em></p> </blockquote> <p align="justify"><u>2- Last Effort</u></p> <p align="justify"><a href="http://squarefireballs.blogspot.com.es/2012/09/game-design-ii-simulating-combat.html">Introduction and discussion</a></p> <p align="justify"><em><strong>Last effort:</strong> Whenever a character starts a turn, if the majority of characters in their party are bloodied, dying, or dead, that character becomes <strong>desperate</strong> until the end of the encounter.</em></p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><em>(<strong>Desperate</strong> is a new character condition, defined below)</em></p> <p align="justify"><em><strong>Desperate</strong>: A desperate character gains:</em></p> </blockquote> <ul> <ul> <li> <p align="justify"><em>A +2 bonus to all attacks</em></p> </li> <li> <p align="justify"><em>A -2 penalty to all defenses</em></p> </li> <li> <p align="justify"><em>For each of the character’s attacks that hits but doesn’t crit, roll 1d20. On a roll of 19-20, the attack becomes a critical hit.</em></p> </li> </ul> </ul> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><em></em></p> </blockquote> <p align="justify"><u>3- Action Points</u></p> <p align="justify"><a href="http://squarefireballs.blogspot.com.es/2012/11/game-design-iii-combat-pacing-resource.html">Introduction and discussion</a></p> <p align="justify"><em><b>Action point usage</b>: Once during each character’s turn, that character can make an Action Point Check. This is a d20 check with a DC determined by the current combat round (see table below). If the check succeeds, that character can spend an action point that turn, unless he has already spent an action point this encounter.</em></p> <p align="justify"><em>If a character is allowed to spend an action point outside of his turn (e.g. from a paragon path feature), he makes an Action Point Check. If the check succeeds, the character can spend the action point that way. A character can never make more than one Action Point Check per round.</em></p> <p align="justify"><em>(Note: A character cannot spend an action point unless he has succeeded in an Action Point Check that turn).</em></p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><em><strong>Round</strong>- Action Point Check DC <br /><strong>1</strong> - Impossible (no check) <br /><strong>2</strong> - 15 <br /><strong>3</strong> - 10 <br /><strong>4+</strong> – Automatic</em></p> </blockquote> <p align="justify"> </p> <p align="justify"><u>4- Encounter Attacks</u></p> <p align="justify"><a href="http://squarefireballs.blogspot.com.es/2012/11/game-design-iii-combat-pacing-resource.html">Introduction and discussion</a></p> <p align="justify"><em><b>Encounter Attack Usage</b>: A character that uses an encounter attack power becomes Fatigued until the end of his next turn.</em></p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><em><b>Fatigue: </b>A fatigued character cannot use encounter attack powers. Certain types of powers can also be affected by the fatigued condition.</em></p> </blockquote> <p align="justify"><b><u><em>Notes:</em></u></b></p> <p align="justify"><em><b>Attack powers not causing fatigue. </b>The following powers do not make a character fatigued, and can be used by fatigued characters:</em></p> <ul> <li> <p align="justify"><em><b>Racial </b>Powers</em></p> </li> <li> <p align="justify"><em><b>Channel Divinity </b>Powers</em></p> </li> <li> <p align="justify"><em><b>Magic Item </b>Powers</em></p> </li> </ul> <p align="justify"><em><b>Non-attack powers</b> affected by fatigue. A character using any of the following powers becomes fatigued until the end of his next turn; these powers cannot be used while fatigued:</em></p> <ul> <li> <p align="justify"><em><b>Backstab </b>(Thief Utility)</em></p> </li> <li> <p align="justify"><em><b>Bladesong </b>(Bladesinger Utility)</em></p> </li> </ul> <p align="justify"><em><b>Augmentable psionic powers</b> are affected as follows:</em></p> <ul> <li> <p align="justify"><em>A character that uses the <u>most expensive augmentation of an augmentable at-will </u>attack becomes fatigued until the end of his next turn.</em></p> </li> <li> <p align="justify"><em>The <u>most expensive augmentation of an augmentable at-will </u>attack cannot be used while fatigued.</em></p> </li> <li> <p align="justify"><em>Any other augmentations or unaugmented powers do not make a character fatigued, and can be used by fatigued characters.</em></p> </li> </ul> <p align="justify"> </p> <p align="justify"><u>5- Daily Attacks</u></p> <p align="justify"><a href="http://squarefireballs.blogspot.com.es/2012/11/game-design-iii-combat-pacing-resource.html">Introduction and discussion</a></p> <p align="justify"><em><b>Daily Attack Usage: </b>A character can only use one daily attack power each encounter.</em></p> <p align="justify"><em><b>Exceptions: </b>The following powers do not count towards the limit of one daily attack per encounter:</em></p> <ul> <li> <p align="justify"><em><b>Magic Item </b>Powers</em></p> </li> </ul> <p align="justify"> </p> <p align="justify"><u>6- Short Rests  </u></p> <p align="justify"><a href="http://squarefireballs.blogspot.com.es/2012/11/game-design-ivhealing-surges-dying.html">Introduction and discussion</a></p> <p align="justify"><em><b>Healing in a Short rest: </b>During a short rest, any player character can spend a healing surge to regain all hit points.<b> </b>A player character with no healing surges regains hit points up to his bloodied value at the end of a short rest.</em></p> <p align="justify"> </p> <p align="justify"><u>7- Healing Surges</u></p> <p align="justify"><a href="http://squarefireballs.blogspot.com.es/2012/11/game-design-ivhealing-surges-dying.html">Introduction and discussion</a></p> <p align="justify"><em><b>Running out of Healing Surges: </b>A player character with no healing surges left cannot use daily powers nor action points. If an effect causes that character to lose a healing surge, he takes damage equal to half his bloodied value instead.</em></p> <p align="justify"> </p> <p align="justify"><u>8- Dying</u></p> <p align="justify"><a href="http://squarefireballs.blogspot.com.es/2012/11/game-design-ivhealing-surges-dying.html">Introduction and discussion</a></p> <p align="justify"><em>Replace the following rules related to dying characters with the text below:</em></p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><em><b>Characters reduced to 0 HP:</b> When a character takes damage that leaves him with 0 or less hit points, the character is knocked prone and dying, and must <u>make a Death Saving Throw</u>.</em></p> <p align="justify"><em><b>Death Saving Throw:</b> Some game effects require a character to make a Death Saving Throw. The character makes a saving throw: on a success nothing happens, and on a failure, the character <u>loses a healing surge</u>. A dying character rolling a result of 20 or higher becomes stabilized.</em></p> <p align="justify"><em><b>Healing a Dying Character</b>: A dying character that receives any amount of healing becomes stabilized. In addition, the effect of healing on that character depends on the character’s current hit point total:</em></p> <ul> <li> <p align="justify"><em>If the amount of damage healed is equal or greater than the character’s negative hit points, the character’s hit point total becomes equal to the amount of damage healed. The character is no longer unconscious, and is <u>weakened until the end of his next turn</u>.</em></p> </li> <li> <p align="justify"><em>If the amount of damage healed is less than the character’s negative hit points, subtract that amount from the character’s negative hit points. The character remains unconscious.</em></p> </li> </ul> <p align="justify"><em><b>Coup de Grace:</b> When a character targets an adjacent unconscious enemy with an attack, the attack is considered a Coup de Grace against that enemy. In Coup de Grace attacks, missed attack rolls are treated as hits.</em></p> </blockquote> <p align="justify"><em>(Other death-related rules are left unchanged. Notably, dying characters still roll death saves each turn.)</em></p></span> Pericohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12414348870266960204noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3342640173817458901.post-3068476332266183932012-11-21T15:10:00.001+01:002012-11-21T15:10:46.203+01:00Game Design (IV):Healing, surges, dying<p align="justify">Longtime readers will know that the topic of <a href="http://squarefireballs.blogspot.com.es/search/label/healing%20surge">healing surges</a> is of significant interest to me, having proposed not <a href="http://squarefireballs.blogspot.com.es/2009/10/running-out-of-surges.html">one </a>but <a href="http://squarefireballs.blogspot.com.es/2010/10/fatigue-optional-rule-for-characters.html">two </a>different solutions to improve the game experience of players running out of healing resources. Though I’m satisfied with how the previous rules played out,they were designed according to an important restriction I usually follow in these cases: to change the game as little as required to do the job. Since my current RPG <a href="http://squarefireballs.blogspot.com.es/2012/08/introducing-square-fireballs-rpg.html">project</a> not only allows, but actually encourages trying out more innovative solutions, I have looked once more into the subject and come up with the ultimate ruleset for healing surges (or so I hope). The result is a streamlined system where surgeless characters can keep adventuring (at their risk!), surges become more interesting as a player resource, and getting knocked out of combat gets a new (and painful) meaning.</p><span id="fullpost"> <p align="justify"><b><u>Problem statement</u></b></p> <p align="justify">In my opinion, the one glaring problem with healing surges in D&D 4E is how the game handles a character running out of surges: by effectively ending the adventuring day for the character and, more often than not, for the whole party. Leaving an adventurer behind for an entire encounter (or more!) could be an interesting strategic challenge, if not for the fact that it unfairly punishes the player to skip a session or, even worse, to sit there unable to participate. Hence, a very common answer to this scenario is to just call it a day and find a place for an extended group rest.</p> <p align="justify">Another problematic aspect of surges that I hadn’t touched on previous articles is they don’t work very well as a game resource. That is, they are important for characters, but there is no real way for players to meaningfully interact with them. Encounters cause player characters to lose hit points, and they must spend surges to heal them back (unless they prefer to stop adventuring, or to die). Apart from characters with very minor wounds worth less than a full surge, there is no incentive to hold back on healing or to save surges for later, nor is it possible to significantly reduce HP/surge loss outside of becoming extremely efficient at defeating encounters.</p> <p align="justify">On a related note, I don’t like how dying characters are treated in the game, either. Any amount of healing will bring back an agonizing hero back to action, as if nothing had happened. Fallen comrades that somehow remain unattended are threatened by death saving throws, which is to say, not very much. Death saving throws are a strange mechanic, disconnected from the rest of the game, and way too slow to have any effect in combat encounters that last five rounds on average, if not less. But what kills it for me is that, as long as you don’t get killed, it doesn’t matter how many death saves you have failed, nor how much damage you have taken while down. There is relatively little immediate risk, and no long-term impact at all.</p> <p align="justify"><b><u>Rest in peace</u></b></p> <p align="justify">The first change I propose is to replace the rules for healing characters during short rests with the following:</p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><b>Healing in a Short rest: </b>During a short rest, any player character can spend a healing surge to regain all hit points.<b> </b>A player character with no healing surges regains hit points up to his bloodied value at the end of a short rest..</p> </blockquote> <p align="justify">Also, in the description of healing surges, add the following:</p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><b>Running out of Healing Surges: </b>A player character with no healing surges left cannot use daily powers nor action points. If an effect causes that character to lose a healing surge, he takes damage equal to half his bloodied value instead.</p> </blockquote> <p align="justify">Nice and clean. Healing during rests becomes much more efficient than in the middle of combat, and players can keep adventuring after using their last surge, though at a significant penalty. The game now offers a legitimate option for players to cut down on surge expenditure, by minimizing in-combat healing. However, that may be easier said than done, particularly after considering the rules in the following section...</p> <p align="justify"><b><u>Rules to die for</u></b></p> <p align="justify">Replace the following rules related to dying characters with the text below:</p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><b>Characters reduced to 0 HP:</b> When a character takes damage that leaves him with 0 or less hit points, the character is knocked prone and dying, and must <u>make a Death Saving Throw</u>. </p> <p align="justify"><b>Death Saving Throw:</b> Some game effects require a character to make a Death Saving Throw. The character makes a saving throw: on a success nothing happens, and on a failure, the character <u>loses a healing surge</u>. A dying character rolling a result of 20 or higher becomes stabilized.</p> <p align="justify"><b>Healing a Dying Character</b>: A dying character that receives any amount of healing becomes stabilized. In addition, the effect of healing on that character depends on the character’s current hit point total:</p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify">If the amount of damage healed is equal or greater than the character’s negative hit points, the character’s hit point total becomes equal to the amount of damage healed. The character is no longer unconscious, and is <u>weakened until the end of his next turn</u>.</div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">If the amount of damage healed is less than the character’s negative hit points, subtract that amount from the character’s negative hit points. The character remains unconscious.</div> </li> </ul> <p align="justify"><b>Coup de Grace:</b> When a character targets an adjacent unconscious enemy with an attack, the attack is considered a Coup de Grace against that enemy. In Coup de Grace attacks, missed attack rolls are treated as hits.</p> </blockquote> <p align="justify">Other death-related rules are left unchanged. Notably, dying characters still roll death saves each turn.</p> <p align="justify">The main goal behind these rules is to have characters dropping below 0 HP really matter. Note that actually dying during combat no more likely than before, but there are other new, important consequences for getting knocked out. First, the mostly irrelevant death saving throws become integrated with healing surges in a way that feels very natural to me. If the previous section gave players a reason to use less in-combat healing, this set of rules compensates it by providing a very strong incentive to heal characters with low HP. Incidentally, spending actions to stabilize allies without spending surges is now a thing, though still far from ideal.</p> <p align="justify"><b><u>Side Effects</u></b></p> <p align="justify">A common consequence of introducing the kind of deeper rule changes described in this article (as opposed to the more surgical approach I have preferred to use before) is that something, somewhere, is bound to break. What follows is a list of game elements that are negatively affected by the new rules, and need a revision to work. Readers are encouraged to point to other similar items that I may have missed.</p> <p align="justify"><b>Bard class - Song of Rest </b>feature: Replace text with “Once per day, during a short rest, the bard may have a resting ally regain all hit points”.</p> <p align="justify"><b><u>Conclusions</u></b></p> <p align="justify">To summarize the changes, healing during rests is now cheaper than ever, but getting knocked out during combat can now drain characters out of surges pretty quickly. I honestly don’t know if this ends up extending or shortening the adventuring day overall - the answer depends a lot on encounter difficulty and party dynamics, though I should get a rough idea when I get to playtest it.</p> <p align="justify">I really like, at least in paper, the new tension introduced for combat healing: you don’t want to use too much of it because it’s a lot less efficient than just resting... except when you get too greedy and the monsters beat you out of surges. Let’s see if it plays as well as I expect.</p> <p align="justify">The following article will consist in a recap of all the new rules, since I now feel I have enough material for a decent round of playtests. After that, I’ll probably go for a revision of character conditions, which should prove interesting. I also need to take some time to catch up with the comments section, which is providing some amazing feedback as of late. Speaking of which... what do you guys think about this new approach for healing and dying?</p></span> Pericohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12414348870266960204noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3342640173817458901.post-44556012744763018862012-11-16T18:04:00.001+01:002012-11-16T18:07:00.452+01:00Game Design (III): Combat pacing, resource usage<p align="justify">One of the main challenges when working with a tactical combat system is ensuring that players remain engaged and interested until the end of an encounter. In our last article, we discussed how the number of active combatants interacted with player fun, arguing that the current system is prone to relatively long phases of late game grind,and suggested some rules to counter this trend. However, the game model we used in our examples was still incomplete, and missing some important elements - such as characters using different kinds of attacks and resources each turn, and from one encounter to the other. Today we will take a look at this.</p> <span id="fullpost"> <p align="justify">Simply put, the availability of expendable resources (as currently implemented) makes the first rounds of a combat even more important and, conversely, causes the later combat phases to take longer and become less exciting. From a strategic point of view, there is no incentive to save resources for the end of an encounter, so whatever special powers a player intends to spend in a given combat will be blown away as soon as possible. As a consequence, most characters will be dealing a disproportionate amount of damage right at the start of combat, and be left with subpar offense later on - which, using the terminology defined in our previous article, will shorten the Optimal Zone and increase the Grind Zone.</p> <p align="justify"><b><u>A typical combat</u></b></p> <p align="justify">We will begin by providing an overview of how attack resources are usually allocated. Generally speaking, a player character will prefer to spend attack powers in decreasing order of effectiveness. This attack priority could be codified as follows:</p> <ol> <li> <div align="justify">If needed, spend an action point on the first turn.</div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">If needed, spend a daily attack on the first turn.</div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Use encounter attacks, from strongest to weakest, until they run out.</div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Use at-wills for the remainder of combat.</div> </li> </ol> <p align="justify">This is obviously a simplification, and there are common exceptions to these rules. A negative condition (like weakened or dazed) may discourage the use of stronger attacks for a turn, or prevent it altogether. Players may feel the need to use action points or dailies mid-combat to recover from a string of bad rolls. Some powers are situational, and will be used when a specific condition is met (e.g. enemies are properly grouped for a burst), rather than at a fixed order. An optimized, coordinated party may prefer to delay their best powers, spending the first round setting up enhancements and positioning for a lethal turn 2. But, more often than not, this is a fairly accurate description of how a character is played. More importantly, <i>it is how the game rules encourage players to behave</i>.</p> <p align="justify"><b><u>An anticlimactic conclusion</u></b></p> <p align="justify">My main concern with the dynamic described above is that it leads to unsatisfying combats, from a narrative standpoint. Everybody starts off doing something truly awesome, then continues with more mundane movements, and ends up using their puniest attacks. Even worse, if the fight is somehow not over by the time everybody has used up their cool toys, we can expect a series of long, monotonous turns where not much of interest happens. </p> <p align="justify">This is not how combats usually turn out in fiction, and with good reason. It’s much more exciting to have some back and forth, to have desperate heroes draw from inner reserves, to end with a bang, rather than a whimper. The question, then, is <u>how can we change the game system to make this the common scenario?</u>.</p> <p align="justify">My preferred solution for this is one that does not involve many changes, but that may be a hard sell for players: to impose restrictions on power usage. By preventing action point usage in the early turns of a fight, forcing a turn of recovery between encounter attacks, and limiting daily attacks per encounter, I believe we can greatly improve the pace and feeling of combats. On top of that, we would minimize the chances of ending a fight in the first couple of turns, make the game easier to balance, and actually encourage the use of daily attacks, or even second wind. The drawback, though, is that we are reducing character effectiveness and party synergies, and overall taking toys away from adventurers, which can understandably make some players unhappy. Nevertheless, I think the benefits are well worth the effort. </p> <p align="justify"><b><u>The time for action</u></b></p> <p align="justify">Of all the resources available to players, it is the seemingly innocent action point that has the most damaging impact in encounter rhythm and balance. It basically allows characters to take two turns in a row, which is a very potent tool in the hands of any moderately coordinated party, and it virtually ensures that one or more monsters will have dropped by the end of turn one.</p> <p align="justify">I am a bit torn with this issue, because I really like how action points have been implemented (they are simple, elegant, intuitive, and exciting) except for their power level - and any solution I introduce for the sake of balance will detract from this. Nevertheless, I am convinced that the game as a whole will improve with such a change, even if action points themselves end up with slightly clunky rules.</p> <p align="justify">There are two factors that, in my opinion, push action points over the top: the ability to use them early, reliably, and in coordination with other party members, and their use to dish out multiple encounter attacks (or even multiple dailies) in a single turn. To address the first one, I propose the following rule:</p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><b>Action point usage</b>: Once during each character’s turn, that character can make an Action Point Check. This is a d20 check with a DC determined by the current combat round (see table below). If the check succeeds, that character can spend an action point that turn, unless he has already spent an action point this encounter.</p> <p align="justify">If a character is allowed to spend an action point outside of his turn (e.g. from a paragon path feature), he makes an Action Point Check. If the check succeeds, the character can spend the action point that way. A character can never make more than one Action Point Check per round.</p> <p align="justify"><i>(Note: A character cannot spend an action point unless he has succeeded in an Action Point Check that turn).</i></p> <p align="justify"><strong>Round</strong>- Action Point Check DC <br /><strong>1</strong> - Impossible (no check) <br /><strong>2</strong> - 15 <br /><strong>3</strong> - 10 <br /><strong>4+</strong> - Automatic</p> </blockquote> <p align="justify">A bit heavy-handed, but it does the job. Note that this means that first-turn action points are completely eliminated from the game, and that action point usage is initially dependent on random chance. Coordinated use of action points is still possible on later combat rounds, where it is much less problematic, and in fact can help parties recover from unfortunate encounters, or speed the cleaning up of the last few monsters.</p> <p align="justify">As for the use of action points to chain multiple encounter or daily attacks, it is addressed in the following sections.</p> <p align="justify"><b><u>Tiresome Encounters</u></b></p> <p align="justify">As I explained above, in a usual encounter, a character will go through all his encounter attacks, from stronger to weaker, and then resort to using at-wills over and over. While functional, this divides combat into two very different phases: an initial phase where characters feel powerful, get to use lots of different tools, and plow through enemies, and a late game where weakened characters struggle to kill each other through repetitive maneuvers. I think it would be much better if we mixed it a bit.</p> <p align="justify">Consider adding a new rule that prevented characters from using more than one encounter attack every two turns. With this restriction in place, combatants would alternate between strong and weak (encounter and at-will) attacks, making encounters more varied and introducing new strategies: controlling effects could be timed to coincide with enemy ‘strong’ turns, for example, and ‘weak’ turns could be spent on (currently) rarely used maneuvers like Second Wind, or repositioning. We could implement this rule as follows:</p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><b>Encounter Attack Usage</b>: A character that uses an encounter attack power becomes <i>Fatigued </i>until the end of his next turn. </p> <p align="justify"><b>Fatigue: </b>A fatigued character cannot use encounter attack powers. Certain types of powers can also be affected by the fatigued condition.</p> <p align="justify"><b><u>Notes:</u></b></p> <p align="justify"><b>Attack powers not causing fatigue. </b>The following powers do not make a character fatigued, and can be used by fatigued characters:</p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify"><b>Racial </b>Powers</div> </li> <li> <div align="justify"><b>Channel Divinity </b>Powers</div> </li> <li> <div align="justify"><b>Magic Item </b>Powers</div> </li> </ul> <p align="justify"><b>Non-attack powers</b> affected by fatigue. A character using any of the following powers becomes fatigued until the end of his next turn; these powers cannot be used while fatigued:</p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify"><b>Backstab </b>(Thief Utility)</div> </li> <li> <div align="justify"><b>Bladesong </b>(Bladesinger Utility)</div> </li> </ul> <p align="justify"><b>Augmentable psionic powers</b> are affected as follows: </p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify">A character that uses the <u>most expensive augmentation of an augmentable at-will </u>attack becomes fatigued until the end of his next turn. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">The <u>most expensive augmentation of an augmentable at-will </u>attack cannot be used while fatigued.</div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Any other augmentations or unaugmented powers do not make a character fatigued, and can be used by fatigued characters.</div> </li> </ul> </blockquote> <p align="justify">This clearly needs playtesting, but my impression is that it should play pretty well. An important point that could be considered a drawback, is that the rule prevents characters from using all their encounter attacks in a typical combat - if we are aiming for a ~5 round fight, any encounter powers beyond the third will often remain unspent. The upside, on the other hand, is that when you do get to turn 7 in an encounter, you still have a potent attack to finish off enemies. Also, this could be seen as an opportunity for players to pick more situational powers, and experiment more with character builds.</p> <p align="justify">Another side effect of this change is that you can no longer use two encounter attacks in a row with an action point, which further reduces the effectiveness of APs.</p> <p align="justify"><b><u>One More Daily</u></b></p> <p align="justify">Though you wouldn’t tell from my efforts to bring their power level to the ground, action points are among my favourite mechanics in the game. The main reason for this is that they are a limited character resource that just works. It’s easy to understand, has a significant impact in a combat and, most importantly, it is set up in such a way that players use it a lot. Key to this success is the fact that there is no reason to hoard action points: a hard limit of 1 action point means that you don’t need to save them for a hypothetical Last Big Fight - the most efficient course of action is usually to spend them at roughly the same rate you acquire them, a point every two encounters.</p> <p align="justify">Compare this to how daily powers are played. Now, party dynamics and player strategies may vary, but the fact remains that the game encourages players to leave daily resources unused. In the vast majority of encounters, the players are expected to win, and the only remaining question is how handily they defeat their enemies. In practice, this margin of victory is measured by resource expenditure: how many non-renewable resources has the party spent, by the end of an encounter? It turns out that there are only two such resources in the game, healing surges and daily powers (also, to a lesser degree, action points, but using too many of these only matters in the very short term). Furthermore, player ability to reduce healing surge expenditure is limited at best. On an average encounter (i.e. one that favours players), aggressive usage of daily attacks may somewhat reduce player HP loss (that is, surge usage), but it’s far from a direct conversion. On the other hand, in a harder fight where player victory is not so clear-cut, using more dailies can make all the difference in the world.</p> <p align="justify">In a player’s mind, then, each adventuring day can be structured as a series of easier encounters that don’t defeat adventurers but wear them down, leading to a climactic final combat against a challenging foe. The challenge in these initial battles is to win while spending as few surges and dailies as possible, so that there are enough resources left to fight the Final Boss.</p> <p align="justify">There is a problem with this approach. On the one hand, the metric for victory in easy battles is, primarily, the ability to not use the most awesome powers available to a hero. On the other hand, the exciting final battle (when it actually happens, since it’s perfectly possible that a day will end without one) will usually be won or lost based mostly on how players have performed previously (do they have four dailies each to annihilate the dragon, or are they out of powers and surges and basically screwed?), rather than on what they actually do against the Big Bad. It really doesn’t look like a fun dynamic!</p> <p align="justify">All of this leads, of course, to the following rule change:</p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><b>Daily Attack Usage: </b>A character can only use one daily attack power each encounter.</p> <p align="justify"><b>Exceptions: </b>The following powers do not count towards the limit of one daily attack per encounter:</p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify"><b>Magic Item </b>Powers</div> </li> </ul> </blockquote> <p align="justify">With this, dailies become much more similar to action points, with the advantages stated above. An added consequence of the change is that character performance in an encounter is much easier to predict, due to the reduced variability in daily power spending - and thus, much easier for me to create a solid and balanced mathematical framework for the game.</p> <p align="justify"><b><u>Conclusions</u></b></p> <p align="justify">I have introduced a set of changes that sacrifices a bit of player freedom in order to improve the flow of combat. A side-effect of the new rules that I haven’t yet discussed is the fact that it results in a serious disadvantage for player characters, compared to previous scenarios. This will eventually addressed when I get to the full overhaul of the game math, but for now, a game master interested in trying out these ideas should take care in reducing encounter challenge a bit.</p> <p align="justify">In my next article, I will suggest new rules to handle healing and dying. In the meantime, I may post something about the updated game model, though I’m having a hard time writing a compelling text on the topic - in fact, much of the delay in finishing this article has been due to unsuccessful attempts to talk about my formulas and spreadsheets. At any rate, if anyone is interested in checking out the latest version of the sheets, it can be found <a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Am7iIt01J6S4dHpxekd2ci1uUkxlZmlUaWpHcHpXTnc">here</a>.</p> <p align="justify">So, what do you think?  </p> </span> Pericohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12414348870266960204noreply@blogger.com17tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3342640173817458901.post-17288364247167718152012-09-29T01:28:00.001+02:002012-10-03T22:52:34.715+02:00Game Design (II): Simulating combat, healing and defending<p align="justify">In my <a href="http://squarefireballs.blogspot.com.es/2012/09/game-design-basic-combat-math-i.html">previous article</a>, I set the guidelines for the design of our combat system, and defined key concepts like turns-to-kill and focus fire, illustrating them with some very basic simulations,  We also stated the primary system requirements: <strong>finish encounters in 5 turns</strong> on average, have <strong>players win</strong> by a not-too-wide margin, and prevent combats from ending in a boring <strong>grind</strong>. From this point, I intend to gradually increase the depth and accuracy of our simulations, introducing new elements one at a time and examining their impact in the game math. Today I will take a look at some combat roles, like <strong>defending</strong> and <strong>healing</strong>, and discuss two new game mechanics aimed at improving the game experience: <strong>monster healing</strong>, and<strong> last effort</strong>.</p> <span id="fullpost"> <p align="justify"><u><strong>Simulating a 5-vs-5 combat</strong></u></p> <p align="justify">Let us begin with our first “realistic” (though still quite simplified) simulation scenario: A combat between five playing characters and five monsters, in which the heroes have the advantage, and win in roughly 5 rounds. We assume that all PCs have the same stats, as do all monsters, and that all damage from each party is focused on a single enemy character at a time. For now, we won’t be considering any variance - instead, all characters hit automatically each turn for a fixed amount of damage. In addition, the effect of overkill damage is not considered - any excess damage after slaying a foe is fully applied to the next enemy in the line. </p> <p align="justify">Assuming that PCs have a <a href="http://squarefireballs.blogspot.com.es/2012/09/game-design-basic-combat-math-i.html">K value</a> of <strong>4.5</strong> (i.e. they each kill a monster in ~4.5 turns, and deal damage 1/(4.5) times a monster’s HP per turn), and that monsters have a <strong>K value of 5.5</strong>, the evolution of this combat encounter would look as follows:</p> <p align="center"><img style="display: block; float: none; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto" src="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/9hmORRPLV_wTixlXZE3vFVGsk-Eupf65T_MuDq1L8AxsSgLMlqDRYodxOMbear1afZf8CsjWSFzjgaTyzFNK2gBI3sjLAq3tyH0KIIcDgDrGouog6Twe" width="514" height="276" /><font size="1">Fig 1 Evolution of # of PCs/Monsters in example encounter</font> <br /><font size="1">PC K Turns  4.5 <br />Monster K Turns  5.5</font></p> <p align="justify">The figure shows how many <strong>characters remain conscious at the end of each combat round.</strong> Turn 0 represents the initial state. In this case, the fight would be over by turn 6, with all monsters slain and 3 heroes knocked down. The spreadsheet used for this exercise can be found <a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Am7iIt01J6S4dGY3ZVNVcjdTMU9SZVN1NnBYS3pvV3c">here</a>.</p> <p align="justify">This is a very abstracted view of a combat, but there is some valuable insight to be gained from this perspective, for the following reason:<strong> the number of active combatants on a given combat round has a direct impact player fun</strong>. Though game fun is far from an exact science, I believe the following statements to be true: </p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify">Any player whose character is inactive (unconscious or dead) for the majority of combat will have substantially less fun. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Combat is more challenging and fun in rounds where both sides have a similar number of active characters. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">It is particularly frustrating to have monsters that are no longer threatening to the players but refuse to die. </div> </li> </ul> <p align="justify">Taking these ideas into account, we could talk about an<strong> Optimal Zone</strong> in a combat encounter, defined roughly as the period where most PCs are active and enough monsters remain for an engaging challenge, and a <strong>Grind Zone</strong>, or the time where either two or more PCs are out of the battle, or the team monster is too weakened to pose an interesting threat. Ideally, we would want our system to encourage combats with long optimal zones while keeping the grind zones as short as possible.</p> <p align="justify">The figure below shows optimal zones and grind zones for our previous example, defining them as follows: The optimal zone includes turns that start with<em> 4+ active PCs and 4+ active monsters</em>. The grind zone includes turns that either start with <em>3 or less active PCs, or 2 or less active monsters</em>.</p> <p align="justify"><img style="display: block; float: none; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/Xd8oB62fUEuFPNjPRvNjKS48qNISZP8hibtKTKF8GL4Cb95UCPIfbNAboCLfKkrjfadgu-0sMEqL5BknqQo7FciWn_MX_Hp7oOho7CITlEUY9uGRfRJb" width="514" height="276" /> <br />In this example, we can see that the first few monsters drop fairly quickly, whereas the last ones tend to overstay their welcome - that is, we have a relatively brief optimal zone, and a significant grind zone. I want to change this so that the <strong>initial kills are delayed</strong>, and the <strong>final kills don’t take so long</strong> - thus maximizing the sweet spot where lots of characters are interacting in the battlefield. However, before I introduce specific mechanics to address this, I need to add a new layer of complexity to my simulated model: the combat roles of <strong>defending</strong> and <strong>healing</strong>. </p> <p align="justify"><u><strong>Defending and healing</strong></u> </p> <p align="justify">The defender role is based on two mechanical pillars: the ability to<strong> withstand more damage</strong> than average characters, and effects that encourage enemies to <strong>attack the defender</strong> instead of his allies. If we assume that this “attack magnet” effect has a 100% success rate (which is an exaggeration, but not a terrible approximation), and that the extra survivability amounts to about 50% (in enemy attacks to kill the defender, compared to a non-defender character), adding a single defender to a PC party in our model has two consequences:</p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify"><strong>Total party survivability</strong> increased by 50/5=<strong>10%</strong> </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Number of attacks required to drop the <strong>first character</strong> in the party increased by <strong>50%</strong> </div> </li> </ul> <p align="justify">The first effect can be compensated by increasing enemy offense by a similar amount (i.e. 10%), to preserve the balance of power between both sides, and the time it takes to end an encounter. Interestingly, if we do this, we find that the second effect <strong>still provides a significant advantage</strong> to the party with a defender, since delaying character deaths means that the party now has more active characters (which translates into more aggregate attacks) after sustaining damage. Unfortunately, I haven’t found an easy way to describe this analytically, but it’s easy enough to observe in the simulation. </p> <p align="justify">The death-delaying effect of a defender is represented in the figure below (and <a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Am7iIt01J6S4dGkwUG42UFJmREhTTHBkX2pPeWVPOVE#gid=7">this spreadsheet</a>), which shows<strong> loss of party characters</strong> as a function of<strong> attacks received</strong>. The blue line shows a regular focus fire scenario without a defender, where the first character drops after the party sustains <strong>20% of the total attacks</strong> required to kill it. By contrast, the red line shows the same scenario with a defender, normalizing monster offense to match the increase in total party survivability. Here, we can see that the defender doesn’t fall until the party takes attacks worth <strong>30%</strong> of its total survivability, and that each subsequent character loss before the last is also delayed, to a smaller degree. <br /></p> <p align="justify"><img style="display: block; float: none; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/3ZzfpHBI3Id0p7_hkRN87k_WRVI5Quf0A6uyYhEZh106BHRiuYrP2MxW88nH_i2W0HT-_CxJLZSwEFAYxlicWDIkOLtAk7q6Lzq2q5RUmVaE4ponyoFv" width="417" height="249" /> <br />In terms of our model,<strong> character healing </strong>works in a very similar way. If we suppose that healing is used as soon as it is needed, adding a healer to a party is the same as increasing the survivability of the first party character to be attacked by a given percentage. An effect like Healing Word gives back about 33% of a character’s HP, so a healer with 2 such powers per encounter would amount to a total of <strong>66% extra survivability</strong> for the first character. </p> <p align="justify">It is interesting to note that healing and defending work very well together, since any healing power spent on a defender becomes particularly effective. A party with both a defender and a healer in our example would have a total <strong>extra survivability</strong> of ((1.5*1.66)-1)=1.5, or <strong>150%</strong> that of a normal character.</p> <p align="justify"><u><strong>A case for monster healing</strong></u> </p> <p align="justify">Aside from other important considerations (like adding tactical depth and variety), the existence of defending and healing roles in player parties has an important advantage in how it affects combat development: it <strong>keeps player characters active </strong>for a greater portion of an encounter, without necessarily extending total combat duration. Now, I’m going to argue how providing a similar bonus to the monster side could be of benefit to the game. </p> <p align="justify">D&D 4E has been designed so that <strong>monsters don’t get healing</strong> effects. Conventional wisdom says that this is a good thing, since one of the most common complaints about the game is the fact that <strong>encounters run too long</strong>, and monster healing would only aggravate it... or wouldn’t it? Certainly, that’s what would happen if you just shoehorned additional healing onto the existing game mechanics and mathematical framework, but what if we were talking of deeper, carefully considered changes? </p> <p align="justify">I don’t think monsters should get a general Second Wind ability, nor am I suggesting a new monster role with healing capabilities. That would only extend combats for no tangible benefit, and complicate encounter composition, respectively. What I want is a <strong>limited pool of healing</strong> that is available <strong>every combat</strong>, to <strong>delay the first monster losses</strong>. Below, you can see my first draft of this rule: </p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><em><strong>Monster Commander</strong>: Before every encounter, the Game Master selects one of the monsters (usually the most powerful of intelligent one)as the Commander of that monster party. The commander gains the Commanding Word power:</em></p> <p align="justify"><em><strong>Commanding Word</strong>. Minor Action (2/encounter, 1/turn). Close burst 5. Target: You or one ally in burst. Effect: The target regains hit points equal to 5+ (2.5* its level).</em></p> </blockquote> <p align="justify">The number is ugly, but it intends to approximate 1/3 of a monster’s HP under the current math. This will hopefully change to something more readable once I update the monster stat block and math (coming soon!), but it should work for now. Overall, the healing effect would be equivalent to that of a low level PC healer: a<strong> 66% extra survivability</strong>. </p> <p align="justify">Keep in mind that the defending role is already present in monsters, though Soldier monsters are comparatively not as tough, nor as effective, as a PC defender - equivalent to about a <strong>20% extra survivability</strong>. Combined with this healing, this amounts to roughly a 100% bonus in survivability for the first monster, considerably delaying the first monster deaths. </p> <p align="justify">Since just want to rearrange monster deaths without increasing the total combat duration, we should compensate the introduction of this rule by either a 15% increase in PC damage, or a 15% decrease in monster HP. At this point I don’t have a clean way to address this, other than changing numbers by hand, but this will be taken into account when redefining the monster stats. This is how our example would look like after introducing monster healing and adjusting PC damage. <br /></p> <p><img style="display: block; float: none; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto" src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/W96RXTDOua7EW0joJhfLelGrNoQt9Ro8yF9yU3n56Qf828IMKEZwOhcRusXNZ5GET8okwFgQb1SeKGl0EFEGzQCLcRZHHXwrvREaXhSsphPTlkKcmjYL" width="514" height="276" /> <br /></p> <p align="justify"><strong><u>A last effort</u></strong> </p> <p align="justify">In the previous section, we suggested improvements for the first rounds of combat. However, these changes still left late-game grinding untouched, as is evident from the figure above: the last three turns in the example scenario have the monsters severely disadvantaged, and should play out as little more than routine cleanup for our heroes... but <em>they still take way too long</em>. </p> <p align="justify">In my opinion, there are two main ways we can improve the grind problem: </p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify"><strong>Shorten the agony</strong>: Once it’s clear that the fight is decided, end the encounter right away, or at least make the monsters somehow die much faster. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify"><strong>Make comebacks possible</strong>: Introduce a mechanic that makes almost-defeated monsters threatening again, so players cannot be certain of their victory until the very end. </div> </li> </ul> <p align="justify">I have opted for a mixed approach that hopefully combines the best of both worlds. Lo an behold: </p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><em><strong>Last effort:</strong> Whenever a character starts a turn, if the majority of characters in their party are bloodied, dying, or dead, that character becomes <strong>desperate</strong> until the end of the encounter.</em></p> <p align="justify"><em>(<strong>Desperate</strong> is a new character condition, defined below)</em></p> <p align="justify"><em><strong>Desperate</strong>: A desperate character gains:</em></p> <ul> <ul> <li> <div align="justify"><em>A +2 bonus to all attacks </em></div> </li> <li> <div align="justify"><em>A -2 penalty to all defenses </em></div> </li> <li> <div align="justify"><em>For each of the character’s attacks that hits but doesn’t crit, roll 1d20. On a roll of 19-20, the attack becomes a critical hit.</em> </div> </li> </ul> </ul> </blockquote> <p align="justify">Note that this is mandatory, and applies to both monsters and PCs! The overall effect should amount to a<strong> 25%</strong> <strong>increase</strong> in <strong>offensive</strong> output, and a <strong>15% decrease</strong> in <strong>survivability</strong> (assuming a 65% hit rate). <em>Desperate</em> provides a significant advantage to the losing side, which usually won’t be enough to turn the tide, but should make the last turns much more exciting. It also speeds up the end of combat, particularly when both sides are desperate, and introduces a new layer of strategy by providing an incentive to save up strong attacks for late in an encounter. </p> <p align="justify">This is how our example scenario looks like with both the <strong>Monster Commander</strong> and <strong>Last Effort</strong> rules:</p> <img style="display: block; float: none; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/9Yq1HaPkNat-ad1B1GqaH4CIut8okk2be1AnSDGovGxssP4g8EQe5U1gsSz_yEVNk34gDTQPsUb8iB_fdj-8CjUcLnqghSZz2UjmG-T_SWSyXEtrFT5p" width="514" height="276" /> <br />That is all for today. In our next installment, we will look at combat pacing and resource usage. </span> Pericohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12414348870266960204noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3342640173817458901.post-77488610700714004862012-09-05T13:45:00.001+02:002012-09-05T13:45:02.182+02:00Game Design: Basic combat math (I)<p align="justify">Having stated my <a href="http://squarefireballs.blogspot.com.es/2012/08/introducing-square-fireballs-rpg.html">high level goals for the new game</a>, it’s time to get my hands dirty and do some actual design work. The first point in the agenda, then, is the mathematical framework of the combat system. Easy enough. </p><span id="fullpost"> <p align="justify">I believe that game combat should, by default, <strong>favor the player </strong>characters while still providing a credible <strong>challenge</strong>, last <strong>long enough</strong> for heroes to use most of their toys, and <strong>minimize dead turns</strong> or turns where a player is left without interesting choices to make. To address these points, we need to pay special attention any factors that affect encounter duration, power usage, and the balance of power between player characters and monsters. Overall, the work process will have the following steps:</p> <ol> <li> <p align="justify">Set<strong> general goals</strong> for the combat system</p> </li> <li> <p align="justify">Define game stats for a <strong>fixed-level scenario</strong></p> </li> <li> <p align="justify">Define stats for scenarios with characters of <strong>arbitrary levels</strong></p> </li> <li> <p align="justify"><strong>Test</strong> a lot</p> </li> <li> <p align="justify"><strong>Iterate</strong> previous steps until satisfied.</p> </li> </ol> <p align="justify">Today’s article will focus on the first step, meaning that we won’t be assigning any concrete values to character stats. Instead, we will talk in terms of combat length, number of participating characters, and number of turns it takes to kill a character. We will start by assuming generic stat lines for characters and monsters, leaving the effect of roles and customization for later.</p> <p align="justify"><strong><u>Introduction: Encounter duration and focus fire</u></strong></p> <p align="justify">With this in mind, let us define the main concepts used in this approach:</p> <ul> <li> <p align="justify"><strong>K (Turns to kill)</strong> - The number of game turns that a character A takes, on average, to kill a character B. It depends on A’s accuracy and damage, and on B’s defenses and hit points, among other factors. To calculate it, divide a defender’s HP by the attacker’s average damage.</p> </li> <li> <p align="justify"><strong>T (Encounter turns)</strong> - The number of game turns required to end a combat encounter, on average. It depends on the number of characters on each side, and their K value (i.e. the turns they take to kill each other). Our initial analysis will focus on pure damage only, and more complex effects like negative conditions will be considered later.</p> </li> </ul> <p align="justify">A major point that needs to be taken into account is that, except for some specific scenarios, <strong>K is not equal to T</strong>. That is, the actual encounter duration is different (more specifically, longer) than what one would expect, based on analysis of isolated characters. To understand this, let us first take a look at those scenarios where K is, in fact equal to T.</p> <p align="justify">Consider a combat encounter where Joe the Hero (character H1) faces Gork the Orc (monster M1). For simplicity, let’s assume that both character and monster have 3 hit points, and their attacks occur simultaneously, always hitting for 1 damage. Clearly, in this scenario both combatants would always achieve mutual annihilation by turn 3. The K value of our characters, 3, is equal to the encounter duration. If we extended this basic scenario to have three heroes (H1, H2, H3) facing three monsters (M1, M2, M3), all with the same stats and using the same rules as before, and assuming all combatants have some strange code of honor forcing them to fight one on one, we end up with three pairs of duelists that self-destruct on the third turn of combat.</p> <p align="justify">However, this weird duel behavior is not how combats usually go. The most effective tactic, and thus the one that most parties resort to, is to <strong>focus fire</strong>, i.e., to have all characters in a team pile on a single unfortunate opponent until he drops, and repeat the process until the combat is over. The tactic advantage of focus fire is that, once an enemy drops, the damage output of the enemy team decreases. If we go back to the example scenario, and have both teams use focus fire, we will have a fight where each side gradually loses combatants, as shown in the following figure.</p> <p align="justify"><img style="display: block; float: none; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto" src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/JX1SwIafeZXakIDT3nOLt9vI7zTqyJfoLOmfcJQwdHE532LJIt7nogNy_Ugxylx485Oz-EJLVkbosMbJscYQZeVqCU67Ls8HBN6wdO3-Wv9JrT_AWe8" width="391" height="278" /></p> <p align="justify">Two things of note here: </p> <ul> <li> <p align="justify">As the combat progresses, it takes longer to kill an enemy</p> </li> <li> <p align="justify">The combat ends in 5 turns, even though all characters have a K value of 3.</p> </li> </ul> <p align="justify">As we can see, the existence of focus fire has an impact on combat duration. This effect will vary with the number of characters in an encounter, and their relative strength. Another important implication is that combat duration cannot be easily determined through simple formulas, but will require some kind of <strong>simulation</strong> - though we will try to simplify this requirement as much as possible. Finally, it must be noted that the use of focus fire is not a binary proposition: these examples show characters first spreading their damage as much as possible, and then perfectly focusing their attacks, but real combats usually fall somewhere in between. The ability to focus fire better than the opponent is, in fact, a critical factor for success in a tactical combat game like the one we are proposing.</p> <p align="justify"><strong><u>System Requirements</u></strong></p> <p align="justify">The combat system will need to meet the following requirements:</p> <ul> <li> <p align="justify">Average <strong>combat duration of 5 turns</strong>. When both sides are of similar level, I expect the combat to be over in about 5 turns, so that players can spend most of their per-encounter resources without falling into repetitive grinding. This duration may rise to about 6 turns for greedy parties refusing to spend daily resources, or go as low as 4 turns (or slightly below that) if the heroes go all out on daily attacks and action points.</p> </li> <li> <p align="justify">The players<strong> win... with some effort</strong>. Player characters are expected to win same-level encounters, but not without losing a bunch of healing surges and daily powers along the way. Ideally, it will take 20-25% of a party’s daily resources to make it through an encounter - with generous usage of daily powers saving healing surges, and vice versa. Player characters dropping unconscious during combat should be a common occurrence, with about 1-2 KO’d PCs each encounter. Death of individual characters (outside of party wipes) should be rare, but still possible when unconscious party members are left unprotected.</p> </li> <li> <div align="justify"><strong>Every turn counts</strong>. It’s easy to fall into the trap of having the last couple of turns in a fight become an unexciting cleanup routine. This happens when the monster team has been reduced to one or two members, unable to pose a real danger to the heroes, but with enough hit points left to require a significant amount of time to actually finish the encounter. We need to include mechanics that make monsters both more threatening and quick to kill once they are in this situation.</div> </li> </ul> <p align="justify"> <br />In the next article, we will provide a more detailed look at the numbers and stats behind our combat system, discuss the impact of combat roles, and introduce a few rules changes that should make the last rounds of combat a bit more exciting.</p></span> Pericohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12414348870266960204noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3342640173817458901.post-53765394978543867812012-08-28T02:45:00.001+02:002012-08-28T02:45:36.235+02:00Square Fireballs RPG: Table of Contents<p align="justify"> <br />In my <a href="http://squarefireballs.blogspot.com.es/2012/08/introducing-square-fireballs-rpg.html">last post</a>, I provided an overview of my new game project, <strong>Square Fireballs RPG</strong>, and a brief discussion of the main features I plan to introduce. Today, I will show something less descriptive, but still important: the first draft of the game’s table of contents. This is definitely subject to change, and it’s quite possible that I’m forgetting about critical sections, if not chapters. But it’s what I’m working with, for now. It looks as follows:</p> <span id="fullpost"> <p align="justify"><u>1. Introduction</u></p> <ul> <li>Character Stats </li> <li>Reading Powers </li> </ul> <u>2. Combat</u> <ul> <li>Turn Sequence </li> <li>Character Actions </li> <li>Movement </li> <li>Attack </li> <li>Character Conditions </li> <li>Healing </li> <li>Maneuvers </li> </ul> <u>3. Adventuring</u> <ul> <li>Skills </li> <li>Resting </li> <li>Rituals (30) </li> </ul> <u>4. Building Characters</u> <ul> <li>Overview </li> <li>Leveling up </li> <li>Races (4) </li> <li>Classes (4) </li> <li>Themes (12) </li> <li>Paragon Paths (20) </li> <li>Epic Destinies (8) </li> <li>Feats (75) </li> </ul> <u>5. Equipment</u> <ul> <li>Weapons </li> <li>Implements </li> <li>Armor </li> <li>Mundane Gear </li> <li>Magic Items (40) </li> </ul> <u>6. Dungeon Master Tools</u> <ul> <li>Game Math </li> <li>Skill Checks </li> <li>Monsters (75*75) </li> <li>Encounter Generation </li> <li>Running Encounters </li> <li>Rewards </li> </ul> <p align="justify"> <br />The numbers in parentheses are the number of options of a given type. As you can see, they are fairly low, considering that all character options but races and classes are supposed to be self-contained: I’m playing around with some ideas to <strong>make the most</strong> of relatively <strong>limited sets of options</strong>. If this works as expected, it will make the development of the game much more <strong>sustainable</strong>, and it might even be possible to build characters without need for digital tools. We’ll see how it turns out.</p> </span> Pericohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12414348870266960204noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3342640173817458901.post-3179370884340357702012-08-26T20:10:00.001+02:002012-08-26T20:10:57.661+02:00Introducing: Square Fireballs RPG<p align="justify">So. I just decided to make the jump and evolve from enthusiast game tinkerer to <a href="http://squarefireballs.blogspot.com.es/2012/08/about-d-4e-d-next-and-new-personal.html">a creator of sorts</a>. Granted, my first project won’t precisely be an original idea, but it is an ambitious one, nonetheless: I intend to<strong> remake and improve my favorite role playing game system</strong> as a way to keep it alive and kicking after its lifecycle has ended. This is a work of love and admiration from a fan who has devoted several years playing, studying and, ultimately, obsessing about a great game. My goal is to stay <strong>true to the original</strong>, embracing its strengths while improving some areas whose implementation didn’t live up to expectations.</p> <p align="justify">Like its predecessor, <strong>Square Fireballs RPG</strong> will be a combat-focused game featuring deep tactical encounters, huge character customizability and little DM preparation effort. On top of that, I plan to introduce a <strong>considerable number of changes</strong>, which are listed below.</p> <p align="justify"><u>Combat</u></p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify"><strong>Game math</strong> updated to improve monster balance: Same level encounters should present a credible <strong>challenge</strong> regardless of tier, now.</div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Better integration of <strong>skills in combat</strong>.</div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">General <strong>combat maneuvers</strong> are more varied and useful.</div> </li> <li> <div align="justify"><strong>Character conditions</strong> revised to be more fun and balanced.</div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">New rules to improve <strong>pacing of combat</strong> by regulating resource usage: reduced effect of nova rounds and end-of-combat grinding.</div> </li> </ul> <p align="justify"><u>Non-combat interactions</u></p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify">Reworked <strong>skill system</strong> with flat DCs and bonuses.</div> </li> <li> <div align="justify"><strong>Ritual system</strong> overhaul: Rituals are better integrated with skills and game economy.</div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Revised <strong>healing rules</strong> to streamline surge usage during short rests, reducing bookkeeping.</div> </li> </ul> <p align="justify"><u>Character building</u></p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify"><strong>Feat system revision</strong>, with a standalone set of feats to cover all player needs. Feat slots are now divided in two categories: greater feats, condensing all relevant combat benefits, and lesser feats, for non-combat effects or  weak/situational combat bonuses.</div> </li> <li> <div align="justify"><strong>Magic Item revision</strong>, with a standalone set of items to cover all player needs. The number of simultaneously equipped items will be greatly reduced, to cut down on character complexity.</div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">New standalone sets of <strong>themes</strong>, <strong>paragon paths</strong> and <strong>epic destinies</strong>, emphasizing openness, flexibility, power uniformity and differentiation of campaign tiers.</div> </li> <li> <div align="justify"><strong>Guidelines for character effectiveness</strong> per level, made possible by reworked game math and integrated design of secondary character options.</div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Reimagined versions of the most iconic character <strong>races</strong> (human, dwarf, elf, halfling) and <strong>classes</strong> (fighter, rogue, wizard, cleric), to play by themselves or alongside existing alternatives.</div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">In order to achieve a <strong>wider variety of viable builds</strong>, some of the most dominant strategies will be weakened through global rules: multiattacking powers, stunning and dominating, off-turn attacks. Likewise, some previously underwhelming yet quite common mechanics, like attacks that deal lots of damage dice, will be improved.</div> </li> </ul> <p align="justify"><u>Encounter preparation</u></p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify">Greatly improved <strong>flexibility in monster selection</strong> thanks to flatter game math. Monsters now remain challenging across a wider range of levels</div> </li> <li> <div align="justify"><strong>Mixed-level parties</strong> made viable by flatter game math.</div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">New <strong>monster creation</strong> method allows quick and easy stat generation, mixing of monster abilities, and random monster generation for encounters.</div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Better balance makes it much easier to achieve <strong>challenging yet fair encounters</strong> for all party levels.</div> </li> </ul> <p align="justify"><u>Compatibility</u></p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify">Base game fully compatible with existing <strong>races</strong> and <strong>classes</strong>.</div> </li> <li> <div align="justify"><strong>Adventures</strong> and <strong>monsters</strong> usable after quick stat conversion - tools will be provided to make this as painless as possible.</div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Current <strong>PC options</strong> (feats, items, themes, paths, epic destinies) usable but not recommended, as they break balance assumptions.</div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Guidelines to <strong>mix and match</strong> the new rules with the existing ones.</div> </li> </ul> <p align="justify">This covers the most important stuff, though you can expect several minor tweaks and adjustments apart from those listed above. Regarding <strong>licensing</strong> and other legal aspects, I haven’t consulted a lawyer yet, but the idea is to <strong>stay away from GSL</strong> and write everything from scratch, likely using a Creative Commons license. From what I have read, this is fair game as long as I don’t use someone else’s IP nor copy text from other publications - which have no intention to do.  That said, if any reader is aware of potential legal issues that could be derived from this approach, I’m all ears.</p> <p align="justify">I’m vaguely aware of the existence of other similar projects currently in development. My position, for now, is to keep this as a <strong>purely personal initiative</strong>. While additional writing hands would definitely be of use, given my ever scarce spare time, I’d like to keep a tight control of the design process. I will, of course, be very interested in listening to any reader feedback and, if things go well, there will be a need for playtesting... but that is still far away in the future, at best.</p> <p align="justify">To conclude, a few words on the <strong>publication</strong> medium. For the foreseeable future, all material for Square Fireballs RPG will come in the form of freely available <strong>blog articles</strong>. If the game ever becomes mature enough, I will also release it in <strong>PDF</strong> form, possibly for a price. Eventually, i have this crazy dream about making  everything available in a fully linked <strong>web database</strong> (more like <a href="http://www.d20srd.org/">d20SRD</a> than <a href="http://www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/database.aspx">D&D Compendium</a>, if possible), though that would be a ton of work on top of what is already a ridiculous amount of effort, so we’ll see. </p> Pericohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12414348870266960204noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3342640173817458901.post-14154150095688837182012-08-25T23:23:00.001+02:002012-08-25T23:23:13.536+02:00About D&D 4e, D&D Next, and a new personal project<p align="justify">I don’t think I will love the fifth edition of D&D (what is currently known as D&D Next). Sure, I will give it a chance, and go along with the playtest, and do my best to help make it a great game. And, barring some kind of disaster, I will buy the core books, and try to organize a campaign. I’m fairly confident I will be able to enjoy the new game to some degree, but I seriously doubt it will inspire me the same passion that 4E has.</p> <p align="justify">It boils down to this:<strong> D&D 4E has the best tactical combat</strong> of any game I’ve played, by a mile. It is deep and varied, remarkably (though not perfectly) balanced, and just a ton of fun -beating down monsters and taking their stuff has never been this satisfying. And that's all there is to the game, really:  the mechanics for roleplaying and other non-combat interaction are merely decent, exploration is almost non-existent, and the settings (which I tend to like) are system independent. By contrast, Next is constrained by design requirements that weren’t much of a consideration for 4e, such as pleasing a wide fanbase including hardcore old schoolers, and keeping true to the spirit of earlier editions - which are things that can make it a great, successful product, but that I personally don’t care much about.</p> <p align="justify">The bad news, of course, are that <strong>4E is dying</strong>. Granted, it’ll always have a place in our hearts, and we can keep playing it,  but content releases have dropped drastically, and will stop altogether in a matter of months. One could argue that enough 4e material has been released already to cover for many years of future campaigns (and that would be mostly accurate, unless you intended to play at the desolate epic tier), but there s a kind of release that I will be missing dearly: errata. While not everyone is a fan of the rather aggressive errata cycle used for 4e, in my mind it has been a crucial factor in keeping the game alive and constantly improving. Frequent errata has made 4e a much better game than it was at release, but there are still major issues (psionic power point progression jumps to mind) that will remain unaddressed.</p> <p align="justify">Ever since I started writing this blog, one of my main missions has been to <strong>support D&D 4E</strong> through house rules, making it a more fun and balanced game by improving and fixing what is already there - not unlike official errata. I believe this approach can go a long way, but very often I have found myself wishing for a way to <strong>clean the slate</strong> for some specific systems, like <strong>feats</strong>, <strong>magic items</strong>, or <strong><a href="http://squarefireballs.blogspot.com.es/2010/06/broken-bits-my-list-of-broken-paths.html">paragon paths</a></strong>. Frankly, I think these parts of the game have become cluttered with too many options of wildly different power levels, and their implementations present some fundamental problems on top of that, so rewriting them from scratch (an idea I already experimented with in the <a href="http://squarefireballs.blogspot.com.es/2011/04/magic-item-reset-i-why-i-hate-magic.html">Magic Item Reset</a>) could bring major improvements. One thought led to the other, and suddenly I found myself playing around with concepts for a <strong>full revision of 4E</strong>... And this (after much digression) is the project I want to present to you today.</p> <p align="justify">So, to summarize: I am working on a <strong>full featured game</strong> that intends to preserve the <strong>awesomeness of D&D 4E</strong>, but also to <strong>polish</strong> it and get rid of its clunkier elements. It should be playable as a standalone, but also remain <strong>compatible</strong> with the most important mechanical material from 4E supplements: races, classes, adventures and monsters. An option to <strong>use isolated modules</strong> from my game in regular 4e campaigns would also be provided. </p> <p align="justify">In tomorrow’s post, I will explain in more detail what exactly I have in mind for this project. Keep in mind that this will be a <strong>personal endeavor</strong>, and thus limited by my (currently very scarce) time to write  - I cant really tell if it will take me months to complete, or years, or if I will be unable to finish it. So please be patient: whatever content I end up producing will be available<strong> for free at this very blog</strong>.</p> <p align="justify">As for the name of the thing? <strong>Square Fireballs Role-Playing Game</strong>, of course.</p> Pericohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12414348870266960204noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3342640173817458901.post-20944095240266192922012-07-24T15:57:00.001+02:002012-07-24T15:58:14.498+02:00La Puerta de Ishtar: A friend’s crowd-funded RPG<p align="justify">This blog has been pretty short on content lately, due to a combination of real-life circumstances which have left me with little to no time for posting, including the writing of a Ph.D thesis, and the birth of my second daughter. Though the baby will still keep me from sleeping for the foreseeable future, the thesis is dead and buried, and I expect to be able to post new articles with some regularity.</p> <p align="justify">Anyway, today’s post is a bit of an off-topic, since instead of our usual draconic dungeoneering, I will be talking about an upcoming indie RPG – <a href="http://www.puertaishtar.com/"><em>La Puerta de Ishtar</em></a>. A while ago, I linked to this project when the designer of the game (as well as good friend, and regular player of my D&D campaign) Rodrigo wrote a guest post here with his impressions of the D&D Next playtest. The game has progressed quite a bit since then, to the point of starting a <a href="http://www.verkami.com/projects/2716-la-puerta-de-ishtar">crowd-funding campaign</a> which handily met its initial goal and is now in the process of beating stretch goal after stretch goal. </p> <p align="justify">So what is <em>La Puerta de Ishtar</em> about? It’s an original take on the fantasy genre, eschewing Tolkien influences and western tropes in favor of a less familiar setting inspired by the legends and mythology of the Near East. With a straightforward system emphasizing character development and narrative elements, the game will be published as an impressive hardcover book, with over 350 pages full of gorgeous illustrations.</p> <p align="justify"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrGSMGBdSZZ6z-Jc4-nSu13klSHKSr6nVABmhJYDlD2Lli04zSXDMXXUuKPJfFkuxsonKq4iBYXn6pyk6SZKJ5zDVKFFjVD5JtZVnGqAAx7rsxAQilFwbWwtra5sD_f1GxrLUJQ0OE_qR0/s1600-h/La%252520Puerta%252520de%252520Ishtar%252520-%252520Wallpaper%252520-%2525201680x1050%25255B8%25255D.jpg"><img style="background-image: none; border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; display: block; float: none; margin-left: auto; border-top: 0px; margin-right: auto; border-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px" title="La Puerta de Ishtar - Wallpaper - 1680x1050" border="0" alt="La Puerta de Ishtar - Wallpaper - 1680x1050" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhaN-7RdjKCNxhBHCjV1bi2XkLYa32vPHN7LLA77hwNRm_kOWGMwarw1ZnCtr1K1FUgC_r1z7qUbWdyTLJjvKOY1yEKZaUOZQa_89Glm192lMAW-B5rn5tYUN2MDz1cDilC5OXDJI0jWaX2/?imgmax=800" width="580" height="364" /></a></p> <p align="center"><em><font size="1">The Cover</font></em></p> <p align="justify"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTClsb-rd2b7B5w2L20vesWsvp9dtguP_F5TNTfPrtPtFx6hx_5fwnLcqwdHt4ZO-PHj5Uqkw9QyFUPWnND-v9_gkqp0LiO5dl8DUAMFWNwRTDW9cCm5rhj7d-C6e-Vgw3Thm6wPeA43NB/s1600-h/Maqueta-3%25255B3%25255D.png"><img style="background-image: none; border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; display: block; float: none; margin-left: auto; border-top: 0px; margin-right: auto; border-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px" title="Maqueta-3" border="0" alt="Maqueta-3" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiL8dI_bpGjI6sU8RDpaQ2ggilPst1oLDjSwavNAsVbuoyxhAnAPbVCTDYq_GZMjgI0JUOg9VvIsPWbPSFTi7IjiRlKc6hT3t8CKUI-iS4pBvNwmi8CpGEodXjbl9lcnpFoIAq8V-Ukp5x7/?imgmax=800" width="344" height="484" /></a></p> <p align="center"><em>A random page</em></p> <p align="justify">If this intrigues you, please consider taking a look at the <a href="http://www.verkami.com/projects/2716-la-puerta-de-ishtar">crowd-funding project</a>, or the <a href="http://www.puertaishtar.com/">game website</a>. The game is written and published in Spanish, but if you have any interest in an English version, please <a href="mailto:puertaishtar@gmail.com">let Rodrigo know</a>! </p> Pericohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12414348870266960204noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3342640173817458901.post-28618480983417936542012-05-29T19:19:00.001+02:002012-05-29T19:19:19.552+02:00D&D Next Playtest: My first game<p align="justify">So. I finally got to play the playtest version of D&D Next. I just had time for a single session, and the rules are still at a very early and incomplete state, but I could conclude the following:</p> <ul> <li>We all had a lot of fun.</li> <li>This is my second favourite D&D (or RPG, for that matter) ruleset of all time - but 4E remains the best, in my opinion. I expect to try out the new game, and maybe play it alongside 4E, but not to replace 4E altogether.</li> <li>That said, this has given me many ideas to improve 4E...</li> </ul> <span id="fullpost"> <p> <br /><b><u>It’s the combat, stupid</u></b></p> <p align="justify">If I have to point to <strong>one reason</strong> that prevents D&D Next from becoming my game of choice, it is the fact that I don’t find its <strong>combat system as appealing as that of 4E</strong>. Simply put, 4E offers the most engaging, deep, and balanced tactical combat experience of any game I have played. This is not to say that the new system is bad at all - on the contrary, I have been impressed by its <strong>speed</strong>, its simple <strong>elegance</strong> and, yes, its <strong>balance</strong>. Again, this is an early version with only a fraction of the content of the final game, but I can see a solid foundation, and an excellent implementation of mechanics that I had previously dismissed as outdated and clunky, like Vancian magic.</p> <p align="justify">I cannot emphasize this enough: I now believe <strong>Vancian magic can work</strong>. I don’t necessarily prefer it to an encounter/daily power system, but with enough checks and balances and a well polished spell list, it can be fun to play, without completely overshadowing mundane characters. And the playtest rules get it just right. At-will spells let wizards and clerics forget any nonsense about crossbows. Damaging spells are in line with martial attacks. Non-damaging spells are kept in check by target hit points, so they are actually comparable to the damage-based ones. And non-combat magic works with the skill system (more on that below), rather than against it. Overall, I’d say that this magic system is fundamentally sound, and has the potential to work quite well.</p> <p align="justify">But, ultimately, the <strong>combat paradigm</strong> of D&D Next is radically <strong>different</strong> to that of 4E, and loses what I enjoyed the most about its predecessor. Rather than <strong>positioning</strong> and <strong>teamwork</strong>, combats in the new edition emphasize<strong> resource management</strong>, pre-combat <strong>preparation</strong> and <strong>improvisation</strong> - which are very respectable goals, mind you, and provided us with a lot of fun this weekend... but eventually, they are not what I am really interested in.</p> <p align="justify">Over the course of our first session, the PCs slayed no less than thirty goblins and one troll, which is quite an impressive feat considering that the party consisted on 4 level 1 adventurers, there was no short rest between these encounters (though not for lack of trying!), and our gaming group has never managed to pull off more than a single 4E combat encounter in that period of time. A great advantage of the new system is that it allowed us to play <strong>without a map</strong>, with very <strong>little bookkeeping</strong>, and in highly <strong>challenging circumstances </strong>(since I was DMing while taking care of my two baby girls, one of them in my arms), and we could even keep playing through dinner (which is usually a showstopper for our 4E sessions). There is a cost to that, though.</p> <p align="justify">In about thirty rounds of combat, the fighter player only used a <strong>single maneuver</strong>: basic attack, alternating between axe and javelin. Ditto for the rogue, though he at least tried to hide a couple of times. The clerics didn’t have it much better, with a couple of spells spicing up the spam of hammer and laser at-will, respectively. Still, there was a lot of back and forth, and the characters kept moving around the map, from one group of goblins to the other, and some basic tactics were involved. It was <strong>simple, fast, and fun</strong>. And yet, I couldn’t help <strong>missing</strong> the myriad of options, tricks, combinations and other subtleties of <strong>4E</strong>.</p> <p align="justify">That said, it was <strong>not bad</strong>, by any means. I’m far from an expert on classic D&D experiences, having started the game with 3.0 (and Baldur’s Gate, if that counts). But, for what it’s worth, I much<strong> prefer combat in D&D Next</strong> to that of <strong>any pre-4E edition</strong>. The game is simple, not just from lack of options, but also because needless complexity has been carefully removed. Rules and spell descriptions may be missing the textbook clarity of 4E, but they are well written, with few loopholes or room for ambiguity. First level characters are competent, without reaching the super-heroic status of 4E adventurers, and both casters and non-casters coexist without overshadowing each other. Players felt threatened at all times, and fights were tense but never hopeless (which is a sweet spot that not even 4E could often get to).</p> <p align="justify">I remain curious, and mildly hopeful, about the announced <strong>tactical combat module</strong>, which is expected to 4E-ify combat encounters to some degree. But you can only add so much complexity before turning it into a completely different game, and I suspect that, at best, this module will let us get halfway between the current version of D&D Next and 4E.</p> <p><b><u>Wait, is there still game after combat?</u></b></p> <p align="justify">Judging only by the previous section, one might think that the best decision for our group is to give up on the new game and go back to our good old world of squares, shifts, and +1 modifiers. However, it turns out that there is <strong>one aspect </strong>of the game where <strong>D&D Next is genuinely better</strong> than my beloved Fourth Edition. And it’s what happens after the goblins are dead and the dust is settled.</p> <p align="justify">D&D Next designers have said that, for this edition, they are looking at the game as having <strong>three basic pillars</strong>: <strong>Combat</strong>, <strong>Roleplaying</strong>, and <strong>Exploration</strong>. As a die-hard 4E fan, I’ll let you in on a little secret: that edition <strong>sucked at exploration</strong>.</p> <p align="justify">The problem for exploring in 4E does not lie, as one would expect, in the skill system or the way character interactions are handled (though skill challenges remain hopelessly flawed, to this day). No, the responsible for killing exploration is none other than the <strong>Short Rest</strong>. Short rests were introduced in 4E as a convenient method to separate combat encounters and ensure that they could start each fight with a full load of encounter powers and hit points. The problem is, they turned out <strong>too effective</strong>. For all their awesomeness (and don’t get me wrong, they ARE awesome!), 4E combats are isolated, self-contained events, not unlike a football match or an episode of the Simpsons. You load a fancy map, take out a bunch of monsters, and five turns later, it’s all over and you can take a break to go <strong>back to your previous status</strong> (give or take a couple of healing surges or daily powers). And this pretty much makes any kind of compelling exploration impossible.</p> <p align="justify">A basic premise of 4E is that, if you are not in immediate danger, you can <strong>take a break</strong> of a couple of minutes and go back to normal (or almost). Ambushed by kobolds? Doesn’t matter, if they don’t kill you, you will recover after a short rest. The same applies for any random trap in the dungeon or, god forbid, a random monster. Every combat needs to be a full featured team vs team (or team vs solo) fight, because anything less fails to present a credible threat - or any kind of attrition.</p> <p align="justify">By contrast, encounters in <strong>D&D Next</strong> are much more <strong>fluid</strong>. Short rests are much weaker and limited, and take more time, so you just go from one fight to the next. Adventurers need to actively <strong>seek</strong> some <strong>safe place</strong> to take a breath. Combatants <strong>run away</strong> and pursue, <strong>reinforcements</strong> arrive, and this is not a result of pre-scripted events, but a natural consequence of the rules and environment. Encounters are fast and cheap to generate, so letting the adventurers <strong>defeat entire fights</strong> with a bit of exploration and ingenuity doesn’t seem such a bad idea.</p> <p align="justify">At this point, I have a <strong>confession to make</strong>. In the 4E campaign I DM (which consists mostly of single-combat sessions, remember), I tend to err towards <strong>railroading</strong> my players a bit, or at least to decide beforehand where they will go on a session - usually by discussing it at the end of a previous session, or by an e-mail poll. The reason? I have found that I can only deliver really enjoyable combat encounters with some <strong>previous preparation</strong>, and that is not really possible if we go all freeform or sandbox-y. Not in our available timeframes, at least.</p> <p align="justify">On the other hand, I have a 4E story to tell as a <strong>counterpoint</strong>. I may have mentioned this on a previous post, so forgive me if I am repeating myself. Some time ago, we were wandering around a dungeon when we encountered - a <strong>Dragon</strong>! Surprising, I know. Anyway, this was a white dragon who, rather than attacking us from the get go, decided to chat a bit. For some entertainment before a meal, I guess. Anyway, what followed was a convoluted, hilarious conversation where the adventurers ended up convincing the dragon not to kill them, and maybe even help them a bit, with no real loss on their part. The <strong>encounter was defeated</strong> in an awesome, original way. But we all <strong>felt terrible</strong>!</p> <p align="justify">You see, I had spent some time tweaking the monster rules to come up with a really challenging solo. And the group knew it - they were <strong>looking forward to the fight</strong>. So we ended up closing the adventure for the day, and then started a <i>completely different</i> one shot game where a group of adventurers unrelated to the previous one (but with suspiciously similar sheets) happened to come across a white dragon in cool cave (did I mention there was a poster map, too?) and beat the crap out of it. The moral of the story, I guess, is: exploration is cool, but <strong>we don’t want to miss a cool 4E combat</strong> because of it.</p> <p align="justify">Anyway, and to go back on track: <strong>exploration</strong> on D&D Next can be lots of <strong>fun</strong>, and is in my opinion one of of the <strong>major pulls</strong> of the game. This is possible due to a fast combat system where individual encounters are expendable, and a rest system that doesn’t automatically clean the slate after every couple of minutes.<strong> Implementing such a thing in 4E</strong> would involve fairly major system changes, but could add a whole new dimension to the game - and this is something I intend to <strong>experiment</strong> with, at some point in the <strong>future</strong>.</p></span> Pericohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12414348870266960204noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3342640173817458901.post-63526833399003377882012-05-27T16:56:00.001+02:002012-05-27T16:56:02.773+02:00Guest Post: D&D Next Playtest report<p align="justify">Yesterday I had the chance to DM my first game for the <a href="http://squarefireballs.blogspot.com.es/2012/05/d-next-playtest-initial-impressions.html">D&D Next playtest</a>. I am still preparing a post to comment on the experience (short version: solid, fun, fast), but in the meantime, here you have a report from one of my players. Rodrigo, a regular in my gaming group, is starting out as an RPG writer, with an article published in <a href="http://www.koboldquarterly.com/kqstore/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1&products_id=163&zenid=5d77649c446f925ac7e4f320d36834af">Kobold Quarterly</a>, and his own upcoming indie RPG, <a href="http://www.puertaishtar.com/">La Puerta de Ishtar</a> (in Spanish, but English speakers can <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.puertaishtar.com%2Fsearch%2Flabel%2Fla%2520puerta%2520de%2520ishtar">take a look</a> thanks to the magics of Google). Here is what he had to say about the latest version of D&D.</p> <p align="justify">I have just played my first playtest game for D&D Next. My impressions (and those of the whole table) couldn't be better. We have started our exploration of the Caves of Chaos, experimenting the famous three pillars (exploration, roleplaying and combat). We thought the game was <strong>very good</strong>, with a good mix of Old School feelings (despite not being a retro-clone, it really caters to that style of play) and more modern mechanics from 3rd and 4E. In fact, it's interesting to see not only why some modern mechanics have been preserved, but also why others have been left out.</p> <span id="fullpost"> <p align="justify">The advantage/disadvantage system felt really great, reducing game complexity and slowness, and adding a very interesting layer to it. The capabilities of different character types feel diverse and engaging. Simplified combat gives place to more interesting fights than we initially expected (to be sincere, we had thought of this as the weakest aspect of the game), and this simplicity allowed us to play at a very good pace. The way HPs are assigned and the Hit Dice mechanic (the new Healing Surges, much weaker than before and with harsh timing restrictions) added a lot of tension to the situation without falling into the “five minute workday”. At least at first level. We have been on the brink of death in several occasions, but the way we fought led us to victory. The way actions are resolved in combat gives players a lot of freedom.</p> <p align="justify">I played a dwarven Cleric of Moradin (Gurni Gotreksson), and other players had a dwarven Fighter (Gotrek Gurnisson, my son), a halfling Rogue (Will), and a human cleric of Pelor (Mark Pelorflauta). Perico was DMing. This means that we still have to try out the Wizard. <br />As I was saying, time flew while playing the session, and the game was universally enjoyed at the table. I recommend trying it out (not just reading it) with an open mind and as written, without worrying about whether certain rule we like is there or not. It mixes very well modern rules with certain grognard styles.</p> <p align="justify">Unless the game changes a lot during the beta, or it breaks at higher levels (though with the math it uses, I don’t think so), they have a buyer here. And yes, we have a very good dungeon master [*blush* - Perico], but he is the same who DM’ed 3rd and 4E in its day, so we can compare. I’m looking forward to the “tactical combat” module, because if it can be combined with the core rules we have tried, it can be very useful for certain “special” combats where the situation calls for it.</p> </span> Pericohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12414348870266960204noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3342640173817458901.post-41641514630265157362012-05-25T16:03:00.001+02:002012-05-25T16:03:27.384+02:00D&D Next Playtest: Initial Impressions<p align="justify"> <br />At last, the <a href="http://wizards.com/dnd/DnDNext.aspx">playtest</a> is upon us! After months of waiting, the first public sample of the D&D Next rules is available for player experimentation. I will be playing my first test game this weekend but, in the meantime, I wanted to share my impressions on the new rules - which could be summarized as “not like 4E, but quite interesting anyway”.</p> <p align="justify">First, though, I need to discuss a very important point. Sadly, it appears that, in the upcoming edition, Fireballs will no longer be Square! Spell books are full of spheres, cones, cylinders and lines, but there are no squares (or, to be more geometrically precise, cubes) in sight! However, concerned readers may rest assured: even if I end up migrating to D&D Next, the shape of bursts and blasts in this blogs will remain a perfect quadrilateral.</p> <p align="justify">With that out of the way, we can proceed with our dissection of the new rules.</p> <span id="fullpost"> <p align="justify"><b><u>Overview</u></b></p> <p align="justify">The document we have received includes only a subset of what will be in the future Player’s Handbook, and an early version at that. But even at this stage, we can tell that there is a solid rules core, with streamlined mechanics, and what is possibly the best integration of combat and non-combat mechanics of any D&D edition.</p> <p align="justify">The base mechanic of the game will be familiar to any D&D fan: checks are resolved by rolling a d20, adding an ability modifier and other bonuses, and comparing to a DC. Attacks are a form of check, rolling against the target’s AC. For certain spells or effects, a saving throw is used instead of an attack - which consists in an ability check against a save DC. Notably, six types of saving throws exist, one for each ability score, in an interesting effort to make all character stats relevant. That said, most saves seem to be based on Constitution, Dexterity, or Wisdom (roughly equivalent to Fortitude, Reflex and Will), and only a few examples of Strength, Intelligence and Charisma are provided.</p> <p align="justify">As a general comment, my impression of the ruleset can be summarized in the following points:</p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify"> <b>Old look</b>: In aesthetics and structure, the rules look to earlier editions for inspiration. Gone is the textbook clarity of 4E - or, for that matter, any game term that reminds to that edition. Remarkably, spell descriptions are purely textual, making that section harder to use as reference, but also less daunting to read. That said, aside from the format, the rules themselves are well written and easy to understand, which is a very nice change of pace from older editions.</div> </li> <li> <div align="justify"> <b>Quick, simple play:</b> Pending a future tactical module for more sophisticated combat rules, the game looks very streamlined. It lacks the many combat options and complex effects of 4E (including opportunity attacks!), but also much of the artificial complexities of other editions. Many things that used to be a problem just work: stealth rules are simple but surprisingly robust, most fiddly bonuses have been aggregated into advantage/disadvantage (letting you roll 2d20 and use the highest or lowest, respectively), and the way movement is handled is just brilliant. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify"> <b>Modern ideas hidden, but present: </b>Looking at the previous points, it would seem like there is no trace of 4E in this game - and, indeed, I suspect this is what they want players to think. But the rules are deceivingly modern in many subtle aspects. Vancian magic may be back, but casters have all-important at-will powers (called cantrips and orisons, just in case). Healing surges are gone, but all characters have “Hit Dice” (another name used as a throwback to old schoolers) that grant them access to non-magical healing during short rests. It’s early to tell if balance will be perfect, but it clearly has been an important consideration - none of the pregenerated characters looks particularly stronger or weaker than the rest, and all spells remain at a fairly similar power level. The level 1 wizard in particular looks perfectly competent out of the gate, which couldn’t be said of any version of that class outside 4E.</div> </li> </ul> <p align="justify"><b><u>Character Generation</u></b><u>.</u></p> <p align="justify">No actual character generation rules are provided in the current playtest document, but there is enough to make some extrapolation. That said, take the following with a grain of salt.</p> <p align="justify">Ability scores are the same six as always, and have their modifiers calculated the same way as in 3.X and 4E - which is a good thing, in my book. As to their effects, the greatest innovation is the fact that all abilities are used for saving throws (as explained above). Other than that, ability effects are fairly close to those of 3.X, with a few welcome fixes.</p> <p align="justify"><b>Strength </b>is mostly used for attack and damage with melee and thrown weapons. It also determines encumbrance, which seems to be more emphasized than in the later editions of the game, but will probably be ignorable anyway.</p> <p align="justify"><b>Dexterity </b>determines AC (no int-based AC anymore, 4E fans!), initiative, and ranged attacks. Interestingly, it also works for attack and damage of “finesse” melee weapons (i.e. daggers and rapiers), which was a sticking point of 3.X rules.</p> <p align="justify"><b>Constitution </b>is used for HP, with initial HP value equal to Con score, and Con modifier affecting non-magical healing, and having a small effect on HP gain across levels. </p> <p align="justify">Mental abilities (<b>Intelligence</b>, <b>Wisdom</b>, <b>Charisma</b>) don’t change much, and are used mostly for certain types of magic, and skills.</p> <p align="justify">Speaking of <b>skills</b>, I really like the current approach. There is no closed list of skills - rather, characters use plain ability checks for most tasks, and have “trained skills” which apply a moderate bonus (+3) to specific tasks, such as Perception, Stealth, or Handling Animals. Most skills have direct equivalents in 3.X and 4E, but there is also new stuff, like Commerce. For the most part, skills have been dissociated from class choice and are entirely dependent on <b>Backgrounds</b>, which are an optional addition to character building. This means that character classes that were traditionally lousy outside of combat, like Fighters, now have the same flexibility in roleplaying and exploration as most other characters. That said, there are specific classes (i.e rogues) that excel at skills and gain additional skill-related choices and bonuses.</p> <p align="justify">The creation of a new character involves four important choices (apart from ability score allocation): the traditional <b>Races </b>and <b>Classes</b>, on the one hand, and the more modern <b>Themes </b>and <b>Backgrounds </b>(explained above), on the other. Overall, they seem to make for a more intuitive and flavorful character generation process.</p> <p align="justify">The choice of <b>Race </b>is fairly important, with perhaps less mechanical benefits than in 4E, but more than in earlier editions. Each race provides a +1 bonus to an ability score and a few features affecting either combat, exploration, or roleplaying.</p> <p align="justify"><b>Classes </b>are primarily focused on combat, with varying elements of exploration and roleplaying, that range from the fighter (100% combat) to the rogue (which has a very strong focus on skills). Complexity also changes drastically from one class to the other, with wizards and clerics full of options next to a fighter that does nothing but devastating attacks. That said, at least for the level range of the playtest (1-3), it appears that these differences in complexity don’t translate into balance problems, as both casters and non-casters look similarly competent.</p> <p align="justify">Finally, <b>Themes</b> are options that focus mostly on combat utility, improving a character’s ability to deal damage, heal, or have a variety of magical abilities, among other effects. It is important to note that, though 4E-style class roles (Defender, Striker, Leader and Controller) no longer exist, certain mechanical aspects of roles are available through themes. This way, there is a Guardian theme that lets your character protect nearby allies, and a Healer theme with obvious applications. In theory, themes are made up of individual feats which can be combined arbitrarily, though in the playtest we can only see them in their packaged form.</p> <p align="justify"><b><u>Combat</u></b></p> <p align="justify">As a fan of the ultra-detailed combat in D&D 4E, I find the basic combat system of D&D Next to be extremely simplified. With no flanking or attacks of opportunity, there is little incentive for careful positioning, or, for that matter, for using a battle map at all. Player options in combat depend highly on class choice, since casters have plenty of spells to choose from, whereas non-casters have little to do beyond their basic attacks. The rules make an effort to encourage players and DMs to improvise, and the skill framework is very friendly towards unorthodox actions, but I can’t really tell how it will all work in practice. It seems to me there’s a definite risk of fights becoming repetitive after a while, though, on the other hand, combat should be much faster overall compared to 4E, which might make up for it. This is currently the big mystery to me: will it be fun to kill monsters and take their stuff? Only experience will tell. </p> <p align="justify"><b><u>Spells</u></b></p> <p align="justify">The magic in D&D Next is an evolution of the Vancian system of older editions, of which I’m not a fan. That said, I’m fairly impressed with the current implementation, which addresses many of the problems I saw in vancian casters.</p> <p align="justify">For me, one of the major improvements is the introduction of <strike>at-will powers</strike> <strong>cantrips</strong> and orisons, which let casters have utility and combat magic available every turn. Light, Magic Missile, Death Ward (though, sadly, no <a href="http://squarefireballs.blogspot.com.es/2009/11/rip-scorching-burst.html">Scorching Burst</a>) are small magical effects that wizards and clerics can use regularly, allowing even first level casters to feel like actual magic users, and not glorified crossbowmen.</p> <p align="justify">The other great change is the overhaul of the <strong>spell list</strong>. Spell names and effects are mostly familiar, but the actual implementations are brand new, and have been designed with the math of the current game in mind. Spell scaling is only possible by preparing a spell in a slot of higher level (of which, sadly, I have found no examples in the playtest spell list). This means that higher level casters become more powerful in just a single way: by getting more and better spells.</p> <p align="justify">I’ll grant the designers this: actually <strong>reading</strong> the list of spells is a much improved experience, compared to 4E-style power lists. Spell effects are all over the place, and the unstructured descriptions, as much as they make it harder to work out what the spell actually <i>does</i>, make for an entertaining and varied read. They are also remarkably compact, with the most basic evocations taking up just a paragraph or two. But the most pleasant surprise lies in the spell effects. Spell lists of old where all over the place with regards to power level, gleefully mixing useless chaff with world-breaking magics - sometimes in the same spell level. By contrast, spells in D&D Next remain fairly uniform in strength, with damaging effects that are comparable to one another, but also to non-damaging attacks.</p> <p align="justify">Traditionally, the strongest effects available to casters have not consisted in pure damage, but in devastating conditions: what has been called “<strong>Save or Die</strong>” (or, alternately, “Save or Suck”). Save or Die spells disappeared in 4E due to the concerns for balance, and early comments about D&D Next bringing them back were received as a sign that game balance would be consumed in a sphere of annihilation. Oddly enough, this has not happened. The current spell list includes Save or Die classics like Sleep, Hold Person, or Silence, and every one of them is effective yet fair. The trick lies in conditioning effects to the current HPs of a target - Sleep knocks unconscious targets only if they have less than 12 HP, and Hold Person only has its full effect on targets below 40 HP. Alternately, devastating conditions can be saved against each turn, such as the paralysis of Hold Person, or the spell disruption of Silence.</p> <p align="justify">Another potentially problematic type of spells are those that grant <strong>bonuses</strong> to a caster or his allies. As far as I can tell, these have also been toned down so that they are useful, but not overwhelmingly so.  Mirror Image lasts for  just a minute (10 rounds) and creates 2 duplicates. Likewise, Shield lasts for 10 minutes and grants a small but useful defense bonus. The limited duration of most of these buffs makes it difficult to stack many of them at once, as was the custom in previous editions.</p> <p align="justify">We also have those spells that are of little use in combat but tend to break <strong>non-combat encounters</strong>, like Charm Person, or Knock. One of the main problems of these spells was their tendency to completely sidestep the skill system, effectively rendering entire skills obsolete. While Knock is not present in the playtest, we do have Charm Person, and I really love it. It makes a target unable to attack you unless you attack it first (with no save if the target has few enough HP), and it gives you a bonus to social interactions. That is, the spell encourages you to roll diplomacy and skill checks, rather than the opposite!</p> <p align="justify">Finally, a word on <strong>rituals</strong>: They are in the game, and the implementation is excellent! You have certain situational spells that have useful effects but are not usually worth a precious spell slot, like Alarm. The solution, then, is to offer the option to use them as a ritual. Instead of casting them by spending a slot (which is still possible), you can spend more time and some material components to use them without preparation. It remains to be seen which spells will have this option, and how they will fit in the economy of the game, but for now, it looks like an awesome idea.</p> <p align="justify">I remain fairly optimistic about the magic system. It’s entirely possible that some higher level spells we don’t know about yet end up spoiling casters, but for now, it looks like a well thought, consistent, and fun system.</p> </span> Pericohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12414348870266960204noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3342640173817458901.post-57397680575103330422012-04-14T01:24:00.001+02:002012-04-14T01:26:08.791+02:00Anatomy of the At-Will (V): Basic<p align="justify">Once upon a time, basic attacks were the simplest, weakest form of attack in D&D 4E. One step below proper at-will powers, basics were there for specific scenarios, rather than something characters were expected to spend actual standard actions for. Yet, as is too often the case, later books attempted to spice up these options with potent feats and magic items... and ended up overcompensating. Even without accounting for <a href="http://squarefireballs.blogspot.com.es/2012/03/anatomy-of-at-will-charging.html">any charge silliness</a>, basic attacks with appropriate support were already well above average at-wills by the time Martial Power 2 was released - thanks to a cycle of weapon-specific feats that obsoleted such reasonable and iconic powers as <a href="http://www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/power.aspx?id=704">Piercing Strike</a>. And then the Essentials line came out, along with a bunch of new subclasses designed to make basic attacks turn after turn...</p> <p align="justify">In today’s article, I’ll go over the game elements that break basic attacks, discussing why they are bad for the game and how they could be improved. They are summarized in the following table:</p> <iframe height="220" src="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0Am7iIt01J6S4dGVtdS1KR0ZqcWxOa3B4aUZPekxyelE&single=true&gid=1&range=A1%3AC11&output=html" frameborder="0" width="250"></iframe> <br /><span id="fullpost"> <p align="justify">So, what is wrong with them? I see the following issues:</p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify"><strong>Obsoleting good at-wills</strong> - I have mentioned before the death of rogue stape <a href="http://www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/power.aspx?id=704">Piercing Strike</a> at level 11. To expand a bit on the topic, I strongly believe that allowing your basic attack to become your best at-will makes the game worse. The total increase in raw power for the character in question may not be all that bad, but the fact that you are replacing two at-will options with one clearly superior one definitely is. Given all the random advantages of being basic, your basic attack should always be slightly below a regular at-will when used as a standard action in order to be fair - or, even better, do cool stuff but only when NOT used as a standard action.</div> </li> <li> <div align="justify"><strong>Aggravate charge brokenness</strong> - Remember <a href="http://squarefireballs.blogspot.com.es/2012/03/anatomy-of-at-will-charging.html">charges</a>? It turns out that, if they weren’t bad enough, you can also make them extremely accurate for a mere <a href="http://www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/feat.aspx?id=2490">feat</a> (or two, if your class is not martial).</div> </li> <li> <div align="justify"><strong>Essential taxes</strong> - One of the most common complaints about 4E is the existence of “feat taxes”, bland feats providing simple yet extremely powerful stat bonuses, which make a huge difference between characters who take them and those who don’t. Expertise feats are classic examples of such taxes... and several of the feats in the above list provide an accuracy boost equivalent to (and stackable with) expertise, for basic-attack using classes.</div> </li> <li> <div align="justify"><strong>Obsoleting weapon types</strong> - Another downside of having an overwhelmingly good cycle of feats for certain classes is the fact that they are weapon-specific... and fail to cover all weapon types. This is particularly troubling because the excluded types cover some of the most iconic adventurer weapons, like swords and axes - so if you just want to play a level 11+ knight with a bastard sword, or slayer with an executioner’s axe, you are taking a huge penalty for the privilege.</div> </li> </ul> <p align="justify">I could name a few more problems, but the ones above are the ones I find the most pressing. With that in mind, how should we proceed to improve the state of basic attacks? I have opted for two main approaches:</p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify"><strong>Keep the cool stuff, but not for standard actions.</strong> I don’t want these effects for the character’s main attack, but they are fine as a boost to opportunity attacks and the occasional interrupt. Note that I explicitly leave free attacks out of the deal because the basic-attack granting leader powers are a bit over the top and don’t really need the boost.</div> </li> <li> <div align="justify"><strong>Pay damage/accuracy for the cool stuff.</strong> AKA the Power Attack mechanic (sometimes in reverse) - you have the option to take a penalty to gain a bonus. If I have got them right, you won’t want to activate these abilities all the time, but they will be quite handy once in a while. The accuracy increases in particular will no longer be a straight increase in average damage (often the opposite will be true), but something you bring out against highly armored enemies, or ones that are close to death.</div> </li> </ul> <p align="justify">When all else fails, I’ll settle with a good old nerf. As usual, my target for power level is to keep everything playable, though not necessarily optimal.</p> <p align="justify"><strong><u>Can no longer be used as a standard</u></strong></p> <p align="justify"><a href="http://www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/feat.aspx?id=2490"><strong>Deft Blade</strong></a><strong> – Paragon Feat, Martial  (MP2)</strong> <br /><strong>Fix</strong>: Replace “to make a basic attack” with “to make a basic attack as part of an immediate or opportunity action”.</p> <p align="justify"><a href="http://www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/feat.aspx?id=2503"><strong>Hammer Shock</strong></a><strong>  – Paragon Feat, Martial (MP2) <br /></strong><a href="http://www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/feat.aspx?id=2509"><strong>Piercing Pick</strong></a><strong> – Paragon Feat, Martial (MP2)</strong> <br /><strong>Fix</strong>: Replace “to make a melee basic attack” with “to make a melee basic attack as part of an immediate or opportunity action”.</p> <p align="justify"><a href="http://www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/feat.aspx?id=1975"><strong>Pinning Challenge</strong></a><strong> – Paragon Feat, Fighter (Dra379) </strong> <br /><strong>Fix</strong>: Replace with “Whenever you make a basic attack with a two-handed weapon as part of an immediate or opportunity action, if the target is marked by you, on a hit it is also immobilized until the start of your next turn”.</p> <p align="justify"><strong><u>Require sacrifices to activate</u></strong></p> <p align="justify"><a href="http://www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/feat.aspx?id=2504"><strong>Impaling Spear</strong></a><strong> – Paragon Feat, Martial (MP2)</strong> <br /><strong>Fix</strong>: Replace with “Before you make a melee basic attack with a spear, you can choose to take a -3 penalty to the damage roll for each [W] of the attack. If you do, the attack can target AC or Reflex”</p> <p align="justify"><a href="http://www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/feat.aspx?id=2647"><strong>Grazing Shot</strong></a><strong> - Paragon Feat (PHB3) </strong> <br /><strong>Fix</strong>: Replace with “Before you make a ranged basic attack, you can choose to take a -2 penalty to the damage roll. If you do, and the attack deals no damage on a miss, the target takes damage equal to your Dexterity modifier. The penalty increases to -4 at 21st level.”</p> <p align="justify"><a href="http://www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/feat.aspx?id=2675"><strong>Deft Aim</strong></a><strong> – Epic Feat (PHB3) </strong> <br /><strong>Fix</strong>: Replace with “Before you make a ranged basic attack with a bow or crossbow, you can choose to take a -3 penalty to the damage roll for each [W] of the attack. If you do, the attack can target AC or Reflex”</p> <p align="justify"><a href="http://www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/feat.aspx?id=2507"><strong>Lashing Flail</strong></a><strong> – Paragon Feat, Martial (MP2)</strong> <br /><strong>Fix</strong>: Replace with when you make a melee basic attack with a flail, you can take a -2 penalty to the attack roll. If the attack hits, you can slide the target 1 square.</p> <p align="justify"><strong><u>Other fixes</u></strong></p> <p align="justify"><a href="http://www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/feat.aspx?id=2655"><strong>Primal Eye</strong></a><strong> - Paragon Seeker Feat (PHB3) </strong> <br /><strong>Fix</strong>: Add to the prerequisite line “Seeker’s Bond class feature”. <br />Comment: This should really have been a seeker class feature. The damage boost it provides to Essentials ranged classes is far from reasonable.</p> <p align="justify"><a href="http://www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/item.aspx?id=1129"><strong>Eagle Eye Goggles</strong></a><strong> – Level 2 Uncommon Head Item (AV) </strong> <br /><strong>Fix</strong>: Change property to “Gain a +1 item bonus to your the attack roll for your first ranged basic attack in an encounter”.</p> <p align="justify">. <br /></p> </span> Pericohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12414348870266960204noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3342640173817458901.post-42382014586849438362012-03-10T17:27:00.001+01:002012-03-17T09:03:08.165+01:00Anatomy of the At-Will (IV): Charging<p align="justify"></p> <p align="justify">The charge action in D&D 4E is a good idea that suffers from terrible implementation. In principle, there is nothing wrong with the idea of giving melee characters a method to close the distance, sacrificing the fancy options of their at-will and encounter powers for some added mobility attached to a basic but serviceable attack. When you look at it that way, adding a small accuracy bonus seems like a nice way to sweeten the deal. And, since we are talking about an unexciting and situational maneuver, there is no danger in providing a magic item or two to boost it when it does come up. Damage bonuses are usually typed so that they do not easily stack, but a small exception here or there is innocent enough, right? As we are on it, why not throw in a feat that adds a ton of damage on a charge, but only under rare conditions like having combat advantage, and while using crappy weapons like light blades and spears, to make it balanced? Yes, that should work just fine...</p> <p align="justify">Due to a series of poor design decisions, charging has become an overpowered mess. The crux of the matter is this: what was originally conceived as a weaker attack that can be useful in specific circumstances can be easily engineered into an at-will wrecking ball that can be spammed for way more damage than your average encounter power. There are many items and feats that can be taken to improve a charge - and a lot of them are way above the power curve of conventional damage boosting options (like Weapon Focus), and easily stack with each other, to boot. This is only compounded by the interaction of charges with game elements that boost basic attacks (which are left for a future article) and the proliferation of Essentials subclasses based on melee basic attacks.</p> <span id="fullpost"> <p align="justify">The rest of the article goes over the most offending charge options for charge enhancement, explaining what is wrong with them and attempting to rewrite them so that they are less disruptive but still playable. Of course, a DM could just look at the list and decide to ban those elements (which would be much more simple), but I’m always interested in the exercise of balancing problematic stuff. </p> <p align="justify">For reference, these are the charge-related options that I found broken:</p> <iframe height="240" src="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0Am7iIt01J6S4dG5oRTdUWXp5dE9YTWxQVTRabWtjRVE&single=true&gid=1&range=A1%3AC11&output=html" frameborder="0" width="220"></iframe> <p align="justify">The challenge here is to bring down the power of a lot of elements that are individually strong to begin with, but also have amazing synergy when taken together - without making them worthless. This means that I need to prevent most of them from stacking together, so I have to change all that rolled extra damage into flat, typed bonuses. On the other hand, that risks making many of those effects too similar - I need to ensure that each item and feat can be differentiated from the rest.</p> <p align="justify"><strong><u>Damage bonuses</u></strong></p> <p align="justify">Typically, a character can have up to 3 amazing options to improve charge damage: a head item (the almighty Horned Helm), a magic weapon (either Vanguard, Avalanche, or Thundergod), and, with the right class or multiclass, a feat (Surprising Charge). All of these provide a bunch of conveniently stackable extra dice, which you can apply to all your attacks. One possible approach to balance these is to convert the damage dice into a +1 untyped bonus (+2 at paragon, and +3 at epic), in line with the bonuses provided by feats like Spear Expertise (and Weapon Focus, of course). The downside of this approach is that it leaves little space for variation, and would leave us with a lot of very redundant options that are only interesting for characters that are always charging and want to take as many such boosts as possible.</p> <p align="justify">For these reasons, I decided to try out something a little more radical: converting most of the continuous damage bonuses into one-shot boosts, and limiting the way they stack. With this change, the overall power level is decreased, and non-optimized characters that only charge on occasion are now able to make full use of one of these items. Getting and using multiples of these is still possible - though not trivial- so charge specialist can still get an edge this way.</p> <p align="justify">These items and feats would change as follows:</p> <p align="justify"><a href="http://www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/feat.aspx?id=416"><strong>Surprising Charge</strong></a><strong> - Heroic feat</strong> <br /><em>Change Benefit to:</em> Once per encounter, when you hit with a charge attack with combat advantage using a light blade or a spear, you can gain a +4 power bonus to the damage roll. This bonus increases to +8 at 11th level, and to +12 at 21st level.</p> <p><a href="http://www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/item.aspx?id=1549"><strong>Horned Helm</strong></a><strong> - Level 6/16/26 Uncommon item (Head)</strong> <br />Remove Property. <br />Add Power (Encounter). Free Action. Trigger: You hit with a charge attack. Effect: gain a +4 power bonus to the damage roll. Level 16: +8 power bonus. Level 26: +12 power bonus.</p> <p align="justify"><strong><a href="http://www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/display.aspx?page=item&id=2938">Vanguard Weapon</a> - Level 3/8/13/18/23/28 Uncommon item (Weapon)</strong> <br />Change property to: You gain a +4 power bonus to damage rolls of charge attacks made with this weapon during the first round of an encounter. Level 13: +8 power bonus. Level 23: +12 power bonus.</p> <p align="justify"><a href="http://www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/display.aspx?page=item&id=544"><strong>Avalanche Hammer</strong></a><strong> - Level 4/9/14/19/24/29 Uncommon item (Weapon)</strong> <br />hange property to: You gain a +1 power bonus to damage rolls of charge attacks made with this weapon. Level 14: +2 power bonus. Level 24: +3 power bonus.</p> <p align="justify"><a href="http://www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/display.aspx?page=item&id=2853"><strong>Thundergod Weapon</strong></a><strong> - Level 13/18/23/28 Uncommon item (Weapon)</strong> <br />Change property to: Damage dealt by this weapon on charge attacks is thunder damage. The first time you hit with a charge attack with this weapon each encounter, you gain a +8 power bonus to the damage roll. Level 23: +12 power bonus.</p> <p align="justify">Note that most of them are still strong options. Notably, casual chargers should find them more potent than before, provided they only charge about once per encounter and were not trying to stack these.</p> <p align="justify"><strong><u>Accuracy bonuses</u></strong></p> <p align="justify">In 4E, any reliable bonus to hit (outside of Expertise) is a highly valuable and rare boon. Charge spamming characters had access to multiple of these, which could be combined with ease. My goal is to make them work less often (though still often enough to be legitimate options), and cut stacking altogether.</p> <p align="justify"><a href="http://www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/feat.aspx?id=1860"><strong>Reckless Charge</strong></a><strong> - Heroic Feat</strong> <br />In Benefit line, replace “a +1 bonus to the attack rolls” with “a +1 power bonus to the attack rolls”.</p> <p align="justify"><a href="http://www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/item.aspx?id=835"><strong>Charger’s Headdress</strong></a><strong> -  Level 12 Uncommon item (Head)</strong> <br />Change Property to : “When you make a charge attack, if you moved 5 or more squares as part of the charge, you gain a +1 power bonus to the attack roll.”</p> <p align="justify"><strong><a href="http://www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/display.aspx?page=item&id=387">Aspect of the Ram</a> - Item set, benefit for 2 pieces</strong> <br />Change Benefit to: “When you make a charge attack, if you moved 4 or less squares as part of the charge, you gain a +1 power bonus to the attack roll.”</p> <p align="justify">Notice how the combination of Charger’s Headdress and Aspect of the Ram provides the same effect as any single one of them, in their original verson.</p> <p align="justify"><strong><u>Defensive bonuses</u></strong></p> <p align="justify">Though charging is mostly an offensive option, there are also some nice defense and mobility benefits attached to it. The cheap  Badge of the Berserker let chargers completely ignore opportunity attacks, and a Marauder’s Armor provides some very serious defensive boost. I wanted to lower these to more reasonable levels, too.</p> <p align="justify"><strong><a href="http://www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/item.aspx?id=558">Badge of the berserker</a> - Level 2/7/12/17/22/17 Uncommon item (Neck)</strong> <br />Change Property to: “When you charge, you gain a +4 bonus to all defenses and resist 5 against opportunity attacks provoked by the charge’s movement. Level 12: Resist 10. Level 22: Resist 15” </p> <p align="justify"><a href="http://www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/item.aspx?id=1776"><strong>Marauder’s Armor</strong></a><strong> - Level 7/12/17/22/27 Uncommon item (Armor)</strong> <br />Change Property line to: “When you charge, you gain a +1 item bonus to AC until the end of your next turn.” <br />Remove Level 12/17/22/27 updates in property line.</p> </span> Pericohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12414348870266960204noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3342640173817458901.post-82304956454867748682012-01-30T19:12:00.001+01:002012-01-30T19:12:03.685+01:00My impressions on D&D Next<p> <br />Well, it’s been an intense weekend! <a href="http://squarefireballs.blogspot.com/2012/01/d-experience-charting-course-for-d-next.html">These days</a> I’ve been too busy <a href="http://squarefireballs.blogspot.com/2012/01/d-experience-class-design-from.html">absorbing</a> all that <a href="http://squarefireballs.blogspot.com/2012/01/d-experience-reimagining-skills-and.html">information</a> about D&D Next and posting about it, with little time to stop and think how these changes will affect the game. Until now. In today’s post, I’m sharing my initial impressions on the new game – from my personal perspective as a 4E fan considering whether or not to switch editions when Next comes out.</p> <span id="fullpost"> <p><strong><u>4E features I need</u></strong></p> <p>To begin with, I originally had a list of must-have features that were key to my enjoyment of 4E, and I expected the new edition to keep. Given how much the designers like to emphasize the old school flavor and mechanics in D&D Next, I was pleasantly surprised to find that a lot of modern concepts introduced in this last edition are making the cut – including most of my favorite ones!</p> <p>Here is the feature list, with comments on how they are getting implemented:</p> <li><strong>Tactical gameplay</strong> – A battle map and lots of mechanics that care about movement and positioning. It seemed difficult to actually have this in a game that was also aimed at folks who hate minis and squares, but they are including it as an option – the so-called “tactical rules module”. So far, it looks good to me. </li> <li><strong>At-Will attacks – </strong>Variety of at-will attacks will be available to both casters and non-casters. It’s unclear whether you will have them by default, or you’ll need to spend feats for them, but that’s fair game. Also, martial at-wills seem to be stronger than those of casters, which seems like a good mechanical niche for these classes. </li> <li><strong>Complex non-magical characters</strong> – The ‘dumb fighter’ archetype will exist in the game, but will not be the only way to play that class. The devs have promised more complex martial maneuvers will be available for those interested. </li> <li><strong>Non-magical healing – </strong>Little is known about this issue at this point, but it looks like at least some warlord builds will be able to heal without resorting to wands, gods, or other sorts of magic. I’d also like to see a second wind rule and something like healing surges in 4E, but that is more dubious. </li> <li><strong>Easy DM preparation</strong> – From what we have been told, the new game will be as easy to prepare for the DM as 4E, if not more! Monsters don’t follow the same detailed rules as PCs, and can be created in 5 minutes. </li> <li><strong>All classes are viable</strong> – This is the weakest point of the new edition, in my opinion. Obviously it’s too early to tell, and I haven’t even read a single character sheet, but some of the stated design principles will make it very difficult to have all character classes remain at as close a power level as I’d like. With the use of Vancian magic and, more generally, the eschewing of a common class framework, class balance should be hard to implement but still not impossible. What worries me more is the notion that non-combat class abilities can compensate for combat deficiencies (and vice versa) – I’d be willing to accept small deviations (say, classes that are 20% more or less efficient at combat/non-combat encounters), but I’m afraid that we will end up seeing something far more exaggerated. <p><strong><u>New features I like</u></strong></p> <p>Though keeping the cool parts of the previous edition is a great thing, I wouldn’t bother trying out a new game unless it brought something new to the table. So far, it looks like there are a few nice ideas there, but nothing that moves me to immediately pre-order the books:</p> </li> <li><strong>Lower bonus scaling</strong> – Attacks and defenses will grow at a slower pace in the new edition. I think this will improve the game, as it will let me play with wider ranges of levels for players and monsters - previously it was pretty hard to have parties of different-level adventurers, or encounters where the monsters had more than 3 levels of difference with the party. </li> <li><strong>Monster longevity</strong> – Thanks to the previous point, monsters will have a much longer useful life than the ~5 levels they had in 4E. If we are to believe the initial hype, a humble orc will still be a relevant threat to high level adventurers (though you will need lots of them to fill an encounter!). Conversely, we can assume that a single high level monster can be dropped on a low level party without the game breaking. I think this should make encounter design even easier and more fun. We can also expect minions, elite monsters and solos to be partially or completely replaced by monsters of very high or very low levels, in this model. </li> <li><strong>Skill system</strong> – I am moderately optimistic about the skill system, from what we have seen so far. Relying more heavily on ability scores and having many simple checks succeed automatically sound like great ideas, to me. The open-ended skill list might end up too fiddly and full of highly specific bonuses, but the fact that you can ignore that module reduces the risk. </li> <li><strong>Flexible multiclass</strong> – Not that we know much about the actual multiclass rules, but the stated goals of making them easy and flexible are something I fully agree with. </li> <li><strong>Emphasis on exploration</strong> – You won’t often hear me criticizing 4E, but if there is one thing that game was terrible at, it was exploration. Since this happened outside of combat encounters, the risk was usually reduced to losing a healing surge or two, and there was little excitement or fun. I have been toying around with some house rules to address this, but I’m glad that having proper exploration mechanics is going to be a priority for D&D Next </li> <li><strong>Faster mechanics</strong> – This is not a stated goal, but a consequence of streamlining the game for fans of earlier editions. Many of the changes point towards a faster-paced game, which is something I approve of. The option to resolve less important fights quickly without resorting to a map is also an interesting one, as much as I enjoy the full-fledged tactical combat. </li> <li><strong>Priest class</strong> – This may be a minor detail, but there were comments about splitting the cleric into two divine spellcasting classes: the classic D&D armored cleric, and the priest, a divine caster and healer wearing robes and with less emphasis on weapon use. Oddly enough, the priest archetype, though barely supported on previous D&D editions, is the more iconic fantasy character, even on D&D fiction like the Dragonlance series – and one I personally prefer. <p><strong><u>Stuff I’m wary of</u></strong></p> <p>Though my opinion of D&D Next is mostly favorable at this point, there are a few things that might spoil the game for me, depending on how they are implemented. They are the following:</p> </li> <li><strong>Ability-boosting items</strong> <strong>:  </strong>I don’t like them, and I don’t think they contribute anything good for the game. I hope they kill them, or severely limit their effectiveness. </li> <li><strong>3 Pillar balance</strong> : The three pillars of the game will be combat, roleplaying and exploration. A class may be more focused on one of these over the others. I think this is an error, and prefer to clearly separate combat and non-combat features. </li> <li><strong>Vancian magic balance</strong> : Having Vancian magic that is well balanced with other resource management systems is not impossible, but will require a lot of effort. </li> <li><strong>Rollling abilities by default</strong> : I shouldn’t be bothered by this, since the option to use point buy still exists. Nevertheless, I’m afraid that this as a default may make for a poor game experience for starting players. </li> <li><strong>Saving throws instead of attacking vs defenses</strong> : I loved attacking vs Fortitude, Reflex and Will in 4E, and don’t particularly enjoy the move back to saving throws. I’ll probably houserule this in my games to have attacker roll against static values. </li> <li><strong>Roleplaying to use different saving throws: </strong>This sounds like a good idea in theory, but can get old very soon. Unless there are heavy limitations on this, you’ll end up with bard players trying to justify using their Charisma based for every attack. </li> <li><strong>Return to the old cosmology</strong> : Again, I shouldn’t mind something that is easy to ignore in my games, but I really liked some aspects of 4E cosmology (like the feywild and other new planes), and I’d wish they were still supported. </li> <li><strong>Are combat roles dead?</strong> : This is speculation, but we have heard nothing about combat roles in the new edition. Knowing it is a very delicate issue with old school fans, chances are we won’t be seeing them, at least in an explicit way. <p><strong><u>Verdict</u></strong></p> <p>I’m not sold yet, but I’m moderately interested. Let’s see how the playtest turns out.</p> So, what do you think? Did you like the previews, or have you decided the new game is not for you? </li> </span> Pericohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12414348870266960204noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3342640173817458901.post-30903578562264214562012-01-30T00:48:00.001+01:002012-01-30T00:48:07.062+01:00D&D Experience: Reimagining Skills and Ability Scores<p align="justify"> <br />The <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/317494-seminar-transcript-reimagining-skills-ability-scores.html">final D&D Experience seminar</a> previewing game mechanics for D&D Next is called “Reimagining Skills and Ability Scores”. Along with the major changes to ability scores and the brand-new, open-ended skill system, there is talk about other topics, including equipment, themes, and the use of battle maps.</p><span id="fullpost"> <p align="justify"><u>Ability Scores</u></p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify">When characters reach certain ability scores, they can <strong>automatically succeed at some checks</strong> without need to roll. This can vary depending on being in or out of combat or stressful situation. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify"><strong>Races</strong> change ability scores (both with <strong>bonuses and penalties</strong>!). Likely a +1 bonus to a single stat.</div> </li> <li> <div align="justify"><strong>Classes give ability bonuses</strong>. Also looks like they will use a +1 to a single stat. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">By default, <strong>abilities are generated by rolling</strong>! Roll 4d6, choose 3 highest.</div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Point buy generation will also be included as an option. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">They want to have <strong>ability-boosting magic items</strong> (like Gauntlets of Ogre Power). There is talk of capping how much they can increase ability scores, though. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Ability scores will <strong>not increase as much</strong> [as in 4E] as you level up. </div> </li> </ul> <p align="justify"><u>Saving throws</u> </p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify"><strong>Saving throws</strong> are now <strong>directly associated with ability scores</strong> - the game now has six types of saving throws, rather than three defenses (Fortitude, Reflex, Will). </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">These six saving throws plus AC should make up all of a character’s defensive stats.</div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">As an example, Charisma saves vs fear and charm. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">If you <strong>justify</strong> it and provide a good description, you can use a <strong>different ability for a save</strong>. </div> </li> </ul> <p align="justify"><u>Skills</u> </p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify">The main means of interaction is the ability roll. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify"><strong>Skills</strong> are basically <strong>modifiers to ability rolls</strong>. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">You may still be <strong>trained</strong> in a skill, and gain specific bonuses (e.g. moving faster while using stealth). </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify"> Since skills are now secondary, they can afford to include <strong>niche skills</strong>. Skills as <strong>flavorful</strong> options, rather than something with a lot of mechanical importance. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Skills are a module that can be ignored (in favor of just using ability scores). </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">There is mention of <strong>“open-ended” skills</strong>. This likely means that the game doesn’t actually have a closed skill list. Classes, themes and other options can add as many new skills as the designers feel like. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">There is a bonus called “<strong>advantage</strong>” that a DM can provide for players giving good descriptions. This should be the non-combat equivalent for “combat advantage”, in 4E. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify"><strong>Skill challenges</strong> were considered a failure. They are <strong>not coming back</strong>. </div> </li> </ul> <p align="justify"><u>Equipment </u></p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify">The <strong>standard coin</strong> will be <strong>silver</strong>, rather than gold. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Some <strong>mundane gear</strong> will be <strong>out of reach</strong> for lower level characters. No plate mail at first level. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify"><strong>Implements</strong> are still in the game, including non-magical ones.</div> </li> <li> <div align="justify"><strong>Weapons</strong> can have different <strong>damage</strong> and <strong>accuracy</strong>. Weapon <strong>damage types</strong> (slashing, piercing, bludgeoning) are being considered. </div> </li> </ul> <p align="justify"><u>Themes </u></p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify">In addition to race and class, characters can pick a <strong>theme</strong>, representing their <strong>background</strong> before they go adventuring. The same basic concept as 4E themes.</div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Theme examples they mentioned include potion-maker, blacksmith, commoner, noble, knight, apprentice, planetouched. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Themes can also be used to <strong>replace niche classes</strong> from previous editions. For example, <strong>Avenger</strong> will be a theme. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">They are also considering themes for certain <strong>races</strong>, like <strong>deva</strong>. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">No theme is restricted to specific classes. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Themes are an <strong>optional mo</strong>dule. </div> </li> </ul> <p align="justify"><u>Battle map</u></p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify">The use of a <strong>battle map</strong> is included as an optional module in the initial book: the “<strong>tactical rules module</strong>”. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Character options specifically useful with a battle map (such as abilities that push enemies) will be flagged for convenience. They will still be usable even without that module. </div> </li> </ul> <p align="justify"><u>Other</u></p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify"><strong>Adventure preparation time</strong> will be <strong>quick</strong>, 4E style. <strong>Monsters use different rules</strong> as PCs, can be built in 5 minutes. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify"> They seem to be looking for a <strong>middle point for lethality</strong> - not as much as earlier editions, but more than 4E. <br /></div> </li> </ul></span> Pericohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12414348870266960204noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3342640173817458901.post-43840119264378116642012-01-29T10:13:00.001+01:002012-01-29T10:13:22.648+01:00D&D Experience: Class design, from Assassins to Wizards<p>Yesterday we had the <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/317373-seminar-transcript-class-design-assassins-wizards.html">second D&D Experience seminar</a> about the future of the game. With the title “Class design: From Assassins to Wizards”, this one covered a very important aspect of D&D we had yet heard very little about. What exactly were the designers planning to borrow from each edition of the game? As it turns out, it appears that they really want to follow the aesthetics and presentation of 3.5 and older games, while borrowing some great ideas introduced by 4E, including at-will powers, a well defined mathematical framework, and an interest in balance.</p> <span id="fullpost"> <p>On complexity:</p> <ul> <li>Different <strong>levels of complexity for classes</strong>: There will be some clear choices for beginners, and more sophisticated stuff. </li> <li>There was talk of <strong>labeling each class as common, uncommon or rare</strong>. This will be a function of how iconic a D&D class is (Fighters and Wizards are commons, Assassins are rare), and may also be tied to complexity (with higher rarities getting more difficult stuff). </li> <li>Different<strong> levels of complexity within each class</strong>. Once again, the example of the fighter was given: A very easy to run fighter build will exist, but adding options and complexity to it will still be possible. The wizard is also explicitly mentioned as a not so complex starting build. </li> <li><strong>Buying complexity</strong>. By default, classes can get simple yet effective stuff when leveling up, like more damage or bonuses to hit. Players would have the option of trading these bonuses for new powers or features. </li> </ul> <p>On balance:</p> <ul> <li><strong>Balance is  on their radar</strong>, and they seem to have put a lot of thought into it. They have a framework with estimates of average length of adventuring days and encounters, and at several times they mention figures for damage expectations of different classes. </li> <li>That said, their approach to balance will be quite different from 4E. Whereas that edition had a <strong>common resource management</strong> system for all classes, this will<strong> no longer be the case</strong> for D&D Next. Expect wide differences in how each class handles its powers. Old school vancian magic for wizards and clerics has been mentioned as a prime example. </li> <li>Another big change: It is <strong>no longer expecte</strong>d that all classes have to be<strong> equally effective in combat</strong>. Some classes may be weaker in combat but stronger in exploration or role play. More than anything else mentioned in these seminars, this seems to me to be the most dramatic change from the previous edition - though it remains to be seen how they will finally implement it. </li> </ul> <p>What to include:</p> <ul> <li>Initial goal is to have “<strong>Everything that has been in a Player’s Handbook I</strong>” from the start. <br />Regarding classes, this means: fighter, rogue, cleric, and wizard (of course), but also assassin, ranger, druid, paladin and bard, as well as barbarian, monk and sorcerer (from 3E) and the more recent warlords and warlocks. That’s a lot of stuff! <br />Psions are explicitly mentioned as being left for later. </li> </ul> <p>On Magic</p> <ul> <li><strong>Vancian magic</strong> (the daily spell system used in all editions before 4E) is returning, and confirmed as the resource system for wizards and clerics. </li> <li>No details have been provided, but I strongly believe that the system will mimic the classics in that there will be 9 levels of arcane spells and 7 levels of divine spells, and spell progression should look very much like <a href="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/sorcererWizard.htm#wizard">this</a>. </li> <li>The main challenge for Vancian magic is preventing the “<a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LinearWarriorsQuadraticWizards">linear fighters, quadratic wizards</a>” syndrome. The designers are aware of this, and are trying to deal with it. </li> <li>One of the solutions implemented consists in <strong>removing spell scaling</strong>. As an example, Fireball (a 3rd level spell) will deal 5d6 damage regardless of caster level (when previous versions dealt 1d6/caster level, up to 10d6). The only way to gain stronger effects will be to use higher level spells. </li> <li>For high level casters, instead of having dozens of lower level spells as in older systems, these slots will be replaced with higher level stuff. It is not clear if this will be the default behavior, or just an option, though. </li> <li>Also, they are looking at average duration of encounters and adventuring day, and balancing around that. </li> <li>Another crucial point: despite the Vancian system, <strong>casters will have access to at-will spells</strong> (so no more crossbow-wielding wizards!). However, these at-will attacks will be significantly weaker than their martial counterparts. Spells available per encounter also appear to be in the plans. </li> <li>Ritual magic (useful but non-combat spells, like crafting, scrying or teleporting) is back. It looks like it will be open-ended and not as strongly tied to the wizard class as before. </li> </ul> <p>On Aesthetics</p> <ul> <li>The designers are carefully avoiding many 4E specific terms and definitions, in favor of older style wording. </li> <li>Notably, there is no mention of “powers” for classes. </li> <li>For the wizard class, at-will attacks are being called “magical feats”. </li> <li>Power sources will no longer be explicitly mentioned. </li> <li>Explicit class roles are very likely also gone (though this is speculation!) </li> </ul> <p>Other</p> <ul> <li>Clerics are (finally!) getting split into two archetypes: the classic D&D holy warrior with heavy armor, mace and shield, which will be called cleric, and an unarmored divine character more focused on spellcasting, called the priest. </li> <li>Magic items will be more rare, and no longer expected to be a part of character progression. </li> <li>For multiclassing, they want it to be very easy and flexible, 3E style. </li> </ul> </span> Pericohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12414348870266960204noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3342640173817458901.post-87063297337664703772012-01-26T22:36:00.001+01:002012-01-26T22:36:43.586+01:00D&D Experience: Charting the course (for D&D Next)<p> <br />This weekend we have the Dungeons & Dragons Experience, where WoTC is expected to reveal some interesting information about the next edition of the game (also known as D&D Next, for now). As usual, I haven’t been able to attend, but that doesn’t mean I can’t provide some coverage! The transcript for the <a href="http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4news/dndxpseminar#78196">first seminar</a>, titled “Charting the Course” is available at wizards.com, and I have taken some notes of the highlights.</p> <span id="fullpost"> <p>On leveling up:</p> <ul> <li>For all editions, the game suffers important changes at a certain level </li> <li>They consider 4E highlights this high level change the best [through explicit paragon and Epic tiers and mechanics] </li> <li>They are looking at options that characters unlock at certain level. They mention castles and followers as examples. </li> </ul> On power increase as you level up: <ul> <li>They are discussing how power and number of options should be affected by level. </li> <li>They want monsters to be relevant for a wider level range. The way to do this is to slow the rate at which attacks and defenses advance! </li> <li>Ideally, you should be able to drop a random orc at a high level party and have it be relevant. Building encounters by taking any iconic monsters from the manual should be easy. </li> <li>Your characters are still becoming badass heroes. At high levels, you’d be killing lots of those orcs in an encounter... </li> </ul> <br />On the modular system: <ul> <li>They acknowledge the variety of tastes, including contradictory positions. They intend to take all of these into account - but no specifics as to how, yet. </li> <li>A player suggests going for a freeform classless system. That doesn’t seem to be in the plans - They are commited to the class system, and consider the feeling of D&D classes very important. Wizards and Rangers are mentioned as examples. </li> </ul> <p>On multiclassing: </p> <ul> <li>They want it to be simple </li> <li>Iconic class features are important </li> <li>Packages to grant certain features or qualities </li> </ul> <br />On randomness: <ul> <li>Some DMs like random generation of stuff. There will random tables for those who want them. </li> </ul> <p>On switching modules: </p> <ul> <li>The goal is that switching can be done very easily, from one encounter to the next. Turning on and off stuff like minis/grid is mentioned. </li> <li>Players can add (and presumably remove) modules to adjust complexity of their characters as they level up. </li> <li>An example is provided for two fighters at the same table with very different complexity levels: a classic “hit with my sword” basic fighter, and an advanced one focusing on “combat maneuver options”. </li> </ul> </span> Pericohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12414348870266960204noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3342640173817458901.post-67558961081242032962012-01-11T17:01:00.001+01:002012-01-21T13:57:18.335+01:00Game Math: Attack of the average adventurers<p align="justify">How hard does an adventurer hit? The <a href="http://squarefireballs.blogspot.com/2010/07/new-monster-damage-formulas.html">underlying math</a> behind <a href="http://squarefireballs.blogspot.com/2010/10/better-formula-for-minion-damage.html">monster stats</a> in D&D 4E is well known by this point, but working out the numbers for player characters is a much trickier proposition, due to the insane amount of customizability that the game offers. Indeed, if one looks to the <a href="http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/22105109/DPR_King_Candidates_2.0">most extreme build options</a> and loopholes available out there, we come up with characters that can one-shot standard monsters of their level, and it’s even possible to engineer <a href="http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/27441201/The_very_hard_to_kill_gouge_wielding_charge_wizard_(100_DPR)">wizards</a> capable of dealing hundreds of damage in a single turn... while charging with a melee weapon.</p> <p align="justify">Since the optimized scenarios present so much variability, I want to focus on the most basic builds. What kind of numbers should you expect from characters of a certain level, provided they have the essential options and gear, but nothing else to boost their attacks? The answer is in the table below:</p> <iframe height="180" src="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?hl=en_US&hl=en_US&key=0Am7iIt01J6S4dFp2M3NnM1hIQlM2U1RBYnVoY1ltcUE&single=true&gid=4&range=A1%3AH9&output=html" frameborder="0" width="480"></iframe><span id="fullpost"> <p align="justify">Note that this builds on some previous articles, like my study on <a href="http://squarefireballs.blogspot.com/2010/07/how-much-damage-is-basic-attack-worth.html">basic attacks</a>, and on <a href="http://squarefireballs.blogspot.com/2010/04/character-math-measuring-survivability.html">character</a> <a href="http://squarefireballs.blogspot.com/2010/05/character-survivability-calculator.html">survivability</a>. Damage Per Round, or DPR, is defined <a href="http://squarefireballs.blogspot.com/2010/02/character-math-damage-per-round.html">here</a>.</p> <p align="justify">I will devote the rest of the article to analyze these numbers, and explain how I came up with them. For now, keep in mind that although it is possible to have characters with attack stats slightly below these, it won’t be a common scenario - in most games, you can <strong>expect PC attacks to deal at least as much damage as shown in the table</strong>, if not considerably more.</p> <p align="justify"><strong><u>Building our baseline adventurer</u></strong> </p> <p align="justify">My philosophy for building the reference character was to give it all the offensive resources that can be considered essential - and nothing more. Any character built without particular attention to damage dealing should have attack stats very similar to those of the reference character, whereas damage-focused PCs (even if not particularly optimized) should easily outperform it. For reference, I also added damage numbers for a baseline striker (adding just the striker extra damage class feature), though in practice you will very rarely see a striker character which doesn’t devote feats, powers and equipment to improve his attacks. </p> <p align="justify">Following these ideas, the character was build under these assumptions: </p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify">For simplicity, we only examine the character at certain critical <strong>levels</strong>: 1, 6, 11, 16, 21, 26, 30. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Starting <strong>18</strong> on primary <strong>ability score</strong>, with the usual boosts for levelling up. At epic, the PC gains a +2 to his ability score from an epic destiny . </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify"><strong>At-will</strong> attacks are implement vs For/Ref/Will or weapon (with +2 proficiency) vs AC (same hit rate), and on a hit deal 2d4 + primary ability modifier damage (4d4+mod at level 21). </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify"><strong>Encounter</strong> attacks are like at-will, but on a hit they deal 4d4+mod damage (levels 1,3,7), 6d4+mod (levels 11, 13,17) or 8d4+mod (levels 23,27). </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify"><strong>Magic weapons/implements</strong> by level: Level 6 (+2), Level 11 (+3), Level 16 (+4), Level 21 (+5), Level 26 (+6). Extra crit damage is 4 per plus (rounded for convenience). </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Only two <strong>feats</strong> are considered: Weapon/Implement expertise, and Weapon/Implement focus. Both are gain at level 6. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Magic items granting <strong>item bonus</strong> to damage (like Iron Armbands of Power or Rod of Ruin) are assumed. Item bonus to damage by level is: Level 6 (+2), Level 16 (+4), Level 26 (+6). </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">For the <strong>striker</strong> damage numbers, a class damage bonus of +4/tier is added. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Character <strong>themes</strong> are not considered. </div> </li> </ul> <p align="justify"> <br />Most of these points represent very common choices. The use of 2d4 for attack damage is unusual, but I chose it because the most common damage dice are d8s and d10s, so this is an intermediate point between those, with the advantage of averaging an integer value ( 5), allowing for much cleaner results. The starting 18 ability score is more or less standard (though 20s are also common). Likewise, the magic weapon/implement progression and use of expertise feats are pretty much universal. The most controversial points are probably the addition of weapon/implement focus and item bonuses to damage. Focus feats are often ignored at lower levels (though usually because players take superior weapons instead, wich are roughly equivalent), but tend to become too tempting to pass on by paragon tier. As for item bonuses to damage, virtually every character who can take them does so, though certain builds (i.e. implement PCs not using staves) have a hard time acquiring them. I have come to accept that game math works better with them, to the point of <a href="http://squarefireballs.blogspot.com/2011/07/magic-item-reset-xviii-adjusting-damage.html">giving them for free as a house rule</a>. </p> <p align="justify">Note that attack powers (both at-will and encounter) have been greatly simplified. Non-damaging effects of the attacks are ignored, and we assume that the attacks themselves don’t provide extra damage, above that of a basic attack (for at-wills) or a basic attack plus extra damage dice (for encounters). Power damage shows great variance, though a very common implementation for attacks with extra damage consists on adding a secondary ability modifier to the damage roll, which can be roughly approximated as an extra 3 damage per tier (or about 25% more damage than the attacks in the table). </p> <p align="justify"><strong><u>A look at the numbers</u></strong> </p> <p align="justify">A spreadsheet with the calculations used for the stat table can be found <a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Am7iIt01J6S4dFp2M3NnM1hIQlM2U1RBYnVoY1ltcUE#gid=4">here</a>.</p> <p align="justify">Some quick facts that can be derived from the table and spreadsheet: </p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify">Hit rate against same level monsters averages 65%. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Base damage of strikers is about 30% more than that of non-strikers. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Average base damage actually decreases a bit between level levels 26 and 30.</div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Interestingly, crit damage is almost exactly twice the normal damage for most levels. </div> </li> </ul> <p align="justify">One very interesting parameter that can be calculated from these attack stats is the average <a href="http://squarefireballs.blogspot.com/2010/04/character-math-measuring-survivability.html">time it takes for a PC to kill a monster</a>, which allows us to estimate how many turns combat encounters usually last: </p> <iframe height="100" src="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?hl=en_US&hl=en_US&key=0Am7iIt01J6S4dFp2M3NnM1hIQlM2U1RBYnVoY1ltcUE&single=true&gid=4&range=A11%3AH15&output=html" frameborder="0" width="480"></iframe> <p align="justify">And for striker PCs: </p> <iframe height="100" src="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?hl=en_US&hl=en_US&key=0Am7iIt01J6S4dFp2M3NnM1hIQlM2U1RBYnVoY1ltcUE&single=true&gid=4&range=A17%3AH21&output=html" frameborder="0" width="480"></iframe> <p align="justify">These tables show the number of turns that the reference character would need, on average, to kill a skirmisher monster. The PC first uses all his encounter powers, and then attacks with his at-wills. Daily attacks were not considered because they are hard to characterize and not always available. Action point usage is also ignored - for the purposes of this table, using an action point is equivalent to taking an extra turn. </p> <p align="justify">In the tables and spreadsheet, we see that: </p> <ul> <li> <div align="justify">Non-strikers take 4-6 turns to kill a monster at heroic, 7-8 at paragon, and 8-10 at epic. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Strikers take 25% less turns. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">Very challenging encounters can take almost twice as long. </div> </li> <li> <div align="justify">The contribution of encounter attacks amounts to about 1 turn of saved time. </div> </li> </ul> <p align="justify">An important point about these numbers is that they suggest that combat at paragon and epic tiers takes too long. In my opinion, easy encounters (between level and level +1) should last about 4 turns at heroic and 5-6 turns at paragon and epic, to allow characters to use all their attacks without requiring them to spend a long time spamming at-wills. However, it should be noted that the deviation between the stats of our base character and actual damage-focused PCs increases with level - in my experience, it is perfectly possible to build a party of characters that end fights in reasonable times with little or no optimization effort.</p> </span> Pericohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12414348870266960204noreply@blogger.com5