Tuesday, July 24, 2012

La Puerta de Ishtar: A friend’s crowd-funded RPG

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.

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 – La Puerta de Ishtar. 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 crowd-funding campaign which handily met its initial goal and is now in the process of beating stretch goal after stretch goal.

So what is La Puerta de Ishtar 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.

La Puerta de Ishtar - Wallpaper - 1680x1050

The Cover

Maqueta-3

A random page

If this intrigues you, please consider taking a look at the crowd-funding project, or the game website. The game is written and published in Spanish, but if you have any interest in an English version, please let Rodrigo know!

Read More......

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

D&D Next Playtest: My first game

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:

  • We all had a lot of fun.
  • 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.
  • That said, this has given me many ideas to improve 4E...


It’s the combat, stupid

If I have to point to one reason that prevents D&D Next from becoming my game of choice, it is the fact that I don’t find its combat system as appealing as that of 4E. 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 speed, its simple elegance and, yes, its balance. 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.

I cannot emphasize this enough: I now believe Vancian magic can work. 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.

But, ultimately, the combat paradigm of D&D Next is radically different to that of 4E, and loses what I enjoyed the most about its predecessor. Rather than positioning and teamwork, combats in the new edition emphasize resource management, pre-combat preparation and improvisation - 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.

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 without a map, with very little bookkeeping, and in highly challenging circumstances (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.

In about thirty rounds of combat, the fighter player only used a single maneuver: 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 simple, fast, and fun. And yet, I couldn’t help missing the myriad of options, tricks, combinations and other subtleties of 4E.

That said, it was not bad, 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 prefer combat in D&D Next to that of any pre-4E edition. 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).

I remain curious, and mildly hopeful, about the announced tactical combat module, 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.

Wait, is there still game after combat?

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 one aspect of the game where D&D Next is genuinely better than my beloved Fourth Edition. And it’s what happens after the goblins are dead and the dust is settled.

D&D Next designers have said that, for this edition, they are looking at the game as having three basic pillars: Combat, Roleplaying, and Exploration. As a die-hard 4E fan, I’ll let you in on a little secret: that edition sucked at exploration.

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 Short Rest. 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 too effective. 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 back to your previous status (give or take a couple of healing surges or daily powers). And this pretty much makes any kind of compelling exploration impossible.

A basic premise of 4E is that, if you are not in immediate danger, you can take a break 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.

By contrast, encounters in D&D Next are much more fluid. 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 seek some safe place to take a breath. Combatants run away and pursue, reinforcements 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 defeat entire fights with a bit of exploration and ingenuity doesn’t seem such a bad idea.

At this point, I have a confession to make. In the 4E campaign I DM (which consists mostly of single-combat sessions, remember), I tend to err towards railroading 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 previous preparation, and that is not really possible if we go all freeform or sandbox-y. Not in our available timeframes, at least.

On the other hand, I have a 4E story to tell as a counterpoint. 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 Dragon! 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 encounter was defeated in an awesome, original way. But we all felt terrible!

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 looking forward to the fight. So we ended up closing the adventure for the day, and then started a completely different 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 we don’t want to miss a cool 4E combat because of it.

Anyway, and to go back on track: exploration on D&D Next can be lots of fun, and is in my opinion one of of the major pulls 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. Implementing such a thing in 4E would involve fairly major system changes, but could add a whole new dimension to the game - and this is something I intend to experiment with, at some point in the future.

Read More......

Sunday, May 27, 2012

Guest Post: D&D Next Playtest report

Yesterday I had the chance to DM my first game for the D&D Next playtest. 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 Kobold Quarterly, and his own upcoming indie RPG, La Puerta de Ishtar (in Spanish, but English speakers can take a look thanks to the magics of Google). Here is what he had to say about the latest version of D&D.

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 very good, 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.

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.

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.
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.

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.

Read More......

Friday, May 25, 2012

D&D Next Playtest: Initial Impressions


At last, the playtest 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”.

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.

With that out of the way, we can proceed with our dissection of the new rules.

Overview

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.

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.

As a general comment, my impression of the ruleset can be summarized in the following points:

  •  Old look: 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.
  •  Quick, simple play: 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.
  •  Modern ideas hidden, but present: 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.

Character Generation.

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.

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.

Strength 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.

Dexterity 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.

Constitution 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.

Mental abilities (Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma) don’t change much, and are used mostly for certain types of magic, and skills.

Speaking of skills, 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 Backgrounds, 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.

The creation of a new character involves four important choices (apart from ability score allocation): the traditional Races and Classes, on the one hand, and the more modern Themes and Backgrounds (explained above), on the other. Overall, they seem to make for a more intuitive and flavorful character generation process.

The choice of Race 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.

Classes 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.

Finally, Themes 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.

Combat

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.

Spells

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.

For me, one of the major improvements is the introduction of at-will powers cantrips and orisons, which let casters have utility and combat magic available every turn. Light, Magic Missile, Death Ward (though, sadly, no Scorching Burst) 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.

The other great change is the overhaul of the spell list. 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.

I’ll grant the designers this: actually reading 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 does, 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.

Traditionally, the strongest effects available to casters have not consisted in pure damage, but in devastating conditions: what has been called “Save or Die” (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.

Another potentially problematic type of spells are those that grant bonuses 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.

We also have those spells that are of little use in combat but tend to break non-combat encounters, 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!

Finally, a word on rituals: 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.

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.

Read More......

Saturday, April 14, 2012

Anatomy of the At-Will (V): Basic

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 any charge silliness, 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 Piercing Strike. And then the Essentials line came out, along with a bunch of new subclasses designed to make basic attacks turn after turn...

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:


So, what is wrong with them? I see the following issues:

  • Obsoleting good at-wills - I have mentioned before the death of rogue stape Piercing Strike 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.
  • Aggravate charge brokenness - Remember charges? It turns out that, if they weren’t bad enough, you can also make them extremely accurate for a mere feat (or two, if your class is not martial).
  • Essential taxes - 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.
  • Obsoleting weapon types - 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.

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:

  • Keep the cool stuff, but not for standard actions. 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.
  • Pay damage/accuracy for the cool stuff. 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.

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.

Can no longer be used as a standard

Deft Blade – Paragon Feat, Martial  (MP2)
Fix: Replace “to make a basic attack” with “to make a basic attack as part of an immediate or opportunity action”.

Hammer Shock  – Paragon Feat, Martial (MP2)
Piercing Pick – Paragon Feat, Martial (MP2)
Fix: Replace “to make a melee basic attack” with “to make a melee basic attack as part of an immediate or opportunity action”.

Pinning Challenge – Paragon Feat, Fighter (Dra379)
Fix: 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”.

Require sacrifices to activate

Impaling Spear – Paragon Feat, Martial (MP2)
Fix: 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”

Grazing Shot - Paragon Feat (PHB3)
Fix: 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.”

Deft Aim – Epic Feat (PHB3)
Fix: 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”

Lashing Flail – Paragon Feat, Martial (MP2)
Fix: 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.

Other fixes

Primal Eye - Paragon Seeker Feat (PHB3)
Fix: Add to the prerequisite line “Seeker’s Bond class feature”.
Comment: This should really have been a seeker class feature. The damage boost it provides to Essentials ranged classes is far from reasonable.

Eagle Eye Goggles – Level 2 Uncommon Head Item (AV)
Fix: Change property to “Gain a +1 item bonus to your the attack roll for your first ranged basic attack in an encounter”.

.

Read More......

Saturday, March 10, 2012

Anatomy of the At-Will (IV): Charging

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...

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.

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.

For reference, these are the charge-related options that I found broken:

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.

Damage bonuses

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.

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.

These items and feats would change as follows:

Surprising Charge - Heroic feat
Change Benefit to: 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.

Horned Helm - Level 6/16/26 Uncommon item (Head)
Remove Property.
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.

Vanguard Weapon - Level 3/8/13/18/23/28 Uncommon item (Weapon)
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.

Avalanche Hammer - Level 4/9/14/19/24/29 Uncommon item (Weapon)
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.

Thundergod Weapon - Level 13/18/23/28 Uncommon item (Weapon)
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.

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.

Accuracy bonuses

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.

Reckless Charge - Heroic Feat
In Benefit line, replace “a +1 bonus to the attack rolls” with “a +1 power bonus to the attack rolls”.

Charger’s Headdress -  Level 12 Uncommon item (Head)
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.”

Aspect of the Ram - Item set, benefit for 2 pieces
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.”

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.

Defensive bonuses

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.

Badge of the berserker - Level 2/7/12/17/22/17 Uncommon item (Neck)
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”

Marauder’s Armor - Level 7/12/17/22/27 Uncommon item (Armor)
Change Property line to: “When you charge, you gain a +1 item bonus to AC until the end of your next turn.”
Remove Level 12/17/22/27 updates in property line.

Read More......

Monday, January 30, 2012

My impressions on D&D Next


Well, it’s been an intense weekend! These days I’ve been too busy absorbing all that information 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.

4E features I need

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!

Here is the feature list, with comments on how they are getting implemented:

  • Tactical gameplay – 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.
  • At-Will attacks – 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.
  • Complex non-magical characters – 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.
  • Non-magical healing – 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.
  • Easy DM preparation – 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.
  • All classes are viable – 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.

    New features I like

    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:

  • Lower bonus scaling – 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.
  • Monster longevity – 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.
  • Skill system – 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.
  • Flexible multiclass – 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.
  • Emphasis on exploration – 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
  • Faster mechanics – 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.
  • Priest class – 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.

    Stuff I’m wary of

    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:

  • Ability-boosting items 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.
  • 3 Pillar balance : 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.
  • Vancian magic balance : Having Vancian magic that is well balanced with other resource management systems is not impossible, but will require a lot of effort.
  • Rollling abilities by default : 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.
  • Saving throws instead of attacking vs defenses : 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.
  • Roleplaying to use different saving throws: 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.
  • Return to the old cosmology : 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.
  • Are combat roles dead? : 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.

    Verdict

    I’m not sold yet, but I’m moderately interested. Let’s see how the playtest turns out.

    So, what do you think? Did you like the previews, or have you decided the new game is not for you?
  • Read More......