The List of Games

A couple of posts ago, I noted that I felt I should have more games than I had previously considered, but kept coming back to the same handful. I mused further that it might be interesting to do an inventory, in case there was something I was overlooking.

So, last night I went through the shelves, and catalogued all the individual games that I had. In each case, I listed the game if I had a full set of the Core Rules for the game, which typically meant having a copy of the base book. I haven't listed a game if I only have supplements for it (which is unusual, but possible), nor have I listed the settings for individual games (which take up a fair amount of space on my shelves. I have, however, listed each distinct edition of a game separately.

Here's the list:

• Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, 1st Edition
• Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, 2nd Edition
• Adventure!
• Arcana Evolved (the second edition of...)
• Arcana Unearthed
• Armageddon 2089
• Babylon Project
• Babylon 5 RPG
• Call of Cthulhu d20
• Cyberpunk 2020, 2nd Edition
• d20 Modern/d20 Future/d20 Past
• GURPS Discworld
• Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set
• Dungeons & Dragons 3e
• Dungeons & Dragons 3.5e
• Dungeons & Dragons 4e
• Exalted, 1st Edition
• Hunter: the Vigil
• Iron Heroes
• Mage: the Ascension, Revised Edition
• Mage: the Sorcerer's Crusade
• Monte Cook's World of Darkness
• Munchkin d20
• Mutants & Masterminds, 2nd Edition
• OGL Cybernet
• Pathfinder
• Red Dwarf RPG
• Savage Worlds
• Serenity RPG
• Shadowrun, 3rd Edition
• Shadowrun, 4th Edition
• Star Wars d6, 2nd Edition
• Star Wars d20, 1st Edition
• Star Wars d20, Revised & Expanded
• Star Wars d20, Saga Edition
• Trinity
• Vampire: the Dark Ages, 1st Edition
• Vampire: the Dark Ages, 2nd Edition
• Vampire: the Masquerade, Revised Edition
• Vampire: the Victorian Age
• Vampire: the Requiem
• Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, 2nd Edition
• Warhammer 40,000: Black Crusade
• Wheel of Time
• Werewolf: the Wild West
• World of Darkness

So, there it is: forty six games, some rather more fun than others.

Analysing the list

Of course, there are several repeated elements on the list: there are six distinct editions of D&D there (of which I'll only ever run 3.5e again), four distinct editions of two different Star Wars games (likewise, SWSE), five different Vampire games (none of which I'm likely to run again), and a few other games that either have multiple editions, or two different takes on the same subject. That probably drops it to about 30 truly distinct games.

There are also a handful of games that aren't really intended to be played, at least long term. GURPS Discworld is an amusing read, but it's a rules-heavy game built on a comedy setting; the match-up is entirely inappropriate. Not the mention that it was written many years ago, and therefore reflects a badly out of date version of the setting. Munchkin was always a comedy, not intended as a serious game (it's playable... but you don't want to). And, likewise, Red Dwarf is a game that would probably be fun, once, if you were already extremely drunk.

There are several near-D&D games on the list: Arcana Evolved, Iron Heroes, Wheel of Time, and Pathfinder. With the exception of Pathfinder (which I'll run if I'm using one of their Adventure Paths), I won't run any of these games for the same reason I won't run any edition of D&D other than 3.5e - they're all fine games, but D&D 3.5e does essentially the same thing, but better.

(That said, I have half an idea for an Arthurian one-shot, which might well fit better under Wheel of Time than D&D, due to the magic system. So, perhaps...)

There are also several different takes on the cyberpunk genre: Cyberpunk itself, Shadowrun, OGL Cybernet, and one of the d20 Future modules. I do love the cyberpunk genre, and would very much like to run a game in a dystopian future, but the best candidate is... none of them. All four of these games, even the ones first published in the Naughties, are based on outdated 80's views of the future - chrome cyberware, megacorporations, and the like. None of which sits terribly well. Plus, I had a really bad experience with Shadowrun, so that's a non-starter.

Adventure! is a great, light, fun pulp game... but Savage Worlds does the same thing (and more), and does it better. Still, it's one to consider for a camping trip or similar, as it seems to require less stuff than Savage Worlds.

So, what does that leave? D&D of course, Armageddon 2089, Babylon 5, Call of Cthulhu, d20 Modern, Exalted, Hunter: the Vigil, Mage (both versions), MC's WoD, Mutants & Masterminds, Savage Worlds, Serenity, SWSE, Trinity, WFRP, WH Black Crusade, Werewolf: the Wild West, and World of Darkness.

That's nineteen games, which is not to shabby. But...

Scratch Mage: the Ascension. It's a fine, fine game, but I prefer the historical version. Sorcerer's Crusade can stay, though; I may well find some use for it.

Scratch Call of Cthulhu. The d20 implementation is... interesting, but it has a deep structural flaw that makes it unsuitable for its intended purpose. It would be fine as a modern-day pseudo-horror adventure game... but d20 Modern does that better. A shame.

Scratch Exalted. Another fine, fine game, but it requires a particular mindset to run well; and it's a mindset I just don't have. I've tried; I can't do it justice.

Scratch Monte Cook's World of Darkness. This is a d20 implementation of the White Wolf World of Darkness, and it's interesting... it's just not particularly good. In fact, it's a game that I periodically forget that I have; were it not for my hoarder's instinct, it's one I would probably get rid of. (Interestingly, both this an Call of Cthulhu d20 are penned by Monte Cook. They're both attempts at horror games in d20 by the designer who probably knows that system better than anyone else in the world, and they both fall somewhat flat.)

Scratch Werewolf: the Wild West. Another fine game, but there's another GM in our group who does wild west better than I can, and who has demonstrated that the Savage Worlds version of Deadlands is far superior to this White Wolf take. Other than stealing the timeline information and the firearms rules for my "Terminator" game, I doubt I'll be using this again.

Likewise, scratch Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. A great game, one of my absolute favourites, but again it's a game that another GM in the group runs, and runs very very well. So, I'll leave that one for him!

And let's drop Trinity as well. This was a neat little sci-fi game from White Wolf, but it really needed some supplements to make it work (which I don't have), it's now rather dated in both setting and mechanics, and it's just not something I feel any great urge to play again.

Which Leaves...

That leaves an even dozen games.

D&D will remain a favourite game, whether I continue with 3.5e, switch to 5e when it is released, or perhaps replace it with Nutshell Fantasy. Either way, I'll probably consider that a 'campaign' game - I'll use it for campaigns, I may use it for recruiting events, but I'll stay clear of it for more normal one-shots.

The other two "big three" games, the ones that I'll return to time and again, appear to be Star Wars Saga Edition and Serenity. These are both just really fun games, with interesting and open settings to use, and which never seem to lack for players. I'll use these for both campaigns and one-shots, as the tides take me.

I have three "toolkit" games - games which tend not to lend themselves to being played "as is", but which make it easy to construct all manner of settings and scenarios. These are d20 Modern (with the Future and Past expansions), Savage Worlds, and World of Darkness. Of these, the one I'm most likely to use is WoD, which I'll use for all manner of one-shots. I may well use Savage Worlds at some point, again for one-shots. d20 Modern I'm much less likely to use, although if there's anything that I want to run as a campaign, that's probably the most robust system, so I'll probably go for that one.

Then there are my staple one-shot games: Black Crusade, Hunter: the Vigil, and Mutants & Masterminds. I like all of these systems, I like all three settings, and I find it reasonably easy to be inspired by all three.

And that finally leaves me three others. And I'm not entirely sure what to make of them.

Mage: the Sorcerer's Crusade I've mentioned before. It's a fun game, and one I'll run if and when a good idea comes to me. There's not much else to say about that, except perhaps that in the last decade I haven't really had any "must run" ideas!

Babylon 5 is perhaps a game I like more in principle than in practice, especially now that the show has been done for so long. If I were to do it, I'm inclined to think I would do a "Crusade reboot" campaign - the party are the crew of the Excalibur, seeking for a cure for the Drakh plague. I don't expect I'll use the game for one-shots (Star Wars and Serenity being preferred choices), so... maybe.

Finally, there's Armageddon 2089, which you've probably never heard of. This was a short-run Mecha game from Mongoose, with an absolutely fascinating setting. The only problem is that it requires a lot of work, so isn't really suited for use as a one-shot, and I far from convinced I'm interested enough to try to run a campaign. And besides, I'm more or less convinced that mecha stories are a visual medium, so won't work well in an RPG context. So this may well remain the game that I'll always really want to run, but never quite get around to.

Conclusion

For two massive bookshelves heaving with games, there's relatively little I actually want to run!

The upshot of this exercise is that I was more or less right in my assessment of the games that I'm likely to run. Other than adding Mage to the list for one-shots, there's really not too much else to add. Still, it was fun to be reminded of Armageddon 2089, Babylon 5, and my ongoing frustrations with cyberpunk-genre RPGs.

Not Quite as Absurd as it Seems

There's no denying that the D&D economy doesn't make sense. Some things cost way too much, others cost way too little. There's no real way for a normal person to actually make a living in a D&D world - the whole thing's just broken.

Unless, of course, it isn't meant to model a stable economy at all. See, what we have is a situation where some daring folk are willing and able to risk life and limb for fabulous wealth. They require specialised equipment and services, and the influx of treasure provokes immense inflation, coupled with the rise of a whole set of service industries catering to those individuals.

Which is exactly what happens when towns are hit with a Gold Rush.

Throughout the US, there are ghost towns, the remnants of that particular period in their history when gold was found in the region. Suddenly, a once-small town was the site of a sudden influx of prospectors and those who cater to them, all in search of lovely, lovely gold. Inflation ran rampant, the town rapidly swelled (with all the crime and other stuff that that entails). And then, when the gold vanished, the town died a sudden and tragic death.

So, here's an easy way to build a quick and easy, and entirely realistic D&D campaign model:

The 'base area' of the setting is initially a small, largely unremarkable village - preferably the home town for the human members of the adventuring party.

Some weeks before the first session, the area is hit by a contraction of the Mythic Underworld, resulting in a small earth tremor in the region. And some of the local kids (possibly even the PCs), who were out during the tremor, happen to stumble on a revealed cache of gold, now forced to the surface.

And Gold Fever hits. As news gets out, adventurers start to flock to the town, intent on entering the newly-opened gateways to the Mythic Underworld, to face the terrors, and extract the gold. But, of course, travel isn't instantaneous, so...

In the first phase of the campaign, the PC party represent the first adventurers to reach the town. Their starting funds represent what they've managed to scrape together, rather than a bunch of money that they've just bought at "D&D costs". As indicated above, the human PCs are locals, who have been recruited by the slightly-more-experienced (but still 1st level) non-human PCs to round out their party, and to provide local knowledge.

So, they have their first couple of quests. And all is good. Shortly thereafter, though, other adventuring groups start to arrive in town. New businesses shoot up. Inflation runs rampant (establishing the "D&D economy"), and a whole new breed of social problems start appearing - theft and muggings, banditry and lawlessness, and so on.

The second phase of the campaign, then, has the PCs combining some deeper (and more dangerous) delves with them dealing with the various local problems. They have the motivation, since this is their home, after all; they have the resources; and anyway, who else is going to do it.

And then, in the third phase, probably as the PCs hit around 7th level (in 3e, 11th level in 4e, or 9th level in 1st/2nd Ed), one of the rival adventuring parties releases something that was slumbering in the deep. Perhaps an ancient Elemental Evil, or a slumbering lich, or the obvious demon lord, or whatever.

(Even better, build the nearby wilderness as a hex-crawl, build the nearby regions of the Mythic Underworld as a Megadungeon, and run the whole thing as an Open Tabletop, and you've got years of gaming with a minimum of effort. After all, what I've just described is probably far too vanilla to hold the interest of the players as a full-time campaign, since we've all done essentially that dozens of times, but as the game to play when you're not running anything else, it's good.)

Games for Next Year

It being nearly September, I'm starting to give some thought to next year, and specifically to the RPGs for next year.

My current campaign, "The Eberron Code" has now passed the halfway mark, and whereas it took a long break from December to May this year, next year it is my intent to take a shorter break in December and January (just long enough to properly get over the Christmas/New Year rush). That means that the campaign should wrap up some time in May of next year, all being well.

That being the case, and allowing for a break of several months between campaigns (generally a good idea), I'll be looking to start up a new campaign around October of next year. And the chosen campaign is "Star Wars: Imperial Fist", a Dark Times campaign in which the PCs are members of a crack Imperial unit, sent to investigate and eliminate threats to the nascent Empire.

In addition to having an ongoing campaign, I generally also like to run a handful of one-shot events during the year. This allows me to try some other games, and also allows us to involve some of our more 'fringe' members in the group, hopefully avoiding them just drifting away. Specifically, I aim to run four such events in the year, which I feel provides a decent representation without tying up too much time.

(Although it's important to note that this frequency may well change. Since the wedding, we're yet to host one of these one-shot events. They may prove too much of a stressor to continue. I'm working on the premise that things won't change, but...)

In which case, the first of next year's One-shot Showcase events will also be "Star Wars: Imperial Fist". I'm planning to run this as a one-shot, both the test the concept, but also to give people who can't commit to a full campaign a chance to play. Besides, Star Wars Saga Edition is loads of fun, so running more of it is hardly a bad thing!

The second One-shot Showcase will, I think, be "Au Service Especial de la Reine", which I described here some months ago. It looks like the system for this will most likely be Savage Worlds, with an appropriate world book added. Although there are a couple of other possibilities I'm toying with.

For the third One-shot Showcase, I'm inclined to go for "Prometheus", a Vampire: Victorian Age game I was inspired to run a little while ago. Either that or yesterday's "The Razing of James Connor's Barn", but my feeling is that the latter will keep a bit better - if I don't run Prometheus next year, I doubt I'll run it at all.

And, finally, there is the now-traditional Christmas Game. To be honest, I think it might be quite nice if someone else were to run one, but assuming there are no takers then it will be the equally-traditional Serenity RPG (it's a recent tradition, but it's a tradition nonetheless). I don't currently have any great ideas tucked up my sleeve, but I'm sure something will present itself - it is more than a year away!

All of which would leave me with two unused ideas for the year after (the Terminator game and the Pirates game). And there are a handful of systems I would very much like to run more one-shots using: "Black Crusade", "Serenity", "Hunter: the Vigil"/"World of Darkness", "Mutants & Masterminds", and, of course, "Star Wars Saga Edition".

(I'm sure I should have many more games than that. But somehow, it's those ones I keep coming back to. I guess those massive shelves of gamebooks I have are mostly filled with D&D supplements, Star Wars editions, and Vampire: the Masquerade stuff. Once you eliminate those, much of what's left tends to be either flawed, of limited appeal, or something that I'm leaving for others to run. Still, perhaps I'll do an inventory - maybe there's something I've overlooked?)

Halfway House

The current Pathfinder adventure path is "Skull & Shackles", a pirate-themed path. It's a good one, and it's a good theme - who doesn't like pirates?

But there's a controversy hidden away in there - firearms.

See D&D (and, by extension, Pathfinder) has never really featured firearms. And, indeed, there is a significant portion of the fanbase who actively don't want firearms in their fantasy. (They're somewhat like psionics in this regard.) On the other hand, it's the pirate genre, and firearms have always fit in with that. And "Pirates of the Caribbean" is most definitely fantasy, and it includes firearms without them feeling even remotely out of place.

So, what to do? Do you include them or not?

Well, it turns out that Paizo have made what I consider one of their (admittedly few) missteps. Because they've omitted firearms from their adventures... mostly. But there are a couple of NPCs here and there, and a couple of scenes here and there which do include firearms... and that just makes those few instances stick out much more than they otherwise would.

In my opinion, they should have made a decision, one way or the other, and stuck with it. (And, indeed, since "Skull & Shackles" is intended to fit in their campaign world, which doesn't really feature firearms, I would have chosen to omit them. Had it been intended to be setting-neutral, on the other hand, I would have gone the other way.)

Shame, really.

Incidentally, the use of firearms has always amused me. For reasons unknown, virtually every company to attempt to include them has seen fit to include a specialised subsystem for firearms, with rules for mis-fires, or exploding damage, or similar. When in fact all that's wanted is to just stat them up as weapons. Especially for the pirate genre, there's no great mystique to firearms - load, point, shoot. There's an issue with reload times (in that, in the source, characters tend to fire once and then close to melee), but that's easy solved by giving firearms large damage but equally large reload times, thus discouraging a second shot.

Another One-shot Idea: The Razing of James Connor's Barn

Yep, I had another idea for a one-shot. This one actually came to me a few months ago, before re-watching "The Terminator", but it has really solidified since then. Give just how quotable that film is, I'm pretty certain that the game would be a lot of fun.

The idea, simply put, is this: "The Terminator" in the Wild West.

The system would be White Wolf's Storytelling system (the one from the new World of Darkness"), with the weapons and such lifted from their "Werewolf: the Wild West" game. And the major, underlying question in the game is this: can modern-day players figure out a way to destroy the T-101 using only weapons and material available in the Old West?

Anyway, the synopsis:

The Razing of James Connor's Barn

Harvest 1876, Colorado:

On the new Connor farm, it is a night of many celebrations. The farm is a season old, the state is scant months old, the nation is a hundred years old. James Connor has raised a barn, and is hosting a dance attended by the entire town to celebrate. But the celebration is doomed to be short-lived, for James' outlaw brother J. Harley "Jack" Connor is about to invite himself to the festivities, a posse of bounty hunters hot on his tail...

Meanwhile, in the dying town of Leadville, a naked man strides into the roughest dive in the place. He confronts "Wild" Mick Tannen, calmly informing him that "I need your clothes, your boots, and your... horse". Tannen's mocking laughter is short-lived, and soon the man rides north...

And from the east, a man in the stolen clothing of a post rider makes dangerous haste in the night. He carries an urgent message for the ears of James Connor: "Come with me if you want to live..."

Random Thought: Yet Another Ability Score Generation Method

Note: this is completely untested, it's probably something I would never actually use, but it's a thought that popped into my head...

1. Roll 24d6.
2. Remove the lowest 6 results.
3. Assign the 6 highest results to the six ability scores. You can choose which stat gets which die, but you have to place one of the "top six" in each of the six scores.
4. Assign a further 2 dice to each of the stats. Again, this can be done in any order, but in every case you have to assign a full die to the stat - you can't 'split' a die.

For example...

1. You roll 24d6 - 6, 6, 6, 6, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1.
2. You remove the lowest six results, leaving 6, 6, 6, 6, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2.
3. You assign the top six to the six scores, giving Str 6, Dex 5, Con 6, Int 5, Wis 6, Cha 6, and leaving 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2.
4. You assign the remaining 12 scores, two to each of the stats: Str 6+5+4 = 15, Dex 5+4+3 = 12, Con 6+4+4 = 14, Int 5+4+3 = 12, Wis 6+3+3 = 12, Cha 6+2+2 = 10.

The advantage of this over standard 4d6-drop-lowest is that it essentially eliminates the danger of a truly woeful stat (unless the whole batch was just bad). On the other hand, this is also its great disadvantage - step #3 also effectively eliminates the possibility of an 18 unless a truly great set of rolls were made (since you'd need 8 6's out of 24 dice).

But then again, rolling lots of dice at once is cool.

Ultimately... yeah, I'm never going to use this. I think I'll be sticking with my previous method. The player has a choice of three options:

1. 4d6-drop-lowest, arrange to taste. Reroll if the net total of modifiers is 0 or lower, or if the highest stat is 13 or less. (If this option is selected, rolls must be made in front of the group.)
2. Standard array: 16/15/13/12/10/8.
3. 28-point buy, using the 3.5e costs for the various scores.

How Many?

How many monsters does a fantasy game need? How many spells does the Wizard need to choose from? How many magic items do there need to be? How many powers should there be for the Fighter to choose from?

And, indeed, how many is too many?

My answers are as follows: 100 of each to start with, with an upper limit of 1,000 of each.

That is, the Bestiary component of Nutshell Fantasy should aim to identify and supply an "iconic set" of 100 monsters before the game is considered 'done'. Later expansion is, of course, possible, but shouldn't ever aim to provide more than about 1,000 distinct (and non-unique) monsters.

The Grimoire section should likewise aim to provide details for some 100 distinct spells, with later expansions possibly going as far as 1,000 spells. Actually, these should not necessarily all be Wizard spells, nor indeed do they all need to be spells as such at all - the lists will include all spells available to all characters, and also rituals of all the various sorts.

Similarly, the Armoury with magic items. I'm inclined here to not simply do the 3e thing of saying "any spell of level 0-3 can become a potion if...", but rather list a number of specific potions and elixirs, each with fixed and specific effects. Some of these may closely duplicate existing spell effects, but I don't think it is necessary, or even necessarily desirable, that all do so.

And the Character Book should aim to include some 100 powers, again split between the various classes, power sources, or both.

Why those numbers?

Well, firstly, they're nice round numbers, making them ideal for use as rules of thumb. However, there is a secondary reason for those figures. Firstly, the "100 of each" figure would seem to give a nice, iconic set for each of the four areas, as well as providing a target that is both challenging and achievable.

The upper limit of 1,000 options in each area is perhaps slightly more controversial, in that there's no good reason ever to stop, provided there remains the interest in continuing. However, there definitely comes a point of diminishing returns - how many minor variations can you have on 'dragon' and 'giant' before it gets old? This is especially true in Nutshell, where the mechanical expression of these creatures is inherently fairly limited.

Plus, with 1,000 spells, 1,000 magic items, 1,000 powers, and 1,000 monsters, there should be enough there to power several years (nay, decades) of gaming without exhausing the possibilities!

Starting Over

One of my absolute worst bad habits when it comes to my writing is to start, go some way into the process, run out of steam, stop... and then some time later I start again at the beginning, revising the work that I've already done.

It's some small consolation that no lesser an author that J.R.R. Tolkien had exactly the same bad habit. On the other hand, it's quite tragic that for all his many years of work we only have a handful of works that he actually finished: things like "Children of Hurin" and even "The Silmarillion" were compiled from unfinished texts after his death. How much more could we have had were it not for those constant restarts?

The reason that I mention this is that there are already bits of Nutshell that I'm not terribly happy with. In particular, I think that characters simply have too many different defences to keep track of, and I'm not really happy with the mechanics for Saving Throws. However, I'm going to try really hard to simply ignore this going forward, with a view to getting something finished that I can then revise, rather than getting bogged down in constantly revising the same stuff over and over, and not getting anything done.

(For another example of this problem, consider my homebrew gameworld, Terafa, which has undergone a huge number of revisions. Unfortunately, the most recent revision left the world in a place where it wasn't really useable, and I've just never quite managed to do another revision that would fix it. But that's probably okay - the nature of that world is such that I suspect one would just be better off using Forgotten Realms anyway. I'm now inclined to think that the only reason to homebrew a setting is if you want to do something offbeat and unusual - there's no real point in doing another sub-Tolkien pseudo-European fantasy.)

Two Years

According to the "Future of D&D" presentation at GenCon, WotC expect the playtest phase of 5e development to take two years. If we assume it started just after Monte Cook rejoined the company (just after GenCon last year), but also assume they'll need some time to finish things off after the end of the playtest, that probably means 5e will be released some time in summer 2014, probably just before GenCon that year. Which very neatly ties in with the 40th Anniversary celebrations for that year.

It also means that there's a real good chance I should be able to get Nutshell up and into a form that I'm basically happy with in that time. That's my goal, anyway. Not that I'm competing with WotC in any sense (hah!), but that there seems little point in doing all that work if it were to be rendered moot by 5e anyway... but if I can at least get the kernel going in time, then that won't be the case.

Thought: The Escalating Bonus to Hit

I have truly woeful luck with dice. To the extent that there was a point where, when playing Vampire, I wouldn't have my character take any action unless he had enough dice in his pool to claim an automatic success, because every time I rolled the dice I scored a botch. (Seriously)

And, indeed, there's also the "rolling hit points" fiasco - every single time I have rolled hit points for one of my characters in a post-3e d20 game, the die has come up a '1'. (Really - every single time. Though it's important to note that this only applies to 'real' PCs, only to my PCs, and also that I've only had to do so a handful of times, as I almost always DM the game.)

Now, when I'm running a game, I'm generally not too bothered by this. After all, I always have another monster to throw at the PCs, and anyway most of the fun of the game comes from the PCs doing awesome things, and bad dice rolls from the DM help with that. Although it is a little frustrating that any time I try to make allowance for my rotten luck, the dice 'turn' and that slightly-more-challenging encounter becomes a TPK.

However, when playing, it's a different matter altogether. It's horribly frustrating to be playing a character who simply can't hit his opponents. It's especially galling to see all of your Daily and Encounter powers eaten up by dice that simply refuse to come up with anything over a '6' - and yet that happens with distressing regularity.

(Incidentally, Blizzard, the makers of "World of Warcraft", have apparently done some significant work on the subject, and found that the game is most satisfying if characters have roughly a 70% chance of success when doing things they're good at. Which makes sense - you get the satisfaction of competence, without the game being too easy.)

And so, I've been thinking. A dangerous pasttime, I know. But, what if...

First version: Characters gain an escalation bonus to hit. This starts at +0. However, if their attack misses, the bonus increases by +2. Each time the character misses, the bonus increases by +2. However, when the character finally scores a hit, the bonus resets to +0. As always, a critical hit only occurs if the d20 roll comes up a natural '20'. If the system uses a confirmation roll, the escalation bonus does not apply to the confirmation roll.

Second version: Characters have an escalation die. This starts at nothing. However, if they miss, they gain a d4 escalation die. Each time they miss, this increases by one step: d4 to d6, to d8, to d12 (and then it stops). When they score a hit, this reverts back to nothing. When making an attack roll, roll the escalation die also, and add this as a bonus to the attack roll. (And, as above, a critical is scored only if the d20 comes up with a nat-20, and if using a confirmation roll, the escalation die does not apply to that.)

This is completely untested, of course. However, I believe the net effect of this should be that players who are unlucky should see the increased escalation bonus serve to level out their fortune - if they miss frequently on a first attack, they're more likely to hit on the second, and so on. On the other hand, 'lucky' players won't often have access to the escalation bonus/die, but they're hitting anyway so they're happy.

Meanwhile, the escalation bonus isn't so significant that it would encourage players to use rubbish attacks to build up a big bonus, then switch to a strong attack against the hard-to-hit monsters. At least, not usually - there is of course the corner case where the PCs require a '20' to hit the BBEG, and an escalation bonus would bring that much more easily in reach.

Rulebook: The Battlefield

Okay, this is an area where Nutshell will differ significantly from 3e, 4e, SWSE, and the like...

Every bit as important as the opponents that the heroes face in a fight is the question of where the battle takes place. Terrain, traps, and other features can radically influence the outcome of a combat, swinging a battle one way or the other.

Zones of Combat

The battlefield will be broken into broad zones. The boundaries between zones may be sharply delineated or they may be more nebulous. Characters may be positioned within a zone, or they can position themselves on the boundary between zones.

At the outset of combat, the DM will quickly describe the battlefield, outlining the various zones of operation. The number and type of zones will depend on the specifics of the combat (and even the combatants!), and it is entirely possible either that new zones will be defined as the combat progresses or, indeed, that entirely new zones will come into existence during a combat!

Characteristics of a Zone

For the most part, the DM is free to define zones as he sees fit. However, the following guidelines should be considered when defining zones:

• A zone should typically have a single dominant terrain type, allowing it to be easily defined. "The floor", "the walls", "the stairs" would all make for good zone descriptors. In general, a single zone should not include all of the above.
• Zones should be reasonably small. The combat rules allow for a character to cross from an arbitrary point within one zone to an arbitrary point in another in a single Move action, and so the zone definitions should recongnise this. A zone with clear terrain should not be more than about 50 feet across; a zone with impeded movement should probably be even smaller.
• Where possible, zones should have reasonably clear boundaries. This can be difficult for a combat taking place on a large, open field, but such combats should be rare in any case. Where a clear boundary cannot easily be established, it is recommended that some sort of sketch be made of the battlefield, showing the boundaries between the zones so that the players can visualise the action.

Moving Within a Zone

Typically, characters can use a single Move action to move from any position within a zone to any other position. This includes movement from any position within the zone to a position on the boundary with another zone. Characters are assumed to move quickly, but also with reasonable care, and so are not at particular risk from known threats.

There are a few exceptions to this:

1. An enemy combatant may have a Readied action or be able to use a Reaction (such as "No You Don't") to prevent you from moving.
2. When travelling in a zone with impeded movement, the character must make an Athletics check, or be unable to move.
3. If the zone contains any unknown threats, such as hidden traps, the character must make a Saving Throw or spring the trap.

Moving Between Zones

Typically, characters can use a single Move action to move from any position within a zone to any position in a neighbouring zone. In order to do this, characters are assumed to be moving as quickly as possible, and so are at greater risk than when simply moving within a zone.

If either your current zone or your new zone has impeded movement, you cannot use a single Move action to move beyond the boundary between zones. Likewise, if an enemy has a Readied action or a suitable Reaction to attempt to stop you from moving at all, this automatically prevents you from crossing the boundary of your current zone.

In addition:

1. If either your current or new zone contains any known dangers, such as traps or environmental conditions, you must make a Saving Throw to avoid those dangers.
2. If either your current or new zone contains any unknown dangers, such as hidden traps, you automatically trigger them in your haste to move.

Crossing the Boundary

In most cases, crossing the boundary from one zone to another is a trivial matter; you simply step from one to the other. However, if the boundary is somehow difficult to traverse, and especially if an enemy combatant attempts to block your path, you must make an Athletics check to cross from one zone to the next.

When crossing a fixed boundary, such as a fence or door, the DC for the Athletics check will be determined by the boundary condition itself. For example, a fence may be DC 15, while a stuck door is DC 20. Typically, a character can automatically cross a fixed boundary as a Move action.

When crossing a boundary impeded by an enemy combatant, the Athletics check must beat the opponent's Combat Defence. Note that where the boundary is unusually narrow, such as a single doorway between two rooms, the presence of an enemy combatant may impose disadvantage on the Athletics check. Typically, a character cannot automatically cross a boundary guarded by an enemy. However, dedicating a Move action to the effort grants advantage on the Athletics check.

Where multiple boundaries apply, a single check should be made against the single highest DC. Only if the conditions are particularly difficult should any additional modifier be applied; in such a case, disadvantage should be applied to the Athletics roll.

Crossing Multiple Zones

If a character absolutely, positively has to get from one zone, through a neighbouring zone, and into a third zone, he can run at full speed. Doing so requires that none of the three zones have impeded movement, and that both the boundaries be clear of obstructions and defenders.

In such a case:

1. The character must make an Athletics check against a DC of 15. Failure indicates that the character cannot move beyond the boundary between the second and third zones.
2. If there are any known or unknown dangers in the three zones, the character automatically triggers them. He is moving too quickly to avoid these dangers, even if he is aware of them.

Impeded Movement

Some zones have rough terrain, or otherwise impede movement. In such a case, moving within the zone requires an Athletics check. Failure on the check means that the character must remain where he is. The DC of the Athletics check is determined by the nature of the terrain.

If a zone has impeded movement, a character cannot both pass the boundary and move within the zone as a single Move action. In such a case, the character's movement ends at the boundary between the zones.

Defining New Zones

Sometimes, the actions of one or more combatants will reveal a need for new zones to be defined. For example, if a combat occurs on the floor of a hall, with a set of stairs leading to a balcony, the DM may define three zones at the outset (floor, stairs, balcony). However, if one of the PCs decides to climb the walls to the balcony, this indicates the need for a fourth zone (walls).

In such a situation, the DM should simply define the new zone and add it to the battlefield. After all, the actions of the PC haven't created the new zone - it was there all along, it just wasn't noticed until now!

Creating or Destroying Zones

Conversely, the actions of one of more combatants may cause the creation of entirely new zones of combat. This may occur if the Wizard casts a wall of fire spell, for example, or if a band of hobgoblins move to encircle a single character (creating a "surrounded by hobgoblins" zone).

Equally, the events of the combat may cause a zone to simply cease existing, for example at the expiry of that wall of fire spell.

When such events occur, the DM and the players should work together to define the new zone, if applicable, to determine the conditions for movement within the zone, and at the boundaries, and to determine which combatants are within the zone.

An Example Battlefield

The PCs are travelling in an airship, heading North. As they travel, they are attacked by drow slavers on dragonback!

The battlefield is broken into several zones:

- The bulk of the action takes place on the main deck, a large, clear area with a Lightning Thrower in the middle.

- The main deck borders the fore deck, where a ballista is to be found.

There are two boundaries between these zones - a small set of stairs (no DC, but these can be blocked by a character), or by climbing up from fore- to main decks (DC 15) or dropping down from main to fore- (1d6 damage).

- There is a below-deck area, which provides access from one part of the ship to another. No combat takes place in this area, but it is important for movement purposes.

Later in the combat, one of the characters jumps from the main deck onto the back of one of the dragons. This identifies a "dragonback" zone, that immediately ceases to have any connection to the other zones. However, the "dragonback" zone isn't new; it just hadn't been identified previously.

Likewise, later in the combat one of the heroes uses a wall effect to cut the main deck in two. This effectively creates "main deck front" and "main deck aft" zones, with the wall providing a boundary between them.

Rulebook: Attacks and Defences

The Basic Attack

A basic attack in melee is exactly that: roll d20 and add your attack modifier with the weapon you are using. If you beat the target's AC, you hit and do damage; if not, you either missed or their armour protected them - either way, no damage is inflicted.

Critical success applies to attack rolls, but critical failure does not. So, if you roll a natural '20' on the die, you should make a confirmation roll. If successful, you have scored a critical hit.

If you hit and do damage, roll to see what damage has been caused. This will depend on the weapon used, and is a standard magnitude roll.

Unarmed Attacks

Unless a character has specific training that applies, his unarmed strikes do very little damage. Otherwise, an unarmed strike functions in exactly the same way as an armed attack; there is no penalty associated with attacking without a weapon.

Ranged Attacks

A basic ranged attack is exactly the same as a basic melee attack, with two exceptions:

• You cannot make a ranged attack while in melee range of an enemy. The presence of an enemy so close prevents you from doing so.
• Ranged attacks occur at one of four ranges, and apply a modifier to the attack roll. The ranges are as follows:

- Point-blank (attacking in the same zone): +2
- Short (attacking in the adjacent zone): +0
- Medium (attacking at a two-zone distance): -2
- Long (attacking at a three-zone distance): -5

Ranged attacks at greater than Long range are typically not possible. However, if you have a power or other effect that allows such attacks, they are made with a -10 penalty.

Firing into a Melee

In general, it is possible to make a ranged attack into a melee without penalty. However, if the target is surrounded, or your line of sight it otherwise blocked, the DM may rule that the target has cover, and so impose disadvantage on the attack.

Area Attacks (targetted)

There are two forms of area attacks in the game. The first is a targetted attack - you identify a primary target of the attack.

Make an attack roll against the primary target's Reflex defense. If you hit, you do full damage to the target. In addition, creatures within the area of effect (broadly, those who might be affected) must make a saving throw, or suffer half damage.

If your targetted attack misses, all creatures in the area of effect, including the primary target, must make a saving throw or suffer half damage.

Creatures who are permitted a saving throw, and who succeed on the saving throw, take no damage from the attack.

(Note that some spells, such as lightning bolt may have two primary targets - due to the spell striking in a straight line between two points. In such a case, make a separate attack roll against each primary target. Other creatures are affected, or not, as normal.)

Area Attacks (grenade-like)

There are two forms of area attacks in the game. The second is a grenade-like attack - you throw the weapon into an area, and target all present.

When using a grenade-like weapon, no attack roll is necessary. All creatures within the area of effect must make a saving throw or take full damage from the attack. If they succeed on the saving throw, they instead take half damage from the attack.

(Note that grenade-like attacks are generally better than targetted area attacks. However, to compensate for this, grenade-like attacks generally do less damage overall.)

Who is affected by an area attack

When resolving area attacks, it will inevitably be necessary to make some adjudication as to who is affected and who is not.

When using a battle-grid, this adjudication should generally be quite simple: place the area effect marker on the intended target. Figures who are under the marker are therefore affected and must make a saving throw. Figures who are only partially under the marker may be affected... and so must make a saving throw. (Area effects are considered to have "hot edges" - even creatures who are just barely touched by the effect must make a saving throw.)

When not using a battle-grid, a ruling must be made. This should generally be done in relation to appropriate terrain features, and a sense of fairness.

Note that it is generally not possible to precisely aim area effects so as to avoid friendly targets. If there is an argument over whether a given character is included or not, then the character must make a saving throw.

Advanced Attacks

Of course, the above are only the basic attacks. Through the use of powers, magic items, and the like, characters will have typically be able to make a variety of advanced attacks. Each of these powers, magic items, and the like will provide the specific rules for its use, which may supersede some or all of the above rules.

Spellcasting in Combat

In general, a character cannot cast spells while engaged at melee range with an enemy. The presence of an enemy so close prevents you from doing so. However, characters with the "combat casting" power may attempt to cast spells while in melee range. Additionally, some spells are specifically designed for this use; this will be noted in the spell description.

Finally, it is worth noting that a spellcaster can typically use his Move action to first move out of melee range, and then his Standard action to cast his spell. However, if his opponents have Readied an action to stop him, or know the "No You Don't" or "Disrupt" reactions, he may find himself unable to cast his spell.

If, for any reason, a character takes damage while in the process of casting a spell, he must make a Concentration check against a DC of 10 plus the damage taken, or lose the spell without effect.

The Defences

Each character has seven defences, used to protect him against specific threats to his person:

Armour Class: This, quite simply, represents how well the character is protected by his armour. Characters wearing heavier armour will have a higher AC than those in light armour, while those without any armour will have a low AC indeed. It is important to note that if an attack against AC fails, this does not necessarily indicate that the blow missed; it may equally mean that the blow was deflected or absorbed by the character's armour. Either way, no damage was caused - failed attacks against AC never cause damage.

• Fortitude: This represents the raw toughness of the character himself. It is used to defend against poison, crushing blows, and similar. Essentially, if it is a matter of just toughing it out, and especially if the character's armour can't absorb the blow, it is an attack against Fort.
• Reflex: This reflects the character's ability simply to dodge an attack. This is used against attacks, and frequently spells, that must merely touch the character to take effect.
• Will: This represents the character's mental toughness, his ability to withstand shocks, avoid being dominated, tricked by illusions, or otherwise manipulated. Most attacks against Will cause damage to the character's Resilience rather than his Hit Points.
• Combat Defence: This represents the character's battle experience and training. It is used to protect against all the little tricks and tactics an opponent might try - to prevent a opponent from capturing the higher ground or taking an advantageous position, to defend against being disarmed, having his weapon sundered, or being grappled, and so on and so forth.
• Social: The Social defence is seldom used in combat. It represents the character's ability to spot and resist attempts to con, lie to, or seduce the character.
• Perception: Likewise, the Perception defence is seldom used in combat. It protects the character from stealthy characters, from sleight of hand, and from some traps.

Traps, and the Proper Usage Thereof

Taking a break from the Nutshell combat rules for the moment, I've been mulling over some of the exploration stuff. In particular, I've been thinking about traps, which have long been a source of some contention in the game. Indeed, 4e all-but-eliminated traps, by giving characters a "Passive Perception" that would auto-detect most traps most of the time, and also be the simple expedient of just not including them in adventures.

But then, it's no surprise lots of people don't like traps - most of the time they just suck.

I'm now going to split traps into five entirely arbitrary, overlapping, and not-at-all exhaustive categories. Just because...

Gotchas!

This is probably the sort of trap that you first think of when you think about D&D traps - there's a poison needle in the lock; there's a tripwire that causes a pit to fall open; if the password isn't said, a fireball explodes. And, in all cases, the damage done is fairly moderate - it's highly unlikely to kill any character.

Proper Use: There's a simple answer to this one: don't. Gotchas! suck. They slow the game down, because now the Rogue needs to constantly be searching for them. When they do exist, they are dealt with in two dice rolls (fun!). And on the rare occasion when one actually gets triggered, the damage is an easily-healed irritant.

Almost every trap in published 2nd edition and 3e adventures is a Gotcha! That would be why 4e removed traps almost entirely.

Gotcha Deathtraps

These are the big brother of Gotchas! The key difference is that in a Deathtrap, there's a real threat that the trap will kill even a tough character outright.

So, a first-level Deathtrap does 3d8 damage - enough to kill even a Barbarian outright on a lucky roll. Or, as in "Tomb of Horrors" (the original), traps are save-or-die (or even no-save/just-die!). Miss the trap and it's game over, man, game over.

Proper Use: Gotcha Deathtraps are better than simple Gotchas! for one simple reason: in going for the kill, rather than the hurt, they at least generate some tension. However, they should still be used sparingly - use too many and again you'll have the Rogue painstakingly searching every square, the party being absurdly paranoid in their investigations, and the game slowing down.

Additionally, Deathtraps should be considered as puzzles. By which I mean that it should be possible for the players to determine the presence and location of a deathtrap, and thus defeat it. And so, the Three Clue Rule applies - for every Deathtrap there should be three clues pointing to its existence and location, so that with good play the players can defeat the trap. (This is in addition to the Rogue's normal 70% chance to find a level-appropriate trap.)

Finally, Deathtraps can be a huge amount of fun in one-off games, especially if the players are using pre-gen characters (and don't care over-much). In such a game, you can go wild with such traps, and have fun describing all those lovely death scenes in their gruesomeness.

Movement Traps

These used to be quite common in BD&D and 1st Edition days, but disappeared almost completely thereafter. A movement trap is exactly that - it moves some or all of the party from one area to another, typically to an area of much higher danger and one cut-off from the outside world and safety.

Proper Use: Go for it! Any time you were thinking of using a Gotcha!, use a Movement Trap instead. And then watch in glee as your players proceed to freak out, when they realise that their precious characters are now in genuine peril! Suddenly, they can't rely on just retreating and resting after the prescribed 4 encounters of the day. Neither can they assume that the "15-minute Adventuring Day" can be used, since they are now in unfamiliar territory and so may not be able to rest safely.

Yes, it's cruel. Evil even. Do it!

Encounter Traps

These are also familiar, although from the movies rather than the game. The Trash Compactor in "Star Wars", the crushing spike-room in "Temple of Doom"... this is a trap that forms an entire encounter for the PCs - they need to find a way to disable the trap before it kills them.

Proper Use: Treat the trap as a monster, the encounter as a combat, and ratchet up the tension as much as you can. Don't allow the Rogue to simply roll a die and disarm the trap - this one is going to take the efforts of the whole party. (Indeed, in both the example traps I gave, the solution relied on contacting someone outside the trap to have them disarm it.)

(In 4e terms, the trap should be a Solo monster. In effect, it needs to be harming multiple PCs, it should have lots of 'hit points', and there should be multiple ways to 'damage' it. And, yeah, the trap should be doing ongoing damage (of some sort) as the encounter goes on - "disarm this in three rounds or die" is just a more complex Gotcha! Better to have "disarm this; every round you lose a healing surge", or something like that.)

Terrain Traps

Another movie example: In "Flash Gordon", Gordon and Barin are fighting on a platform for the amusement of the Hawkmen. Vultan has a remote control, which tilts the platform, raises or lowers spikes in the floor, and so on.

Basically, a terrain trap is a feature of the battlefield on which a combat rages.

Proper Use: This is the best type of trap, not least because it allows for some very clever play - the players can find ways to make use of the trap for their own ends, turning the tables on their enemies.

Typically, terrain traps should be fairly simple - if a character steps here, the trap attacks for X damage. It is quite unlikely that the Rogue will disarm such a trap - he has better things to do, and anyway there are likely many such traps. Still, it's not impossible.

And, of course, there's no reason that the PCs themselves can't set up terrain traps, "Predator" style. Always a fun way to kill off those Quickling assassins...

Rulebook: Actions and Reactions

Actions

On his turn, each combatant may take three actions: a Standard action, a Move action, and a Minor action.

Standard Action: Broadly speaking, your standard action is your main action of the turn - you use this to make an attack, cast a spell, use most powers, and so on.

Move Action: Broadly speaking, if it involves movement then it is a move action - you can use a move action to move freely within one zone, to move from one zone to another, to stand from prone, and so on.

The various different forms of movement (climb, jump, run, swim) are not themselves move actions; these are the means by which your character completes his move - they are the 'how', rather than the 'what'.

The rules always assume that you are moving as quickly as you can; therefore, you cannot take two identical move actions in a single turn. So, you can stand from prone and then move to a new zone, but you cannot move to a new zone and then move to a new zone.

Minor Action: Broadly speaking, a minor action is as the name implies - something minor that the character does in the round that is worth mentioning, but isn't of great import. Drawing a weapon, closing a door, or similar would be minor actions.

There are very few powers that make use of minor actions, and relatively few ways to use these actions. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that players only take their minor action if they have something specific in mind; it is not worth delaying the game while agonising over what minor action to take.

Free Actions: In addition, some actions are so trivial that they are literally free. Shouting a battle-cry or drawing an arrow to fire are free actions. A character can take any number of free actions on his turn, or even out of his turn, subject only to the DM's generosity.

Trading Actions

A player may choose to downgrade any action to the next smaller type - a Standard action can be traded for a second (different) Move action or for a Minor action; a Move action may be traded for a Minor action.

Reactions

In addition to his actions, each character can make a single reaction per round. This can occur at any time in the round, with one exception - at the start of combat, the character cannot react until after he has first acted; that is, until after his first turn.

Each reaction is a specific, trained ability - unless you have learned a specific reaction, you cannot react in that manner. Additionally, each reaction has a specific trigger, that must be met before the reaction can be used. For example, the "parting shot" reaction can only be used when an enemy moves out of melee range; if no enemy does so in the turn, this reaction cannot be used.

You choose which reaction to make at the point when you make it. You are not obliged to make a reaction when the trigger first occurs, but unless you do so immediately the opportunity is lost.

Reactions fall into two categories: interrupts and responses. Each character can only perform one of these each round.

Interrupts: Interrupts occur before the event that triggered them. For example, the "parting shot" reaction occurs before your opponent moves out of range.

Response: Reponses occur after the event that triggered them. For example, the "riposte" reaction occurs after your enemy has failed to hit you.

Reacting to Reactions

A reaction cannot itself trigger reactions. This is to prevent a single event causing a cascade of events as it triggers reactions, which themselves trigger further reactions, which themselves trigger yet more reactions.

Trading Reactions

Under certain circumstances, you may want to use a power or spell that would normally be a reaction on your turn. For example, you might want to cast feather fall before stepping off a wall.

In general, this is possible, provided that doing so makes sense in context. As indicated, you could sensibly cast feather fall on your turn, but it doesn't make sense to "riposte" against an attack that hasn't come!

When taking a reaction on your turn, treat it as your Minor action for the turn.

Rulebook: Combat Sequence

This one is very much a case of "it's not broke; don't fix it" - the rules are more or less the same as in 3e. The key things that differ are the ways in which surprise affects play (as discussed previously), and the removal of "flat-footed" from the game.

So...

The combat sequence is cyclic. Each combatant takes a turn in sequence, and can use his entire set of actions during his turn.

When Combat Begins

In most cases the beginning of combat should be obvious: the PCs encounter a band of orcs, the two sides draw weapons and rush to attack, and you roll initiative.

However, there are always the corner cases to consider. What if two characters are happily chatting away and one draws a dagger and stabs the other? As they approach one another, can one side prepare actions to spring on the other? And so forth.

Broadly speaking, combat begins the moment one character takes an action that the other side wishes to prevent. So, as soon as the player declares that he's going to draw his dagger, roll for initiative.

Further, until combat begins, the combat rules don't apply. As such, it is not possible for a character to ready an action outside of combat and thus short-circuit the initiative roll. Any such efforts are handled by the rules for surprise.

The Combat Sequence

The sequence for combat is as follows:

1. Determine whether one or both sides are surprised. If one side has advanced surprise, the other side misses all actions for the first round of combat.
2. All participants in the combat roll initiative, by rolling d20 and adding their Initiative modifier.
3. The character with the highest initiative result acts first, completing his full turn.
4. Repeat step 3 for each remaining combatant, until all characters have had a turn.
5. Complete any "end of round" book-keeping.
6. Repeat steps 3-5 each round, until the combat ends.

Determine Surprise

(See my previous post about surprise. I'm not going to repeat it here!)

Roll initiative

All characters roll initiative at the outset of the combat, even those who choose not to get involved immediately. Once the order of actions has been determined, the specific initiative scores can be ignored, as they will no longer be used.

Typically, summoned creatures, familiars, homonculi, cohorts, followers, and other associate characters do not roll initiative, but instead act on the initiative count of their host PC. In particular, should the host PC choose to delay his action, the associate characters also delay.

The DM may choose to roll initiative for each individual NPC, may choose to break the NPCs into groups and roll once for each group, or even roll once for all the NPCs. When rolling for groups, the DM will assign a leader to each group, and use that character's initiative modifier for the group. Members of a group can choose to act in any they wish, but must each complete their turn before the next can act.

End of Round

There may be a small amount of book-keeping required at the end of each round. For example, if reinforcements arrive after a number of rounds, this counter should be decremented here. If environmental conditions change, this will again occur at the end of the round.

At the end of each round, the DM should also quickly recap the current situation for all the players. Remember that the DM is the only conduit of information that the players have, and therefore it is better to over-communicate than under!

New Arrivals

Characters who come to the battle late always arrive at the end of a round. At this point, they should immediately roll Initiative, against a DC of 25 (Hard). If they pass, then they may act first in the round. If they fail, then the DM should place them about halfway through the initiative sequence, erring towards the end of the round. However, if the Initiative check is a natural 1, the new arrivals act last in the round.

If several groups arrive simultaneously, their individual initiative scores should determine their placement in the order relative to one another.

Example Combat Sequence

Two characters, Al and Bob, are fighting five orcs led by a drow. A second band of orcs are hidden on the battlefield, but will not act immediately. A third character, Charles, is racing to the scene, and will arrive in three rounds. And a third band of orcs will also arrive after three rounds.

At the outset of combat, the hidden orcs have surprise over the characters (but not the first band of orcs). Therefore, they gain advantage on the initiative roll.

Initiative is rolled. Al rolls a 17, while Bob rolls a 12.

The DM elects to roll once for each group of orcs, using the drow's Initiative modifier (+5) for the first band and a random orc's modifier for the second (+2). The dice for the first band comes up a '13', giving a total of 18, while the second band roll two dice (an '8' and a '20') and gain a total of 22.

Neither Charles nor the third band of orcs roll initiative; they will do so when they arrive.

The hidden orcs win initiative and so are entitled to act first. Additionally, because they possess surprise, they have advantage on any attack rolls against Al and Bob (but not the other orcs). However, they elect to remain hidden for now, taking no action.

The other band of orcs act next. They do not possess surprise, and so do not gain advantage on attacks.

Al acts next, and then Bob.

The round ends, and the DM decrements the counters for the arrival of Charles and the third band of orcs, and then recaps the situation for the players.

The second round proceeds in the same manner as the first. However, the hidden orcs do not now possess surprise; that moment has passed. They therefore do not automatically gain advantage on their attacks. However, they remain hidden, which may yet give them an advantage.

The third round proceeds in the same manner as the second.

At the end of the third round, both Charles and the third band of orcs arrives. Nobody is surprised - both Charles and the orcs were alerted by the sounds of combat, while being actively involved in combat precludes the others from surprise. Both groups of newcomers roll initiative. Charles scores a 26, while the orcs roll a 12.

In the fourth round, Charles acts first, followed by the hidden orcs, followed by the drop-led orcs, then the new orcs, then Al, and finally Bob.

The remaining rounds of combat proceed as above.

Boo!

One of the things I liked about the 5e playtest materials was the rule for surprise, probably because it almost exactly mirrored the mechanic I had been planning to use for Nutshell Fantasy. Always nice to have your ideas validated.

On the other hand, on reading those same playtest materials, I came up with a better idea.

Firstly, it's perhaps worth a short discussion of what 'surprise' represents in Nutshell Fantasy. See, when people think of surprise, they tend to picture the party calmly going about their business when suddenly an assassin appears out of nowhere and plunges a dagger between their ribs. Which is all well and good, but it doesn't really match the situation under discussion.

See, in Nutshell (and D&D as well), the PCs are adventurers. They spend the bulk of their time travelling through hostile environments, or crawling through dungeons, or similar. Even the towns they call home tend to be hives of scum and villainy.

As a result of this, PCs are very rarely "calmly going about their business". They have to have their wits about them at pretty much all times, because otherwise they are likely to die. And, as such, they're extremely unlikely ever to be surprised in the "dagger in the ribs" style discussed above - that's just not what the "surprise" rules are modelling.

Instead, those rules are modelling something more like the situation in Star Wars, where the heroes turn a corner and come face-to-face with a group of Stormtroopers (who were looking for them, but didn't expect to find them right then). As such, there's a moment of surprise before Han blasts one, shouts "get back to the ship" and runs off. He certainly has courage.

So, the rule for surprise in Nutshell:

If some of the participants in a combat are judged to have surprise, those characters gain advantage on the initiative roll for the combat. Further, if they win initiative, they gain advantage on attack rolls against surprised opponents.

And that's it. Gaining surprise means you will probably (but not certainly) get to act first, and it also means that those first attacks are more likely to succeed (and, in the case of Rogues and similar, trigger Sneak Attack and the like).

Advanced Surprise

However, that does leave the situation above: a character is calmly going about his business when suddenly an assassin appears out of nowhere and sticks a dagger in his ribs. (In a modern context, the character is suddenly gunned down by a sniper half a mile distant.)

This rule only applies in one of two cases: either the attacker is unusually hidden (he literally comes out of nowhere), or the defender is unusually unaware (he's asleep, drugged, or similar, or in a truly 'safe' location). In which case, the attacker gains "advanced surprise".

The rule for advanced surprise in Nutshell:

If some of the participants in a combat are judged to have advanced surprise, they gain an entire free round of actions before initiative is rolled. During this round, they gain advantage on attack rolls against surprised opponents. Then, when initiative is rolled, those characters gain advantage on the initiative roll for the combat. Finally, if they win initiative, they gain advantage on attack rolls against surprised opponents.

Naturally, this means advanced surprise is very nasty. It should also be extremely rare - in almost all cases characters will have their wits about them enough to negate this possibility.

(As noted, the truly 'safe' location does not mean just "walking down the street", at least in the sort of fantasy metropolis that is usually encountered (which is home to all manner of monsters, rogues, and other dangers). However, if the PCs had set up their own home-base - a keep or castle, a command tent for their army, or similar (or, indeed, a Lyrandar airship heading North...), then that would count as a 'safe' location.)

Paladins, Alignment, Codes, and the Book of Judges

If there is one thing I don't like about 4e, it's the handling of the alignment system, and the reason I don't like it is because it's a crap compromise - I can understand having a 'real' alignment system, with actual game effects and consequences for changing alignment; and I can understand getting rid of alignment altogether. What I can't understand is why have a 'toothless' alignment system - one where characters have to declare an alignment (or Unaligned), but might as well not. That's like insisting they specify their character's hair colour (or bald) but not otherwise referencing it in the system.

Associated with my dislike of 4e's alignment is a similar dislike of 4e's Paladin. Now, I know there has long been an argument amongst D&D players that "there should be paladins for every god". But I don't agree. In fact, I'll go further than this - the Paladin should not, by default, be associated with the gods at all. The Paladin is a warrior infused with the powers of Law and Goodness to do their will in the world, quite aside from the petty whims of creatures as paltry as the gods. (Of course, it's worth bearing in mind that D&D's gods are not God as understood by Christianity, Islam, or Judaism. They're much closer to the Greek or Norse gods - powerful, yes, but not all-powerful, and with equally epic character flaws.)

So, for me, the Paladin is inherently bound up with the Lawful Good alignment, and the Paladin's Code. Without those, the Paladin is nothing... and if you don't want to play that character, then that's fine - the game has plenty of other classes; perhaps you would prefer one of them?

(It's worth noting that 4e does not, of course, preclude a player from playing that sort of a Paladin. Of course it doesn't! It's just that nobody ever does, because the moment the behavioural restrictions have their teeth pulled, it becomes a Code of "what I would have done anyway". The moment, the very instant, the Code conflicts with what's convenient for the player or the character, the Code is discarded in favour of expediency. And that's fine... but it's not a Paladin.)

Meanwhile, I've been toying with removing the alignment restrictions from 3e classes for my next campaign. Which is fine from a game-balance perspective, but it has a rather obvious weakness: what to do about the Paladin? Surely, after the rant I've just gone on, there's no way to square the two?

Well...

Over on another blog, I read a series of posts about removing alignment from Pathfinder entirely. And in those posts, the author tackled the same issue in a surprising, and yet obvious, way: he removed the alignment restriction but not the Paladin's Code.

Which got me thinking about the possibilities inherent in that option. Because if you also replace the code with something high-minded but inherently vague, and allow the Paladin to determine how to interpret it, suddenly you have a class that is a chosen, holy order... but with very significant variation in behaviours and outlooks.

The Paladin's Code, per the 3e PHB, is as follows:

"A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good."

My proposed revision of the Code is much more concise, and yet says almost exactly the same thing. And yes, I did steal it from "Dragonheart":

"A paladin is sworn to valour. His heart knows only virtue. His blade defends the helpless. His might upholds the weak. His word speaks only truth. His wrath undoes the wicked."

(Additionally, such a Paladin would still be expected to associate only with those who do not consistently offend his moral code. However, just what that means would be left undefined - the character could take a Pharisee-like interpretation, and associate only with those with "the right stuff", or he could instead associate with "tax collectors and sinners". The only thing he couldn't do is associate with those who are truly wicked, since then the clause about wrath would apply.)

And What About Judges?

Well, I've also been musing on the matter of transgressions against the Code, and I'm now leaning towards the notion that the 3e books are far too binary in their interpretation - a character is either following the Code or he is not, and if he is not then he is an ex-Paladin. Instead, I'm inclined to look more to Samson for guidance.

Now, the Biblical story of Samson is pretty well-known - he's the guy who lost his great strength when he had his hair cut. But of course, that's a simplification: Samson actually had three parts to his code (don't drink alcohol, don't touch corpses, don't get your hair cut), and by that point in the story had already violated the other two - the haircut was merely the last part of his code to go.

So, for the Paladin, I'm inclined to have both Infractions and Violations - an Infraction is a fairly minor break of a part of the Code, perhaps motivated by circumstances, while a Violation is an outright rejection of part (or all) of the Code.

As the Paladin adventures, then, the DM should keep track of Infractions against the Code, but not take immediate action. So, if the Paladin acts with dishonour in a duel, perhaps by using poison, that would be an Infraction against Valour... but there's no particular issue with that.

However, if the Paladin reaches a point where he has committed an Infraction against every part of the Code (that is, six different Infractions), then he is no longer following the Code, and so ceases to be a Paladin. However, at this stage there still exists the possibility of atonement, and a recovery of status.

On the other hand, if the Paladin intentionally commits a gross Violation of the Code (murdering innocents, torturing a helpless prisoner, etc), then this represents a far more fundamental issue. The character ceases to be a Paladin, and cannot benefit from atonement - he is evermore an ex-Paladin.

(There remains the possibility of becoming an Anti-Paladin, of course. But that's another topic for another day.)

Two Other Changes

I'm inclined to make two more change to the Paladin class, which is to adjust the Detect Evil and Smite powers. Instead of targeting all Evil creatures, I'm inclined to have them affect the 'supernatural' evils - dragons, undead, demons, devils, and the like. (And to affect them regardless of their actual alignment...)

The Net Effect

I think the effect of this will be that the core concept of the Paladin will remain intact - he'll still be the champion, the "knight in shining armour", and he'll still be bound to a Code. However, the class will be just a bit more open - now you get the ultra-legalistic Paladin who treats the code as a strict body of laws to be followed to the letter (complete with Dredd-like 'justice'), but you also get the good-hearted Paladin who treats the Code more as guidelines while helping others.

Of course, ultimately, this is actually a first step to removing alignment from the game entirely. In the course of my reading of the 1st Edition books, I found that it has actually morphed quite strongly away from its original conception in the game, which was much more about team-shirt alignment... and I really don't care for team-shirt alignment. That being the case, I'm inclined to see it go. The Paladin was pretty much the only reason I wanted to see alignment retained, but if we can retain the class (and the Code) while losing alignment, then that's all to the good.

(And next up, I'm going to have a go at the Cleric class, and other priest-like PCs. Because the game has gotten them wrong, too...)