From the original Monster Manual (1st Edition):
"Drow: The "Black Elves," or Drow, are only legend. They purportedly dwell deep beneath the surface in a strange subterranean realm. The drow are said to be as dark as faeries are bright and as evil as the latter are good. Tales picture them as weak fighters but strong magic-users."
From Vampire: the Masquerade (Second Edition):
"It is whispered that the Sabbat knows of ways to break the Bond, but it is said that one must pledge to the sect before the process will be imparted. Whatever the case, those who most resent their Bondage and retain the free will to act independently flee to the Sabbat - fearing the Black Hand less than continued servitude to an elder."
My Point:
When Drizzt hit us, or when the guides to the Sabbat were published, the ability of these creatures to inspire any sense of wonder and mystery disappeared. If a DM wants to provoke any sort of awe and mystery about his criminal mastermind, he really can't make it a Mind Flayer. Similarly, Storytellers can't inspire any real mystery in Vampire any more, since the players are just too blase about garou, mages, inconnu, and everything else. There's no mystery any more, and no sense of wonder.
Perhaps White Wolf are right to end the World of Darkness. If they do the reset right, they might even build some new mysteries into the setting.
What this means for the individual games master is that he has three choices:
1) Play with newbies. To the new player, everything is new and mysterious again. They've never heard the name Illithid, so might rightly be scared of it.
2) Accept that the wonder is gone. Okay, so your PCs will never be scared of the Sabbat. This doesn't mean that you can't run a decent Vampire game, just assume that everyone knows all this stuff, and build accordingly.
3) Try new settings. When starting an Exalted game, immediately shoot any player who even thinks about reading the core book and supplements. Then, you can build on the mystery of the deathlords. Similarly, build a homebrew D&D setting with an entirely different set-up of NPC races and monsters (although you don't necessarily have to change the PC races, since these should be known anyway).
4) Move the goalposts. It doesn't matter how much your players know about Werewolf: the Apocalypse if the werewolves in your Vampire game aren't what that book claims. Likewise, if the Sabbat really are a canibalistic cult of death-worshippers whose only interest in other vampires is in killing them, your know-it-all player is in for a nasty shock.
Of course, if option 4 is in use, be sure to let your players know this before starting play, or they may well cry foul. It may be their own fault their elder Ventrue just got himself diablerised, but they'll probably not see things that way.
Right, I'm off to right an adventure about an attack on the fourth annual Granny Rally tournament by cyborg zombies, and the need for Ethel, Maisy, Jess and Dorothy to re-form their ninja-squad and fight back...
Tuesday, 30 September 2003
Monday, 29 September 2003
Star Wars Revised (again)
Huh, it turns out that I really had read enough to comment sensibly - the changes to starship combat boiled down to "use a battlemap".
So, here goes:
PC Races
This could be fixed in the original by simply using the Alien Anthology supplement, but it is nice that this version has more races available.
Classes
Truth be told, I didn't have any great problems here, but the addition of the Tech Specialist class is welcome.
Armour as Damage Reduction
It's nice to see that they've made armour even less useful than it already was. Good move.
Truthfully, I don't mind armour operating as damage reduction, but it should apply to all attacks. However, this ties in to a larger rant that I'll get into below. See "Wounds/Vitality", below.
Autofire
Why, why, why did they implement this rule like this? "Take a penalty to hit, and get one or two extra attacks per round". Quality.
Autofire should be implemented as it is in d20 Modern - pick an area to effect, roll vs AC10 to hit, and everyone in the area must roll a Ref save or take damage. That's not a perfect autofire rule, but it is the best one I've seen so far under d20.
Wounds/Vitality
This system makes no sense, and makes critical hits far too deadly.
If Vitality represents a character's ability to avoid harm, turning a killing blow into a near miss, why do weapons do different amounts of Vitality damage? Also, isn't that the roll of a character's Defense score? If it represents the character's ability to roll with damage, turning a killing blow into a lesser blow, why doesn't armour apply?
Worse still, since critical hits ignore Vitality, you have to balance encounters knowing that a freak dice roll can leave a PC dead in a single round. This is fine if it's what you want, but it's really not Star Wars.
Starship Combat
This was the big problem with the original edition of the game, and has at least been fixed in this version. However, the new version still has a significant problem in that the skill of the pilot is still of minor importance in vehicle combat. Okay, they roll Pilot checks for maneuvers, and their BAB applies to weapon fire, but this just leaves characters hideously vulnerable as their Defense value is limited to that of the ship, and their 100 Vitality Points are utterly useless when the ship explodes around them.
House Rules
To whip the game into a shape I'd actually be happy running it in would require a horrible number of house rules. Since I'm really not fond of such things, this leaves me with something of a problem.
Anyway, bearing that in mind, here's what I feel I'd need to do:
Return to the hit point system. Mooks still only have hit points equal to their Constitution score (poor Stormtroopers), but other characters have hit points equal to their previous Vitality totals. All damage codes are reduced by one die (that is, 3d6 weapons become 2d6, and so on). Critical hits do double damage in all cases, and armour applies to all attacks. Unarmed attacks now do subdual damage, as does any other attack that can only do Vitality damage (I don't think there are any of these, but there we go).
Force powers now do subdual damage to a character rather than Vitality damage. This is my big worry when it comes to balancing all this - I'm afraid I may have just crippled Jedi characters.
The autofire rules from d20 modern, along with the related feats, are used here in place of the existing rules.
Starship combat needs re-done (again). This is going to be a huge change, as I've outlined in previous posts.
Essentially, on a starfighter scale, ships have hit points equal to their pilot at full health (a wounded pilot in a fresh fighter returns to full hit points in the fighter; a fresh pilot in a damaged ship would have a percentage hit point loss equal to the percentage damage of the fighter. In all cases, a character returns to their previous total when they leave the ship). The defense value of the ship would equal that of the character, with a modifier based purely on the size and maneuverability of the ship. Armour and energy shielding would act as damage reduction.
That's pretty much it. I've not yet worked out quite what place the pilot's ranks in Pilot has in all of this. Nor have I worked out the details of different ship scales. And, of course, I'd need to write new stats for every ship in existence.
It's all a mess, as you can see. However, I really don't care for the elements of the system I've discussed above, and wouldn't like to run the game without house rules.
It's a damn shame - Star Wars deserves better.
So, here goes:
PC Races
This could be fixed in the original by simply using the Alien Anthology supplement, but it is nice that this version has more races available.
Classes
Truth be told, I didn't have any great problems here, but the addition of the Tech Specialist class is welcome.
Armour as Damage Reduction
It's nice to see that they've made armour even less useful than it already was. Good move.
Truthfully, I don't mind armour operating as damage reduction, but it should apply to all attacks. However, this ties in to a larger rant that I'll get into below. See "Wounds/Vitality", below.
Autofire
Why, why, why did they implement this rule like this? "Take a penalty to hit, and get one or two extra attacks per round". Quality.
Autofire should be implemented as it is in d20 Modern - pick an area to effect, roll vs AC10 to hit, and everyone in the area must roll a Ref save or take damage. That's not a perfect autofire rule, but it is the best one I've seen so far under d20.
Wounds/Vitality
This system makes no sense, and makes critical hits far too deadly.
If Vitality represents a character's ability to avoid harm, turning a killing blow into a near miss, why do weapons do different amounts of Vitality damage? Also, isn't that the roll of a character's Defense score? If it represents the character's ability to roll with damage, turning a killing blow into a lesser blow, why doesn't armour apply?
Worse still, since critical hits ignore Vitality, you have to balance encounters knowing that a freak dice roll can leave a PC dead in a single round. This is fine if it's what you want, but it's really not Star Wars.
Starship Combat
This was the big problem with the original edition of the game, and has at least been fixed in this version. However, the new version still has a significant problem in that the skill of the pilot is still of minor importance in vehicle combat. Okay, they roll Pilot checks for maneuvers, and their BAB applies to weapon fire, but this just leaves characters hideously vulnerable as their Defense value is limited to that of the ship, and their 100 Vitality Points are utterly useless when the ship explodes around them.
House Rules
To whip the game into a shape I'd actually be happy running it in would require a horrible number of house rules. Since I'm really not fond of such things, this leaves me with something of a problem.
Anyway, bearing that in mind, here's what I feel I'd need to do:
Return to the hit point system. Mooks still only have hit points equal to their Constitution score (poor Stormtroopers), but other characters have hit points equal to their previous Vitality totals. All damage codes are reduced by one die (that is, 3d6 weapons become 2d6, and so on). Critical hits do double damage in all cases, and armour applies to all attacks. Unarmed attacks now do subdual damage, as does any other attack that can only do Vitality damage (I don't think there are any of these, but there we go).
Force powers now do subdual damage to a character rather than Vitality damage. This is my big worry when it comes to balancing all this - I'm afraid I may have just crippled Jedi characters.
The autofire rules from d20 modern, along with the related feats, are used here in place of the existing rules.
Starship combat needs re-done (again). This is going to be a huge change, as I've outlined in previous posts.
Essentially, on a starfighter scale, ships have hit points equal to their pilot at full health (a wounded pilot in a fresh fighter returns to full hit points in the fighter; a fresh pilot in a damaged ship would have a percentage hit point loss equal to the percentage damage of the fighter. In all cases, a character returns to their previous total when they leave the ship). The defense value of the ship would equal that of the character, with a modifier based purely on the size and maneuverability of the ship. Armour and energy shielding would act as damage reduction.
That's pretty much it. I've not yet worked out quite what place the pilot's ranks in Pilot has in all of this. Nor have I worked out the details of different ship scales. And, of course, I'd need to write new stats for every ship in existence.
It's all a mess, as you can see. However, I really don't care for the elements of the system I've discussed above, and wouldn't like to run the game without house rules.
It's a damn shame - Star Wars deserves better.
Losing the will to read (Star Wars Revised Core Rulebook)
I got the Star Wars Revised Core Rulebook a couple of weeks ago, and it has been in my to-read pile ever since. Since I already have, and have read, the previous version, I'd approached this one with some hesitation, mostly since d20 core rulebooks, particularly from Wizards of the Coast, are awful.
The problem is that the d20 system is now fairly stable, but the details invariably change from one book to another. Consider the death by massive damage rule. In D&D, if you take 50 hit points of damage from a single attack, you must make a Fortitude save or die. In Call of Cthulhu, you must save after 10 hit points of damage. In d20 Modern, you must save after Con hit points of damage, or drop to -1 hit point. It's madness.
Since the variations aren't clearly spelled out, you have to read the whole book carefully to find them. And since there are generally only half a dozen such changes, you end up re-reading much the same material over and over again.
And heaven forbid you wish to master more than one version of the d20 rules.
I haven't read enough of SWRev to comment sensibly on it as a whole yet, so I'll hold off on that rant. However, this should do for now.
The problem is that the d20 system is now fairly stable, but the details invariably change from one book to another. Consider the death by massive damage rule. In D&D, if you take 50 hit points of damage from a single attack, you must make a Fortitude save or die. In Call of Cthulhu, you must save after 10 hit points of damage. In d20 Modern, you must save after Con hit points of damage, or drop to -1 hit point. It's madness.
Since the variations aren't clearly spelled out, you have to read the whole book carefully to find them. And since there are generally only half a dozen such changes, you end up re-reading much the same material over and over again.
And heaven forbid you wish to master more than one version of the d20 rules.
I haven't read enough of SWRev to comment sensibly on it as a whole yet, so I'll hold off on that rant. However, this should do for now.
Friday, 26 September 2003
Exalted and Stunts
Well, Exalted was fun. Lots of stuff going on, lots of flashy combat, and plenty of opportunity to annoy the other players (in character, of course). It uses the Storyteller system, which is quick and fairly easy to understand (balacing can be a bit of a problem, but that's another rant).
The one mechanic I'm not so sure I like, however, is the Stunt mechanic, whereby a player describes some outrageous maneuver that his PC is going to pull off, and the Storyteller assigns a one to three dice bonus to pools for the roll.
This is fine, right up to the point where the character becomes capable of feats that he couldn't have normally pulled off, but that become possible with a Stunt. The problem there is that there might be another PC in the group who has spent lots of XP to get those precise abilities, and suddenly this other guy can do it for free.
Hmm...
Then again, the mechanic is quick, simple, and does exactly what it sets out to do.
And, of course, the alternative is to put lots of restrictions on the use of Stunts, which kills the mechanic dead. So, I guess it's just a taste thing.
The one mechanic I'm not so sure I like, however, is the Stunt mechanic, whereby a player describes some outrageous maneuver that his PC is going to pull off, and the Storyteller assigns a one to three dice bonus to pools for the roll.
This is fine, right up to the point where the character becomes capable of feats that he couldn't have normally pulled off, but that become possible with a Stunt. The problem there is that there might be another PC in the group who has spent lots of XP to get those precise abilities, and suddenly this other guy can do it for free.
Hmm...
Then again, the mechanic is quick, simple, and does exactly what it sets out to do.
And, of course, the alternative is to put lots of restrictions on the use of Stunts, which kills the mechanic dead. So, I guess it's just a taste thing.
Wednesday, 17 September 2003
What is D20?
Archiving a thread started by Mort:
As usual I've been reading rpg.net, and happened upon the standard d20 moaning thread. Wherein the question about what d20 really is was asked.
So, what is d20 really? Obviously to use the d20 logo you have to follow the guidelines set up by WotC, which has been nerfed badly lately from what I've seen. But is a OGL game also a d20 game? Only without the license? Or is it something else? Can you make a OGL where you roll only d10's?
From what I've understood d20 is basically two things:
You have six stats, with the standard names.
You roll a d20 to beat a DC.
But this is not the OGL, as the OGL just basically lets you take advantage of the system developed for d20 in your own games. From my understanding of the license (I don't read legaleese very well so I might be wrong) there's nothing stopping you from making a d10 dice pool OGL game. So in other words OGL is not d20.
This means that what d20 is is rather more defined than most people think, d20 is what is covered by the d20 license, which is much more restrictive than the OGL license, and thus d20 is a distinct and only to a limited extent mutable system.
Did that make any sense at all?
As usual I've been reading rpg.net, and happened upon the standard d20 moaning thread. Wherein the question about what d20 really is was asked.
So, what is d20 really? Obviously to use the d20 logo you have to follow the guidelines set up by WotC, which has been nerfed badly lately from what I've seen. But is a OGL game also a d20 game? Only without the license? Or is it something else? Can you make a OGL where you roll only d10's?
From what I've understood d20 is basically two things:
You have six stats, with the standard names.
You roll a d20 to beat a DC.
But this is not the OGL, as the OGL just basically lets you take advantage of the system developed for d20 in your own games. From my understanding of the license (I don't read legaleese very well so I might be wrong) there's nothing stopping you from making a d10 dice pool OGL game. So in other words OGL is not d20.
This means that what d20 is is rather more defined than most people think, d20 is what is covered by the d20 license, which is much more restrictive than the OGL license, and thus d20 is a distinct and only to a limited extent mutable system.
Did that make any sense at all?
Monday, 15 September 2003
What's Left to Do?
I was reading a "Previews" column on the Wizards web-site a few minutes ago, and was reading about the upcoming "Book of Exalted Deeds" and the "Miniatures Handbook". For both books, the sample material was in the form of a monster from the book. I didn't read the specifics of the monsters, so can't comment on them, but my response was, "Big deal".
It seems that every D&D book, and a large number of d20 books, contain lots and lots of pages of Prestige Classes, Feats, Monsters and Spells. I'm sorry, I don't want any more.
The thing is, I already have the Monster Manual, Monster Manual 2, Fiend Folio, Creature Collection, Creature Collection 2, the Tome of Horrors, Legions of Hell and Armies of the Abyss. I have enough monsters for a million and one adventures, and only ever use about 20 of them in the course of a campaign.
In terms of spells, I have the Players' Handbook, Relics & Rituals, Relics & Rituals 2 and Magic of Faerun. PCs in my games have never strayed beyond the PHB, and are unlikely ever to use all these spells.
And, for feats, I have the Players' Handbook, Ultimate Feats, and all the Wizards splatbooks. I also have all the Quintessential books dealing with core and psionic classes, except Ranger.
Now, I feel somewhat sorry for game designers in this: I just don't want any more feats, monsters or spells. Until 4th Edition, you should feel free to never publish another one of these things. The reason I feel sorry is that there are some wonderful ideas out there that I'm rejecting out of hand, and there is the problem that those were probably the easy bits of the books to fill. But, I don't want them.
This leaves the question at the top of the post: what's left to do? What do I want to see?
Well...
I don't particularly want more settings, or more information on any existing setting. I usually create my own settings anyway, and would rather use a 'sparse' setting than a 'packed' one like the Forgotten Realms anyway (not that I have anything against the Realms - I just don't intend to use it).
I don't want an epic dungeon campaign, like Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil. I can't see my players going for a campaign of nothing but dungeoneering. And I don't want any books describing alignment - my views on the topic don't seem to match those of the current crop of designers, and in my game, my way rules. In any event, if we don't agree, your book is useless to me.
What I would love to see, although it would probably die a death on the market, is a serious book on campaign development, dealing with everything from cartography to altering the rules, to creating new races, to setting up 'realistic' cultures and religions. Ideally, this would contain a CD-ROM containing cartography and campaign-management programs, and a proper character generator (which would need to be scalable, and fully licensed to use any d20 materials).
I would also like to see a mega-campaign adventure that doesn't deal with dungeon crawling. I'm not sure that's actually possible, though, without becoming hopelessly nebulous. It would need to include extensive advice to the GM on tailoring the material for his game.
And, that's about it. I'm starting to think I might not be spending much money on RPGs in the next few months :-)
Any thoughts?
It seems that every D&D book, and a large number of d20 books, contain lots and lots of pages of Prestige Classes, Feats, Monsters and Spells. I'm sorry, I don't want any more.
The thing is, I already have the Monster Manual, Monster Manual 2, Fiend Folio, Creature Collection, Creature Collection 2, the Tome of Horrors, Legions of Hell and Armies of the Abyss. I have enough monsters for a million and one adventures, and only ever use about 20 of them in the course of a campaign.
In terms of spells, I have the Players' Handbook, Relics & Rituals, Relics & Rituals 2 and Magic of Faerun. PCs in my games have never strayed beyond the PHB, and are unlikely ever to use all these spells.
And, for feats, I have the Players' Handbook, Ultimate Feats, and all the Wizards splatbooks. I also have all the Quintessential books dealing with core and psionic classes, except Ranger.
Now, I feel somewhat sorry for game designers in this: I just don't want any more feats, monsters or spells. Until 4th Edition, you should feel free to never publish another one of these things. The reason I feel sorry is that there are some wonderful ideas out there that I'm rejecting out of hand, and there is the problem that those were probably the easy bits of the books to fill. But, I don't want them.
This leaves the question at the top of the post: what's left to do? What do I want to see?
Well...
I don't particularly want more settings, or more information on any existing setting. I usually create my own settings anyway, and would rather use a 'sparse' setting than a 'packed' one like the Forgotten Realms anyway (not that I have anything against the Realms - I just don't intend to use it).
I don't want an epic dungeon campaign, like Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil. I can't see my players going for a campaign of nothing but dungeoneering. And I don't want any books describing alignment - my views on the topic don't seem to match those of the current crop of designers, and in my game, my way rules. In any event, if we don't agree, your book is useless to me.
What I would love to see, although it would probably die a death on the market, is a serious book on campaign development, dealing with everything from cartography to altering the rules, to creating new races, to setting up 'realistic' cultures and religions. Ideally, this would contain a CD-ROM containing cartography and campaign-management programs, and a proper character generator (which would need to be scalable, and fully licensed to use any d20 materials).
I would also like to see a mega-campaign adventure that doesn't deal with dungeon crawling. I'm not sure that's actually possible, though, without becoming hopelessly nebulous. It would need to include extensive advice to the GM on tailoring the material for his game.
And, that's about it. I'm starting to think I might not be spending much money on RPGs in the next few months :-)
Any thoughts?
Tuesday, 9 September 2003
The Paragon
Everywhere I look, people are wanting Paladins of non-LG alignments, Paladins of specific deities, or generic Champions of a cause. Arcana Unearthed has the Champion, Dragon has non-LG Paladins, and FR has every Paladin tied to a specific deity.
Personally, I don't see the need for non-LG Paladins, since I like my knights in shining armour as they are, thank you very much. Still, as a thought experiment, I gave some thought to how I would construct a variant Paladin class to allow access to all alignments, and to represent any deity or alignment force.
I'm only going to describe the rules information associated with the class; I'm sure the reader can understand the concept I'm aiming for. Note also that the Paragon is not a Paladin - you can't build a Paladin by selecting a Paragon of Good with the right powers. (To be honest, I'm also not 100% happy with the disease mastery power. I think I'd prefer a more tailored power for the specific deity in question, but can't think of an easy way to implement that.)
Here's what I came up with:
The Paragon
Paragons have the following game statistics.
Abilities: Charisma enhances the paragon's self-protective capabilities and undead influencing abilities. Strength is important for her because of its role in combat. A Wisdom score of 14 or higher is required to gain access to the most powerful paragon spells, and a score of 11 or higher is required to cast any paragon spells at all.
Alignment: The paragon's alignment must exactly match that of her deity. If the paragon serves an alignment instead, her alignment must match that served, with a neutral alignment in the other component. For example, a paragon of good must be neutral good, while a paragon of chaos must be chaotic neutral.
Hit Die: d10.
Class Skills
The paragon's class skills (and the key ability for each skill) are Concentration (Con), Craft (Int), Diplomacy (Cha), Handle Animal (Cha), Heal (Wis), Knowledge(nobility and royalty) (Int), Knowledge(religion) (Int), Profession (Wis), Ride (Dex) and Sense Motive (Wis). See the PHB for skill descriptions.
Skill Points at 1st Level: (2 + Int modifier) X 4.
Skill Points at Each Additional Level: 2 + Int modifier.
Class Features
All of the following are class features of the paragon.
Weapon and Armour Proficiency: Paragons are proficient with all simple and martial weapons, with all types of armour (light, medium and heavy), and with shields (except tower shields).
Aura(Ex): A paragon os a chaotic, evil, good or lawful deity (or of the alignments themselves) has a particularly powerful aura corresponding to the alignment in question (see the detect evil spell for details).
Domain: A paragon selects one of the domains of her chosen deity. If a paragon of an alignment, she gains access to the associated domain instead (Chaos, Evil, Good or Law). She immediately gains access to the granted power of the domain, and adds the domain spells of 1st through 4th level to the list of paragon spells (see below).
Smite enemy: A paragon must declare a particular group as a chosen enemy. This should be an enemy of his deity or alignment. The choice of enemy can be quite broad, so a paragon might declare all servants of a rival deity as her enemy, all evil creatures, or all heretics within her own religion. Once per day, a paragon may attempt to smite a member of this enemy group with one normal melee attack. She adds her Charisma bonus (if any) to her attack roll and deals 1 extra point of damage per paragon level. For example, a 13th-level paragon armed with a longsword would deal 1d8+13 points of damage, plus any additional bonuses for high Strength or magical effects that would normally apply. If the paragon accidentally smites a creature that is not part of the enemy group, the smite has no effect, but the ability is still used up for that day.
At 5th level, and at every 5 levels thereafter, the paragon may smite her enemy one additional time per day, as indicated in the table above, to a maximum of five times per day at 20th level.
Divine Grace(Su): At 2nd level, a paragon gains a bonus equal to her Charisma bonus (if any) on all saving throws.
Lay on Hands (Su): Beginning at 2nd level, a paragon with a Charisma score of 12 or higher can heal or harm by touch. A good paragon gains the ability to heal wounds, while an evil paragon may inflict wounds. A neutral paragon may choose which ability to use, although once made this choice cannot be altered (a neutral paragon who heals by touch also turns undead, while one who inflicts by touch rebukes undead. See below.) Each day, she can heal or inflict a total number of hit points of damage equal to her paragon level x her Charisma bonus. For example, a good 7th level paragon with a 16 Charisma (+3 bonus) can heal 21 points of damage each day. A paragon may choose to divide this among multiple recipients, and she doesn't have to use it all at once. Using lay on hands is a standard action. Using this power to inflict wounds requires a successful touch attack, which does not provoke an attack of opportunity, and allows no saving throw.
When used on undead, a paragon who heals by touch can instead inflict damage, while one who inflicts wounds by touch instead heals. Using lay on hands to harm undead also requires a successful melee touch attack and does not provoke an attack of opportunity. The paragon decides how many of her daily allotment of points to use as damage after successfully touching an undead creature.
Aura of Courage(Su): Beginning at 3rd level, a paragon is immune to fear (magical or otherwise). Each ally within 10 feet of her gains a +4 morale bonus on saving throws against fear effects. This ability functions while the paragon is conscious, but not if she is unconscious or dead.
Divine Health(Ex): At 3rd level, a paragon gains immunity to all diseases, including supernatural and magical diseases (such as mummy rot and lycanthropy).
Turn or Rebuke Undead(Su): When a paragon reaches 4th level, she gains the supernatural ability to turn or rebuke undead. A paragon of good alignment can turn undead, while paragons of evil alignment rebuke undead. Neutral paragons may select whether to turn or rebuke undead, but once this choice is made, it cannot ever be changed. A paragon may use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + her Charisma modifier. She turns or rebukes undead as a cleric of three levels lower would.
Spells: Beginning at 4th level, a paragon gains the ability to cast a small number of divine spells (the same type of spells availabel to the cleric, druid and ranger), which must be drawn from the paragon spell list (see below). A paragon must choose and prepare her spells in advance.
To prepare or cast a spell, a paragon must have a Wisdom score equal to at least 10 + the spell level (Wis 11 for 1st-level spells, Wis 12 for 2nd-level spells, and so forth). The Difficulty Class for a saving throw against a paragon's spell is 10 + the spell level + the paragon's Wisdom modifier.
Like other spellcasters, a paragon can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day. Her base daily allotment is given in the table above. In addition, she receives bonus spells per day if she has a high Wisdom score (see the PHB). When the table indicates that the paragon gets 0 spells per day of a given spell level (for instance, 1st-level spells for a 4th-level paragon), she gains only the bonus spells she would be entitled to based on her Wisdom score for that spell level. The paragon has access to a single domain, but receives no additional spell slots for these spells; they must be selected from the paragon's regular allotment of spells instead.
A paragon prepares and casts spells the way a cleric does, though she cannot lose a prepared spell to spontaneously cast a cure or inflict spell in its place. A paragon may prepare and cast any spell on the paragon spell list, provided that she can cast spells of that level, but she must choose which spells to prepare during her daily meditation.
Through 3rd level, a paragon has no caster level. At 4th level and higher, her caster level is one-half her paragon level.
Chaotic, Evil, Good and Lawful Spells: A paragon can't cast spells of an alignment opposed to her own or her deity's (if she has one). For example, a neutral good paragon cannot cast evil spells. Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaos, evil, good and law descriptors in their spell descriptions.
Special Mount(Sp): Upon reaching 5th level, a paragon gains the service of an unusually intelligent, strong, and loyal steed to serve her. This mount is usually a heavy warhorse (for a Medium paragon) or warpony (for a Small paragon).
Once per day, as a full-round action, a paragon may magically call her mount from the celestial (or infernal) realms in which it resides. The mount immediately appears adjacent to the paragon and remains for 2 hours per paragon level; it may be dismissed at any time as a free action. The mount is the same creature each time it is summoned, though the paragon may release a particular mount from service (if it has grown to old to serve, for instance). Each time the mount is called, ir appears in full health, regardless of any damage it may have taken previously. The mount also appears wearing or carrying any gear it had when it was last dismissed (including barding, saddlebags, and the like). Calling a mount is a conjuration (calling) effect.
Should a paragon's mount die, it immediately disappears, leaving behind any equipment it was carrying. The paragon may not summon another mount for thirty days or until she gains a paragon level, whichever comes first, even if the mount is somehow returned from the dead. During this thirty-day period, the paragon takes a -1 penalty on attack and weapon damage rolls.
Disease Mastery (Sp): At 6th level, a paragon can channel energy to either create or remove diseases. A good paragon may produce a remove disease effect, as the spell, once per week, while an evil paragon produces a contagion effect. Neutral paragons may select which effect to generate, but once this choice is made it cannot be altered. Moreover, a neutral paragon who turns undead also removes disease, while one who rebukes undead also creates disease. A paragon may use this ability one additional time per week for every three levels after 6th, and indicated in the table above, to a maximum of five times per week at 18th level.
Code of Conduct: A paragon must maintain her alignment correctly at all times. A paragon who changes alignment, or willingly acts in a manner directly contrary to this alignment immediately loses all class abilities. Additionally, the paragon's code requires that she obey the commandments of her deity, and uphold the tenets of the corresponding religion, as would a cleric of the same faith.
Associates: While she may adventure with characters of any alignment within one step of her own (including diagonally), a paragon will never knowingly associate with characters of another alignment, nor will she continue an association with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. A paragon may accept only henchmen, followers or cohort who share her alignment exactly.
Ex-Paragons
A paragon who ceases to share the alignment of her deity, who willfully commits an act contrary to her alignment, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paragon spells and abilities (including the service of the paragn's mount, but not weapons, armour and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paragon. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate.
Like a member of any other class, a paragon may be a multiclass character, but multiclass paragons face a special restriction. A paragon who gains a level in any class other than paragon may never again raise her paragon level, though she retains all her paragon abilities. The path of the paragon requires a constant heart. If a character adopts this class, she must pursue it to the exclusion of all other careers. Once she has turned off the path, she may never return.
Paragon Spell List
1st-level: Bane, Bless, Bless Water, Bless Weapon, Cause Fear, Corrupt Weapon, Create Water, Cure Light Wounds, Curse Water, Detect Chaos/Evil/Good/Law, Detect Poison, Detect Undead, Divine Favour, Doom, Endure Elements, Inflict Light Wounds, Magic Weapon, Protection from Chaos/Evil/Good/Law, Read Magic, Resistance, Restoration (Lesser), Summon Monster I, Virtue
2nd-level: Bull's Strength, Darkness, Death Knell, Delay Poison, Eagle's Splendour, Owl's Wisdom, Remove Paralysis, Resist Energy, Shatter, Shield Other, Summon Monster II, Undetectable Alignment, Zone of Truth
3rd-level: Blindness/Deafness, Cure Moderate Wounds, Daylight, Deeper Darkness, Discern Lies, Dispel Magic, Heal Mount, Inflict Moderate Wounds, Magic Circle against Chaos/Evil/Good/Law, Magic Weapon (Greater), Prayer, Protection from Elements, Remove Blindness/Deafness, Remove Curse, Summon Monster III
4th-level: Break Enchantment, Cure Serious Wounds, Death Ward, Dispel Chaos/Evil/Good/Law, Freedom of Movement, Holy Sword, Inflict Serious Wounds, Mark of Justice, Neutralise Poison, Poison, Restoration, Summon Monster IV
Personally, I don't see the need for non-LG Paladins, since I like my knights in shining armour as they are, thank you very much. Still, as a thought experiment, I gave some thought to how I would construct a variant Paladin class to allow access to all alignments, and to represent any deity or alignment force.
I'm only going to describe the rules information associated with the class; I'm sure the reader can understand the concept I'm aiming for. Note also that the Paragon is not a Paladin - you can't build a Paladin by selecting a Paragon of Good with the right powers. (To be honest, I'm also not 100% happy with the disease mastery power. I think I'd prefer a more tailored power for the specific deity in question, but can't think of an easy way to implement that.)
Here's what I came up with:
The Paragon
Paragons have the following game statistics.
Abilities: Charisma enhances the paragon's self-protective capabilities and undead influencing abilities. Strength is important for her because of its role in combat. A Wisdom score of 14 or higher is required to gain access to the most powerful paragon spells, and a score of 11 or higher is required to cast any paragon spells at all.
Alignment: The paragon's alignment must exactly match that of her deity. If the paragon serves an alignment instead, her alignment must match that served, with a neutral alignment in the other component. For example, a paragon of good must be neutral good, while a paragon of chaos must be chaotic neutral.
Hit Die: d10.
Class Skills
The paragon's class skills (and the key ability for each skill) are Concentration (Con), Craft (Int), Diplomacy (Cha), Handle Animal (Cha), Heal (Wis), Knowledge(nobility and royalty) (Int), Knowledge(religion) (Int), Profession (Wis), Ride (Dex) and Sense Motive (Wis). See the PHB for skill descriptions.
Skill Points at 1st Level: (2 + Int modifier) X 4.
Skill Points at Each Additional Level: 2 + Int modifier.
| Level | Base Attack Bonus | Fort Save | Ref Save | Will Save | Special | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | 4th | ||
| 1 | +1 | +2 | +0 | +0 | Aura, domain, smite enemy 1/day | - | - | - | - | ||
| 2 | +2 | +3 | +0 | +0 | Divine grace, lay on hands | - | - | - | - | ||
| 3 | +3 | +3 | +1 | +1 | Aura of courage, divine health | - | - | - | - | ||
| 4 | +4 | +4 | +1 | +1 | Turn or rebuke undead | 0 | -- | -- | |||
| 5 | +5 | +4 | +1 | +1 | Smite enemy 2/day, special mount | 0 | - | - | - | ||
| 6 | +6/+1 | +5 | +2 | +2 | Disease mastery 1/week | 1 | - | - | - | ||
| 7 | +7/+2 | +5 | +2 | +2 | 1 | - | - | - | |||
| 8 | +8/+3 | +6 | +2 | +2 | 1 | 0 | - | - | |||
| 9 | +9/+4 | +6 | +3 | +3 | Disease mastery 2/week | 1 | 0 | - | - | ||
| 10 | +10/+5 | +7 | +3 | +3 | Smite enemy 3/day | 1 | 1 | - | - | ||
| 11 | +11/+6/+1 | +7 | +3 | +3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | - | |||
| 12 | +12/+7/+2 | +8 | +4 | +4 | Disease mastery 2/week | 1 | 1 | 1 | - | ||
| 13 | +13/+8/+3 | +8 | +4 | +4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | - | |||
| 14 | +14/+9/+4 | +9 | +4 | +4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | |||
| 15 | +15/+10/+5 | +9 | +5 | +5 | Smite enemy 4/day, disease mastery 4/week | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| 16 | +16/+11/+6/+1 | +10 | +5 | +5 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 17 | +17/+12/+7/+2 | +10 | +5 | +5 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | |||
| 18 | +18/+13/+8/+3 | +11 | +6 | +6 | Disease mastery 5/week | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | ||
| 19 | +19/+14/+9/+4 | +11 | +6 | +6 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | |||
| 20 | +20/+15/+10/+5 | +12 | +6 | +6 | Smite enemy 5/day | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | ||
Class Features
All of the following are class features of the paragon.
Weapon and Armour Proficiency: Paragons are proficient with all simple and martial weapons, with all types of armour (light, medium and heavy), and with shields (except tower shields).
Aura(Ex): A paragon os a chaotic, evil, good or lawful deity (or of the alignments themselves) has a particularly powerful aura corresponding to the alignment in question (see the detect evil spell for details).
Domain: A paragon selects one of the domains of her chosen deity. If a paragon of an alignment, she gains access to the associated domain instead (Chaos, Evil, Good or Law). She immediately gains access to the granted power of the domain, and adds the domain spells of 1st through 4th level to the list of paragon spells (see below).
Smite enemy: A paragon must declare a particular group as a chosen enemy. This should be an enemy of his deity or alignment. The choice of enemy can be quite broad, so a paragon might declare all servants of a rival deity as her enemy, all evil creatures, or all heretics within her own religion. Once per day, a paragon may attempt to smite a member of this enemy group with one normal melee attack. She adds her Charisma bonus (if any) to her attack roll and deals 1 extra point of damage per paragon level. For example, a 13th-level paragon armed with a longsword would deal 1d8+13 points of damage, plus any additional bonuses for high Strength or magical effects that would normally apply. If the paragon accidentally smites a creature that is not part of the enemy group, the smite has no effect, but the ability is still used up for that day.
At 5th level, and at every 5 levels thereafter, the paragon may smite her enemy one additional time per day, as indicated in the table above, to a maximum of five times per day at 20th level.
Divine Grace(Su): At 2nd level, a paragon gains a bonus equal to her Charisma bonus (if any) on all saving throws.
Lay on Hands (Su): Beginning at 2nd level, a paragon with a Charisma score of 12 or higher can heal or harm by touch. A good paragon gains the ability to heal wounds, while an evil paragon may inflict wounds. A neutral paragon may choose which ability to use, although once made this choice cannot be altered (a neutral paragon who heals by touch also turns undead, while one who inflicts by touch rebukes undead. See below.) Each day, she can heal or inflict a total number of hit points of damage equal to her paragon level x her Charisma bonus. For example, a good 7th level paragon with a 16 Charisma (+3 bonus) can heal 21 points of damage each day. A paragon may choose to divide this among multiple recipients, and she doesn't have to use it all at once. Using lay on hands is a standard action. Using this power to inflict wounds requires a successful touch attack, which does not provoke an attack of opportunity, and allows no saving throw.
When used on undead, a paragon who heals by touch can instead inflict damage, while one who inflicts wounds by touch instead heals. Using lay on hands to harm undead also requires a successful melee touch attack and does not provoke an attack of opportunity. The paragon decides how many of her daily allotment of points to use as damage after successfully touching an undead creature.
Aura of Courage(Su): Beginning at 3rd level, a paragon is immune to fear (magical or otherwise). Each ally within 10 feet of her gains a +4 morale bonus on saving throws against fear effects. This ability functions while the paragon is conscious, but not if she is unconscious or dead.
Divine Health(Ex): At 3rd level, a paragon gains immunity to all diseases, including supernatural and magical diseases (such as mummy rot and lycanthropy).
Turn or Rebuke Undead(Su): When a paragon reaches 4th level, she gains the supernatural ability to turn or rebuke undead. A paragon of good alignment can turn undead, while paragons of evil alignment rebuke undead. Neutral paragons may select whether to turn or rebuke undead, but once this choice is made, it cannot ever be changed. A paragon may use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + her Charisma modifier. She turns or rebukes undead as a cleric of three levels lower would.
Spells: Beginning at 4th level, a paragon gains the ability to cast a small number of divine spells (the same type of spells availabel to the cleric, druid and ranger), which must be drawn from the paragon spell list (see below). A paragon must choose and prepare her spells in advance.
To prepare or cast a spell, a paragon must have a Wisdom score equal to at least 10 + the spell level (Wis 11 for 1st-level spells, Wis 12 for 2nd-level spells, and so forth). The Difficulty Class for a saving throw against a paragon's spell is 10 + the spell level + the paragon's Wisdom modifier.
Like other spellcasters, a paragon can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day. Her base daily allotment is given in the table above. In addition, she receives bonus spells per day if she has a high Wisdom score (see the PHB). When the table indicates that the paragon gets 0 spells per day of a given spell level (for instance, 1st-level spells for a 4th-level paragon), she gains only the bonus spells she would be entitled to based on her Wisdom score for that spell level. The paragon has access to a single domain, but receives no additional spell slots for these spells; they must be selected from the paragon's regular allotment of spells instead.
A paragon prepares and casts spells the way a cleric does, though she cannot lose a prepared spell to spontaneously cast a cure or inflict spell in its place. A paragon may prepare and cast any spell on the paragon spell list, provided that she can cast spells of that level, but she must choose which spells to prepare during her daily meditation.
Through 3rd level, a paragon has no caster level. At 4th level and higher, her caster level is one-half her paragon level.
Chaotic, Evil, Good and Lawful Spells: A paragon can't cast spells of an alignment opposed to her own or her deity's (if she has one). For example, a neutral good paragon cannot cast evil spells. Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaos, evil, good and law descriptors in their spell descriptions.
Special Mount(Sp): Upon reaching 5th level, a paragon gains the service of an unusually intelligent, strong, and loyal steed to serve her. This mount is usually a heavy warhorse (for a Medium paragon) or warpony (for a Small paragon).
Once per day, as a full-round action, a paragon may magically call her mount from the celestial (or infernal) realms in which it resides. The mount immediately appears adjacent to the paragon and remains for 2 hours per paragon level; it may be dismissed at any time as a free action. The mount is the same creature each time it is summoned, though the paragon may release a particular mount from service (if it has grown to old to serve, for instance). Each time the mount is called, ir appears in full health, regardless of any damage it may have taken previously. The mount also appears wearing or carrying any gear it had when it was last dismissed (including barding, saddlebags, and the like). Calling a mount is a conjuration (calling) effect.
Should a paragon's mount die, it immediately disappears, leaving behind any equipment it was carrying. The paragon may not summon another mount for thirty days or until she gains a paragon level, whichever comes first, even if the mount is somehow returned from the dead. During this thirty-day period, the paragon takes a -1 penalty on attack and weapon damage rolls.
Disease Mastery (Sp): At 6th level, a paragon can channel energy to either create or remove diseases. A good paragon may produce a remove disease effect, as the spell, once per week, while an evil paragon produces a contagion effect. Neutral paragons may select which effect to generate, but once this choice is made it cannot be altered. Moreover, a neutral paragon who turns undead also removes disease, while one who rebukes undead also creates disease. A paragon may use this ability one additional time per week for every three levels after 6th, and indicated in the table above, to a maximum of five times per week at 18th level.
Code of Conduct: A paragon must maintain her alignment correctly at all times. A paragon who changes alignment, or willingly acts in a manner directly contrary to this alignment immediately loses all class abilities. Additionally, the paragon's code requires that she obey the commandments of her deity, and uphold the tenets of the corresponding religion, as would a cleric of the same faith.
Associates: While she may adventure with characters of any alignment within one step of her own (including diagonally), a paragon will never knowingly associate with characters of another alignment, nor will she continue an association with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. A paragon may accept only henchmen, followers or cohort who share her alignment exactly.
Ex-Paragons
A paragon who ceases to share the alignment of her deity, who willfully commits an act contrary to her alignment, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paragon spells and abilities (including the service of the paragn's mount, but not weapons, armour and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paragon. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate.
Like a member of any other class, a paragon may be a multiclass character, but multiclass paragons face a special restriction. A paragon who gains a level in any class other than paragon may never again raise her paragon level, though she retains all her paragon abilities. The path of the paragon requires a constant heart. If a character adopts this class, she must pursue it to the exclusion of all other careers. Once she has turned off the path, she may never return.
Paragon Spell List
1st-level: Bane, Bless, Bless Water, Bless Weapon, Cause Fear, Corrupt Weapon, Create Water, Cure Light Wounds, Curse Water, Detect Chaos/Evil/Good/Law, Detect Poison, Detect Undead, Divine Favour, Doom, Endure Elements, Inflict Light Wounds, Magic Weapon, Protection from Chaos/Evil/Good/Law, Read Magic, Resistance, Restoration (Lesser), Summon Monster I, Virtue
2nd-level: Bull's Strength, Darkness, Death Knell, Delay Poison, Eagle's Splendour, Owl's Wisdom, Remove Paralysis, Resist Energy, Shatter, Shield Other, Summon Monster II, Undetectable Alignment, Zone of Truth
3rd-level: Blindness/Deafness, Cure Moderate Wounds, Daylight, Deeper Darkness, Discern Lies, Dispel Magic, Heal Mount, Inflict Moderate Wounds, Magic Circle against Chaos/Evil/Good/Law, Magic Weapon (Greater), Prayer, Protection from Elements, Remove Blindness/Deafness, Remove Curse, Summon Monster III
4th-level: Break Enchantment, Cure Serious Wounds, Death Ward, Dispel Chaos/Evil/Good/Law, Freedom of Movement, Holy Sword, Inflict Serious Wounds, Mark of Justice, Neutralise Poison, Poison, Restoration, Summon Monster IV
Monday, 8 September 2003
Arcana Unearthed and 3.5
3rd Edition has been kicking about for 3 years, and has shown a number of weak spots. Which is good, since it has given me hours of wasted time posting here. Anyway, after 3 years, Wizards released 3.5 edition, which is intended to close a lot of the loopholes, and generally make the game more like it's actually played (I'm not sure that makes any sense, but there it is). Co-incidentally, at about the same time, Monte Cook published Arcana Unearthed, which is intended as a replacement PHB for use in his Diamond Throne setting. Interestingly, AU also fixes, or attempts to fix, some of the same problems as were identified and 'fixed' in 3.5. So, I thought it would be interesting to see how the two books approached some of the problems.
Two-weapon Fighting
Problem: In 3rd Edition, you needed 2 feats to be at all useful with 2-weapon fighting, and were still left slightly less effective that using a single 2-handed weapon. Ranger gave these feats as "virtual feats", making one level of Ranger a munchkin option for Rogues, and perhaps some other characters.
3.5: Combine the Ambidexterity and Two-weapon Fighting feats into one. Rangers don't get these feats until 2nd level, eliminating the munchkin option. Two-weapon fighting becomes a viable option, although still slightly over-priced.
AU: Ambidexterity can only be bought at 1st level. Two-weapon fighting decreases the penalties by 4, rather than 2. A new feat allows the use of non-light weapons in the off-hand with further reduced penalties. This means that buying two feats (one at 1st level) makes 2-weapon fighting marginally better than a single 2-handed weapon, with a third feat making it significantly better. Thus, a character can viably focus on 2-weapon fighting, although it remains an expensive choice. AU doesn't have Rangers.
Verdict: Both methods are better than the original, but I prefer the 3.5 option. Feats are fairly rare, and 2-weapon fighting is not so good as to make the investment required in AU worthwhile unless a player is really determined.
Multi-class Spellcasters
Problem: Levels in different spellcasting classes don't stack, making the Wizard/Cleric combination, amongst others, laughable.
3.5: A partial solution exists in the much-aligned Mystic Theurge prestige class, and others for other combinations.
AU: This game completely changes the magic system, and there aren't different lists by class. Instead, spells are listed as being Simple, Complex, or Exotic. Multiclass spellcasters thus have access to some of these types by class, and add their slots and caster levels together.
Verdict: AU wins hands down. However, since it was created from a blank slate, whereas D&D has always had an arcane/divine split, it had a somewhat unfair advantage going in.
Creating Magic Items
Problem: Items are created by type, so Craft Wondrous Item is over-powered. Also, some spells become abusively powerful when placed in certain types of item.
3.5: No change.
AU: Items are created by uses (Craft Single Use Item, etc). Spells have modifiers assigned when being placed in certain item types, and some can't be placed in some item types at all.
Verdict: AU wins, of course. Additionally, this seems to fix the problem entirely (something not true of 2-weapon fighting. The multi-class spellcasters fix does work, but is useless to D&D as it stands).
Counterspelling
Problem: Counterspelling is largely useless. You have to Ready a counterspell, effectively giving up a round of your own actions, and even then you might not have a suitable counterspell available. Better simply to wipe out your opponents as quickly as possible.
3.5: No change.
AU: Counterspelling is possible with dispel magic (as before), or can be purchased as a feat. With the feat, you can try to counterspell any spell, a number of times per day. You still need to ready to counterspell, though.
Verdict: AU wins, but only provides a partial solution. I would prefer to see some mechanism where you need not Ready an action (a "Counterspell of Opportunity"), but have no idea how it would be implemented.
Too-weak Skills
Problem: Some skills are over-specific. Examples include Use Rope and Intuit Direction.
3.5: Intuit Direction rolled into Survival (with Wilderness Lore). Alchemy becomes Craft(Alchemy). A few other changes. Use Rope remains.
AU: Hide and Move Silently are rolled into Sneak. Others stay the same.
Verdict: I like the Sneak skill, but otherwise 3.5 wins handily. I'd still like to see the removal of Use Rope, as it's not really useful enough. However, I think the only skill it can be rolled into is Sleight of Hand, which seems an odd choice.
Exclusive Skills
Problem: Some skills are only available to some classes. If these are class abilities, they should be treated as such.
3.5: Exclusive skills are gone.
AU: Exclusive skills are gone.
Verdict: Either way, I'm happy :-)
Swim and Encumberance
Problem: The swim skill has a penalty based on weight carried, rather than armour, which forces the rather tedious tracking of encumberance. Okay, it's realistic, but I'm lay and would rather ditch encumberance.
3.5: Swim uses a double armour check penalty.
AU: No change.
Verdict: 3.5 wins, from the lazy man's point of view :-)
Conclusion
I'm aware that Monte didn't set out to "do D&D right", and the timing is a coincidence. That said, it is interesting to see how these problems were approached. It also seems that some of the problems were addressed in one book, and others in the other. Neither solves all the problems.
With luck, in about five years, when Wizards are ready to do 4th Edition, they'll have the good sense to look at books like Arcana Unearthed (and also some of the other good d20 and OGL works, and roll the good ideas into the core rulebooks). That way, we might end up with a game that is a genuine improvement over what we currently have.
I haven't looked at all the changes, or even all the areas where I wasn't entirely happy (metamagic for one), nor am I advocating one option over the other. Both 3.5 edition and AU represent an improvement over 3rd Edition (which is rather a good thing, don't you think), but neither is such an improvement that you must immediately run out and get the new books, and burn the old ones. Instead, get AU if you want to play AU, and get 3.5 if you want to play D&D and want to stay current (or are new to the game).
Or, ignore me. These are hardly pompous words from on high. Just those of some bored guy.
Two-weapon Fighting
Problem: In 3rd Edition, you needed 2 feats to be at all useful with 2-weapon fighting, and were still left slightly less effective that using a single 2-handed weapon. Ranger gave these feats as "virtual feats", making one level of Ranger a munchkin option for Rogues, and perhaps some other characters.
3.5: Combine the Ambidexterity and Two-weapon Fighting feats into one. Rangers don't get these feats until 2nd level, eliminating the munchkin option. Two-weapon fighting becomes a viable option, although still slightly over-priced.
AU: Ambidexterity can only be bought at 1st level. Two-weapon fighting decreases the penalties by 4, rather than 2. A new feat allows the use of non-light weapons in the off-hand with further reduced penalties. This means that buying two feats (one at 1st level) makes 2-weapon fighting marginally better than a single 2-handed weapon, with a third feat making it significantly better. Thus, a character can viably focus on 2-weapon fighting, although it remains an expensive choice. AU doesn't have Rangers.
Verdict: Both methods are better than the original, but I prefer the 3.5 option. Feats are fairly rare, and 2-weapon fighting is not so good as to make the investment required in AU worthwhile unless a player is really determined.
Multi-class Spellcasters
Problem: Levels in different spellcasting classes don't stack, making the Wizard/Cleric combination, amongst others, laughable.
3.5: A partial solution exists in the much-aligned Mystic Theurge prestige class, and others for other combinations.
AU: This game completely changes the magic system, and there aren't different lists by class. Instead, spells are listed as being Simple, Complex, or Exotic. Multiclass spellcasters thus have access to some of these types by class, and add their slots and caster levels together.
Verdict: AU wins hands down. However, since it was created from a blank slate, whereas D&D has always had an arcane/divine split, it had a somewhat unfair advantage going in.
Creating Magic Items
Problem: Items are created by type, so Craft Wondrous Item is over-powered. Also, some spells become abusively powerful when placed in certain types of item.
3.5: No change.
AU: Items are created by uses (Craft Single Use Item, etc). Spells have modifiers assigned when being placed in certain item types, and some can't be placed in some item types at all.
Verdict: AU wins, of course. Additionally, this seems to fix the problem entirely (something not true of 2-weapon fighting. The multi-class spellcasters fix does work, but is useless to D&D as it stands).
Counterspelling
Problem: Counterspelling is largely useless. You have to Ready a counterspell, effectively giving up a round of your own actions, and even then you might not have a suitable counterspell available. Better simply to wipe out your opponents as quickly as possible.
3.5: No change.
AU: Counterspelling is possible with dispel magic (as before), or can be purchased as a feat. With the feat, you can try to counterspell any spell, a number of times per day. You still need to ready to counterspell, though.
Verdict: AU wins, but only provides a partial solution. I would prefer to see some mechanism where you need not Ready an action (a "Counterspell of Opportunity"), but have no idea how it would be implemented.
Too-weak Skills
Problem: Some skills are over-specific. Examples include Use Rope and Intuit Direction.
3.5: Intuit Direction rolled into Survival (with Wilderness Lore). Alchemy becomes Craft(Alchemy). A few other changes. Use Rope remains.
AU: Hide and Move Silently are rolled into Sneak. Others stay the same.
Verdict: I like the Sneak skill, but otherwise 3.5 wins handily. I'd still like to see the removal of Use Rope, as it's not really useful enough. However, I think the only skill it can be rolled into is Sleight of Hand, which seems an odd choice.
Exclusive Skills
Problem: Some skills are only available to some classes. If these are class abilities, they should be treated as such.
3.5: Exclusive skills are gone.
AU: Exclusive skills are gone.
Verdict: Either way, I'm happy :-)
Swim and Encumberance
Problem: The swim skill has a penalty based on weight carried, rather than armour, which forces the rather tedious tracking of encumberance. Okay, it's realistic, but I'm lay and would rather ditch encumberance.
3.5: Swim uses a double armour check penalty.
AU: No change.
Verdict: 3.5 wins, from the lazy man's point of view :-)
Conclusion
I'm aware that Monte didn't set out to "do D&D right", and the timing is a coincidence. That said, it is interesting to see how these problems were approached. It also seems that some of the problems were addressed in one book, and others in the other. Neither solves all the problems.
With luck, in about five years, when Wizards are ready to do 4th Edition, they'll have the good sense to look at books like Arcana Unearthed (and also some of the other good d20 and OGL works, and roll the good ideas into the core rulebooks). That way, we might end up with a game that is a genuine improvement over what we currently have.
I haven't looked at all the changes, or even all the areas where I wasn't entirely happy (metamagic for one), nor am I advocating one option over the other. Both 3.5 edition and AU represent an improvement over 3rd Edition (which is rather a good thing, don't you think), but neither is such an improvement that you must immediately run out and get the new books, and burn the old ones. Instead, get AU if you want to play AU, and get 3.5 if you want to play D&D and want to stay current (or are new to the game).
Or, ignore me. These are hardly pompous words from on high. Just those of some bored guy.
Death of d20?
Wizards of the Coast have just changed the d20 license to include a 'decency clause', stating that d20 products may not include nudity or overly graphic depictions of violence (and a few other things - if you care enough, it's easy enough to find the actual text of the changes). This is, in part, aimed at the "Book of Erotic Fantasy", a book on d20 sex that is due to be published in a few weeks. Unfortunately, it's the wrong solution to a non-problem, and may kill d20 dead.
Now, before I go off into my rant, I should point out that I was never intending on getting the BoEF. Not because of the topic, although I don't think rules for sex are really needed. Instead, I found that I really strongly disagreed with some of the commentary in the sample I read (about alignment views towards sexuality). I felt that it was yet another example of game designers not really understanding alignment, and/or failing to seperate their views on alignment and morality, and thus projecting them onto the game. Or, perhaps, it was I who couldn't make the distinction. Either way, that was enough to remove the book from my consideration.
The changes to the d20 license aren't going to make me buy the book.
Now, on with the rant.
Publishing RPG books is a rather large gamble. Returns are notoriously small, and most businesses survive only by carefully controlling their expenses. Certainly, very few companies could afford to remain in business if required to issue a recall on one or more of their products. By adding a content clause to the d20 license, Wizards of the Coast have set a precedent, allowing them to dictate what is and is not acceptable in a d20 product, rather than simply providing rules on how to call attention to the need for the PHB, and so on. Further, since these changes are retroactive, they have shown that they can, and will, kill the publication of books as they see fit.
What this means is that a company could put out "The Big Book of Toasters" just before Wizards were due to launch their own line of bread-based products. Wizards could then, in theory, adjust the license to kill the competing product. I'm not suggesting that they necessarily would, merely that they could.
The net effect of this is that an aspiring d20 publisher would have to consider the risk/reward benefit of using the d20 license, rather than just the OGL license (which cannot be changed retroactively). And, I suspect a significant number of publishers may well choose to go that route.
Then again, I'm just a player, with no plans of ever running a d20 business, so what do I care?
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and nothing I have said should be taken as legal advice. Although, quite who would take legal advice from some clown posting on a Blog on the internet is a mystery I hope never to learn the answer to.
Now, before I go off into my rant, I should point out that I was never intending on getting the BoEF. Not because of the topic, although I don't think rules for sex are really needed. Instead, I found that I really strongly disagreed with some of the commentary in the sample I read (about alignment views towards sexuality). I felt that it was yet another example of game designers not really understanding alignment, and/or failing to seperate their views on alignment and morality, and thus projecting them onto the game. Or, perhaps, it was I who couldn't make the distinction. Either way, that was enough to remove the book from my consideration.
The changes to the d20 license aren't going to make me buy the book.
Now, on with the rant.
Publishing RPG books is a rather large gamble. Returns are notoriously small, and most businesses survive only by carefully controlling their expenses. Certainly, very few companies could afford to remain in business if required to issue a recall on one or more of their products. By adding a content clause to the d20 license, Wizards of the Coast have set a precedent, allowing them to dictate what is and is not acceptable in a d20 product, rather than simply providing rules on how to call attention to the need for the PHB, and so on. Further, since these changes are retroactive, they have shown that they can, and will, kill the publication of books as they see fit.
What this means is that a company could put out "The Big Book of Toasters" just before Wizards were due to launch their own line of bread-based products. Wizards could then, in theory, adjust the license to kill the competing product. I'm not suggesting that they necessarily would, merely that they could.
The net effect of this is that an aspiring d20 publisher would have to consider the risk/reward benefit of using the d20 license, rather than just the OGL license (which cannot be changed retroactively). And, I suspect a significant number of publishers may well choose to go that route.
Then again, I'm just a player, with no plans of ever running a d20 business, so what do I care?
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and nothing I have said should be taken as legal advice. Although, quite who would take legal advice from some clown posting on a Blog on the internet is a mystery I hope never to learn the answer to.
Intimidate and Charisma
Another of the d20 rules that is often said to not make sense, but really does is the association between the Intimidate skill and the Charisma attribute. "Why is the slim 150-pound half-elf Bard better at intimidation than my 250-pound half-orc barbarian?" goes the argument.
This discounts the fact that the player asking the question had the opportunity to assign a high score to Charisma, but never mind. Let's deal with the argument rather than the munchkin :-)
The basic problem with the argument is that it reflects a common misconception amongst gamers that high Charisma is tied to good looks, or at least being well-spoken. Neither of these is necessarily true. Certainly, it is unlikely that Napoleon, Julius Caesar or even Abraham Lincoln would have won any beauty contest, but there are few who would argue that they don't have high Charisma scores. By contrast, the character Harmony in Buffy the Vampire Slayer can be considered very attractive, but clearly has a very low Charisma (and Wisdom, and Intelligence, but that's another matter). Similarly, it's not hard to picture a nobleman army lietenant who is perfectly well-spoken, but gets not one whit of respect from the men under his command, or a foul-mouthed drill sergeant who gets the best out of the troops.
No, Charisma is not particularly tied to appearance or eloquence (although it can be). Instead, Charisma represents the strength of a character's personality, and the ability to affect others. Essentially, it's the 'mental' equivalent of Strength, in the same way that Intelligence is the counterpart of Dexterity, and Wisdom mirrors Constitution.
Now, to the specific issue of Intimidation. The classic example of intimidation is not the big guy browbeating a smaller guy into submission, as is often thought. Instead, we usually see a pair of hulking bruisers backing up a smaller guy, as HE intimidates the mark. Effectively, in terms of game rules, the bruisers are using the "Aid Another" action, to assist the smaller guy in his skill check.
Still, that doesn't really address the issue. Instead, we need to accept that the guy with the big muscles, but low Charisma, must fail to impress his point on the target. Perhaps his body language fails to impart the right message (when trying to intimidate, the big guy should try to tower over the smaller guy, and press him into a small space. Perhaps the low-Cha guy failed to do that). Or, perhaps his tone gives the small guy reason to believe that the big guy is bluffing. Whatever.
As for the frothing half-orc barbarian, what is needed here is a racial bonus to Intimidate checks, or a bonus to the same associated with Rage. And, if the player of the Fighter wants his character to be especially good at intimidation, there's always the much-maligned Skill Focus feat.
Where I will agree that there is a problem is the notion that Intimidate is a class skill for Barbarians, Fighters and Rogues, but not to any other class. Yet there is precedent for Wizards and Sorcerers being considered scary by virtue of their mystical might, regardless of whether they actually do anything mystical with it. (Consider the classic witch) Certainly, not ever Wizard should necessarily be good at intimidation, but making it a class skill doesn't guarantee that - Wizards have enough to spend their few skill points on anyway.
This latter comment applies to certain other skills, including Climb, Jump, Swim, Gather Information, Perform, Profession and Ride, which I feel should be class skills for everyone, allowing characters who are so inclined to gain ranks in these skills easily. I doubt few people would take advantage of these options, and the applications of these skills are hardly game breaking (some, like Hide, Use Magic Device and Tumble are potentially game-breaking if equally available to everyone). Still, that's another matter.
(Perhaps a better option would be to give 3 'floating' class skills that each character can choose, like in Exalted. Characters then treat these three as class skills for all their classes, for the duration of their career. The problem there is that the three skills I named above would be particularly popular choices, I think.)
This discounts the fact that the player asking the question had the opportunity to assign a high score to Charisma, but never mind. Let's deal with the argument rather than the munchkin :-)
The basic problem with the argument is that it reflects a common misconception amongst gamers that high Charisma is tied to good looks, or at least being well-spoken. Neither of these is necessarily true. Certainly, it is unlikely that Napoleon, Julius Caesar or even Abraham Lincoln would have won any beauty contest, but there are few who would argue that they don't have high Charisma scores. By contrast, the character Harmony in Buffy the Vampire Slayer can be considered very attractive, but clearly has a very low Charisma (and Wisdom, and Intelligence, but that's another matter). Similarly, it's not hard to picture a nobleman army lietenant who is perfectly well-spoken, but gets not one whit of respect from the men under his command, or a foul-mouthed drill sergeant who gets the best out of the troops.
No, Charisma is not particularly tied to appearance or eloquence (although it can be). Instead, Charisma represents the strength of a character's personality, and the ability to affect others. Essentially, it's the 'mental' equivalent of Strength, in the same way that Intelligence is the counterpart of Dexterity, and Wisdom mirrors Constitution.
Now, to the specific issue of Intimidation. The classic example of intimidation is not the big guy browbeating a smaller guy into submission, as is often thought. Instead, we usually see a pair of hulking bruisers backing up a smaller guy, as HE intimidates the mark. Effectively, in terms of game rules, the bruisers are using the "Aid Another" action, to assist the smaller guy in his skill check.
Still, that doesn't really address the issue. Instead, we need to accept that the guy with the big muscles, but low Charisma, must fail to impress his point on the target. Perhaps his body language fails to impart the right message (when trying to intimidate, the big guy should try to tower over the smaller guy, and press him into a small space. Perhaps the low-Cha guy failed to do that). Or, perhaps his tone gives the small guy reason to believe that the big guy is bluffing. Whatever.
As for the frothing half-orc barbarian, what is needed here is a racial bonus to Intimidate checks, or a bonus to the same associated with Rage. And, if the player of the Fighter wants his character to be especially good at intimidation, there's always the much-maligned Skill Focus feat.
Where I will agree that there is a problem is the notion that Intimidate is a class skill for Barbarians, Fighters and Rogues, but not to any other class. Yet there is precedent for Wizards and Sorcerers being considered scary by virtue of their mystical might, regardless of whether they actually do anything mystical with it. (Consider the classic witch) Certainly, not ever Wizard should necessarily be good at intimidation, but making it a class skill doesn't guarantee that - Wizards have enough to spend their few skill points on anyway.
This latter comment applies to certain other skills, including Climb, Jump, Swim, Gather Information, Perform, Profession and Ride, which I feel should be class skills for everyone, allowing characters who are so inclined to gain ranks in these skills easily. I doubt few people would take advantage of these options, and the applications of these skills are hardly game breaking (some, like Hide, Use Magic Device and Tumble are potentially game-breaking if equally available to everyone). Still, that's another matter.
(Perhaps a better option would be to give 3 'floating' class skills that each character can choose, like in Exalted. Characters then treat these three as class skills for all their classes, for the duration of their career. The problem there is that the three skills I named above would be particularly popular choices, I think.)
Saturday, 6 September 2003
Singularity Campaign Post-Mortem
Whenever I finish a campaign, I like to think back on it, and consider what I think went well, what I think sucked, and what I would do differently if I were to do it again. The Singularity Campaign is going to finish next week, and so here are a few of my thoughts. Make of them what you will.
d20 Mecha Crusade Mini-game
This was published as a Polyhedron bonus about a year ago, and is absolutely fabulous. That said, I have a few reservations:
I'm getting a hankering to run D&D again, so I think that'll be my next campaign. However, I'm going to be taking a stint playing Exalted first, which looks interesting.
d20 Mecha Crusade Mini-game
This was published as a Polyhedron bonus about a year ago, and is absolutely fabulous. That said, I have a few reservations:
- The rules are necessarily very lightweight. As a result, I feel there are a number of balance issues that cropped up during play that led to some PCs being utterly unkillable (especially when power-gamed) while others were horribly fragile in places.
- Having to maintain two different versions of the PC character sheets was a pain. Further, character management seemed to take up a huge part of the game time, which rather sucked. d20 is complex enough to make automated character sheets extremely useful - this campaign made such things far harder to use.
I'm getting a hankering to run D&D again, so I think that'll be my next campaign. However, I'm going to be taking a stint playing Exalted first, which looks interesting.
Thursday, 4 September 2003
Building Tone
In the past week or so, I've been giving a fair amount of thought to tone within role-playing games, mostly spurred on by the destruction of the horror tone in Roger's game, for which I must accept a large part of the blame (not all, certainly, but I did essentially crush the first session under a mass of humour).
It strikes me that the default tone of an RPG campaign is inevitably going to be fairly lightweight, free-wheeling, and with a fair dash of "comedy" in the mix. I say "comedy" since it seems to involve weekly repetitions of certain jokes, quotes and themes from selected sources, which tends not to be all that funny.
It is certainly possible for RPGs to have a different tone, it just takes a fair amount of work. So, in the hope of generating a bit of discussion, here are some thoughts on generating a different tone. I'm going to focus on horror and comedy, diametrically opposite tones, as these appear to be the hardest to achieve.
Rule 1: The Rules Will Not Help You
It's obvious what this means. However, I should clarify it a little. What I mean by this is that adding rules to simulate a horror/comedy feel won't help you generate that tone in itself. Ravenloft has rules for fear/horror checks, which are singularly useless in building the tone. Vampire has rules for Frenzy and Rotschreck, again useless (most players seem to welcome the chance to Frenzy, so they can ignore wound penalties). Rules for pratfalls, custard pies as weapons, and the like won't make a game funny. Sorry, but it's true.
This is not to say that the rules don't make any difference. A rules-light game is probably better for comedy, for instance, since it allows more focus to be placed on the doings of the game, rather than character management (which isn't funny at all). That said, you can probably run a decent comedy game with d20, if you set your mind to it - it's just more work.
Rule 2: Anything that Doesn't Build the Tone Detracts from It
If you're going for a horror (or really any serious) tone, ban alcohol from the game table. Strongly discourage off-topic conversations. Make sure the background music is either suitably dark, or switched off. No books should be present that are not directly relevant to the game (for this reason, reduce reliance on supplements to a minimum). Comedy, either on- or off-topic is the enemy of horror.
For comedy, alcohol probably helps. Background music should be suitably light, and would definately be helpful. Off-topic conversations aren't a big problem, as long as they are kept light.
Note that you can't build a tone without help from your players. It simply isn't possible to do horror if your players aren't going to go there. Similarly, comedy can't be pulled off if your players are going to laugh at you all the way - they need to be willing to laugh with you.
Rule 3: Character is Key
In both horror and comedy, characters are the key to a successful game. If I don't care about my character, there's no way you can make me afraid for him. In that case, you might as well not bother. Similarly, you'll never see a comedy with totally blank characters. Every character will have some sort of quirk or story to tell. Bad characters lead to a bad game.
To this end, if you're going for a specific tone, you really need to sit down with your players (literally or metaphorically), and build their characters with them. Okay, so a player wants a Dwarf Ranger. That's fine, but how exactly do you threaten that character? And I don't just mean, "use three orcs". That's not scary, it's pure mechanics.
Specific to horror, I should mention the nature of morality. In a horror game, there is very little moral ambiguity. Either a character is a hero, he is a villain, or he is an NPC. There is no middle ground. You can't effectively scare the standard bunch of self-absorbed morally-ambiguous "heroes". If they can't benefit from the situation, they'll try to leave, and if anyone or anything gets in the way, they'll happily throw it to one side.
Rule 4: Description Matters
"Up ahead, you see thirteen Balrogs in a row."
It should be hardly surprising that that isn't even remotely scary. Adding
"Make a fear check."
doesn't exactly help either. A well-described encounter with a single kobold can be rather more scary. The equivalent is true with comedy - a lot of comedy involves people hurting or embarrasing themselves in amusing ways, which really can only be conveyed with proper description. Get it right, or don't bother.
Rule 5: Make Sure the Pay-off is There
In a horror game, if the heroes go into the giant temple of ultime evil, they better damn well be hit with something truly nasty. If they meet your master villain, he should be every bit as scary as the setting deserves. As soon as the players are getting a bit blase about the dangers in your setting, you must kill off a PC. And you better damn well do it - if you wuss out on a kill, you can forget horror forever.
In a comedy game, you have to have a certain rate of laughs. Terry Pratchett's first Discworld novels are comedies. The latter ones aren't really, for this very reason. That's not to say they're not enjoyable, but they've changed from comedy to very light fantasy. If you can't pull off one good laugh every 20 minutes (on average), you're probably not doing comedy. At least, that's the measure that tells me that most of today's "sit-coms" aren't.
Rule 6: Once the Tone is Gone, it's Gone
There is exactly one horrific moment in the entirety of Star Trek that I can remember - Armus killed Tasha Yar in a totally arbitrary manner. Now, Star Trek isn't, and has never claimed to be, horror, so that's not a criticism. However, that's the sort of extreme you would need to go to to restore a horror tone ot a game, and even that might well not work.
Similarly, if a comedy game falls flat, any attempt you make to restore the tone will just come off as ever more tragic capering. Better simply to give it up.
So, if you go for a toe, and you lose it, there are two choices: accept the different tone that is generated, or fold the game.
Finis
That's all I have to say. Comments? Argument?
It strikes me that the default tone of an RPG campaign is inevitably going to be fairly lightweight, free-wheeling, and with a fair dash of "comedy" in the mix. I say "comedy" since it seems to involve weekly repetitions of certain jokes, quotes and themes from selected sources, which tends not to be all that funny.
It is certainly possible for RPGs to have a different tone, it just takes a fair amount of work. So, in the hope of generating a bit of discussion, here are some thoughts on generating a different tone. I'm going to focus on horror and comedy, diametrically opposite tones, as these appear to be the hardest to achieve.
Rule 1: The Rules Will Not Help You
It's obvious what this means. However, I should clarify it a little. What I mean by this is that adding rules to simulate a horror/comedy feel won't help you generate that tone in itself. Ravenloft has rules for fear/horror checks, which are singularly useless in building the tone. Vampire has rules for Frenzy and Rotschreck, again useless (most players seem to welcome the chance to Frenzy, so they can ignore wound penalties). Rules for pratfalls, custard pies as weapons, and the like won't make a game funny. Sorry, but it's true.
This is not to say that the rules don't make any difference. A rules-light game is probably better for comedy, for instance, since it allows more focus to be placed on the doings of the game, rather than character management (which isn't funny at all). That said, you can probably run a decent comedy game with d20, if you set your mind to it - it's just more work.
Rule 2: Anything that Doesn't Build the Tone Detracts from It
If you're going for a horror (or really any serious) tone, ban alcohol from the game table. Strongly discourage off-topic conversations. Make sure the background music is either suitably dark, or switched off. No books should be present that are not directly relevant to the game (for this reason, reduce reliance on supplements to a minimum). Comedy, either on- or off-topic is the enemy of horror.
For comedy, alcohol probably helps. Background music should be suitably light, and would definately be helpful. Off-topic conversations aren't a big problem, as long as they are kept light.
Note that you can't build a tone without help from your players. It simply isn't possible to do horror if your players aren't going to go there. Similarly, comedy can't be pulled off if your players are going to laugh at you all the way - they need to be willing to laugh with you.
Rule 3: Character is Key
In both horror and comedy, characters are the key to a successful game. If I don't care about my character, there's no way you can make me afraid for him. In that case, you might as well not bother. Similarly, you'll never see a comedy with totally blank characters. Every character will have some sort of quirk or story to tell. Bad characters lead to a bad game.
To this end, if you're going for a specific tone, you really need to sit down with your players (literally or metaphorically), and build their characters with them. Okay, so a player wants a Dwarf Ranger. That's fine, but how exactly do you threaten that character? And I don't just mean, "use three orcs". That's not scary, it's pure mechanics.
Specific to horror, I should mention the nature of morality. In a horror game, there is very little moral ambiguity. Either a character is a hero, he is a villain, or he is an NPC. There is no middle ground. You can't effectively scare the standard bunch of self-absorbed morally-ambiguous "heroes". If they can't benefit from the situation, they'll try to leave, and if anyone or anything gets in the way, they'll happily throw it to one side.
Rule 4: Description Matters
"Up ahead, you see thirteen Balrogs in a row."
It should be hardly surprising that that isn't even remotely scary. Adding
"Make a fear check."
doesn't exactly help either. A well-described encounter with a single kobold can be rather more scary. The equivalent is true with comedy - a lot of comedy involves people hurting or embarrasing themselves in amusing ways, which really can only be conveyed with proper description. Get it right, or don't bother.
Rule 5: Make Sure the Pay-off is There
In a horror game, if the heroes go into the giant temple of ultime evil, they better damn well be hit with something truly nasty. If they meet your master villain, he should be every bit as scary as the setting deserves. As soon as the players are getting a bit blase about the dangers in your setting, you must kill off a PC. And you better damn well do it - if you wuss out on a kill, you can forget horror forever.
In a comedy game, you have to have a certain rate of laughs. Terry Pratchett's first Discworld novels are comedies. The latter ones aren't really, for this very reason. That's not to say they're not enjoyable, but they've changed from comedy to very light fantasy. If you can't pull off one good laugh every 20 minutes (on average), you're probably not doing comedy. At least, that's the measure that tells me that most of today's "sit-coms" aren't.
Rule 6: Once the Tone is Gone, it's Gone
There is exactly one horrific moment in the entirety of Star Trek that I can remember - Armus killed Tasha Yar in a totally arbitrary manner. Now, Star Trek isn't, and has never claimed to be, horror, so that's not a criticism. However, that's the sort of extreme you would need to go to to restore a horror tone ot a game, and even that might well not work.
Similarly, if a comedy game falls flat, any attempt you make to restore the tone will just come off as ever more tragic capering. Better simply to give it up.
So, if you go for a toe, and you lose it, there are two choices: accept the different tone that is generated, or fold the game.
Finis
That's all I have to say. Comments? Argument?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)