The Next Campaign

Once again, I'm pondering the next campaign. I generally try to work about 8 months in advance, so I have plenty of time to prepare - the current campaign has a long way to go anyway.

I've been musing about house rules, as always, and am considering the following:

• Wizards don't need to spend money to add spells to their spellbooks. The great strength of the wizard is versatility, and being able to freely add spells will increase this. However, the wizard will still need to get access to those spells, and so may have to find other spellbooks, or pay other wizards for access to their spellbooks, before adding spells.
• Mundane ammunition won't be tracked. Nor will bar fees, encumberance, and so on. I honestly don't think such things really help the game any. If I were running a low-fantasy game of struggling heroes, this would be different, but I won't be. Of course, this only applies to mundane ammunition - masterwork and magical equipment will need tracked.
• Equipment is sold for half its market price. This is actually the rule as written, which I misread as applying to mundane equipment only.

The use of supplements will depend entirely on the circumstances of the game, of course. In the event that I am not hosting the game, it would be a matter of core rules only. If I were to be hosting the game, a select few carefully chosen supplements would be permitted (most likely Arms & Armour 3.5 (in part), the Complete Book of Eldritch Might, the Book of Iron Might, and the Expanded Psionics Handbook).

Any thoughts?

One more thing...

My last word on customising characters (unless someone raises a counter-argument):

The biggest way of customising characters has absolutely nothing to do with ability scores, feats, weapon choice, or anything else. The biggest and best way to customise a character (of any race, class or level) is through background and role-playing. If your 8th level Paladin has exactly the same skills, feats, weapons, armour and deity as Bob's 8th level Paladin, but one was a priviledged son of the nobility, raised with the constant knowledge that he was destined for righteousness and glory, while yours is a former slave boy, embittered by the loss of his family in a war perpetrated by selfish nobles, and reluctantly given the mantle of paladin by a deity who needs a champion, I suspect that you will see markedly different characters in play.

Unless, of course, you're playing the game purely as a video-game in which case, do you really care that your characters are essentially the same?

The Grand Experiment

For my next trick, in January I will be running a one-off d20 Modern-Cyberpunk game in real time. A kind of Gibson meets 24 thing.

At the moment, my thinking is running at between 8th and 11th level, using two house rules - low hit points on a par with Babylon 5, and the corresponding use of Constitution to determine chance to stabilise - using the cybernetics rules from d20 Future, the firearms from Ultramodern Firearms (or at least using some of them for inspiration), and with a wildly complex plot.

Of course, knowing my luck, the party in question will work out the mysteries in the first five minutes, and then it'll just be a case of going through the motions.

Customisation

It's worth noting that if players, either individually or collectively, fail to take advantage of facilities of a game system, it is not a weakness in the game system itself. Rather, it a weakness in the players. If all Fighters in your game wield longswords, and have exactly the same feats, that's not because the system enforces cookie-cutter characters, but rather because they have failed to differentiate their characters from the masses.

What would be a flaw in the system, and a fairly massive one, would be if one set of feats and abilities were significantly superior to all others, as with the longsword in 2nd Edition. In such a case, you can still differentiate your character, but it is very costly to do so. However, this is not the case with Fighters in D&D, at least in the current edition.

On the other hand, there is a degree of justification in the argument that all Rangers, Paladins, Barbarians, Monks and Rogues start to look alike...

But even then, it is possible, or even easy, to build several different character types for each, by focussing on different aspects of each class (e.g. the mobile barbarian, the damage-soaking barbarian, and the raging berserker).

A Tale of Four Fighters

We had a debate last night at the game about Fighters. It has long been Roger's contention that all Fighters rapidly start to look much the same as they increase in level, due to the relatively limited range of feats available. I dispute this. Therefore, I set out to create some different fighters, and can now present four fighters which I think go some way to proving the point.

These are each created using only the core rulebooks, with 25-point buy for stats, and the standard starting cash. Each retains a small amount of unspent money, and so hasn't allocated the full 27,000 gold for 8th level. It should also be noted that Telak is Gary's fighter in the current campaign, and is therefore the standard against which the others are judged.

Baralan

The scion of an ancient dwarven line, Baralan is a heavily armoured warrior. He focusses purely on melee combat, focussing on tricks rather than on causing lots of immediate damage, and using expertise and armour to avoid damage.

Dwarf Fighter 8

Ability Scores: Str 19, Dex 12, Con 18, Int 13, Wis 8, Cha 8

Skills: Climb +3, Craft (weaponsmith) +12, Intimidate +5, Jump +4, Ride +6

Feats: Combat Expertise, Greater Weapon Focus (flail), Improved Disarm, Improved Trip, Iron Will, Power Attack, Weapon Focus (flail), Weapon Specialisation (flail)

Possessions: Amulet of Health +2, Gauntlets of Ogre Power, Flail +2, Full Plate +1, Heavy Steel Shield +1, Amulet of Natural Armour +1, Ring of Protection +1, Masterwork Light Crossbow, 2,572 gp

Combat Stats:

HP 98, AC 25/24/12, Init +1
Saves: Fort +10, Ref +3, Will +3
Melee: +16/+11 1d8+8 (Crit on 20)
Missile: +9 1d8 (Crit on 19-20)

Baralan typically enters combat with a trip attack, then follows this up with repeated melee attacks. Against powerful opponents, he uses Expertise extensively (to get AC 30!), while lightly armoured opponents suffer repeated Power Attacks.

Jadeel

A bounty hunter from the South, Jadeel is skilled in the use of two blades. Like Baralan, his focus is on melee, but he is also skilled with the longbow, and not averse to tracking an opponent at range.

Human Fighter 8

Ability Scores: Str 19, Dex 15, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 9

Skills: Craft (bowyer) +5, Escape Artist +1, Ride +11, Survival +5.5

Feats: Exotic Weapon Proficiency (two-bladed sword), Greater Weapon Focus (two-bladed sword), Improved Initiative, Lightning Reflexes, Track, Two-weapon Defence, Two-weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus (two-bladed sword), Weapon Specialisation (two-bladed sword)

Possessions: Gauntlets of Ogre Power, Two-bladed Sword +1 of Flame/+1 of Shock, Masterwork Mighty (+4) Composite Longbow, Full Plate +1, Cloak of Resistance +1, 1,850 gp

Combat Stats:

HP 74, AC 21/20/11, Init +6
Saves: Fort +8, Ref +7, Will +3
Melee: +13/+13/+8 (1d8+1d6+7/7/5 (Crit on 19-20)
Missile: +11/+6 1d8+4 (Crit x3)

Jadeel relies on his many attacks to weaken his opponents. At the next opportunity, he should increase his Dex to 17 and gain Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, for another off-hand attack.

Patromir

Patromir is the elven archer/finesse Fighter. Skilled with both sword and bow, he is more lightly armoured than the others, and does slightly less damage overall. However, he has the ability to punish foes far more effectively at range than the other characters, and he is quite lethal in melee combat due to his large critical threat range.

Elf Fighter 8

Ability Scores: Str 12, Dex 19, Con 12, Int 8, Wis 13, Cha 10

Skills: Knowledge (history) +3, Spot +5.5

Feats: Manyshot, Improved Critical (rapier), Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Quick Draw, Rapid Shot, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus (rapier)

Possessions: Elven Chain +1, Masterwork Light Steel Shield, Rapier +1 of Frost, Mighty (+1) Composite Longbow +1 of Frost, Ring of Protection +1, Cloak of Resistance +1, 1,871 gp

Combat Stats:

HP 74, AC 22/18/15, Init +4
Saves: Fort +8, Ref +7, Will +4
Melee: +14/+9 1d6+1d6+2 (Crit on 15-20!)
Missile: +11/+11/+6 1d8+1d6+2 (Crit x3) or +9 2d8+2d6+4 (Crit of 4d8+2d6+8) (as a single attack action)

Patromir typically engages in missile fire for as long as possible, switching to melee weapon and shield at the last opportunity (as a free action, due to his Quick Draw feat).

Telak

Gary's character in the current campaign, Telak is the classic longsword-Fighter. He has lately developed some skill with the bow, and so is a dangerous all-round combatant.

Human Fighter 8

Ability Scores: Str 20, Dex 10, Con 14, Int 11, Wis 10, Cha 10

Skills: Climb +3, Jump +1, Listen +4, Ride +5, Spot +5.5, Swim +2

Feats: Cleave, Great Cleave, Improved Bull Rush, Improved Critical (longsword), Improved Initiative, Iron WIll, Power Attack, Weapon Focus (longsword), Weapon Specialisation (longsword)

Possessions: Gauntlets of Ogre Power, Full Plate +1, Heavy Steel Shield +1, Longsword +1 of Flame, Mighty (+5) Composite Longbow +1 of Flame, 1,980 gp

Combat Stats:

HP 82, AC 22/22/10, Init +4
Saves: Fort +8, Ref +2, Will +4
Melee: +15/+10 1d8+1d6+8 (Crit on 17-20)
Missile: +9/+4 1d8+1d6+6 (Crit x3)

Telak typically charges into combat, using his bow only if circumstances dictate this as the optimum choice.

Conclusion

Each of these fighters has a certain core of abilities. All four have Weapon Focus. Three have full plate armour, thre ehave Weapon Specialisation, three use shields, and three own Gauntlets of Ogre Power. However, they are distinctly different. Baralan will make heavy use of trip attacks and expertise, which is quite beyond the others. Patromir will use missile fire extensively, and in combat will rely on critical hits to make up for a relatively weak damage output. Jadeel uses the showy and difficult exotic weapon, while Telak is the classic fighter.

Truth be told, I think Baralan, Telak or Jadeel would make ideal Fighters for any group. They are all different, but fill much the same role. I think I might be hesitant to use Patromir as the only Fighter in the group, although he would fit the current group very well. But that's not really the point - these are four fighters that are reasonably distinct from one another. And all four are clearly distinct from the Barbarian, Ranger or Paladin of the group, even where they seem to step on the Fighting styles of other other classes.

Withdrawal

Damn, it hurt not to have the regular game on Saturday this week. I had a tough week, and could really have done with watching my monsters get minced.

And, to add to the pain, the commitment that I couldn't get out of turned out to be completely unnecessary. Life sucks sometimes :-(

Exalted: Lunars - I don't get it...

Over the past several months, I've been reading Exalted, starting with the core rulebook, then moving through the so-called 'fatsplats'. I've now read them all, apart from Abyssals, and am rather perplexed.

Over on RPGnet, there seems to be a massive love for the game. No suprise there, but the message-boards are also abuzz with a dislike of Lunars. Which I really don't understand - I found that book by far the most enjoyable of the four so far (and, since I've now started Abyssals three times, and am yet to get past the first chapter, I don't anticipate that changing). Perhaps it was just that I was between "White Wolf" by David Gemmell and "Fortress of Grey Ice" by J.V. Jones at the time, and so was receptive to the themes, but it really grabbed me in a way that Abyssals, Sidereals, and even Dragon-blooded haven't (but the core rulebook was excellent).

Since I'm on the topic, I'll mention that I think the area where they went wrong, at least with Abyssals and Sidereals, is by starting these books with long chapters on the Underworld and Heaven, respectively. Valid topics, to be sure, but they're really quite dull.

Or is it the assumption that people won't actually read these chapters - they'll just skip to the exciting charms their characters can be munchkinned with?

Anyway, I'm torn - do I build an Exalted chronicle for when the Shackled City comes to an end (some time next year)? Or do I refuse to run it, and drop endless hints that it would be really cool...?

Four hours of combat later...

I've just about recovered from Saturday's epic combat.

For the benefit of anyone reading who wasn't there, the entire session consisted of a single extended battle between the seven PCs and a number of kua-toan archers and priests, an Erinyes, and some half-dragon kuo-toa spawn. The battle took place across three levels of the dungeon complex, several rooms, and used every spell every PC had prepared, rage from both barbarians, and left four of the seven PCs bleeding to death when the final killing blow was struck.

There have been some really good combats in the current campaign (The showdown with Tongue-eater is a personal favourite), but that was the best. Giving some thought to it, I think this is a partial list of why that was:

1) Challenge. This combat took the group right to the edge of their capabilities. In fact, it was probably a little too tough, but since no-one actually died, that's okay. Too many combats are routine matters of the PCs just dishing out the damage, and then stopping to heal whatever few wounds they've taken.

2) Intelligent opponents. The NPCs knew that various events were timed to go off, and acted accordingly. Another retreated to heal when things got too tough. The opposition also made good use of the 'falling rope bridge' trick that's been used before. (That said, it was a fairly major oversight on my part to not mention the existence of those rope bridges, but again, no PCs were standing on the first one when it fell.)

3) Interesting terrain. We had three levels, ropr bridges, dangerous pools, stairways, and all sorts. This opened up a lot of options that are often missing, as well as dropping the PCs in no end of trouble when they were being harried by the Erinyes, and couldn't easily get back to their entry point.

4) It was fast. Okay, spending over four hours playing through what amounted to just over 7 minutes of game time (I counted) doesn't sound fast, but the key thing was that it felt fast. No-one took too long deciding their actions, one turn followed the next, and there was a terrible sense of urgency, especially at the end when everyone was down to hit points in the teens.

(This last is something that d20 excels at. There are lots of flaws with the system, most minor but some major, but this is perhaps the biggest strength - a well-run combat can be really exciting.)

5) Fun tactics. The notion that Antrak would start the round hanging by his fingertips from a ledge (having voluntarily crossed the rope bridge knowing it was about to fall), and would proceed to pull himself up and bull rush the kuo-toans so that one fell from the ledge, is surely against the rules. There's no way that should be allowed. But, hell, it was fun!

Anyway, add that to the list of reasons why I'm enjoying this campaign and, by extension, running games again!

No more reviews

I've decided not to do any more reviews, firstly because I don't really enjoy doing them, and secondly because, well, what do I know, really?

It's a shame really - I've been reading Frostburn, which is really good.

Review: Trojan War

The Mythic Vistas series started really well, with Testament. The only problem with that book was that I would never actually use it, as I felt the material was just a bit too controversial. It continued well, with Skull & Bones, which was slightly less stunning, but was more useful. Since then, the books have been getting gradually worse.

Trojan War is a marvellous return to form. It is set during the war of the same name, of course, and is closer to Testament than any of the other books.

There are only three weaknesses I can see:

1) Out of a sense of completeness, I should point out that the editing here is less good than other Green Ronin books. This is a small complaint, and doesn't really detract from the book as a whole, but since I've complained about editting in Mongoose books, I should do the same here.

2) The book doesn't have stats for the deities. Normally, this would be a good thing, but in the Trojan War, the gods often took human form to fight. Without the stats, this becomes difficult to recreate, and is something of an oversight. It should also be noted that the 'official' stats for the gods (from Deities & Demigods) are of little use here - if Achillies is the most powerful warrior on the field, and is CR 22, there's no way he can stand against a deity with 40 class levels. What is needed is stats of about CR 25-30.

3) Military campaigns can be quite dry. This can make the book a bit limited in use, although there's no real reason you can't use it as a general Bronze Age game.

These flaws detract only slightly from the book as a whole. The high-points are many and powerful: the writing is very good, the mechanics are spot-on, and the expanded mass-battle and piety systems are very well done. These latter two systems are developed from the core in Testament, but have been improved here. The mass battle system, in particular, is perhaps the most useful rules of their type in the book.

This book is highly recommended for those DMs with a use for it. Naturally, it's less useful for DMs who aren't running this sort of a game, although several of the subsystems are useful on their own. Additionally, I should point out that the book is still not quite as good as Testament, but it's probably on a par with Skull & Bones, and is certainly more likely to be used (by me) than Testament.

Vampire: the Requiem

Well, I've finished the new Vampire. Interesting read. Here are my thoughts (I'm not going to bother with a chapter-by-chapter breakdown. It's Vampire, but new and shiny).

Firstly, I like the game. A lot. The mechanics (those that are here, rather than the new WoD rulebook) are well handled, consistent, and balanced. The rules also serve the needs of the mood of the game, which is nice. Things like having the Nosferatu clan weakness described in terms of specific effect rather than "Nosferatu are hideously ugly", is nice. When specific rules are needed, they're given (unlike the previous Toreador weakness, which stated that they could be fascinated by beauty, but didn't define what that meant, what actions they could take, and just how it affected them). My biggest griefs with the previous systems (Generation was the be-all and end-all of char-gen for most characters, and could really screw the Dominate-user) have both been fixed.

I really like the division of the clans (only 5: Gangrel, Nosferatu and Ventrue which we know, plus the Daeva, generic sensualist vampires, and Mekhet, the keepers of secrets). I like the use of covenants as "Vampire nations", and the fact that the wacky Tzimisce notions of transcendence are now features of a covenant, where they better belong. I like the notion of the city as a "gilded prison", and like the fact that there's not really any Kindred society above city-level (so, no Camarilla or Sabbat). I really like the fact that the silliness associated with the Sabbat is gone - the game is much more Camarilla in style than the old version. And I like the perceived re-emphasis on playing the game the group wants to play, rather than defining the world and filling it with Metaplot.

There are things I don't like, however. I dislike bloodlines, for the same reasons I did previously (although they're a bit better here, since they seem to be more confined to appropriate niches, and not just excuses for really cool disciplines). I really dislike the use of Brujah (sorry, Bruja), Malkavians (sorry, Malkovians) and Toreador as bloodlines. One of the things I liked about the notion of starting again was that the game could, well, start again.

The other problem I have with the game, which is specific to experienced groups, is that it will probably be quite hard to get a game going. Most of the concepts are most easily explained by saying, "well, it's quite like the old XX", where XX is a clan, sect, or whatever. However, if you do that, you'll just end up playing the same game in the same way, which rather defeats the purpose of a new version. Plus, if an experienced player is creating a Gangrel, you know what you'll be getting, despite the fact that a game with only 5 clans requires each to be a lot wider in scope than one with 13.

On balance, this is probably the best version of Vampire to date. It's certainly better than Revised, but probably on a par with the 2nd Edition in terms of setting. The mechanics are a lot better, however, which gives it the edge. I just don't know how easy it would be to get a good play experience out of it with the current group. And that's the real test, isn't it?

Anyway, next on my list is Green Ronin's "Trojan War", which should make for a fairly effective change of topic.

Quality of DMs

I was talking with Martin earlier, who was busy recounting some more of his horror stories from games across the Atlantic. Needless to say, this got me to thinking about the quality of DMs generally, and the qualities that make for a good DM. I'm going to suggest three.

It should be noted that being prepared is not an inherent quality in a good DM. Some DMs work best with full notes, some with minimal preparation. It all depends on the DM*.

I think the three qualities of a good DM are: rules mastery, story mastery, and table mastery.

Rules mastery is pretty obvious. A bad DM will have a hazy knowledge of the rules, or worse will apply the rules in an unbalanced manner (balance between players, of course; there's little harm in changing the PC/monster balance, as long as you know what you're doing). A good DM will know the rules well, and be able to find anything he doesn't know quickly. A great DM will know both the rules, and also when not to apply the rules, which is a key, and much overlooked, skill. The best DMs will make it all look seamless, of course.

Story mastery is the knowledge of mood, theme, plotting, structure, and also the needs for things to seem realistic (they don't need to actually be realistic - but the world needs to make as much sense as the players expect). A bad DM will structure his campaign as a never-ending series of combats (yes, I've done that), or make rulings that make no sense for the story (rules that one group of PCs desecrate the bodies of their foes while another is discussing a truce with the survivors of that group - when the players state "we'll make sure they're dead", rather than specifying how they do this.) A good DM will include opportunities for role-playing and character development, provide some sort of impetus for PC actions, and ensure that things keep running. A great DM will have a plot structure mapped out, but will be ready to take the game in an entirely different direction if and when the PCs do something unexpected. The best DMs will be ready to put away the dice to just let the story flow when needed.

Table mastery is to do with the control of everything outside the game. This includes making sure players know when and if he's going to miss a game, make sure that group actually gels (and we don't have a player so disruptive that others are walking away from the game), and sets the policy for what happens when a player can't make it. This is a delicate process - the DM must ensure that he's working with the players to keep things flowing, and he must always make sure he's on the same wavelength as the host of the game as far as such things are concerned (after all, the host can always trump the DM on the issue of who is and is not invited to the game).

A bad DM will be oblivious to problems at the table, refuse to take action if a player is out of action, or be overly quick to action where there actually is not a problem. A good DM will make sure everyone knows what's happening, and will pro-actively deal with problems (and yes, I know "pro-active" is now a dirty word. It's also the right word for this situation. Sorry). A great DM just won't have these sorts of problems - he's so on top of matters that any problem will be flagged up long before it becomes an issue, and dealt with. (Of course, that could also be the result of having a great group of players. The difference will be obvious in the rest of the game.)

Sadly, I think the standard of DMing is probably very low in general. I base this on the fact that most people in the world are fairly incompetent. Sad, but true, and not limited to gaming.

Right, now tell me which areas of DM skill I've forgotten, tell me I'm an arse, or something. I'm getting lonely here :-)

* There's a caveat to that. Some systems, notably rules-heavy systems that really reward preparation. d20 simply requires more preparation that Storyteller, for instance. (That said, if using pregenerated adventures, even that rule is flexible - but extensive use of pre-gens is only an option for D&D and a very few other games.)

Victory! (I mean "Review: d20 Future")

An age ago, I thought to myslef "I'll just quickly read d20 Future, then tackle the new Vampire". How silly - I should have known d20 Future would take ages to get through.

This is a 224-page hardback book from Wizards of the Coast, done in glorious full-colour. It's a companion piece to d20 Modern, discussing the future, in all its many guises. This includes realistic, near-realistic, and fantastic visions of the future. It tries to do a great deal, and this loose focus is both a great strength and a great weakness.

There are thirteen chapters and an Introduction. The Intor presents the key feature of the book, that allows it to cover all possible futures - the Progress Level, which is a simple measure of the advancement of a society. According to the book, we are currently either late in the Industrial Age (PL4) or early in the Information Age (PL5). The highest PL is 9, at which point much of the technology described is essentially magic, which seems fitting.

Chapter 1 deals with Characters, presenting the usual raft of Advanced Classes, Occupations and Feats for a future game. These are okay, but nothing special. The highlights are the feats, of course. The chapter runs to 28 pages, 20 of which are Advanced Classes.

Chapter 2 describes Campaigns, and in many ways is the meat of the book. There are eight campaign models here: Bughunters (Aliens), Dimension X (Sliders), From the Dark Heart of Space (eh, X-Files meets Resident Evil meets Event Horizon?), Genetech (Dark Angel; this first appeared in Dungeon magazine), Mecha Crusade (the Singularity Campaign, this first appeared in Dungeon), Star*Drive (a revival of an old TSR campaign setting), Star Law (um, there was a Gerry Anderson TV series that was just like this, but I can't think what it was called. Cops in space is what it is) and The Wasteland (Mad Max).

The campaign models are good, giving a flavour of each aspect of the book, and providing lots of good motivations for campaigns. I like this a lot. The chapter runs to 22 pages, 6 of which are filled with material reprinted from other sources.

Chapter 3 deals with gear, and seems mostly plausible. One neat idea is the "item template", which is a feature or set of features that can be added to otherwise notmal gear to make it better, or to adapt it to the appropriate PL for the game. This expands the utility both of the equipment here, and also elsewhere, at the cost of very little space. This chapter is also 22 pages. I like it, but as with all other visions of the future, it will look really silly in 5 years, when much of this either exists, or has no chance of ever existing.

Chapter 4 deals with Environments, detailing such hazards as radiations sickness, gravitation, atmospheric effects, and star systems. The only problem I have with this is that, at 6 pages, it's too short.

Chapter 5 discusses Scientific Engineering, and is the point at which the book starts to drag. In 12 pages, it discusses genetics, cloning, nanotech and matter replication. Some of this stuff is okay, some of it is really far fetched (sorry, I just don't believe in Star Trek replicators, and won't until I own one), and I'm pretty sure I spotted a couple of glaring scientific errors. Still, it's not too bad. The biggest weakness here, and one that's carried on in the rest of the book, is that they don't call out what is reasonable expectations based on current science, what is wild conjecture, and what's pure fantasy made up to make a better game. If this book is to be used for all sorts of games, that should have been done.

Chapter 6 is Traveller Science, and covers all means of getting about. It described realistic and fantastic space travel, both between planets and stars, dimensional travel (a la Ace Rimmer) and time travel. One thing it does not cover, and really should, is realistic interstellar travel in the absence of faster-than-light drives. Whether through the use of stasis, cold-sleep or generational ships, mankind will eventually reach the stars, unless we're wiped out first. There are several good games that can be based on such a setting (mostly one-offs, I'll grant), and it would have been nice to have seen those covered.

Chapter 7 deals with Starships (38 pages), chapter 9 with Mecha (22 pages), chapter 10 with Robotics (18 pages) and chapter 11 with Cybernetics (8 pages). Each discusses what is possible at each PL, the appropriate rules for each system, and then provides a bunch of samples, both in parts and completed units. Nice features include the starship templates (which work just like monster templates in D&D), and the entire robotics chapter. Oh, and the cybernetics rules are very nice, too, if rather more generous that I'd be around the whole issue of post-op care.

Weak areas are as follows: The startship combat rules are lifted from Star Wars revised, and while they don't entirely suck (and have been improved since that game, I think), they allow heroes far too little impact on the performance of their fighter craft, and far too much impact on the performance of larger ships. Basically, the pilot can apply his Defense bonus to the ship he's flying, but not his hit points. Which means that Luke died long before entering the Death Star trench, and that the Enterprise is impossible to hit with Sulu at the helm. Sorry, I don't like it.

The various construction systems are weak, too. A single character can theoretically put together a Death Star in his local mechanic's workshop. He can theoretically put it together without, in fact, and only takes a -4 penalty on the Craft roll!

Finally, the game needs more cyberware, and needs some thought put into the question of whether cyber eyes with built-in targetting and zoom and infra read count as one implant, four implants, of something in between. One seems too lenient and four way too harsh (that's the default number, by the way).

Chapter 8 deals with vehicles, in 6 pages, and covers hovercars and bike, and also the wonderful hoverboard. Very nicely, the hoverboard uses the Tumble skill in place of Drive. I like this.

Chapter 12 deals with Mutations, in 10 pages, and steals liberally from Dungeon's version of Gamma World. The rules are therefore a little wonky, although they seem to work not too badly. You can't build the Hulk with them, but if that's what you want, play Mutants & Masterminds.

Chapter 13 deals with Xenobiology, in 13 pages. It discussed using Monster Manual creatures as aliens, provides two "alien" templates, and then provides eight non-human PC races, probably from the Star*Drive setting. This chapter is alright, but nothing special.

The great strength of this book is its diversity. I can see running lots of games inspired by, or at least featuring, stuff from this book. However, the great weakness of this book is its diversity. By covering so much ground, the book fails to cover much of it satisfactorally. The Starship rules are pretty complete (and I don't think they need too many house rules). The Mecha and Robotics rules are really good, and the Traveller Science is probably just enough for what's needed. The rest is a very solid foundation, but probably not enough to run any game that's not directly taken from one of the settings in chapter 2.

Still, a good book, a good buy, and recommended for anyone interested in expanding d20 Modern to the future.

Next up: my long-awaited review of Vampire: the Requiem! (well, long-awaited by me, at least.)

How Conan Made me a Better DM

I've been reading the Conan Chronicles of late. I started with Robert Jordan's rather poor clones (which were still better than the Wheel of Time, mostly because they actually came to an end), before moving on to the originals, which are far superior.

In the last few weeks, I've noticed an improvement in my handling of combat. Previously, combat has largely consisted of "you hit, doing 5 damage. He moves there, takes a swing, and...." Frankly, it was a bit tedious. However, in the last few weeks, there has been a lot more description, and more cinematic action.

Anyway, I put this change down to reading Conan, which is fairly minimalist on descriptions, but which is also quite vivid, which is what RPG combat really needs.

When Newbies get it...

Started my demo game on Friday, got through a quick explanation of role-playing, and an ultra-quick summary of the rules. Dished out the characters, and got stuck in. By the end of the allocated time (40 mins), they'd just reached the first combat, against 2 ghouls.

Highlights:

The characters chosen are Tekkis of the Pelenan Wastes (human barbarian, a cross between Conan and the original Tekkis), Telos Greenleaf (elven ranger, Legolas wannabe), Malifex (human sorcerer, bit of a madman), and "Fat" Jack Tavington (human rogue, a pirate). "Fat" Jack was chosen 'cos "pirates are cool!"

While travelling the dungeon corridors, they encountered a closed door. Rather than try to open the door by conventional means, or even having the rogue pick the lock, they elected to take the barbarian's axe to the door. True to form, the hideous door monster took their first two blows with a scornful disdain.

It's amazing just how quickly the old patterns emerge :-)

Quiet in here...

It's not that I mind talking to myself, you understand. It's just that then the only posts I get to read are written by an idiot...

I have found of late that the whole thing is a bit of a burden. Creating settings, running adventures, even reading the books. At times, it feels like something I'm making myself do, rather than something I enjoy.

(I should say that this doesn't actually apply to the current campaign, which is actually good fun. It's also comprised of pre-gen adventures, which may or may not be relevant.)

This was very evident when reading the new World of Darkness book. I didn't read it, stop every few pages, and think "hey, I could run a game like this. That would be cool." Rather, I was very much reading it with an eye on utility, on assimilating the information as quickly as possible, so I can run the new Vampire. Which is hardly the ideal state of mind to be in.

The upshot of this is that I'm going to be scaling back my RPG activity. I'll still be running the game on Saturday, and also the demo game I've got coming up (which might turn into golf instead - don't ask). I'll still follow Dragon and Dungeon magazines, and I'll still track a few game lines. But I won't be buying lots of supplements for the new WoD (if any - still not even sure about the new Werewolf and Mage, although the latter is of interest), and I don't expect to be buying many d20 supplements in the near future (I have no planned purchases after MMIII). And I won't be writing up any new settings, planning any new campaigns, or particularly be looking to play in any games.

None of this actually amounts to anything, but as I said, I don't mind talking to myself...

Review: World of Darkness

Firstly, I hated reading this book. I hated it because this is a new edition of the Storyteller rules, which I know quite well, and therefore knew most of this book already. However, as with different versions of d20 (and, indeed, Storyteller in the past), there are enough small differences to make reading the whole again necessary. There are also a significant number of fairly large differences as well.

Putting that aside, let's look at the book itself - my enjoyment in reading it has no bearing whatsoever on the actual content or utility of the book, and those are the important qualities. World of Darkness is a 222-page black and white hardback book. It cost £12 (I think - I bought a lot of game books that day).

The first thing to note is that this book is almost entirely given over to rules. There is very little setting information here. This is both good and bad. It's good because I don't need to read three slightly different interpretations of the rules in Vampire, Werewolf and Mage, and because this book now acts in essentially the same manner as d20 Modern - it's a foundation on which you can play basically any type of modern-era game you want. It's bad because it's quite dull, and there's not much indication of how to use it (in specific terms).

What mood there is in the game indicates a kind of X-Files meets Cthulhu style, which is nice. Certainly, this is a better foundation for that type of game than d20, which suffers inevitably from D&D-ism.

The game calls itself a Storytelling game, rather than a Storyteller game, to distinguish itself from previous editions. But, really, what's in a name? If you know Vampire, Exalted or Trinity, you know this system.

The basics of rolling dice are the same. Success is granted on an 8 or above, 10's are rerolled, and 1's do not subtract successes. In effect, then, each die in your pool counts for 0.33333333. Effectively, you should roll one success for every 3 dice (averaged across an infinite number of rolls). The maths here are very neat, and although it's not mentioned, a Storyteller could speed the game considerably by just assuming automatic successes on that ratio.

Modifiers apply to dice pools, and when modifiers reduce a dice pool to 0 or fewer dice, the character can still attempt a chance roll, which is the roll of a single die, succeeding only on a 10 (which can then be rerolled). If a 1 is rolled (on this roll only), the character botches.

Finally, a character who scores 5 or more successes scores a dramatic success.

Character traits work in a manner familiar to those who've used old games, except that characters have a variable number of Health levels, based on Stamina (mostly). Wound penalties apply only when the character is almost out of Health, which is good.

In addition to the usual Attributes and Abilities, characters may take Merits, which are the equivalent of the old Backgrounds, with the addition of Mental and Physical merits, such as Two-Weapon Fighting. These are all handled very nicely.

But, perhaps the place where the changes to the system are most notable is in combat. Previously, Storyteller combat could really drag, with each attack requiring four dice rolls to handle (attack, dodge, damage and soak). This has been much reduced, to a single roll.

An attack uses the appropriate attack skill (Dex + Firearms or Str + Brawl or Weaponry). Bonus dice are added based on weapons used (a Glock is +2, a shotgun +4). Dice are then subtracted for Armour, cover, Defense, and any other means of resisting or avoiding damage. Each success on the attack roll is then a single Health level of damage done.

This is an excellent system, much faster than the old, and generally to the good. It will take a while to get used to, but will be worth the effort (sucks for Exalted, though, since that's now gone from using the best version of the Storyteller rules to using a set that's notably worse than the best).

The sense I get from the combat rules is that they're very deadly, which is distinctly appropriate for a horror game. For a more cinematic game, you'd probably need to boost Defense values or Health levels somehow.

Three other things leapt out at me:

Spending a point of Willpower adds 3 dice to your pool, rather than adding an automatic success. This is a good thing, I think, although it's mathematically equivalent in most cases.

Dice pools can't be split. You get one action in a turn of combat (presumably, Celerity will grant more - I'll know once I've read Vampire). This is also a huge benefit, as it speeds combat a lot more. As noted above, Two-weapon fighting is a merit, and is handled without splitting pools.

There are several elements that are taken from, or reminiscent of, d20. Initiative is rolled once per combat. The combat system is similar to attack roll vs. AC, with Health instead of HP, although uses even fewer rolls (more dice, though). There's a Fighting Finesse merit, which applies a character's Dex instead of Str to attack rolls with a specific melee weapon. Not that any of these are bad things, they just amused me.

Overall, although I hated reading this book, it does provide the best version of the Storyteller rules. It's also a book I can see myself using heavily, in much the same manner as d20 Modern (perhaps more for one-offs than campaigns, unless Vampire blows me away). It's a good set of rules, a good book, and recommended.

Nice game. Now, what do I do with it?

Accepted wisdom in the role-playing market is that adventure modules don't sell. This would seem to be even more true of non-D&D games that of D&D, since the markets are generally so much smaller.

So, quite rightly, companies generally don't publish adventure modules.

Of course, it's also the case that most don't put an adventure in the core rulebook, because they believe readers would prefer the pages be used on something else. (They're probably right, too. I've never used the core adventure from any game or setting book I own, and would be reluctant to do so. Both because the players might well have read it, and also because the ones that are published tend to be either skeletal, excessively short, poor quality or, often, all three.)

The problem this raises is that it can be very difficult to think what to do with the shiny new game you've just bought. So, you have a group of players all keen to play Star Wars, characters at the ready - and you've no idea what they should do. Or you're wanting to run Babylon 5, but have no idea how to even start plotting a 5-year epic across the stars. (To their credit, both Wizards and Mongoose are very good at helping people in this regard - Wizards supply extensive support on their website, while Mongoose packed the B5 book with adventure hooks.)

This creates a problem. The easiest way to show how to use a new game is by providing adventures. However, you can't afford to publish adventures for your game.

This is the point of my rant where I should be offering a solution to the problem, but I can't. I just don't have one. Perhaps one solution is to provide adventure support on the web, firstly by producing one or two adventures for people to use when the game first came out, but later by allowing experienced GMs the opportunity to submit adventures for the bank there for use by others.

(The reason that would work is quite straightforward - how many GMs would like to break into the industry? Getting something published is one of the key ways to start, and hosting adventures in that way allows game companies to provide that. I'm sure there are all sorts of problems with that scheme, however, or else everyone would be doing it already.)

Anyway, I'm off back to the new World of Darkness...

Get your own damn PHB!

According to Wizards legendary marketing survey, the average campaign lasts 8 months, with the group meeting weekly for 4 hours a week. Assuming that that's 35 weeks, this gives a total time of 140 hours.

Amazon.co.uk currently have the PHB and DMG for £14 each. So, for the princely sum of 10 pence per hour, you can enjoy the pleasure of not pissing of the whole group by monopolising the only copy of the Player's Handbook. And, for 20 pence per hour, you can have that benefit AND unlimited time to pick out just the right items for your munchkinised character.

Sorry to be harping on about this again, but if you're playing in a campaign, there is actually very little reason not to get your own copy of the rules.

(Of course, the economy takes a big hit if you're using lots of supplements, or if you're playing a game that doesn't sell so well on Amazon, and so doesn't get the same discounts. Also, in many cases, the GM may not want the players to have the rulebook, as he wishes to keep the setting info mysterious.)

The Value of a Default Setting

Going back to the demo game I'm running, I spent quite a lot of time last week creating characters. Each character needed a background, of course, so I dusted of my notes for Terafa, and wrote some. Initially, I used the setting as a source of names, but as I went on, the backgrounds started to reference the history, legends and societies of the setting, providing hints of bigger things under the surface.

All of which got me thinking about the default setting of D&D. Now, part of me wishes they hadn't included the deities in the core rulebook (pretty much the only default setting elements in the books). In hindsight, though, I think perhaps they should have included a very short (about 10 pages, including the map) primer on Greyhawk in the DMG, to provide the DM with context for adventures, and also to provide hooks for building characters from.

Perhaps I'm just crazy, but I do suspect that a newbie is more likely to be fascinated by Ganarin, Knight of Malice, and arrogant last scion of the departed Sol than by Ganarin, half-elven paladin.

Demo Game

I find myself in the position where it's quite likely that I'll be running a short demo game for some complete newbies in the near future. This leads me to the following set-up:

1. The rules-set is D&D 3rd Edition. It's somewhat simplified, as explained below, but otherwise as-is.
   
2. I'm using pre-generated characters and a pre-generated scenario (more stuff from Dungeon - I'm very glad to be finally using that). There is one character of each of the 11 core classes, plus Illusionist, and one character of each non-human race (and so 6 human characters).
   

Characters are created by me using the 25-point buy method. The characters are all 3rd level, and all single-classed. My standard fixed hit-points rule applies, but since there will be no levelling up, this is hardly relevant. The simplifying assumptions:

1. No multiclassing, and no favoured classes. Since the characters are pre-generated, and there's no levelling, this isn't actually an issue.
   
2. No encumberance.
   
3. Only good characters. This probably just makes things easier on the players - little or no need to explain alignment.
   
4. No spell memorisation - all spellcasters can cast any of their spells at will.
   
5. Limited spell lists. This is the reverse of (4) - Clerics and Druids will have a fairly short list of spells to choose from. So, no need to read the whole damn Player's Handbook.
   

To be honest, I think the best thing I could have for this sort of game is a Pokemon game using the Storyteller system. However, in the absence of this, this is shaping up to be quite good. Two final observations:

1. I'm using 3.0 for this, and 3.5 for the Saturday game. It's quite wierd shifting rules sets - there are a lot of subtle changes.
   
2. Now I really want to play a Dwarven Wizard and a Half-Orc Boxer (Monk) in a game... (Plus any number of Paladins, 3.5 Rangers and Mystic Theurges...)
   

Surprisingly Munchkin: Colour Spray

Started the Shackled City adventure path from Dungeon yesterday, and was very struck by just how powerful the spell "Colour Spray" is against low level opponents.

It's a 1st level spell of the Illusion school that affects all creatures in a 15-foot cone. There is a Will save to negate the effect. However, creatures of 2 or fewer hit dice who fail the save are knocked out for 2d4 rounds, then blinded and stunned for 1d4 rounds, and then stunned for 1 round. Creatures of 3 or 4 hit dice are blinded and stunned for 1d4 rounds, and then stunned for 1 round, while creatures of 5 or more hit dice are stunned for 1 round.

This spell is potentially a party killer! Try this: a 1st level kobold sorcerer and 4 normal kobolds are an EL3 encounter - against a 2nd level party that's tough, but should be manageable. If he sorcerer has Cha 15, the save is DC 13, 14 if the sorcerer also has the Spell Focus feat. The odds are therefore good that one or two members of the party, probably the fighter and the rogue, will be knocked out by this spell. The kobold warriors then spread out - one each on the wizard and the cleric, while the other two move to the unconscious fighter and rogue. On round two they perform a coup de grace, and then between them finish off the party!

The odd thing is that, despite the title of this post, this spell is probably not over-powered. It's extremely short range, and of little use for or against high level characters. In short, it is much like sleep.

Review: Eberron Campaign Setting

It really was an inspired move, the setting search. Send out the call for setting submissions, provide an entry into the game industry, and a whopping great cheque, to the winner, and instantly raise interest in D&D by about a dozen notches. I wonder how long it took for the investment to pay off.

The winner of the setting search is Eberron, which I've spent the last month reading through. And it's good. It's very, very good. But, is it as good as the previous best campaign setting sourcebook, the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting (3rd Edition)?

The Eberron Campaign setting is a 320-page full-colour hardback book. The text is extremely dense - there's more in here than in all the Babylon 5 gamebooks I have (the main book plus 3 "year" sourcebooks). I've not been reading slowly; the book's just got a hell of a lot in it. Another advantage over B5 (the third - the fact that it's new is the first) is the editing, which is of the level I expect from Wizards of the Coast, Green Ronin, Malhavoc, and damn no others.

Anyway, on to the contents. Eberron opens with a description of what the world is, and ten things you need to know. These include the fact that everything from core D&D can appear here (I wonder how many setting search entries were eliminated for not holding that to be true?), and the stunning revelation that monsters here need not follow their Monster Manual alignments (shock!). It also, very usefully, sets the tone for the setting, which is a cross between pulp and dark intrigue. It's part Indiana Jones and part X-Files, I suppose. It's also a little more 'adult' than Forgotten Realms, which is very good.

Chapter 1 provides details of the PC races, running to 18 pages. This describes the standard races in Eberron, some of which are slightly changed in rules terms, but most of which are only different in terms of their societies. The chapter also includes several new races including Shifters (descendants of lycanthropes, with the powers you'd expect), Kalashtar (a psionic race!), and Warforged (basically, robot-men, although they don't suck too badly. Bit powerful, though).

Speaking of psionics, it should be pointed out that Eberron doesn't require the use of psionics, and provides only a couple of hooks to it in the core book (there's a continent with more psionic influence, but it's not detailed here). The book does, however, have a lot more hooks than the FRCS does. Certainly, I'd feel a lot happier about psionic characters in an Eberron campaign than a Forgotten Realms one. This is all to the good, I think.

Chapter 2 discusses classes, in 16 pages. There are discussions of the existing classes, with a few new options, notably in animal companions and familiars that are available. There is also a new class, the Artificer, who is the "items guy" of the party. I suppose in d20 Modern he'd be a hacker/mad scientist. They're good, although there are aparently some concerns that too much is gained at 1st level. That said, they have some abilities that closely mirror spellcasting, which typically makes multiclassing a bad idea, so I'd need to see how it goes in play...

Chapter 3 discusses Heroic Characteristics. It introduces Action Points, which we're familiar with. It does include some refinements of the system, such as a limit on how many points a character can 'bank', which is good. The chapter has some new uses for skills, a bunch of new feats, discussion of the gods, and the introduction of dragonmarks - magical birthmarks that give spell-like abilities to those who possess them (they're bought with feats). These are okay, and have well-thought out impact on the setting. There's something about dragonmarks (and warforged, too) which just doesn't sit right with me. However, I don't think you can run Eberron without them; they're too ingrained in the setting.

The religions of Eberron are good. The gods are there, but they are 'hands-off'. These aren't the meddling children that the Forgotten Realms is stuck with. I like this. It should also be noted that Clerics in Eberron don't have to be within one step of their deity's alignment, which makes things quite interesting. Also, the churches aren't the main source of healing in the setting - one of the dragonmarked houses handles that.

Chapter 4 gets back to my favourite subject: Prestige Classes. There are eight of them, each tied to a particular aspect of the setting, such as the shifter and warforged paragon classes, the dragonmark heir (who improves his dragonmark abilities, of course), and so on. They're okay.

Chapter 5 deals with magic, describing the role of magic in the world, the impact of the dragonmark houses, and the planes of existence. These are really good - there's one tied to each of the moons (13), and each follows an orbit that affects how it impacts the Prime Material. Some spells become more powerful when the corresponding plane is 'full'. It's all very nice.

There's also some new spells.

Chapter 6 provides new equipment. This is fun, of course, because we need more equipment. Seriously, this provides a number of items that might reasonably come up in the game, such as the elemental-bound airships of the setting. This chapter is very short, which is about the right length.

Chapter 7 is an epic. This is the meat of the book, describing the world itself in 98 pages. Actually, most of that space is taken up with descriptions of the countries in the main continent. There are also brief descriptions of the other continents, a timeline, and so on. However, the bulk of the book is taken up with country after country.

This is good stuff. The format is the same as in the FRCS, and is just about ideal. I like it, even if it took forever to get through.

Chapter 8, cos we're not done yet, describes important organisations. These include the dragonmarked houses, the royal families, and several other factions. All nice stuff, and lots of adventure starters and patrons/adversaries for PCs. Nice.

Chapter 9 discusses issues, themes, and such facing an Eberron campaign. This is good stuff, missing the traditional essays into running an adventure in favour of talking about the particular themes of Eberron. It also includes a new NPC class, the mage-wright, who is a working class enchanter. Basically, mage-wrights are the backbone of the industrial base of Eberron.

This chapter is good, providing the necessary guidance without labouring the point.

Chapters 10 and 11 are new magic items and new monsters, respectively. These are okay, and fit the world. Alas, I'm a bit burned out on both, so I'll not comment further, except in this: the monsters chapter discusses means of fitting Monster Manual creatures in to Eberron (well, some specific examples). This includes things like new names for dinosaurs (long overdue in D&D - oh, and by the way, Eberron includes clans of dinosaur-riding halflings), but also short notes on the history of Beholders in the setting, the place of Rakshasas, and so on. This was missing from the FRCS, and is a very good thing to have. So, well done there.

Finally, the book has a short (and skeletal) adventure for 1st level characters. Which, I hate to say, would have been better if it hadn't just been another dungeon crawl. Hey, let's adventure in Eberron, a whole new world of fun, excitement, and dungeon crawling!

One other thing is worthy of comment: the art. I commented in the weeks before I got the book, that I was probably going to give it a miss, having seen the art gallery on the Wizards site. In truth, the art is very well done, and fits the book well. Mostly. The artworks at the start of the chapters, however, are really not to my taste. They each look like a page from a graphic novel, which is all well and good, but in my view graphic novels work as a medium because of the whole - taking one page out is generally not a great idea, and that's what's happened here (in effect). These were the pieces of art that almost prevented me getting the book. I'm glad they did not.

Overall, I think Eberron is damn good. I also think it's not quite as good (as a book) as the FRCS. However, I vastly prefer the setting, and might well consider running a campaign or two in this world (assuming the PCs don't go and allow it to be destroyed).

However, I won't be using any of the material from this book in a campaign that is not set in Eberron. It's too tightly bound (IMO) to the setting. Things that might be worth ripping off (the Warforged, the Dragonmarks) are not to my taste. So, if that's what you're wanting, I'd look elsewhere.

And that's that.

Review: Babylon 5: No Surrender, No Retreat

This is the third of four year-sourcebooks for the B5 game, each describing one of the years of the series beyond the first (the first is included in the core book). As with the other books in the sequence, it's a 128-page full colour softback book. There are four chapters.

Chapter 1 describes the iconic characters at the start of season 4. Sheridan has reached 15th level, but still has only 37 hit points (which is a good thing). The other characters have similarly risen in level. Nice, but I'm not sure of the value of this material being updated book after book. Still, I'd be complaining if it wasn't covered here.

Chapter 2 describes the series, episode by episode. Each has a summary, new rules, and adventure ideas. This is the bulk of the book, running to 77 pages. It's good stuff, but not the way I would have structured the game, as I've mentioned before.

Chapter 3 provides new rules material, including rules for broadcating (illegally or otherwise), rules for interrogation, rules for hitching lifts across the gamaxy (seriously), and two prestige classes: Shadow and Vorlon agents. These are quite nice, although it's a significant surprise that Lyta doesn't have levels as a Vorlon agent.

Finally, chapter 4 has three pages of new equipment. Not surprisingly, there's nothing earth-shaking here, just a few new additions that are quite nice.

This book is competent, and does the same job as the others in the series as well as they do. I'm not sure I can recommend it, since most of the book contains summaries for episodes we've all seen. Still, lots of adventure ideas here, which are nice.

Mongoose claim that they've improved the editing of their books lately, and I'm inclined to agree. However, they still need to do more. There are many instances here of word-substitution errors. Discrete instead of discreet (hint: anyone can hope to be discreet. Only conjoined twins can really hope to be discrete), too instead of to, their instead of there. They're less common, but still a noticable flaw in the book, and still annoy me.

Next up: I'm finishing off Eberron at the moment, with 70-odd pages in the last chapter to read.

Aiming Fireballs

Another comment by Andreas was that a Wizard or other spellcaster should have to make some sort of attack roll to successfully target a fireball or similar spell. My comment at the time was that such an attack roll would remove the need for a saving throw from such spells, which would hurt rogues and the like.

I have since recalled that the rules for grenades in d20 Modern are almost exactly like those Andreas proposed, where the user of a grenade must make an attack roll to target the grenade, and victims receive saving throws for half damage (a fact that annoyed me to no end, since more than half the party had at least one level of Fast Hero to get the Evasion talent, but nevermind).

That being the case, I propose that the correct ruling would be exactly as expressed: In order to successfully target a spell whose area of effect is determined by pinpointing a grid intersection (so, fireball is included, but lightning bolt and magic missile are not - and I'm sure there's a more elegant way to express this notion, but I can't think what it is, but anyway, you get the idea) the character must make an attack roll against the grid intersection.

The AC of a grid intersection is 10. The attack roll is modified by -2 for every range increment between the wizard and the target point, determined by the range of the spell, as follows:

Short Range: Range increment is 10 feet.

Medium Range: Range increment is 40 feet.

Long range: Range increment is 100 feet.

If the attack roll hits, the spell affects the intended area. Otherwise, roll a d8 scatter dice, as for a grenade-like missile. On a roll of 1, the spell targets an intersection in a direct line further away from the wizard than intended. Other results cause the spell to move in a different direction, as per normal. The spell is centred on an intersection 1 square away from the intended target for every range increment between the wizard and the intended target.

For example, Luc wants to fireball some orcs who are 300 feet away. Because Marius has been good enough to get up close to the orcs, Luc has carefully calculated just the right spot to centre the fireball to hit them all, but miss Marius, a distance of 310 feet from the sorcerer.

Fireball has a range of Long, so 310 feet is 3 range increments away from Luc. To hit the desired spot, Luc must make an attack roll at a -6 penalty against an AC of 10 (alternatively, he must hit AC 16 - the math is the same).

If Luc hits, the fireball goes off as expected. If he misses, he must roll a scatter die. The fireball is then centred on an intersection 3 squares away from the intended target.

It is, of course, impossible to score a critical hit when aiming spells in this fashion.

The downside of this rule is that it slightly weakens spellcasters - suddenly their offensive spells are a lot less reliable. The upside is that I no longer need to get frustrated at players who take the token and work out the exact placement of the spell for absolute best effect, when their character couldn't possibly have that sort of perspective.

Anyway, that's that.

Critical Saves

Another comment that was made a while ago, this time by Andreas, was that a natural 20 on a saving throw, instead of causing the character to automatically save, should instead allow the character to take no damage from the effect.

This is certainly a decent idea, and doesn't damage the game over-much, except for one detail: there exists the case where a character can save only on a 20. In such an instance, the character either takes full damage from the attack, or takes no damage. This is similar to the case found in many 2nd-edition house rules on critical hits, where a natural 20 did double damage.

That being the case, I offer the following house rule as an alternative that does basically what Andreas suggested, fits the existing rules, and solves the problem just outlined:

When a character must make a saving throw against a spell or other effect, where a successful save causes the character to take reduced damage or a reduced effect (so, also includes the like of "Will partial" saves), a character has the possibility of rolling a "critical save".

If the die roll on the saving throw is a natural 20, this roll is considered a lifeline. The player should immediately roll a second saving throw against the same DC, using all the same modifiers. If this second roll is also a successful save against the effect, the character has rolled a critical save. In this instance, the character is completely immune to the effect, taking no damage or being otherwise affected.

Taking the Hit

Ages ago, Johannes mentioned something about wanting an option in D&D for a character to voluntarily take a hit in order to get some bonus. For instance, he might do so to draw his opponent's weapon out of the way, or to protect the party wizard, or whatever.

The problem with allowing this is the core system is that the abstract nature of damage and hit points in D&D doesn't really make allowance for such actions, in the same way that it doesn't allow for specific injuries.

(Case in point: the PCs capture an enemy warrior. They tie said warrior up, and interrogate him. Then, as punishment for his crimes, they decide to cut off his hands. How does the system adjudicate this? It doesn't, and with a good reason: it would really suck if that happened to a PC, and anything allowable for a PC has to be allowable for an NPC. That's a weakness in the system, though, since the action is certainly a reasonable thing to want to try.)

Anyway, in terms of the taking the hit question, there are two problems. Firstly, if the warrior wishes to take the hit in place of the wizard, he might reasonably expect his armour to have some impact on the success of the blow. This, if allowed, causes a huge problem - the warriors in the group can then cluster around the wizard, rendering him immune to damage. This isn't so much a problem when tried by PCs; it's a major problem when the NPC wizard hires a bunch of peasants to stand around in full plate and take attacks for him.

The second problem is one of hit points. Let's assume that the character basically wants to allow his opponent to stab him, to thus get the opponent's weapon out of the way (as was done in the Wheel of Time, and as is a really stupid thing to do in combat, but anyway). Alas, even if the 10th level Fighter takes an automatic hit as a result of this, he probably has a hundred hit points, and can just shrug it off.

So, here's what I would suggest: If a character wishes to voluntarily take a hit, that character automatically foregoes the benefits of his armour class. In fact, the character automatically takes damage from the attack as though he has taken a critical hit from the attack. Sneak attack damage applies to this attack as well, if applicable.

Two more vicious variants are possible: after the character takes the hit, he must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + damage taken), or die (essentially, giving a free coup de grace to his opponent). Alternately, the character takes a normal (non-critical) hit. Sneak attack damage does NOT apply. However, the damage done applies to the character's Constitution, rather than his hit points.

Truth be told, I don't like the notion of a character voluntarily taking a hit any more than I like the notion of characters taking called shots to specific body parts, or facing the possibility of permanent injuries. But, if I were implementing this sort of thing, that is how I would do it.

Review: Expanded Psionics Handbook

Ah, psionics and D&D. Has any subsystem had a more troubled history, across all editions? In 1st, it was a badly implemented afterthought that easily became a munchkin's paradise. In 2nd it was maginally better, but still with the dangers of munchkinism. Worse, it wasn't part of the core rules, and used systems that bore no resemblance to the rest of the game. In 3rd edition, the problems with the system were dealt with, and the munchkinism disappeared. Alas, so did all the fun - 3rd edition psioncs was horribly weak, and linked to a psionic combat system that was either impossibly wasteful or immensely destructive, depending almost entirely on the luck of a single roll or two.



Now, we get to the 3.5 revision. In general, I felt this was a big step forward, but it did increase the power level overall. Therefore psionics, although theoretically still compatible, became even more underpowered. Step in Bruce Cordell, the guy who wrote the 3rd edition psionics rules and (in my opinion) Wizards' best serving designer.

The Expanded Psionics Handbook is a 222-page full colour hardback. There are eight chapters and an appendix. Before I get to describing the chapters, though, let me say one thing in general: this book is dull. This is not a book to read for fun, or as an ideas factory. Its only utility is for adding psionics for a game, and I'm going to review it based solely on that criterion. If you have no interest in a psionics system, stay away.

Chapter 1 covers psionic races. This was something of a surprise, as I didn't expect anything like this. However, in hindsight, I think it was almost a good idea. There are several familiar races here, such as the Githyanki, the Thri-kreen, and so forth, and a couple of new races. The reason I say 'almost' a good idea is that the races we've seen before are all either taken from the Dark Sun setting (and of limited use elsewhere), or have a Level Adjustment (and so are of limited use in general), or are new. There's nothing really wrong with the new races, except that they are new. I've posted on this before - we know what an elf is, but do we really know what a dromite is?

Chapter 2 describes the psionic classes. There are four: psion (psionic wizard), psychic warrior (psionic paladin, but without the code of conduct), soulknife (sort of a psionic rogue, although they have an ability that is essentially a lightsaber) and wilder (psionic sorcerer). I like these classes. The soulknife has a problem with the BAB progression, which Wizards say is intentional, but that's easy fixed. Otherwise, they're solid.

Chapter 3 discusses skills and feats. The skills are few in number (a new knowledge - psionics -, a new use for Concentration, and three new skills). The only oddity is that Autohypnosis remains a skill in its own right. I think I would have preferred it to become part of Concentration.

The feats are also fine, covering all the required bases. Oddly, there are a few feats that aren't anything to do with psionics (Improved Manyshot, for instance). These feats don't use psionics, don't improve psionics, don't have psionics as prerequisites, and aren't prerequisites for psionic feats. It's just odd.

Chapter 4 provides the actual rules for psionics. Manifesting powers, learning powers, psi-like abilities, power resistance, and so on, are all covered here. There is a discussion about adding psionics to an existing campaign (which I won't ever use - I'll either run a psionic game or a non-psionic game. Still, it's good to have). The rules here aren't exciting, but they are absolutely rock-solid. This is a good, good chapter.

It should be noted that psionic combat is gone. The old attack/defence modes have become powers in their own right, doing similar things to the old versions, but they don't have their own systems now, which is good.

Chapter 5 describes the powers themselves. This chapter is some 65 pages long. Again, really dull, but again absolutely solid. Nice. Worth noting is that most of the powers now have augmentations available - you pay extra power points for more damage, or better effects, or quicker manifestation. Another of the great weaknesses of the old psionics book is thus gone.

Chapter 6 describes 9 prestige classes. Some of these are the usual tosh. We have to have the "multiclass psion" classes, like the fighter/psion, the wizard/psion, and so on. It remains a huge weakness in the d20 system in general that multiclass spellcasters suck, and the same is true of psionic characters (although you can multiclass psion, psychic warrior and wilder without too much pain, which is good). We have a psionic Mystic Theurge, called the Cerebremancer.

The remaining classes are quite good. We have the Illithid Slayer, the Pyrokineticist, and the Fist of Zuoken, all of which are quite fun. I don't like prestige classes. I didn't like this chapter. However, the rules are handled just fine.

Chapter 7 deals with Psionic Items. These are basically the same as magical items. So, no need to say more there.

Chapter 8 provides new monsters, and psionic versions of some classics. These are okay, but not perfect.

The appendix gives a new Clerical domain (Mind), a couple of new spells, and a couple of new deities. This is very short, but just enough to help adding psionics to a game.

This book is dull. It's a tough read, and not a lot of fun. However, the rules are absolutely solid. If you like psionics, then this book is the essential guide for D&D. It fixes all the problems with the 3rd edition version, and hits just the right balance. Of course, if you don't like psionics, this book is useless.

The only other thing that I think is noteworthy - much of this book is now online at the Wizards of the Coast site. The new psionics stuff is now in the SRD. So, you can always try before you buy.

Buying On-line

I have no problem with companies making .pdfs available on the condition that they have DRM protection. I have no problem with them charging whatever they want for their products. These things don't piss me off.

However, in order to sell me a product, you have to do more than simply not actively piss me off. I have to want to buy your product. And this is one area where on-line shopping breaks down.

See, if I'm in a store, and I have a book in my hands, I may well impulse buy it. This happens a lot, especially with game books, DVDs and music. When I'm shopping on-line, however, I never impulse buy. If I'm on-line, it's because I want something.

(I think the reasoning is something like this - in a store I might not be able to find the very thing I actually want, so I'll get something else. On-line, anything is about as easy to get as anything else, so that incentive is gone. Oh, and shiny "Three for Two!" stickers don't seem to convert very well to the on-line format.)

So, how to resolve this dilemma?

Well, it just so happens I have a couple of ideas:

1) Free samples. Or, if they could get the format and protections right, timelocked samples would be even better. The idea is that you give away a fair amount of stuff free (sneak previews, supplementary adventures, or, on the DVD or music front, trailers and sample tracks). You keep the premium stuff back, and charge top dollar for it. That way, if you like the free stuff, you know that the rest of the stuff is likely to be to your taste.

The timelock formats should be obvious - you download the files for free, but after 50 hours or so the files lock, unless you pay for them. That way, you get to try whatever you want before you buy. And, of course, we're all a lot more inclined to sample something for free than we are to just go ahead and buy it.

2) Smaller files. There is more value in a 400-page book than a 32-page adventure, and the printing and binding costs are similarly favourable to big print works. I don't think the same is true of electronic documents. Clearly, there is no real difference in binding costs (since there aren't any), and storage costs would seem to favour the small. Again, I can see a case for impulse buying a small file where I would never consider dropping $34 for a campaign setting on a whim.

There are other problems associated with DRM, which I want to deal with here as well. The big issue for publishers is one of piracy. And, like it or not, it is a valid concern. Global music chains may be able to afford a little piracy, but it's unlikely that game publishers can. The problem they seem to have forgotten is that their customers won't accept DRM techniques that get in their way. At best, they're an annoyance. At worst, a computer failure wipes out your entire collection, worth several hundred dollars. It is also true that if you buy a file (mp3, pdf, whatever) you absolutely should have the right and the ability to easily take it to any other medium you care. It should be your copy, to do with as you will. If you want to move it to another computer, there should be no problem. It shouldn't even be an issue. If you want to lend it to a friend, the same should also be true.

I have no idea how to solve that problem, however. I just wish that I believed that someone was actually looking. As it is, we have the big companies trying to force DRM on us, the bulk of ordinary customers being shafted, or at least refusing to buy, and a handful of stalwarts/zealots/pirates screaming about how every protection move is big brother or big business stomping on their God-given right to do whatever they want.

Unearthed Arcana revisited

I've been thinking about my rather scathing review of Unearthed Arcana recently, especially in light of writing up the "Dragons of the Cerulean Ocean" setting (my latest, fad-of-the-moment, campaign setting). I'm writing up a fairly large number of house rules for the campaign, and I've concluded that I was rather unfair to Unearthed Arcana during the review.

Basically, in the new setting, I'm using large swathes of Unearthed Arcana, either whole-cloth or in a modified form. For instance, Action Points are there, as is Reputation, Magic Rating and Defense Bonus. Paragon classes are in place for two of the races (although these weren't new in UA, and have been modified here), Weapon Groups, and so on, and so on.

So, I guess it's rather more useful that I first stated.

Disposable Magic

The flip side of the name magic argument is the availability of disposable magical items. I like the notion that a wizard might dash off a few spells onto scrolls, so that he doesn't need to memorize lots of utility spells before heading into the dungeon, or the party might invest in a couple of wands of cure serious wounds. These are low-powered, disposable items that should be available, and which can be crafted by the weaker spell-casters in the setting.

At present, the cost of creating a potion is spell level x caster level x 50. So, a potion of cure light wounds (1d8+1) costs 1 x 1 x 50, while a potion of cure light wounds (1d8+5) costs 1 x 5 x 50, and a potion of cure serious wounds (3d8+5) costs 3 x 5 x 50. (3rd level spell, so minimum caster level is 5). Only spells of 3rd level or lower can be placed in potions.

The cost of creating a scroll is spell level x caster level x 25. So, a scroll costs half as much as the same potion. There is no limit to the spell level allowed in scrolls, but bear in mind, of course, that they are harder to use (anyone can use a potion, after all).

The cost of creating a wand is caster level x spell level x no. of charges x 15. Most wands, fully charged, have 50 charges. So, it's 1 x 1 x 50 x 15 for a 1d8+1 wand of cure light wounds, 1 x 5 x 50 x 15 for a 1d8+5 wand of cure light wounds, and 3 x 5 x 50 x 15 for a wand of cure serious wounds. Only spells of up to 4th level can be placed into wands.

Note that none of the above consider the impact of expensive material components. In the first two cases, these just add to the final cost; with a wand you need to add the cost of the component once per charge.

My proposal is to remove the spell level muliplier from the cost of the items. This will significantly reduce the cost of higher-level potions, wands and scrolls, and make the 1d8+5 wand of cure light wounds obselete. However, it means that a wand of fireballs (5d6) will now cost 3,750 gp, instead of the current 11,250 gp. Since the latter value places such a wand beyond the buying power of a 5th level character, and barely within that of a 6th level character (and shortly after that, the wand becomes useless - better simply to cast fireball, to get 7, 7 or 10d6 damage), I think this is a good thing.

This also has a knock-on effect that the Craft Wand, Scribe Scroll and Brew Potion feats become more useful, since the XP costs for creating these items is also reduced. This is also a good thing.

Note that I think I like this notion, but only in concert with an increase in the difficulty of acquiring more powerful items. As I've said before, permanent items should have a legend associated with them, with more powerful items requiring a more powerful legend.

Name Magic

Okay, what I want to achieve is a world where items aren't just "a +1 longsword of frost", or "banded mail +3 of moderate fortification", but rather "Liandiel, the sword of the winter chill, forged by the elves in secret to escape their subjugation by the red dragon Mantakalasa", or "the Iron Hide of Jonah Agardssen, hero of the third war against the Drow".

I see two ways to achieve this:

Firstly, limit the power of an item based on the power of the legend behind it. So, a character with Craft Magic Weapons and Armour can't just churn out a hundred suits of chainmail +1 - he needs to add meaningfully to the legend of an item before he can increase its potency. Oh, and items need to be named, of course, or else they don't have any power.

Secondly, give characters a break on the crafting costs associated with creating items if they can associate the item with great deeds. So, a character who wishes to create a longsword +2 of shock might travel to the home of the god of lightning, and ask him to personally bless the weapon. In return, in addition to whatever XP he gets for the quest, he gets to add 10% of this to the invested XP in the item. (So, if his quest to see Zeus grants 2,000 XP, that's 200 less he has to spend on the item.)

This would, of course, be coupled with a restriction on the Identify spell, and a corresponding empowerment of the knowledge skills and the bardic lore ability. Rather than having Identify give out the power list of the item, it would instead reveal the name of the item, and some of the legend behind it. Judicious use of Knowledge skills, Bardic Lore and, failing that, sages would reveal the rest of the legend. Naturally, the legend should also include mention of the activation methods of the items, or else the whole thing falls apart.

I would suggest not implementing anything like this for items of limited charges - it would really suck having to individually name potions - but would consider expanding it to include any item with non-standard powers, or any item of especial significance, not just weapons and armour.

What do you think?

Sorcerers

A random thought: would there really be any great harm in allowing sorcerers to choose spells from the Cleric spell-list, in addition to the Wizard one? With the caveat that a spell on both lists uses the Wizard spell level, of course.

As I see it, sorcerers get such a crappy number of spells as it is, adding to this list isn't really a great boon. (Oh, there is one benefit to it, I guess - they would then be able to use Cleric scrolls and wands - is that a problem?)

Thoughts?

Prestige Classes in Use

On Saturday, I commented about the new campaign world I'm working on, with a view to running a game there in a while (Tollis hasn't worked out quite as I'd expected, probably due to lack of proper preparation on my part). Amongst the things I said was a return to one of my old, familiar themes - "no prestige classes".

Before you roll your eyes, think "oh no, not again", and tune out, this isn't just another rant about how prestige classes suck, why they're a blight on the game, and why no-one should ever, ever touch them. Instead, here are my thoughts on how the game went using prestige classes, and the reason why I wouldn't allow them again.

1) Although only one character so far has actually entered a prestige class, they've had a significant impact on the game. Many characters have been built aiming towards a particular class, and there has been an assumption that other characters should inevitably aim towards a prestige class at some point.

Now, the first of these I don't mind much. There's a danger that characters will be built that way because the player wants to play "A Cavalier", rather than "Marcus Antonius Marius, second son of Marcus Antonius Anius, a noble of the empire, dedicated to the protection of his twin, the paladin, and member of the Order of the Sickle". Still, that danger exists in any class-based game, and most non-class based games as well, so it's not a problem inherent to prestige classes.

The second assumption is a bad thing. Taking a prestige class or not doing so should be a choice, and should not be a choice where one option screws your character. This is, on one level, a balance thing, where it's important that prestige classes not be more powerful than base classes. On another, it's a problem where players get bored with "one more level of Fighter". I don't really know what to do about that.

2) Prestige classes are murder on my back. Not really, of course, but many weeks I've been asked if I have "book X" with me, because a given player wants to use a particular prestige class from it. My RPG books are spread across every available space back home. My d20 books take up several shelves. I cannot physically carry them all, or frankly very many, so unless I'm asked to bring a specific book with me, I won't have it.

And that's the reason that there won't be prestige classes in any future campaigns I run. Unless I'm hosting the game, which seems an unlikely possibility at this time.

3) Prestige Classes do close one of the holes in the system, specifically the multiclass spellcaster bit. At first glance, the Mystic Theurge seems massively overpowered, but in actual play it's about right. It's just really dull. And, it is a valid fix for that part of the system - it's just a crappy fix. Alas, that problem only seems to have crappy fixes.

4) Too many prestige classes are dull. I like most of the Star Wars prestige classes, as they're built specifically for the setting. I like the elven Bladesinger class, since it means something (although it's far from perfect), and I like most of the classes in Oriental Adventures. I pretty much hate all of the prestige classes in Sword & Fist, Tome & Blood, and all the rest. Too many of them are too generic (by design).

Fixing this, of course, is a matter of changing the background of the classes to fit the current setting well. But that's too much work for me - especially if I'm concerned with having a reasonable number of classes, and a reasonable number for each base class to aspire to.

5) There are some fantastic prestige classes. Dragon generally publishes a couple a month, and often they're quite tasty. This is, of course, because Dragon can afford to be a bit adventurous with their classes, in a way that the class books can't afford to be - if one month's classes suck, it's really no big deal. If the classes in "Complete Warrior" suck, Wizards is in the shit.

Conclusion

Look for prestige classes if I ever run another Star Wars d20 game, or Forgotten Realms, or Oriental Adventures. But they won't be appearing in my homebrew worlds for the foreseeable future.

Exalted Goodness.

Thread started by Mort:

Went off to Static today, just because it's a lovely weather outside and I wanted to spend most of my lunch break out of the office. And what do I find? Not only the Sidereal hardback but also the Players guide. So obviously I had to pick them both up. Sigh, I really can't afford this, but I just had to have the player’s guide... you know, because.

I've had a brief flick through the players guide, and this is a short summary of it:

In true white wolf style the players guide has got the obligatory merits and flaws in it, I'm not a huge fan of the merit/flaw stuff, as it tends to boil down to munchkinism, but I need to look through them before I give full judgement. Then there's a full guide for creating god-blooded characters, god-blooded are basically mortals who has been infused by the blood of some supernatural entity. Be it a small god, demon or even ghosts. A god-blooded is very weak compared to a full-blown exalt, but may prove an interesting option in gameplay. They can also use thaumaturgy, which is explained in another chapter of the book.

Then we have the Dragon kings, these are basically the ones who ruled creation before humans, old lizard creatures, most of which has reverted back to their animal instincts and is nothing more than slavering beasts. But there are rules for playing Dragon kings who has regained their lost glory, not sure I care much about this.

The most interesting chapter is the updated rules, with rules for power combat, as they call it. It's basically guidelines on how to make combat more flowing and a bit more deadly, as well as rewarding stunts even more than before. From my quick glance they've got some really interesting ideas here.

There's also a bunch of new charms and shit like that, but that's only expected.

The Sidereals is about, well the Sidereals, the chosen of the maidens. These guys are cool; most like every other sort of exalt around really. They tamper with fate and astronomy, and can be likened with mages, although their power isn't as open ended as a WOD mage is. The best thing with them is that they actually live in the city of the gods, and run errands for the celestial bureaucracy. Gives me so many adventure ideas it's not even funny. Especially since I watched Spirited Away last night and the first thing I could think about was: This would be so cool in Exalted...

The only problem is that I don’t have a clue where to begin, there are so many stories that can be told in the Exalted world, and so many different types of exalted to use. There is a distinct risk of going overboard and trying to fit it all in, which means you end up with a rather crap story.

Counterspells of Opportunity

The rules, as they currently stand, make counterspelling a pretty worthless option. You get to hold your action, when you could be casting a potentially devastating spell, in return for the chance to cancel an enemy spellcaster's spell, provided you can pass a Spellcraft check and have the same spell memorised? Better simply to unleash that fireball, and take the reponse like a man.

I would prefer to see counterspelling using much the same rules as attacks of opportunity, as follows:

Counterspell

Whenever an enemy spellcaster casts a spell, you may make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell level). Success indicates that you correctly identify the spell. You then have the option to counterspell. Counterspelling requires that you cast an abridged version of the same (or countering; see below) spell to negate the spell being cast.

You may counterspell any spell with the same spell. You may counter any spell with dispel magic or greater dispel magic. If you have the Improved Counterspell feat, you may counter any spell with a higher level spell of the same school. Finally, some spells specifically state that they counter certain other spells, as noted in their description. Metamagic feats have no impact on whether a given spell will counter another spell - a heightened spell will counter a normal version of the same spell, and will be countered by a normal version of the spell.

To counterspell, you must be able to cast the requisite spell. For instance, a wizard who wishes to counter a fireball must have fireball memorised. A sorcerer must know fireball, and have a spell slot of 3rd level or higher free to cast it. Additionally, you must fulfil all the component requirements for the spell - you must be able to speak to counter a spell with a verbal component, must have at least one hand free for spells with a somatic component, must have any material or focus components already in hand, and must spend any required experience points. However, the casting time for a counterspell is free; that is, you can instantly counterspell a spell with a casting time of ten rounds, for example.

Finally, counterspelling takes the place of making an attack of opportunity. That is, you cannot make an attack of opportunity in the same round as using a counterspell. A caster with the Combat Reflexes feat cannot make any attacks of opportunity in the same round as using a counterspell. You can counterspell only once in the round (but see below). A character cannot counterspell while flat-footed, or otherwise unable to make an attack of opportunity.

Once the character has fulfilled all the requirements for a counterspell, he must make a counterspell check to successfully negate an opposing spell. This check is a d20 roll, to which he adds his caster level (there is a maximum bonus of +10 or +20 when counterspelling with dispel magic or greater dispel magic, respectively. This does not apply to other spells). The DC for the check is 11 + the caster level of the opposing spell.

For instance, if Malgo, a 6th level Sorcerer, is casting fireball, and Ralf, a 9th level Wizard wishes to counter, Ralf must make a counterspell check (d20 + 9), against a DC of 17 (11 + 6).

It is possible to counterspell spell-like abilities, to counterspell using spell-like abilities, to counterspell spells cast from items, and to counterspell using spells cast from items. Spell-like abilities are countered just as would be a spell of the same name. Likewise, they counter spells of the same name. Items are countered by spells of the same name, as normal. They counter as spells of the same name, but can only be used in this manner if the item is held in the user's hand prior to counterspelling - there is no time to ready the action before use (in the same way you can't ready a material component before counterspelling - you're either ready or you can't counterspell). Either way, the caster level for spells cast from an item are determined by the item, not by the character using the item. Counterspelling with an item uses a charge as though using the item normally. Likewise, counterspelling with a spell-like ability uses one of the character's uses per day.

Edit: Oops, it turns out that spell-like abilities can't be used to counterspell, and aren't themselves subject to counterspelling. I also suspsect (although can't find the ruling anywhere), that you can't counterspell with a magic item (although you probably can counterspell a spell cast from a magic item).

So, if Malgo is casting fireball, and Ralf wishes to counter with a scroll of dispel magic (caster level 5th), Ralf must make a counterspell check (d20 + 5) against a DC of 17.

Feat: Reflexive Counterspell

You can respond quickly and repeatedly to opponents who cast spells in combat.

Benefit: When foes cast spells in combat, you may make an additional number of counterspell attempts equal to your Intelligence bonus. For example, a wizard with an Intelligence of 15 can make a total of three counterspell attempts in 1 round - the one any character is entitled two, plus two more because of his Intelligence bonus. You can still make only one counterspell attempt per spell cast by the enemy. With this feat, you can also make counterspell attempts while flat-footed.

Normal: A character without this feat can make only one counterspell attempt per round, and can't make counterspell attempts while flat-footed.

Counterspells and Attacks of Opportunity

In the same way that making an attack of opportunity can provoke an attack of opportunity itself (if, for instance, you choose to disarm), so too does counterspelling. Basically, if casting the spell itself under those conditions provokes an attack of opportunity then using that spell as a counterspell does to (for instance, if you counterspell by casting a fireball, that provokes an attack of opportunity. If you counterspell by casting fireball from a wand, however, that does not).

What this does is adds another level of tactical thinking to combat - the wizard will want to guide his allies into position to attack the opposing spellcaster, so that said spellcaster can't shut him down without suffering attacks of opportunity. I don't consider this to be a bad thing, although it drops the party wizard in the shit if the enemy spellcaster gets there first.

Of course, it would be possible to counterspell defensively, requiring a Concentration check as normal.

Consequences of this Change

Adding these rules has a fairly significant effect on play. Firstly, it makes counterspelling a much more attractive option, since doing so is less of a gamble, and much less costly. Secondly, it can lead to the party spellcasters running out of spells much more quickly, depending on the prevalence of spellcasting foes.

A more subtle effect is that two wizards of the same level are likely to take each other out of the game during combat, as each counters around 50% of the other's spells (actually, rather less unless they've memorised the same selection). This can be a good thing, as it forces each to try to outwit the other, and to use less common spells. It also increases the utility of non-standard, rare and custom spells. If you're the only caster in the world to know Ralf's baleful anger, you cannot be counterspelled easily, whereas everyone knows how to counter fireball. This, then, would encourage characters to seek out lost and unusual spells, which is a good thing.

However, a spellcaster of the same level as the party will not be able to provide a meaningful challenge to the party under this mechanism. The party wizard will effectively shut down the enemy, allowing the party warriors to simply walk over and exterminate him. I'm not sure how different this is from the current state of affairs - lone spellcasters don't do well against full parties.

Finally, this option changes the balance between the Sorcerer and the Wizard somewhat, as the former will have a more potent counterspelling weapon than the latter. This is part of the reason why the Reflexive Counterspell feat relies on Intelligence, to restore parity between the classes.

I would doubt very much that this option would seriously damage any games in which it was used. Counterspelling would certainly become more common, but is unlikely to dominate the game.