The thought runs that a big, strong guy is scary, and so should be able to use his Strength modifier, rather than Charisma, on Intimidate checks. There are two reasons why this shouldn't be permitted, one mechanical, and the other in-game. (Yes, I've ranted about this before. But it pisses me off so much that I'm going to do it again.)
Mechanically, Charisma is the weakest of the stats, and Strength the most powerful (rivalled by Dexterity). Anything that detracts from Charisma to the benefit of Strength is bad, and it screws over those PCs who took a high value in Charisma.
In-game, it must be considered that the high-Strength, low-Charisma guy (hereafter referred to as the Brick) is big, but he simply has no physical presence. People, when the notice him at all, are repulsed by him, or disregard him, or otherwise take the opposite impression from the one he intends. His attempts to be menacing are shrugged off, or laughed at, or they simply cause his opponent to focus, rather than weaken. In the reality of the game, this is a fact, not a matter of interpretation. Strength represents how much the character can lift, what he can break, and how hard he can hit. Charisma represents his ability to impose his personality on others. Strength without Charisma just makes the character a blob of muscle, with all the ability to intimidate of Barney the purple dinosaur.
By contrast, the guy who's low-Strength but high-Charisma probably doesn't look like much, but he's just plain creepy. You mess with him, you better kill him. 'cos otherwise, he's going to get his revenge, and it'll be poetic. Hell, he's probably so scary that the grave won't keep him :-)
But a high-Strength character should be especially big, and menacing...
Well, firstly high Strength doesn't necessarily make you big (evidence: Spiderman). Secondly, being big doesn't necessarily make you menacing (evidence: the morbidly obese).
Characters who are both big and menacing, such as Arnie as Conan, or the Rock as the Scorpion King, are that way because they have both high Strength and high Charisma (honest!).
But my character concept is of an especially menacing guy...
Fine. You took lots of ranks in Intimidate? The Persuasive and Skill Focus(intimidate) feats? Then you're fine. If not, your character concept is not of an especially menacing guy, it's of a guy who thinks he's especially menacing, but really isn't.
I'll flex in front of the tied up prisoner, demonstrating how buff I am, and how I'm going to mess him up...
Fair enough. That's good for a +2 circumstance bonus. Of course, the tiny high-Charisma guy is there idly toying with that slim stiletto in front of the tied up prisoner, so he gets a bonus too...
I'll show off my immense skill with my weapon. That'll make him think...
You've seen Raiders of the Lost Ark, right? The scene with the guy with the scimitar? You know, swing, swing, swing... bang!
Sunday, 29 February 2004
Review: Book of Fiends
Today I read through the "Book of Fiends", a monster manual for 3.5 edition D&D by Green Ronin. This book was mostly a reprint of their excellent "Legions of Hell" and "Armies of the Abyss", updated to 3.5 edition. The book also added "Hordes of Gehenna", and an appendix revising the Unholy Warrior from that company's "Unholy Warrior's Handbook", which I don't have.
Well, the book is excellent. It's a 222-page black and white hardback, split into 3 sections, one each for the Abyss, Gehenna, and Hell. It has lots of demons, daemons and devils, ranging from the lowest CR to epic levels, and that I'm planning on setting on the current group.
Oh, and the book also has a full demonic pantheon of demon princes and rulers of Hell, allowing DMs to provide patrons to evil Clerics without needing evil gods to go with them.
I like this book.
Well, the book is excellent. It's a 222-page black and white hardback, split into 3 sections, one each for the Abyss, Gehenna, and Hell. It has lots of demons, daemons and devils, ranging from the lowest CR to epic levels, and that I'm planning on setting on the current group.
Oh, and the book also has a full demonic pantheon of demon princes and rulers of Hell, allowing DMs to provide patrons to evil Clerics without needing evil gods to go with them.
I like this book.
"So, what are you paying?"
So, Tekkis died, and was replaced by Si-tha. Upon joining the group (already an exercise in suspension of disbelief - sometimes I long for games where PCs are mystically branded with their status, just to cut down on this sort of thing), he immediately asked how much the pay was for rescuing the missing ranger, which was being done as a personal quest on behalf of one member of the group.
At that point I really should have given Craig another blank character sheet, and told him to create another new character, preferably one with an actual motive for joining the group.
Honestly, it's really easy to get pissed off about these things. If you're playing your character, and write yourself into a position where you wouldn't be with the group in the first place, you've created the wrong character.
Anyway, I'm deeply uncertain about whether Si-tha will last too long, or indeed whether the campaign has long to go...
At that point I really should have given Craig another blank character sheet, and told him to create another new character, preferably one with an actual motive for joining the group.
Honestly, it's really easy to get pissed off about these things. If you're playing your character, and write yourself into a position where you wouldn't be with the group in the first place, you've created the wrong character.
Anyway, I'm deeply uncertain about whether Si-tha will last too long, or indeed whether the campaign has long to go...
Tekkis' Story
Since he's dead, I can now reveal the plot-line I had planned for Tekkis. Naturally, this was all sketchy at the current time; more detailed planning is pointless without the ability to foresee the future.
The Iron Order was, of course, using Tekkis. Myev had set him up, commanding the orc in the bar to antagonise Tekkis, allowing him to determine that Tekkis was capable in a fight, but not exactly the brightest star in the sky. And so, Tekkis was brought in on the attack on Arius' manor. It was thought that he might assassinate the lady, and thus perform their job for them. If he didn't, or if he failed, there would be no loss.
The only thing that could have gone wrong was that Vibius might somehow find out about the attack, and warn the lord. Tekkis was advised to not allow that to happen, killing Vibius if necessary. Funny how that worked out.
Of course, if Tekkis remained useable as an asset, I was planning to have him drawn further into the Iron Order's plans, with a view to doing the "fall into evil" storyline. Since Tekkis was already going that way, I didn't expect that to be too difficult to arrange...
The Iron Order was, of course, using Tekkis. Myev had set him up, commanding the orc in the bar to antagonise Tekkis, allowing him to determine that Tekkis was capable in a fight, but not exactly the brightest star in the sky. And so, Tekkis was brought in on the attack on Arius' manor. It was thought that he might assassinate the lady, and thus perform their job for them. If he didn't, or if he failed, there would be no loss.
The only thing that could have gone wrong was that Vibius might somehow find out about the attack, and warn the lord. Tekkis was advised to not allow that to happen, killing Vibius if necessary. Funny how that worked out.
Of course, if Tekkis remained useable as an asset, I was planning to have him drawn further into the Iron Order's plans, with a view to doing the "fall into evil" storyline. Since Tekkis was already going that way, I didn't expect that to be too difficult to arrange...
Hail the Rules-lawyer!
Saturday was the second time I've had to correct Roger's assertion that Mage Hand can be used to deliver touch-range spells. And, since I recalled that the spell he was thinking of was Spectral Hand, I was branded a rules-lawyer.
Well, I revel in the title! All bow before my mastery!
Well, I revel in the title! All bow before my mastery!
Stacking in d20
The issue of stacking in d20 came up at the weekend. This is controlled by the following rules:
1) Most bonuses, and several penalties, have names attached. So, you get an armor bonus, a shield bonus, a deflection bonus, and so on.
2) Bonuses with the same name don't stack, except for circumstance and dodge bonuses. Penalties always stack. (If two named bonuses apply, you always use the biggest.)
3) Unnamed bonuses stack with everything except themselves. (So, if you cast Roger's Spell I, which provides an unnamed bonus to attack rolls, it stacks with all your enhancement and circumstance bonuses, but you can't then cast it again to get double the bonus.)
And that's about it. This is why studded leather armour doesn't stack with bracers of armour - they both provide an armor bonus to AC.
This seems nice and simple in concept, but has a couple of hidden complexities:
1) Enhancement bonuses generally don't apply to a quality, but rather apply to an object that then applies to a quality. So, studded leather armour +1 has a +3 armor bonus normally, plus a +1 enhancement bonus. The enhancement bonus adds to the armor bonus, to make the total armor bonus +4 for that suit of magic armour. This allows a magic suit of armour to stack with a magical shield - the enhancement bonus for one applies to the armor bonus, the other applies to the shield bonus.
2) Those two exceptions - circumstance and dodge bonuses really screw everything up. Why they didn't just make them unnamed bonuses, I really don't know.
The reason that named bonuses don't stack is to prevent some really stupid situations, such as characters wearing multiple suits of armour for added protection. It also has some neat effects, in that some types of bonus are harder to get than others (for instance, only magic rings provide a deflection bonus, and they cost twice as much for the same benefit). However, it could, surely, be better explained.
1) Most bonuses, and several penalties, have names attached. So, you get an armor bonus, a shield bonus, a deflection bonus, and so on.
2) Bonuses with the same name don't stack, except for circumstance and dodge bonuses. Penalties always stack. (If two named bonuses apply, you always use the biggest.)
3) Unnamed bonuses stack with everything except themselves. (So, if you cast Roger's Spell I, which provides an unnamed bonus to attack rolls, it stacks with all your enhancement and circumstance bonuses, but you can't then cast it again to get double the bonus.)
And that's about it. This is why studded leather armour doesn't stack with bracers of armour - they both provide an armor bonus to AC.
This seems nice and simple in concept, but has a couple of hidden complexities:
1) Enhancement bonuses generally don't apply to a quality, but rather apply to an object that then applies to a quality. So, studded leather armour +1 has a +3 armor bonus normally, plus a +1 enhancement bonus. The enhancement bonus adds to the armor bonus, to make the total armor bonus +4 for that suit of magic armour. This allows a magic suit of armour to stack with a magical shield - the enhancement bonus for one applies to the armor bonus, the other applies to the shield bonus.
2) Those two exceptions - circumstance and dodge bonuses really screw everything up. Why they didn't just make them unnamed bonuses, I really don't know.
The reason that named bonuses don't stack is to prevent some really stupid situations, such as characters wearing multiple suits of armour for added protection. It also has some neat effects, in that some types of bonus are harder to get than others (for instance, only magic rings provide a deflection bonus, and they cost twice as much for the same benefit). However, it could, surely, be better explained.
Monday, 23 February 2004
Personal Codes of Honour
"My character is obviously lawful good. He follows a personal code of honour!"
Uh, no. Simply following a personal code of honour does not make you either lawful or good. In fact, any character can follow such a code, regardless of alignment.
Firstly, let's deal with the code=good argument. This is easily dealt with. Consider the character of Leon in the film of the same name (unless you're American, in which case it's "The Professional"). This character, at least at the start of the film, is an assassin for hire. He kills people for his own benefit, which is clearly evil. But his code is "no women, no children". Which does, indeed, amount to a personal code of honour. (Leon is, actually, a fairly interesting film from an alignment point of view, since the title character is obviously shifting towards good - or at least neutrality - as the film progresses, but remains a killer for hire.)
However, the code=lawful argument is harder to deal with. It seems obvious that a character who will bind himself with arbitrary rules should be lawful, and indeed many lawful characters follow codes. However, the key problem is the "personal code" part. The existence of the code says nothing about how the character interacts with others.
Consider, for instance, the knight errant. His code requires him to travel the lands righting wrongs, seeking out and vanquishing evil, and bringing hope to the masses. But his code says nothing about establishing a common set of social rights and responsibilities, nor does it suggest that he believes that this is the right way for anyone other than himself to live. Indeed, part of his code could be directed to removing the local tyrant, without any notion of replacing the tyrant with any other authority.
No, the knight errant's code is not inherently lawful, but more likely neutral, or perhaps even chaotic.
Uh, no. Simply following a personal code of honour does not make you either lawful or good. In fact, any character can follow such a code, regardless of alignment.
Firstly, let's deal with the code=good argument. This is easily dealt with. Consider the character of Leon in the film of the same name (unless you're American, in which case it's "The Professional"). This character, at least at the start of the film, is an assassin for hire. He kills people for his own benefit, which is clearly evil. But his code is "no women, no children". Which does, indeed, amount to a personal code of honour. (Leon is, actually, a fairly interesting film from an alignment point of view, since the title character is obviously shifting towards good - or at least neutrality - as the film progresses, but remains a killer for hire.)
However, the code=lawful argument is harder to deal with. It seems obvious that a character who will bind himself with arbitrary rules should be lawful, and indeed many lawful characters follow codes. However, the key problem is the "personal code" part. The existence of the code says nothing about how the character interacts with others.
Consider, for instance, the knight errant. His code requires him to travel the lands righting wrongs, seeking out and vanquishing evil, and bringing hope to the masses. But his code says nothing about establishing a common set of social rights and responsibilities, nor does it suggest that he believes that this is the right way for anyone other than himself to live. Indeed, part of his code could be directed to removing the local tyrant, without any notion of replacing the tyrant with any other authority.
No, the knight errant's code is not inherently lawful, but more likely neutral, or perhaps even chaotic.
Amusing Observation
I found it somewhat amusing on Saturday that, after last week's ranting about alignments that I posted here, several people started commenting about their alignment, and how it should influence their actions. One asked if he could have a different alignment as regards orcs, while another pondered how his alignment and his upbringing should lead him to react to the practice of slavery.
Here's the key: the alignment on your sheet shouldn't affect how you play your character. If your view of your character states that he has no problem with slavery, then have your character act that way. If your character has an unreasoning and genocidal hatred of orcs, have him act on it. The alignment on your sheet should never change who your character is.
There is a flip side to that argument. If your character's behaviour is consistently at odds with the alignment on the sheet, I'll change the alignment on the sheet. And that is the full extent of my influence over your actions and alignment - I'll keep the one consistent with what I see of the other. Oh, and I won't warn you either - if you act that way, the sheet will simply be changed to reflect that. (And yes, there are some alignment shifts that I am currently considering.)
There is an exception to my "no warning" policy as regards alignments, and that deals with characters who have their abilities tied to alignment. For instance, I won't change a paladin's alignment without comment, since that seriously harms the character. Likewise, I won't change a cleric's alignment to one banned by his god without discussing the matter with the player first.
Of course, I also won't impose an alignment change lightly in any case. As I said, one out-of-alignment action does not make for an alignment change, except perhaps in the most extreme of cases. (For instance, you can point to the murder of Duncan as the time when Macbeth's alignment shifts from neutral to evil.)
Here's the key: the alignment on your sheet shouldn't affect how you play your character. If your view of your character states that he has no problem with slavery, then have your character act that way. If your character has an unreasoning and genocidal hatred of orcs, have him act on it. The alignment on your sheet should never change who your character is.
There is a flip side to that argument. If your character's behaviour is consistently at odds with the alignment on the sheet, I'll change the alignment on the sheet. And that is the full extent of my influence over your actions and alignment - I'll keep the one consistent with what I see of the other. Oh, and I won't warn you either - if you act that way, the sheet will simply be changed to reflect that. (And yes, there are some alignment shifts that I am currently considering.)
There is an exception to my "no warning" policy as regards alignments, and that deals with characters who have their abilities tied to alignment. For instance, I won't change a paladin's alignment without comment, since that seriously harms the character. Likewise, I won't change a cleric's alignment to one banned by his god without discussing the matter with the player first.
Of course, I also won't impose an alignment change lightly in any case. As I said, one out-of-alignment action does not make for an alignment change, except perhaps in the most extreme of cases. (For instance, you can point to the murder of Duncan as the time when Macbeth's alignment shifts from neutral to evil.)
See What I Mean?
The latest Dragon magazine includes a Prestige Class called the Battleguard of Tempus. Here are two quotes: "Harsh drill sergeants and exacting taskmasters...", and "Alignment: Any nonlawful".
So, what we have are warriors dedicated to battle, known for their mashalling of armies, and exacting in the standard of drill in their units. Yet, at the same time, they cannot be lawful.
Now, before I rant about how these positions are internally inconsistent, allow me to point out that, while Dragon magazine is no longer owned by WotC, and while the author of the article is not a WotC employee, the material in Dragon is all "official" Dungeons & Dragons content, and should be acceptable for use in any game (or, at least, just as acceptable as any WotC sourcebook). Moreover, the Forgotten Realms is the flagship setting for D&D, in fact if not in name, and so one would expect a certain level of editorial control.
Still, the above is just an aside. Here's the problem with the two quotes above:
The very rationale for exacting standards of drill in massed units of troops is that men working together are expontentially more effective than the same number of men working independently. Massed cavalry charges are so devastating precisely because they hit the enemy en masse, and so can just keep on going. Legions carry short swords, not longswords, because they require less space to wield effectively, allowing you to pack the men more tightly (something that is also true of polearms, which are deadly in massed combat, but not in individual combat, something that no version of the massed combat rules that I've seen since 3rd Edition has taken into account).
But, the notion of men being most effective when working together is a strictly lawful ideal. The counter ideal, embodied by the berserker horde, is that men are most powerful fighting individually, that a horde of berserk warriors can each create their own field of terror, and reign death and destruction on it.
So, then, how can one state that the Battleguards of Tempus are "harsh drill sergeants", while at the same time mandating that they are strictly non-lawful? Surely these are inconsistent positions?
So, what we have are warriors dedicated to battle, known for their mashalling of armies, and exacting in the standard of drill in their units. Yet, at the same time, they cannot be lawful.
Now, before I rant about how these positions are internally inconsistent, allow me to point out that, while Dragon magazine is no longer owned by WotC, and while the author of the article is not a WotC employee, the material in Dragon is all "official" Dungeons & Dragons content, and should be acceptable for use in any game (or, at least, just as acceptable as any WotC sourcebook). Moreover, the Forgotten Realms is the flagship setting for D&D, in fact if not in name, and so one would expect a certain level of editorial control.
Still, the above is just an aside. Here's the problem with the two quotes above:
The very rationale for exacting standards of drill in massed units of troops is that men working together are expontentially more effective than the same number of men working independently. Massed cavalry charges are so devastating precisely because they hit the enemy en masse, and so can just keep on going. Legions carry short swords, not longswords, because they require less space to wield effectively, allowing you to pack the men more tightly (something that is also true of polearms, which are deadly in massed combat, but not in individual combat, something that no version of the massed combat rules that I've seen since 3rd Edition has taken into account).
But, the notion of men being most effective when working together is a strictly lawful ideal. The counter ideal, embodied by the berserker horde, is that men are most powerful fighting individually, that a horde of berserk warriors can each create their own field of terror, and reign death and destruction on it.
So, then, how can one state that the Battleguards of Tempus are "harsh drill sergeants", while at the same time mandating that they are strictly non-lawful? Surely these are inconsistent positions?
Friday, 20 February 2004
'Monsters' as PCs
I'm less than keen on the notion of allowing monsters as player characters in any game I run. Or rather, I'm reluctant to allow any members of antagonist races as PCs - I have no difficulty with vampire PCs in Vampire, but would have a problem in Werewolf, for instance.
The reason is that allowing a 'normal' member of the antagonist race into the party invariably changes the nature of the enemy race. You can't have debates about whether orcs are inherently evil or not if you've got an orc in the party. Moreover, having an orc in the party makes running adventures featuring orcs as enemies more difficult - what's to stop the party from just negotiating? And will the orc PC feel comfortable about killing his kin?
You can, of course, get round this by making the PC a unique exception to the nature of his race. So, he's the only good drow, the only Borg to have been freed from assimilation, and the only vampire with a soul. The problem there is that this doesn't make the PC unique - it makes him a walking cliche. We've seen this plot done to death now, thanks to Drizzt, Seven, and Angel. It's not fresh and exciting; it's annoying and trite.
The other problem with the 'unique exception' character is that you then have to consider the possibility of redeeming the rest of the race in the same way.
Why not simply use the soul restoration ritual, writ large, to restore the souls of all vampires? If a totally untrained witch is capable of performing the ritual on one vampire, couldn't the same witch, once powerful enough to destroy the world if she wants, cure all vampires the same way? Hell, even if she can't get them all, why not do as many as possible?
If one Borg can be broken from the collective, why can't the rest be saved? (In fact, if Borg can be saved, the end of Voyager becomes much more interesting. By wiping out the Collective in the way that she does, Janeway perpetrates an act of terrible mass murder simply to get her crew home more quickly. Nice to see that she has a fine sense of morals.)
The reason is that allowing a 'normal' member of the antagonist race into the party invariably changes the nature of the enemy race. You can't have debates about whether orcs are inherently evil or not if you've got an orc in the party. Moreover, having an orc in the party makes running adventures featuring orcs as enemies more difficult - what's to stop the party from just negotiating? And will the orc PC feel comfortable about killing his kin?
You can, of course, get round this by making the PC a unique exception to the nature of his race. So, he's the only good drow, the only Borg to have been freed from assimilation, and the only vampire with a soul. The problem there is that this doesn't make the PC unique - it makes him a walking cliche. We've seen this plot done to death now, thanks to Drizzt, Seven, and Angel. It's not fresh and exciting; it's annoying and trite.
The other problem with the 'unique exception' character is that you then have to consider the possibility of redeeming the rest of the race in the same way.
Why not simply use the soul restoration ritual, writ large, to restore the souls of all vampires? If a totally untrained witch is capable of performing the ritual on one vampire, couldn't the same witch, once powerful enough to destroy the world if she wants, cure all vampires the same way? Hell, even if she can't get them all, why not do as many as possible?
If one Borg can be broken from the collective, why can't the rest be saved? (In fact, if Borg can be saved, the end of Voyager becomes much more interesting. By wiping out the Collective in the way that she does, Janeway perpetrates an act of terrible mass murder simply to get her crew home more quickly. Nice to see that she has a fine sense of morals.)
Thursday, 19 February 2004
Lifestyle Rules
I've given some thought to the lifestyle rules that I would probably have benefitted from implementing in the current campaign. Alas, I didn't consider these at the time, and won't be adding them now. However, for future reference, here is what I think I should have done:
The purpose of the lifestyle rules is to simplify the tracking of money, particularly as it gets spent on food and lodging, and also on equipment maintenance (which gets overlooked in games, despite the fact that it would probably be quite important to most characters is a 'realistic' game). It also eliminates the problem that the lowest unit of currency in the game is the copper piece, while a common labourer supposedly earns one silver piece per day. As a result of this, a single beer costs a full tenth of the daily earnings of the average worker, which seems excessive.
So, the things that are included in lifestyle:
1) Food and lodging for characters, their companions and cohorts, and stabling and fodder for mounts. Whenever travelling in civilised lands, the party need never fear that they'll run out.
2) Equipment maintenance costs for armour and weapons, and refills of spell component pouches. Basically, all the stuff that never gets mentioned, but really should be going on.
3) At higher levels, some ammunition for missile weapons will be included.
The lifestyle never includes the following:
1) Expensive material components.
2) Money used to use skills, or money used to purchase equipment to use skills. (So, this won't get you access to a forge, for instance)
3) New equipment. Lifestyle would eventually replace a suit of leather armour that has deteriorated to the point of being useless, but would not assist in upgrading the same armour to chain mail.
4) Magical items of any sort.
One other general rule applies to lifestyle: it is not optional, and not transferrable. That is, every character must purchase a lifestyle of at least Squalid quality. There simply is no way to live without spending some money on food and lodging. Similarly, you cannot purchase a Squalid lifestyle and then mooch off your Middle Class friends. If the party hires a room as a whole for the group, the quality of those lodgings is determined by the lowest lifestyle present.
This last is particularly important when considering the higher levels of lifestyle, which include a number of free arrows (or bolts) within the cost. If the party adopts the practice of having the wealthy character draw the full allotment and then passing them to other party members, the DM should cut off the supply. Basically, the party are using the letter of the rule to violate the spirit of the rule, and should not be allowed to do so.
Finally, note that lifestyle applies everywhere. If the party is travelling in a foreign nation, their lifestyle remains intact. It is assumed that the party simply has enough loose cash with them to purchase whatever equivalent to their normal lifestyle exists in the current region. Only when the party leave civilised lands does their lifestyle collapse. In this case, it is generally assumed that a party planning a journey will carry a week's worth of food and water, while a party that was lost suddenly (perhaps an unexpected teleport) carries a single day's supply.
Anyway, there are four lifestyles available. Each costs a certain amount per month, payable at the start of the month. A character lacking sufficient funds to pay for the Squalid lifestyle at the start of the month must sell sufficient equipment to pay this cost. If the character cannot do even that, and will not be loaned the funds by his companions has broken the lifestyle rules; in that case the DM is on his own.
Lifestyle Cost
Squalid 3 gp/month
Poor 5 gp/month
Middle Class 50 gp/level/month
Wealthy 200 gp/level/month
All lifestyles include food and lodging for a single person. Equipment upkeep may require a particular minimum lifestyle, or the quality of the equipment may downgrade. Higher levels of lifestyle include mount stabling costs and food, and lodgings for servants. A character with a mount or servants is required to maintain the indicated minimum lifestyle, or to pay an additional lifestyle cost for each mount or servant. If the latter option is taken, the lifestyle chosen for the mount or servant must be high enough to cater for the mount's or servant's equipment. It must be noted also that some mounts require a minimum lifestyle, or the quality of their performance will also degrade.
Squalid
The lowest lifestyle includes food and lodging for one character. It also includes equipment upkeep costs for Simple Weapons and Light Armour and Light Shields. Finally, it includes the cost of refilling a Spell Component Pouch.
Poor
The poor lifestyle includes food and lodging for one character. It also includes equipment upkeep costs for Simple and Martial Weapons (and Masterwork versions of Simple Weapons), Light and Medium Armour, all Shields, all Armour Accessories, and refilling a Spell Component Pouch.
Middle Class
Middle Class characters are provided with food and lodging for a single person. It includes equipment maintenance costs for Simple, Martial and Exotic Weapons (including Mighty and Masterwork versions of Simple and Martial Weapons), all forms of Armour and Shields, and refilling a Spell Component Pouch. This lifestyle also includes 50 arrows, bolts or sling bullets per month. Finally, the Middle Class lifestyle includes the equivalent of a Poor lifestyle for one other person or mount.
Wealthy
The highest lifestyle provides food and lodging for a single person, and equipment maintenance costs for any sort of mundane equipment. This lifestyle includes 200 arrows, bolts or sling bullets per month, or 20 masterwork versions of the same, and can provide the equivalent of a Middle Class lifestyle for one other person or mount, or the equivalent of a Poor lifestyle for up to 8 such characters or mounts.
Minimum Lifestyle Requirements
As indicated in the descriptions above, certain forms of equipment require certain minimum lifestyles to remain in optimum condition, as follows:
Simple Weapons: Squalid
Masterwork Simple Weapons: Poor
Martial Weapons: Poor
Masterwork Martial Weapons: Middle Class
Mighty Composite Bows: Middle Class
Exotic Weapons: Middle Class
Masterwork Exotic Weapons: Wealthy
Light Armour: Squalid
Medium Armour: Poor
Heavy Armour: Middle Class
Buckler: Poor
Light Shields: Squalid
Heavy Shields: Poor
Tower Shield: Poor
Armour Accessories: Poor
Horse or Pony: Squalid
Warhorse or Warpony: Poor
Griffon, Pegasus or similar: Middle Class
A weapon that is kept at a lifestyle lower than the minimum reduces its critical range or multiplier by 1 for each level of difference (x4 becomes x3, 18-20 becomes 19-20). A weapon that reduces its range below 20, or its multiplier below x2 can no longer cause critical hits. A weapon reduced still further becomes unusable. A weapon that has been degraded by being kept at a lower level of lifestyle is restored to full effectiveness at the end of the first month in which it is properly kept.
So, a squalid character with a masterwork longsword (19-20, minimum middle class) reduces the range first to 20 (poor), and then below that (squalid), and can no longer cause critical hits.
A suit of armour kept below the minimum lifestyle reduces the maximum Dex bonus allowed by 1, and increases the armour check penalty by 1 for every level of difference. If the maximum Dex bonus drops below 0, the AC bonus is reduced instead, on a 1 for 1 basis. Armour maintained below the minimum lifestyle required incurs these penalties every month, until the AC bonus drops to 0, at which point it becomes useless. Every month of correct upkeep removes the equivalent of one month's penalties, at the end of the month.
So, a squalid character with full plate (Middle Class, +8 AC, +1 Max Dex, -6 armour check) suffers a two-stage penalty. The Max Dex drops to 0, the AC bonus to +7, and the armour check increases to -8. The second month, the AC bonus drops to +5, and the armour check penalty increases to -10.
Magical weapons and armour are considered masterwork for the purposes of determining the minimum lifestyle costs. Such equipment becomes useless at the same time as any other equipment. However, magical armour that is maintained at the correct level is restored to full effectiveness at the end of the first month of such treatment.
A mount living a lower lifestyle than required suffers a -4 penalty to Strength and Constitution for each level of difference. Intelligent mounts will refuse to carry their owners while in such conditions.
Example
Now, let's consider a paladin with a masterwork heavy lance, magical bastard sword, full plate mail, heavy shield, heavy warhorse mount with full plate barding, and a squire. The masterwork lance requires a minimum lifestyle of Middle Class, while the bastard sword requires Wealthy. The full plate mail requires a Middle Class lifestyle, while the shield requires only a Poor lifestyle. Finally, the heavy warhorse must be kept at a Poor lifestyle, but its barding requires Middle Class upkeep. The squire can be contented with living a Squalid lifestyle.
Clearly, the paladin must purchase a Wealthy lifestyle for himself. Additionally, he must arrange a Middle Class lifestyle for his mount (due to the barding), and a Squalid lifestyle for his squire. Fortunately, the Wealthy lifestyle can provide a Middle Class lifestyle for the mount free of charge, so the paladin must pay 200 gp/level/month, plus at least 3 gp/level for his squire.
And that, I think, is all that needs to be said about lifestyle. As indicated, these rules are not going to be used in the current campaign, where lifestyle is a purely roleplaying issue.
The purpose of the lifestyle rules is to simplify the tracking of money, particularly as it gets spent on food and lodging, and also on equipment maintenance (which gets overlooked in games, despite the fact that it would probably be quite important to most characters is a 'realistic' game). It also eliminates the problem that the lowest unit of currency in the game is the copper piece, while a common labourer supposedly earns one silver piece per day. As a result of this, a single beer costs a full tenth of the daily earnings of the average worker, which seems excessive.
So, the things that are included in lifestyle:
1) Food and lodging for characters, their companions and cohorts, and stabling and fodder for mounts. Whenever travelling in civilised lands, the party need never fear that they'll run out.
2) Equipment maintenance costs for armour and weapons, and refills of spell component pouches. Basically, all the stuff that never gets mentioned, but really should be going on.
3) At higher levels, some ammunition for missile weapons will be included.
The lifestyle never includes the following:
1) Expensive material components.
2) Money used to use skills, or money used to purchase equipment to use skills. (So, this won't get you access to a forge, for instance)
3) New equipment. Lifestyle would eventually replace a suit of leather armour that has deteriorated to the point of being useless, but would not assist in upgrading the same armour to chain mail.
4) Magical items of any sort.
One other general rule applies to lifestyle: it is not optional, and not transferrable. That is, every character must purchase a lifestyle of at least Squalid quality. There simply is no way to live without spending some money on food and lodging. Similarly, you cannot purchase a Squalid lifestyle and then mooch off your Middle Class friends. If the party hires a room as a whole for the group, the quality of those lodgings is determined by the lowest lifestyle present.
This last is particularly important when considering the higher levels of lifestyle, which include a number of free arrows (or bolts) within the cost. If the party adopts the practice of having the wealthy character draw the full allotment and then passing them to other party members, the DM should cut off the supply. Basically, the party are using the letter of the rule to violate the spirit of the rule, and should not be allowed to do so.
Finally, note that lifestyle applies everywhere. If the party is travelling in a foreign nation, their lifestyle remains intact. It is assumed that the party simply has enough loose cash with them to purchase whatever equivalent to their normal lifestyle exists in the current region. Only when the party leave civilised lands does their lifestyle collapse. In this case, it is generally assumed that a party planning a journey will carry a week's worth of food and water, while a party that was lost suddenly (perhaps an unexpected teleport) carries a single day's supply.
Anyway, there are four lifestyles available. Each costs a certain amount per month, payable at the start of the month. A character lacking sufficient funds to pay for the Squalid lifestyle at the start of the month must sell sufficient equipment to pay this cost. If the character cannot do even that, and will not be loaned the funds by his companions has broken the lifestyle rules; in that case the DM is on his own.
Lifestyle Cost
Squalid 3 gp/month
Poor 5 gp/month
Middle Class 50 gp/level/month
Wealthy 200 gp/level/month
All lifestyles include food and lodging for a single person. Equipment upkeep may require a particular minimum lifestyle, or the quality of the equipment may downgrade. Higher levels of lifestyle include mount stabling costs and food, and lodgings for servants. A character with a mount or servants is required to maintain the indicated minimum lifestyle, or to pay an additional lifestyle cost for each mount or servant. If the latter option is taken, the lifestyle chosen for the mount or servant must be high enough to cater for the mount's or servant's equipment. It must be noted also that some mounts require a minimum lifestyle, or the quality of their performance will also degrade.
Squalid
The lowest lifestyle includes food and lodging for one character. It also includes equipment upkeep costs for Simple Weapons and Light Armour and Light Shields. Finally, it includes the cost of refilling a Spell Component Pouch.
Poor
The poor lifestyle includes food and lodging for one character. It also includes equipment upkeep costs for Simple and Martial Weapons (and Masterwork versions of Simple Weapons), Light and Medium Armour, all Shields, all Armour Accessories, and refilling a Spell Component Pouch.
Middle Class
Middle Class characters are provided with food and lodging for a single person. It includes equipment maintenance costs for Simple, Martial and Exotic Weapons (including Mighty and Masterwork versions of Simple and Martial Weapons), all forms of Armour and Shields, and refilling a Spell Component Pouch. This lifestyle also includes 50 arrows, bolts or sling bullets per month. Finally, the Middle Class lifestyle includes the equivalent of a Poor lifestyle for one other person or mount.
Wealthy
The highest lifestyle provides food and lodging for a single person, and equipment maintenance costs for any sort of mundane equipment. This lifestyle includes 200 arrows, bolts or sling bullets per month, or 20 masterwork versions of the same, and can provide the equivalent of a Middle Class lifestyle for one other person or mount, or the equivalent of a Poor lifestyle for up to 8 such characters or mounts.
Minimum Lifestyle Requirements
As indicated in the descriptions above, certain forms of equipment require certain minimum lifestyles to remain in optimum condition, as follows:
Simple Weapons: Squalid
Masterwork Simple Weapons: Poor
Martial Weapons: Poor
Masterwork Martial Weapons: Middle Class
Mighty Composite Bows: Middle Class
Exotic Weapons: Middle Class
Masterwork Exotic Weapons: Wealthy
Light Armour: Squalid
Medium Armour: Poor
Heavy Armour: Middle Class
Buckler: Poor
Light Shields: Squalid
Heavy Shields: Poor
Tower Shield: Poor
Armour Accessories: Poor
Horse or Pony: Squalid
Warhorse or Warpony: Poor
Griffon, Pegasus or similar: Middle Class
A weapon that is kept at a lifestyle lower than the minimum reduces its critical range or multiplier by 1 for each level of difference (x4 becomes x3, 18-20 becomes 19-20). A weapon that reduces its range below 20, or its multiplier below x2 can no longer cause critical hits. A weapon reduced still further becomes unusable. A weapon that has been degraded by being kept at a lower level of lifestyle is restored to full effectiveness at the end of the first month in which it is properly kept.
So, a squalid character with a masterwork longsword (19-20, minimum middle class) reduces the range first to 20 (poor), and then below that (squalid), and can no longer cause critical hits.
A suit of armour kept below the minimum lifestyle reduces the maximum Dex bonus allowed by 1, and increases the armour check penalty by 1 for every level of difference. If the maximum Dex bonus drops below 0, the AC bonus is reduced instead, on a 1 for 1 basis. Armour maintained below the minimum lifestyle required incurs these penalties every month, until the AC bonus drops to 0, at which point it becomes useless. Every month of correct upkeep removes the equivalent of one month's penalties, at the end of the month.
So, a squalid character with full plate (Middle Class, +8 AC, +1 Max Dex, -6 armour check) suffers a two-stage penalty. The Max Dex drops to 0, the AC bonus to +7, and the armour check increases to -8. The second month, the AC bonus drops to +5, and the armour check penalty increases to -10.
Magical weapons and armour are considered masterwork for the purposes of determining the minimum lifestyle costs. Such equipment becomes useless at the same time as any other equipment. However, magical armour that is maintained at the correct level is restored to full effectiveness at the end of the first month of such treatment.
A mount living a lower lifestyle than required suffers a -4 penalty to Strength and Constitution for each level of difference. Intelligent mounts will refuse to carry their owners while in such conditions.
Example
Now, let's consider a paladin with a masterwork heavy lance, magical bastard sword, full plate mail, heavy shield, heavy warhorse mount with full plate barding, and a squire. The masterwork lance requires a minimum lifestyle of Middle Class, while the bastard sword requires Wealthy. The full plate mail requires a Middle Class lifestyle, while the shield requires only a Poor lifestyle. Finally, the heavy warhorse must be kept at a Poor lifestyle, but its barding requires Middle Class upkeep. The squire can be contented with living a Squalid lifestyle.
Clearly, the paladin must purchase a Wealthy lifestyle for himself. Additionally, he must arrange a Middle Class lifestyle for his mount (due to the barding), and a Squalid lifestyle for his squire. Fortunately, the Wealthy lifestyle can provide a Middle Class lifestyle for the mount free of charge, so the paladin must pay 200 gp/level/month, plus at least 3 gp/level for his squire.
And that, I think, is all that needs to be said about lifestyle. As indicated, these rules are not going to be used in the current campaign, where lifestyle is a purely roleplaying issue.
Wednesday, 18 February 2004
The Problem with Character-centric parties
When Buffy and Angel came out (the RPGs rather than the series), I considered these to be extremely poor choices for role-playing settings. Not due to any great flaw in the backdrop, but rather due to the nature of the central character. Up until the last episode of Buffy, there could only ever be one slayer (actually 2, but let's not get into that). Similarly, Angel was unique, a vampire with a soul. Can't have more than one of those...
However, the other problem with the setting is that the shows focus on a central character, aided and abetted by a group of lesser characters. Although the other characters were given some time in the spotlight, they were always secondary to the star of the show. This, of course, really sucks in a roleplaying game - why would want to play a secondary character in a game dedicated to someone else's character?
Now, I haven't read either Buffy or Angel. I'm not particularly inclined to do so either. Therefore, it is entirely possible that they've found a means to solve the problem described above.
(Another parallel is the difference between the original Star Trek and the Next Generation. In the original series, it was very much the Kirk/Spock/McCoy show, with the other characters very much in secondary roles. The Next Generation was more evenly balanced, with lots of episodes focussing on Troi, Geordi, Crusher (either), Worf, and so on. As a consequence, Next Generation would make a better role-playing game - unless you have 3 players - but the original series also translates better to film, where you cannot support seven main characters, but can support two or three.)
However, the other problem with the setting is that the shows focus on a central character, aided and abetted by a group of lesser characters. Although the other characters were given some time in the spotlight, they were always secondary to the star of the show. This, of course, really sucks in a roleplaying game - why would want to play a secondary character in a game dedicated to someone else's character?
Now, I haven't read either Buffy or Angel. I'm not particularly inclined to do so either. Therefore, it is entirely possible that they've found a means to solve the problem described above.
(Another parallel is the difference between the original Star Trek and the Next Generation. In the original series, it was very much the Kirk/Spock/McCoy show, with the other characters very much in secondary roles. The Next Generation was more evenly balanced, with lots of episodes focussing on Troi, Geordi, Crusher (either), Worf, and so on. As a consequence, Next Generation would make a better role-playing game - unless you have 3 players - but the original series also translates better to film, where you cannot support seven main characters, but can support two or three.)
Possible Party Rationales
Fortunately, Dragon magazine published a bunch of possible solutions many years ago. Issue 177 included an article entitled "Keeping the Party Going" (ah, the advantages of the Dragon Archive. I hardly ever use it, but when I do it proves invaluable), which included seven possible reasons for a party to come together, each of which provides some reason for the party to stick together. Unfortunately, two of these were near duplicates, leaving five:
This is a rather vexing issue. I always take the view that players should be able to create characters they will enjoy playing, and constructed the main arc of the campaign in such a manner that almost any group should be able to follow it (or not, if we spin off in that direction). But, things aren't looking too good.
- The party are all agents in service to the same god. Replace with guild, patron, or other agency as appropriate.
- The party all come from the same town. Having grown up together, they remain old friends.
- The party are all members of the same extended family.
- The party are true mercenaries. So, Vibius would not be a loyal servant of the empire, Jerriz would be motivated more by greed than by worship of Paso, and so forth.
- The quest party. The group was formed to complete a specific quest, and are all loyal to each other far enough to complete that quest.
This is a rather vexing issue. I always take the view that players should be able to create characters they will enjoy playing, and constructed the main arc of the campaign in such a manner that almost any group should be able to follow it (or not, if we spin off in that direction). But, things aren't looking too good.
Character Creation/Party Creation
One very common mistake, and one which looks like it might derail the current campaign, is the creation of PCs in a vacuum. Roger goes off and creates a whimling wizard, Andy a human fighter, Andreas an aspected rogue, Johannes a sloth cleric of laziness, and Craig a vaggatz barbarian. The party is then somehow expected to come together. The reality is that they come apart.
The simple fact of the matter is that I'm not really up for running five cross-cut campaigns, so if the party splits I see three options:
1) Switch to a troupe-style game, where each person has five PCs, a 'main' PC and four secondaries, one each to accompany the other players main PCs. We'd then rotate through the five campaigns, running one session of each in sequence. I'm not really keen on that, for a couple of reasons that I'm not going to go into.
2) Require the group to choose one of the existing PCs to follow, and then require everyone else to generate new PCs to fit. In effect, doing the same as 1, but ditching four of the sub-campaigns. Again, I'm not too fond of this option.
3) Wrap the whole thing up.
It's one thing to follow the antics of a split party when they're seperated in a town or dungeon, with the expectation that they'll meet up again later. It's entirely another to do the same across a whole campaign; I'm not Robert Jordan.
The problem is that there really is little reason for the current group to stay together. Already, Jerriz has been forced out, and replaced with Artax in a somewhat contrived manner. Tekkis and Vibius are basically incompatible, while Kal-Bax has his own priorities. And there is no clear direction for the party to follow next, or clear reason for them to stick together; they'd probably do better going their seperate ways.
The root cause for this problem is that little thought was given to how the party was formed. The characters are all interesting, and quite well fleshed out. Even Tekkis has some depth. But there's little reason for them to have gotten together, and even less reason for them to stick together.
In days of yore, this was never a concern. PCs tended not to have backgrounds or personalities; they were playign pieces, and the group was together to hunt for treasure. Sometimes, I miss those days of old-school dungeon crawls and mindless death, but never for long. Games like that get tiresome quickly now.
However, if your character has a personality, he needs a reason to be with the people he is with. No one in their right mind would trust their life to a relative stranger, and I doubt very much that Vibius or Tekkis would ever trust one another to allow the other to keep watch while he slept.
Smart games designers saw this problem ages ago, and put in mechanisms to deal with it: Vampire has the coterie mechanism, where young vampires band together for mutual protection and influence. The Sabbat and Werewolf both have the pack mechanism, where characters are bound by common cause, and also religious practice. They even had the foresight to include the multiple blood-bond in Sabbat games, to prevent people from just killing one another. Star Wars, of course, has the easy out that characters are all Rebels, banded together out their common status as fugitives from the empire.
In the media, parties come together for various reasons: The Fellowship of the Ring were bound by their common quest, the Companions of the Lance (from Dragonlance) mostly grew up together. Other parties are formed by common membership of a common organisation (Star Trek, Alias), or common support for a central figure (Buffy, Angel).
The common shorthand in D&D remains the old-school notion that characters are random mercenaries bound by their common quest for fortune and glory. I guess that doesn't work any longer.
The simple fact of the matter is that I'm not really up for running five cross-cut campaigns, so if the party splits I see three options:
1) Switch to a troupe-style game, where each person has five PCs, a 'main' PC and four secondaries, one each to accompany the other players main PCs. We'd then rotate through the five campaigns, running one session of each in sequence. I'm not really keen on that, for a couple of reasons that I'm not going to go into.
2) Require the group to choose one of the existing PCs to follow, and then require everyone else to generate new PCs to fit. In effect, doing the same as 1, but ditching four of the sub-campaigns. Again, I'm not too fond of this option.
3) Wrap the whole thing up.
It's one thing to follow the antics of a split party when they're seperated in a town or dungeon, with the expectation that they'll meet up again later. It's entirely another to do the same across a whole campaign; I'm not Robert Jordan.
The problem is that there really is little reason for the current group to stay together. Already, Jerriz has been forced out, and replaced with Artax in a somewhat contrived manner. Tekkis and Vibius are basically incompatible, while Kal-Bax has his own priorities. And there is no clear direction for the party to follow next, or clear reason for them to stick together; they'd probably do better going their seperate ways.
The root cause for this problem is that little thought was given to how the party was formed. The characters are all interesting, and quite well fleshed out. Even Tekkis has some depth. But there's little reason for them to have gotten together, and even less reason for them to stick together.
In days of yore, this was never a concern. PCs tended not to have backgrounds or personalities; they were playign pieces, and the group was together to hunt for treasure. Sometimes, I miss those days of old-school dungeon crawls and mindless death, but never for long. Games like that get tiresome quickly now.
However, if your character has a personality, he needs a reason to be with the people he is with. No one in their right mind would trust their life to a relative stranger, and I doubt very much that Vibius or Tekkis would ever trust one another to allow the other to keep watch while he slept.
Smart games designers saw this problem ages ago, and put in mechanisms to deal with it: Vampire has the coterie mechanism, where young vampires band together for mutual protection and influence. The Sabbat and Werewolf both have the pack mechanism, where characters are bound by common cause, and also religious practice. They even had the foresight to include the multiple blood-bond in Sabbat games, to prevent people from just killing one another. Star Wars, of course, has the easy out that characters are all Rebels, banded together out their common status as fugitives from the empire.
In the media, parties come together for various reasons: The Fellowship of the Ring were bound by their common quest, the Companions of the Lance (from Dragonlance) mostly grew up together. Other parties are formed by common membership of a common organisation (Star Trek, Alias), or common support for a central figure (Buffy, Angel).
The common shorthand in D&D remains the old-school notion that characters are random mercenaries bound by their common quest for fortune and glory. I guess that doesn't work any longer.
Tuesday, 17 February 2004
Organising that Campaign Material
Archived thread started by Andrew:
I've been working on various campaign ideas for a while now, from a La Femme Nikita/Alias-inspired Cyberpunk 2020 game set in Neo-Soviet Russia to a Forgotten Realms campaign set in my own version of the Moonshae Islands, yet I can never seem to get organised to sort it all out. Have any of you got any tips for doing this? I've looked at various releases like the FR setting book and the Brak Sector sourebook for WEG Star Wars but never seem to get my own ideas sorted out. How do you personally go about it? Or is it just a matter of self-discipline in typing the material out?
I've been working on various campaign ideas for a while now, from a La Femme Nikita/Alias-inspired Cyberpunk 2020 game set in Neo-Soviet Russia to a Forgotten Realms campaign set in my own version of the Moonshae Islands, yet I can never seem to get organised to sort it all out. Have any of you got any tips for doing this? I've looked at various releases like the FR setting book and the Brak Sector sourebook for WEG Star Wars but never seem to get my own ideas sorted out. How do you personally go about it? Or is it just a matter of self-discipline in typing the material out?
Monday, 16 February 2004
Alignments
Alignments is a problem, people only play to their alignment when it suits them, and short of giving XP penalties, which we already have established is 'Teh Bad' what can you do to stop them? Well, change their alignment to whatever suits them best, but then they'll start breaking their new alignment by playing more like their old one. Someone is acting evil and mean all the time, you switch their alignment to evil, suddenly they’ll start behaving very well, because they don't want to get arrested for being too evil.
Everyone should just bloody well write Chaotic Neutral on their sheets and be done with it, because lets face it, this is what ever single player I've seen lately is playing. Or rather Chaotic Slightly Evil, an alignment which is sadly lacking from D&D. But on a more serious note, unless there is an incentive to play to your alignment people seem to forget all about it and do whatever they feel is right in the situation they are in, which defeats the point of the alignments in the first place.
Problem? Yes.
Do I have a solution? Nope, none what so ever. I just like ranting about it.
Everyone should just bloody well write Chaotic Neutral on their sheets and be done with it, because lets face it, this is what ever single player I've seen lately is playing. Or rather Chaotic Slightly Evil, an alignment which is sadly lacking from D&D. But on a more serious note, unless there is an incentive to play to your alignment people seem to forget all about it and do whatever they feel is right in the situation they are in, which defeats the point of the alignments in the first place.
Problem? Yes.
Do I have a solution? Nope, none what so ever. I just like ranting about it.
Making Ability Scores Useful
The uses for Strength, Dexterity and Constitution are obvious - you never need to worry about making them relevant to players. Similarly, Intelligence is of relatively high importance due to its impact on skill points. However, Wisdom and Charisma tend to be underused, and as a result become the dump stats for powergamers.
Of these, Wisdom is the less-abused stat, because of its role in Will saving throws. However, Will saves tend not to come up too often, as you never see a lone spellcaster as an opponent, but always with melee minions, and yet you can see a lone melee opponent, rendering spellcasters less common as a threat. Since they are the most common source of Will saves, this becomes the weakest of the saves, and hence Wisdom a less important stat.
Now, there are some DMs who will suggest that you should enforce low-Wisdom play by giving XP penalties to players who consistently fail to play their characters correctly. Personally, I disagree with XP penalties on principle. In fact, I hesitated before assigning an XP award for character backgrounds, but then decided that if I didn't I would never get such a thing from the players.
As far as Charisma is concerned, I think an opportunity was definately missed in D&D, in that it should be hardwired into the rules that Charisma affects the price of objects, perhaps by as much as 5% per +1 modifier. So, a character with a Cha of 7 has to pay 110% for every piece of equipment, spell and service that he purchases, whereas the character with Cha 18 pays just 80%. Once you get to buying and selling magic items, this can mean quite considerable savings.
Of course, you then need to watch that the group don't just give all their money and treasure to the high-Cha person to deal with, and then assign the resulting cash. I guess the way to do that is to say that a character cannot judge the quality of adventurer's gear outwith his own speciality. So, the paladin simply cannot tell masterwork thieves tools from normal ones. This then leaves characters with two choices - either their high-Charisma guy gets lots of Craft skills (or multiclasses a lot), or characters sell their own gear.
The other thing to watch out for is NPC reactions to the low-Cha guy. When playing with friends, it's reasonably easy to fall into just letting everyone who meets the PCs like them right away. This is, of course, a mistake. Instead, it's important to ensure that law enforcement is always on the back of the low-Cha barbarian, that no-one takes the low-Cha halfling at all seriously, even when he's reporting that Timmy has fallen down the well, and that the low-Cha fighter is utterly incapable of leading the troops he's been assigned to command.
The Munchkin's Guide to Power-gaming suggests that a modern-era character doesn't need Charisma, but can simply use his skill in Gun to intimidate all NPCs into silence. There is a danger that the hulking half-orc barbarian with the Cha of 3 might attempt exactly the same with random shopkeeper, or that he might use his sheer size to extract information from the captive kobold. This must also be disallowed. Sure, the shopkeeper will hand over his goods, but in a lawful society will then proceed to have the legions kick six shades of shit out of the half-orc. In a lawless society, the shopkeeper either has underworld contacts, or pays his protection money. Either way, the half-orc is in for a world of trouble.
Oh, and the notion that NPCs are there for high- (or even moderate-) level PCs to push around also needs to be confronted. The way to deal with this is likewise quite simple: firstly, the watch confronts the PC normally, and get their asses handed to them. If there's a death, so much the better; the PC is now wanted for killing a member of the watch. On the second encounter, the watch wait until the PC is asleep, and then jump him. Or they have an assassin slip him a sleeping potion. Or they get their pet wizard to Charm the half-orc, taking advantage of his low Wisdom as well :-)
Once the PC is in custody, it must be made clear that such niceties as Miranda are modern concepts. In the fantasy realm, the PC is beaten to within an inch of his life, and is probably tried and executed in short order. If he killed a member of the watch, you can guarantee that the PC won't even reach the jail alive. If the PC is going to be casual with the lives of the city watch, you can bet exactly the same treatment will come their way in return.
Of course, all of that applies to the low-Cha PC. The high-Cha PC won't even get into this problem in the first place. The shopkeeper will bend over backwards to accomodate him, tax collectors will simply go away (or charge a nominal amount), and the town watch will investigate properly. Sure, the high-Cha PC might be every bit as rude and inconsiderate as anyone else but, gee, there's just something about him that people can't help but like (or at least respect). Surely this must all be a misunderstanding?
That's not to say that the law doesn't apply equally to high-Cha characters, but it does mean that such characters should have an all-around easier time of it. And that scared villager that the low-Cha characters just can't get to calm down? No problem for the high-Cha character.
Just some thoughts.
Of these, Wisdom is the less-abused stat, because of its role in Will saving throws. However, Will saves tend not to come up too often, as you never see a lone spellcaster as an opponent, but always with melee minions, and yet you can see a lone melee opponent, rendering spellcasters less common as a threat. Since they are the most common source of Will saves, this becomes the weakest of the saves, and hence Wisdom a less important stat.
Now, there are some DMs who will suggest that you should enforce low-Wisdom play by giving XP penalties to players who consistently fail to play their characters correctly. Personally, I disagree with XP penalties on principle. In fact, I hesitated before assigning an XP award for character backgrounds, but then decided that if I didn't I would never get such a thing from the players.
As far as Charisma is concerned, I think an opportunity was definately missed in D&D, in that it should be hardwired into the rules that Charisma affects the price of objects, perhaps by as much as 5% per +1 modifier. So, a character with a Cha of 7 has to pay 110% for every piece of equipment, spell and service that he purchases, whereas the character with Cha 18 pays just 80%. Once you get to buying and selling magic items, this can mean quite considerable savings.
Of course, you then need to watch that the group don't just give all their money and treasure to the high-Cha person to deal with, and then assign the resulting cash. I guess the way to do that is to say that a character cannot judge the quality of adventurer's gear outwith his own speciality. So, the paladin simply cannot tell masterwork thieves tools from normal ones. This then leaves characters with two choices - either their high-Charisma guy gets lots of Craft skills (or multiclasses a lot), or characters sell their own gear.
The other thing to watch out for is NPC reactions to the low-Cha guy. When playing with friends, it's reasonably easy to fall into just letting everyone who meets the PCs like them right away. This is, of course, a mistake. Instead, it's important to ensure that law enforcement is always on the back of the low-Cha barbarian, that no-one takes the low-Cha halfling at all seriously, even when he's reporting that Timmy has fallen down the well, and that the low-Cha fighter is utterly incapable of leading the troops he's been assigned to command.
The Munchkin's Guide to Power-gaming suggests that a modern-era character doesn't need Charisma, but can simply use his skill in Gun to intimidate all NPCs into silence. There is a danger that the hulking half-orc barbarian with the Cha of 3 might attempt exactly the same with random shopkeeper, or that he might use his sheer size to extract information from the captive kobold. This must also be disallowed. Sure, the shopkeeper will hand over his goods, but in a lawful society will then proceed to have the legions kick six shades of shit out of the half-orc. In a lawless society, the shopkeeper either has underworld contacts, or pays his protection money. Either way, the half-orc is in for a world of trouble.
Oh, and the notion that NPCs are there for high- (or even moderate-) level PCs to push around also needs to be confronted. The way to deal with this is likewise quite simple: firstly, the watch confronts the PC normally, and get their asses handed to them. If there's a death, so much the better; the PC is now wanted for killing a member of the watch. On the second encounter, the watch wait until the PC is asleep, and then jump him. Or they have an assassin slip him a sleeping potion. Or they get their pet wizard to Charm the half-orc, taking advantage of his low Wisdom as well :-)
Once the PC is in custody, it must be made clear that such niceties as Miranda are modern concepts. In the fantasy realm, the PC is beaten to within an inch of his life, and is probably tried and executed in short order. If he killed a member of the watch, you can guarantee that the PC won't even reach the jail alive. If the PC is going to be casual with the lives of the city watch, you can bet exactly the same treatment will come their way in return.
Of course, all of that applies to the low-Cha PC. The high-Cha PC won't even get into this problem in the first place. The shopkeeper will bend over backwards to accomodate him, tax collectors will simply go away (or charge a nominal amount), and the town watch will investigate properly. Sure, the high-Cha PC might be every bit as rude and inconsiderate as anyone else but, gee, there's just something about him that people can't help but like (or at least respect). Surely this must all be a misunderstanding?
That's not to say that the law doesn't apply equally to high-Cha characters, but it does mean that such characters should have an all-around easier time of it. And that scared villager that the low-Cha characters just can't get to calm down? No problem for the high-Cha character.
Just some thoughts.
More on Ability Scores
I definately prefer point-buy to random rolls in character creation. The only real problem that I have with it, at least in d20, is that not all the stats are equal. Simply put, unless you have a character who needs Wisdom or Charisma for his class, there's little point in assigning points to these attributes. (Similarly, in Storyteller, the Mental attributes seem to be the weakest by quite some distance.)
The other concern I have with point-buy is that no-one will ever create a character with a penalty to an ability score. Or, perhaps they will, but the penalty will be in Charisma (maybe Strength for wizards). At least with random-roll, there's no guarantee that you can avoid a penalty. I'm not convinced that having a penalty is necessarily desirable, but it does piss me off somewhat that you never seem to see them under point-buy.
(The same is true of the Lawful Good alignment, which you never see except in paladins. And even then, you get the constant whining of people who want to see a non-LG paladin class. It seems people are perfectly happy to play NG, LN, or even LE characters, but they'll jump through all kinds of hoops just to avoid LG. Again, I'm not of a mind to force anyone to play any alignment, but it does bug me that you never see that one alignment unless it's forced. Oh, and don't get me started on the people who play paladins, have LG written on their sheet, and then play their character as anything but LG...)
Sorry about that aside.
It turns out that my stat-generation system for the current campaign has been somewhat of a failure. My theory was that you should be able to take any of the cards and create a decent character of any class. The 'better' stats were also supposed to provide a difficult choice to the player - accept a weakness for better average stats, or take weaker stats but get to assign them as you want.
What actually happened was that players looked at the best set of stats, and tried to decide what class they would best fit. They then decided whether they wanted to play that class. If not, they looked at the second-best set of stats, and calculated whether they could twist them to fit their chosen class (and get that pesky 7 into Charisma). If not, the whining began.
Of course, this wasn't true of everyone. However, it is telling that of the five characters (actually six, if you include Jerriz), two (three) have a Charisma of 7. Two have Wisdom penalties (7 and 5), leaving one character with a Wis of 5 and a Cha of 7. Only one (two) have a penalty in any of the physical stats.
I guess it's the nature of the game. I know that whenever I create characters for Baldur's Gate or the other CRPGs (I generally create characters, then never play the games, alas), I go through exactly the same process, first reducing the mental stats to the minimums allowed, then boosting the physical stats as high as possible. In NWN, assuming a fighter-type, the priorities are definately Str first, then Dex and Con, and then Int. Wis and Cha are either left at their minimum values, or perhaps Wis is boosted to 10 to avoid a Will save penalty. It's just depressing that the same mentality pervades the tabletop game.
Of course, the solution to my problems with ability scores is to make it very clear at the outset that all the ability scores will be equally useful, and then make damn sure to enforce that. I have some thoughts on that, which I'll post seperately.
The other concern I have with point-buy is that no-one will ever create a character with a penalty to an ability score. Or, perhaps they will, but the penalty will be in Charisma (maybe Strength for wizards). At least with random-roll, there's no guarantee that you can avoid a penalty. I'm not convinced that having a penalty is necessarily desirable, but it does piss me off somewhat that you never seem to see them under point-buy.
(The same is true of the Lawful Good alignment, which you never see except in paladins. And even then, you get the constant whining of people who want to see a non-LG paladin class. It seems people are perfectly happy to play NG, LN, or even LE characters, but they'll jump through all kinds of hoops just to avoid LG. Again, I'm not of a mind to force anyone to play any alignment, but it does bug me that you never see that one alignment unless it's forced. Oh, and don't get me started on the people who play paladins, have LG written on their sheet, and then play their character as anything but LG...)
Sorry about that aside.
It turns out that my stat-generation system for the current campaign has been somewhat of a failure. My theory was that you should be able to take any of the cards and create a decent character of any class. The 'better' stats were also supposed to provide a difficult choice to the player - accept a weakness for better average stats, or take weaker stats but get to assign them as you want.
What actually happened was that players looked at the best set of stats, and tried to decide what class they would best fit. They then decided whether they wanted to play that class. If not, they looked at the second-best set of stats, and calculated whether they could twist them to fit their chosen class (and get that pesky 7 into Charisma). If not, the whining began.
Of course, this wasn't true of everyone. However, it is telling that of the five characters (actually six, if you include Jerriz), two (three) have a Charisma of 7. Two have Wisdom penalties (7 and 5), leaving one character with a Wis of 5 and a Cha of 7. Only one (two) have a penalty in any of the physical stats.
I guess it's the nature of the game. I know that whenever I create characters for Baldur's Gate or the other CRPGs (I generally create characters, then never play the games, alas), I go through exactly the same process, first reducing the mental stats to the minimums allowed, then boosting the physical stats as high as possible. In NWN, assuming a fighter-type, the priorities are definately Str first, then Dex and Con, and then Int. Wis and Cha are either left at their minimum values, or perhaps Wis is boosted to 10 to avoid a Will save penalty. It's just depressing that the same mentality pervades the tabletop game.
Of course, the solution to my problems with ability scores is to make it very clear at the outset that all the ability scores will be equally useful, and then make damn sure to enforce that. I have some thoughts on that, which I'll post seperately.
Tuesday, 10 February 2004
Weapon Sizes in D&D 3.5
In the newest version of D&D, each weapon is given two damage codes, one for when the weapon is used by a small character (Gnome or Halfling), and one for medium characters. The justification for this is that a halfling-sized longsword isn't the same as a human shortsword; it's weighted and sharpened differently.
Anyway, this is a bit annoying, but does make a certain amount of sense. It also means that you can get a halfling dagger, which you couldn't previously.
But...
A small longbow still has a range of 100 feet, the same as a normal longbow. Despite the fact that you simply could not construct a bow that size with that range (excepting the use of magic, which they presumably didn't use else the cost would be higher).
Looks like they need to rethink that again for the next edition.
Anyway, this is a bit annoying, but does make a certain amount of sense. It also means that you can get a halfling dagger, which you couldn't previously.
But...
A small longbow still has a range of 100 feet, the same as a normal longbow. Despite the fact that you simply could not construct a bow that size with that range (excepting the use of magic, which they presumably didn't use else the cost would be higher).
Looks like they need to rethink that again for the next edition.
The Cost of Gaming
I didn't think I'd ever get to the point of moaning about the cost of games. Intellectually, I can understand that making these things costs money, and that wages in the industry are already too low. I can also understand that it's a matter of market forces, and that companies can charge what they want, and if I don't like it, I don't need to buy.
However, I saw the new Conan d20 game today, took one look at the £28 price, and put the book back down. Simply put, there's no way I can possibly justify that sort of cost for a game that I know, in my heart of hearts, will get very little if any use.
To be fair, I'm not the target audience for a game of this sort. The only Conan I've read are some of Robert Jordan's woeful stories featuring the character. I've meant to get to Howard's original works, but never gotten around to it. It's also fair to say that I didn't look inside the book - it was certainly a very thick hardcover, and looked solidly put together. I would also assume, based on Mongoose's previous record with licensed games, that it was a well-done product, and full-colour inside. The book was wrapped, so there was no way I could possibly know any of this, though.
The problem with the cost, however, is actually one of utility. I'm extremely unlikely to ever play a Conan game, and could probably manage without a rulebook in any case. I'm extremely unlikely to ever run a Conan game. And it's extremely doubtful that I'd want to canibalise large parts of the Conan rules for a 'normal' d20 game. So, it just wouldn't be worth it.
Of course, looking at my collection of game books as a whole, I can apply exactly the same argument to all of them. I get a huge amount of use from my D&D core rulebooks, and have from Vampire in the past. Other core rulebooks get somewhat less use, but I have at times run various other games. However, the supplements for such games, and even for D&D and Vampire, get virtually no use. This is very worrying, because it then brings me to the thought: why buy games at all? Since I could probably fit all the books I've ever used on one shelf, rather than the huge stacks I have around the place, how can I justify spending more money on games, in the full and certain knowledge that I most likely won't ever use 10% of the stuff I buy?
This rant doesn't have a point. I was more annoyed that I was desperately looking for a new book worth buying, in an effort to stave off boredom, and simply failed. Even Exalted, which I'd weakened enough to buy, proved to be unavailable.
However, I saw the new Conan d20 game today, took one look at the £28 price, and put the book back down. Simply put, there's no way I can possibly justify that sort of cost for a game that I know, in my heart of hearts, will get very little if any use.
To be fair, I'm not the target audience for a game of this sort. The only Conan I've read are some of Robert Jordan's woeful stories featuring the character. I've meant to get to Howard's original works, but never gotten around to it. It's also fair to say that I didn't look inside the book - it was certainly a very thick hardcover, and looked solidly put together. I would also assume, based on Mongoose's previous record with licensed games, that it was a well-done product, and full-colour inside. The book was wrapped, so there was no way I could possibly know any of this, though.
The problem with the cost, however, is actually one of utility. I'm extremely unlikely to ever play a Conan game, and could probably manage without a rulebook in any case. I'm extremely unlikely to ever run a Conan game. And it's extremely doubtful that I'd want to canibalise large parts of the Conan rules for a 'normal' d20 game. So, it just wouldn't be worth it.
Of course, looking at my collection of game books as a whole, I can apply exactly the same argument to all of them. I get a huge amount of use from my D&D core rulebooks, and have from Vampire in the past. Other core rulebooks get somewhat less use, but I have at times run various other games. However, the supplements for such games, and even for D&D and Vampire, get virtually no use. This is very worrying, because it then brings me to the thought: why buy games at all? Since I could probably fit all the books I've ever used on one shelf, rather than the huge stacks I have around the place, how can I justify spending more money on games, in the full and certain knowledge that I most likely won't ever use 10% of the stuff I buy?
This rant doesn't have a point. I was more annoyed that I was desperately looking for a new book worth buying, in an effort to stave off boredom, and simply failed. Even Exalted, which I'd weakened enough to buy, proved to be unavailable.
Monday, 9 February 2004
Hitpoints
Archived thread started by Mort...
Oh boy, look what I found, a blog.. well I just thought about something to rant about so here I am.
Now, the new D20 D&D, the high and mighty of 'balance' as they claim all over the place.
"Yes, all our classes are balanced against each other, yada yada yada." - Now this is mostly true, apart from some classes being a bit crap compared to others, and some classes scaling upwards on the power scale at higher levels while others start to suck somewhat. But all in all you can pick any class you want and end up with a decent character.
Except for one silly thing: Hitpoints!
Why, oh why did they decide to keep that stupid die roll for hitpoints? It's the do or die for some characters. Your 10th level mage has got 15 hitpoints? Well that's not very good is it? You might as well just chuck it on the discard pile now, or be prepared to spend a lot of time unconcious. Sure you can put up Con, but do you really want to do that as a wizard? No not really, those stat points are much better spent on your Int stat, so you can cast spells with a decent chance of success.
Why didn't they just chuck that die roll out the window and give each class a number of hitpoints per level instead? In theory a barbarian at level 10 might have less hitpoints than a mage, if the barbarian is unlucky. Not very likely as a barbarian probably has quite a high Con, but definately possible. If they insisted on keeping the hit points roll they should have kept the old way of rolling stats as well, none of this fancy 4d6 crap, and stat buying? Oh please, where's the randomness in that?
I'm done ranting now, please return to your normal reading....
Oh boy, look what I found, a blog.. well I just thought about something to rant about so here I am.
Now, the new D20 D&D, the high and mighty of 'balance' as they claim all over the place.
"Yes, all our classes are balanced against each other, yada yada yada." - Now this is mostly true, apart from some classes being a bit crap compared to others, and some classes scaling upwards on the power scale at higher levels while others start to suck somewhat. But all in all you can pick any class you want and end up with a decent character.
Except for one silly thing: Hitpoints!
Why, oh why did they decide to keep that stupid die roll for hitpoints? It's the do or die for some characters. Your 10th level mage has got 15 hitpoints? Well that's not very good is it? You might as well just chuck it on the discard pile now, or be prepared to spend a lot of time unconcious. Sure you can put up Con, but do you really want to do that as a wizard? No not really, those stat points are much better spent on your Int stat, so you can cast spells with a decent chance of success.
Why didn't they just chuck that die roll out the window and give each class a number of hitpoints per level instead? In theory a barbarian at level 10 might have less hitpoints than a mage, if the barbarian is unlucky. Not very likely as a barbarian probably has quite a high Con, but definately possible. If they insisted on keeping the hit points roll they should have kept the old way of rolling stats as well, none of this fancy 4d6 crap, and stat buying? Oh please, where's the randomness in that?
I'm done ranting now, please return to your normal reading....
Review: Martial Arts Mayhem
Or, "I know kung fu!"
One of the most repeated complaints against d20 Modern is that you can't properly create a ninja character. Now, on one level, this is nonsense - you can create a perfectly servicable ninja, just not at 1st level. On another, the martial arts rules are very abstract in d20 as a whole, and consequently the ninja you might create will always look a little bland. (As compared to a ninja created under Storyteller, of course, where those five dots you have in the Martial Arts skill are naturally superior.)
Regardless, this book redresses the balance somewhat. Intended as an expansion for the martial arts rules in d20 Modern, it uses the rules for martial arts styles from Oriental Adventures, rather than Prestige Classes, and a wide selection of feats, to enable characters to do all sorts of crazy stuff.
This is a 62-page black and white softcover published by Green Ronin on behalf of the Game Mechanics, and written by Rich Redman, who was one of the original designers of d20. So, a high pedigree indeed. It cost ?10, which was rather expensive for a book of this length.
The book opens with a brief introduction desciring what martial arts are, both in reality and in the game, adding the material here to the campaign, training issues, and also the design philosophy behind the book - to expand the role of martial arts, while remaining balanced with the rules for firearms.
Chapter 1 then provides the general rules for martial arts: a martial arts style is a set of three masteries, each of which can be gained by learning the right combination of skills and feats. Each mastery then gives a bonus to the martial arts master. Characters may master as many styles as they wish, but it should be borne in mind that they only have a small number of feats to play with, which limits them rather tightly. There are also a couple of additions to the grappling rules, a clarification of what happens to a character's feats if he loses the prerequisites (for instance, a character with Expertise who drops to Int 12 - he loses the feat), and guidelines on creating new styles.
Between the introduction and the general rules, 6 pages are taken up.
Chapter 2 describes many sample styles. There are eighteen in all, including the northern leg style (focussing on kicks), drunken fighting, School of the Dance, and so on. In general, these don't match existing martial arts directly - there is no karate style, for instance - but rather are broadly analogous to existing arts, allowing a wider variety of martial arts to be modelled easily than would otherwise have been the case.
This is a good thing, and in keeping with the rest of the d20 Modern design. As pistols exist in a multitude of forms, most of which function in much the same way, with small differences known only to experts, in the same way, there are a huge number of martial arts schools in existence, with small differences in emphasis, but little difference to anyone who isn't an expert. d20 Modern doesn't model all the small differences between types of pistol; neither does it model the differences between all martial arts styles, and nor should it.
In addition to fifteen styles intended to model a variety of real arts, there are three fictional styles, one dedicated to a campaign featuring magic, which harnesses elemental energies, one dedicated to psionic campaigns, and one similar to the gun kata used in the film Equilibrium. These I like - they're a lot of fun.
The style masteries are very nice, and would definately encourage characters to aim to master styles. They are balanced, however, by very strict mastery requirements, with the more powerful masteries requiring more from their students. Since characters have very few feats to play with, this is fair enough.
Chapter 3 provides 10 pages of new feats, intended to supplement the new styles. Some of these are familiar, such as Die Hard, which matches the feat of the same name in PHB 3.5, some are obvious - Improved Dodge and Advanced Dodge, for instance, and some are brand new. Reagrdless, they are all related to martial arts in some form, but would be useful to characters interested in combat but not actually following a style. All in all, these are nice feats. It should also be noted that the balance here is very well done. (One exception - Three-Conflicts Stance is designed to allow a character to make an opportunity against a character who makes a grapple attack, where said character has an ability that negates the normal attack of opportunity. That is, it is a direct counter to another ability, which I'm not fond of as a design philosophy.)
Chapter 4 then provides seven pages of secret techniques. Characters who gain levels of mastery of certain styles become eligible to learn special feats. These tend to be more powerful than other feats, but have huge lists of prerequisites, so are fine. The secret techniques themselves are nice, although I did find the name of the level 3 mastery technique for Western Boxing style amusing - Eye of the Tiger.
Chapter 5 gives a whole range of martial arts weapons. These are nice enough, although melee weapons aren't particularly worthwhile in d20 Modern (and are too weak to use in D&D - a deliberate design decision for the game). Amusingly, we get yet another set of stats for the chakram. As yet, I have yet to find one that justifies tagging it as an Exotic Weapon.
Chapter 6 then discusses campaign models focussing on martial arts. It discusses the question of whether to have "No fu", "Some fu", or "Crazy fu", relating to the level of martial arts silliness you want in your campaign. There are rules to back each of these, including a set of Stunt rules for use in Crazy Fu campaigns. There then proceed discussions of five campaign models, which can most easily be summarised as Mad Max meets martial arts, Alias meets martial arts, the Godfather meets martial arts, Mortal Kombat meets, well, itself, and the Karate Kid (or, less lame, equivalent) meets itself. Each campaign model discusses the place of the PCs, Department 7, rules of the model, and sample villains for each.
This was a nice book, of which chapters 2, 3 and 4 are the most useful. Since these comprise the bulk of the book, this is a good thing. The utility of the book would depend on the style of d20 Modern game the GM was using - in the same way that Ultramodern Firearms won't always fit, neither will this book. However, this book does make martial arts campaigns a viable game style in d20 Modern, which they might well not have been in the past. As such, it can be recommended.
Still, you can't do The Matrix in d20 Modern. It seems Neo will remain the eternal munchkin :-)
One of the most repeated complaints against d20 Modern is that you can't properly create a ninja character. Now, on one level, this is nonsense - you can create a perfectly servicable ninja, just not at 1st level. On another, the martial arts rules are very abstract in d20 as a whole, and consequently the ninja you might create will always look a little bland. (As compared to a ninja created under Storyteller, of course, where those five dots you have in the Martial Arts skill are naturally superior.)
Regardless, this book redresses the balance somewhat. Intended as an expansion for the martial arts rules in d20 Modern, it uses the rules for martial arts styles from Oriental Adventures, rather than Prestige Classes, and a wide selection of feats, to enable characters to do all sorts of crazy stuff.
This is a 62-page black and white softcover published by Green Ronin on behalf of the Game Mechanics, and written by Rich Redman, who was one of the original designers of d20. So, a high pedigree indeed. It cost ?10, which was rather expensive for a book of this length.
The book opens with a brief introduction desciring what martial arts are, both in reality and in the game, adding the material here to the campaign, training issues, and also the design philosophy behind the book - to expand the role of martial arts, while remaining balanced with the rules for firearms.
Chapter 1 then provides the general rules for martial arts: a martial arts style is a set of three masteries, each of which can be gained by learning the right combination of skills and feats. Each mastery then gives a bonus to the martial arts master. Characters may master as many styles as they wish, but it should be borne in mind that they only have a small number of feats to play with, which limits them rather tightly. There are also a couple of additions to the grappling rules, a clarification of what happens to a character's feats if he loses the prerequisites (for instance, a character with Expertise who drops to Int 12 - he loses the feat), and guidelines on creating new styles.
Between the introduction and the general rules, 6 pages are taken up.
Chapter 2 describes many sample styles. There are eighteen in all, including the northern leg style (focussing on kicks), drunken fighting, School of the Dance, and so on. In general, these don't match existing martial arts directly - there is no karate style, for instance - but rather are broadly analogous to existing arts, allowing a wider variety of martial arts to be modelled easily than would otherwise have been the case.
This is a good thing, and in keeping with the rest of the d20 Modern design. As pistols exist in a multitude of forms, most of which function in much the same way, with small differences known only to experts, in the same way, there are a huge number of martial arts schools in existence, with small differences in emphasis, but little difference to anyone who isn't an expert. d20 Modern doesn't model all the small differences between types of pistol; neither does it model the differences between all martial arts styles, and nor should it.
In addition to fifteen styles intended to model a variety of real arts, there are three fictional styles, one dedicated to a campaign featuring magic, which harnesses elemental energies, one dedicated to psionic campaigns, and one similar to the gun kata used in the film Equilibrium. These I like - they're a lot of fun.
The style masteries are very nice, and would definately encourage characters to aim to master styles. They are balanced, however, by very strict mastery requirements, with the more powerful masteries requiring more from their students. Since characters have very few feats to play with, this is fair enough.
Chapter 3 provides 10 pages of new feats, intended to supplement the new styles. Some of these are familiar, such as Die Hard, which matches the feat of the same name in PHB 3.5, some are obvious - Improved Dodge and Advanced Dodge, for instance, and some are brand new. Reagrdless, they are all related to martial arts in some form, but would be useful to characters interested in combat but not actually following a style. All in all, these are nice feats. It should also be noted that the balance here is very well done. (One exception - Three-Conflicts Stance is designed to allow a character to make an opportunity against a character who makes a grapple attack, where said character has an ability that negates the normal attack of opportunity. That is, it is a direct counter to another ability, which I'm not fond of as a design philosophy.)
Chapter 4 then provides seven pages of secret techniques. Characters who gain levels of mastery of certain styles become eligible to learn special feats. These tend to be more powerful than other feats, but have huge lists of prerequisites, so are fine. The secret techniques themselves are nice, although I did find the name of the level 3 mastery technique for Western Boxing style amusing - Eye of the Tiger.
Chapter 5 gives a whole range of martial arts weapons. These are nice enough, although melee weapons aren't particularly worthwhile in d20 Modern (and are too weak to use in D&D - a deliberate design decision for the game). Amusingly, we get yet another set of stats for the chakram. As yet, I have yet to find one that justifies tagging it as an Exotic Weapon.
Chapter 6 then discusses campaign models focussing on martial arts. It discusses the question of whether to have "No fu", "Some fu", or "Crazy fu", relating to the level of martial arts silliness you want in your campaign. There are rules to back each of these, including a set of Stunt rules for use in Crazy Fu campaigns. There then proceed discussions of five campaign models, which can most easily be summarised as Mad Max meets martial arts, Alias meets martial arts, the Godfather meets martial arts, Mortal Kombat meets, well, itself, and the Karate Kid (or, less lame, equivalent) meets itself. Each campaign model discusses the place of the PCs, Department 7, rules of the model, and sample villains for each.
This was a nice book, of which chapters 2, 3 and 4 are the most useful. Since these comprise the bulk of the book, this is a good thing. The utility of the book would depend on the style of d20 Modern game the GM was using - in the same way that Ultramodern Firearms won't always fit, neither will this book. However, this book does make martial arts campaigns a viable game style in d20 Modern, which they might well not have been in the past. As such, it can be recommended.
Still, you can't do The Matrix in d20 Modern. It seems Neo will remain the eternal munchkin :-)
Thursday, 5 February 2004
Review: The Complete Book of Eldritch Might
This work is a compilation of three previous (3rd Edition) books for D&D, the Books of Eldritch Might, the first two of which I owned but had never gotten around to reading. The compilation gathers all the material from all three, updates it to v3.5, and puts some fancy hardcovers on the whole.
This is a 224-page balck and white hardcover. It cost £22, so was very expensive, but the text size is unusually small - this book is packed. There are nine chapters and an appendix.
Chapter One presents alternative Bard and Sorcerer classes. The Bard class is not much different from the original, except that their spell-casting and Bardic Music features are replaced with spellsong abilities, which are similar to magic, but subtly different. The Sorcerer gains higher hit dice (d6), more skill points (4/level), and seems to lose nothing. This is all balanced by them having to use a new spell-list, which has fewer spells on it, and has a number of the most useful spells (haste and fly, for example) increased in level. So, they become a bit more powerful in one area, but become noticably less useful in the main one associated with their class.
The new classes are fine, although I prefer the new Bard to the new Sorcerer. I doubt I would use either in a game I was running, however; I don't see anything wrong with the existing classes. This chapter is 13 pages long, much of which is taken up with the Sorcerer spell-list.
Chapter 2 consists of eight pages of Feats. These are fine, and several are quite interesting. But, they're just feats.
Chapter 3 , in seventeen pages, presents eight new Prestige Classes. These are all good, being both balanced and flavourful. I like them. Again, though, they're just prestige classes, so not exactly stunning.
Chapter 4 presents Soul Magic, a variant of magic that consists of spells that exist solely to be cast. Sort of like the eight great spells in Diskworld. This is good stuff, and material that I would strongly consider dropping into a game I ran to add a bit of wonder to proceedings. This chapter is only four pages long, but that is easily sufficient to present what needs said about the subject.
Chapter 5 deals with Magic Locales. There are seven such locations, in 37 pages, including such delights as the Nexus (a door to other worlds), the City in the Storm (a flying city surrounded by a permanent tempest), and so forth. Each is presented with a description, two suggested uses, adventure hooks, associated characters, and cross-references to materials elsewhere in the book. This is interesting, but probably not something that I'm ever going to use.
Chapter 6 presents the Spellsongs, companion material to the variant Bard. This chapter runs to fourteen pages, which are invaluable if the new Bard is used, and useless if not.
Chapter 7 presents the new Spells. This, for me, is the meat of the book, and the main reason I bought it. The spells here range from the dull (Disdain the Divine gives a bonus to save against divine spells) to the fascinating (Gestalt merges two creatures into a bizarre amalgamation). They are, for the most part, well balanced (although Plunge Deep to the Core, which at 2nd level allows characters to ignore one source of damage reduction, seems rather too powerful). These spells will, with a handful of exceptions, be being immediately added to my current campaign. There are 65 pages of new spells.
Chapter 8 presents new Magic Items, some of which will also be added to my game forthwith. For the most part, these items are more interesting, although often of lesser utility, than their counterparts in the DMG. These are also well-balanced, although I noted a couple of changes that should have been made from 3e to 3.5e, but that weren't (references to nine-tenths cover, for instance), but there were only a few. Chapter 8 lasts 26 pages.
Chapter 9 presents 18 pages of new monsters. These are fine, but, as with feats and prestige classes, hardly exciting.
The Appendix includes a very useful random rune generator. It also includes coversion guidelines for using this book with Arcana Unearthed, which is also very useful, but only to those using that game.
This book has the singular distinction of being the first (non-Monstrous Compendium) third-party sourcebook I will be adding to one of my D&D campaigns. The material here is useful, well-balanced, and interesting. This book, therefore, is highly recommended to those looking for more arcane materials to add to their campaigns.
This is a 224-page balck and white hardcover. It cost £22, so was very expensive, but the text size is unusually small - this book is packed. There are nine chapters and an appendix.
Chapter One presents alternative Bard and Sorcerer classes. The Bard class is not much different from the original, except that their spell-casting and Bardic Music features are replaced with spellsong abilities, which are similar to magic, but subtly different. The Sorcerer gains higher hit dice (d6), more skill points (4/level), and seems to lose nothing. This is all balanced by them having to use a new spell-list, which has fewer spells on it, and has a number of the most useful spells (haste and fly, for example) increased in level. So, they become a bit more powerful in one area, but become noticably less useful in the main one associated with their class.
The new classes are fine, although I prefer the new Bard to the new Sorcerer. I doubt I would use either in a game I was running, however; I don't see anything wrong with the existing classes. This chapter is 13 pages long, much of which is taken up with the Sorcerer spell-list.
Chapter 2 consists of eight pages of Feats. These are fine, and several are quite interesting. But, they're just feats.
Chapter 3 , in seventeen pages, presents eight new Prestige Classes. These are all good, being both balanced and flavourful. I like them. Again, though, they're just prestige classes, so not exactly stunning.
Chapter 4 presents Soul Magic, a variant of magic that consists of spells that exist solely to be cast. Sort of like the eight great spells in Diskworld. This is good stuff, and material that I would strongly consider dropping into a game I ran to add a bit of wonder to proceedings. This chapter is only four pages long, but that is easily sufficient to present what needs said about the subject.
Chapter 5 deals with Magic Locales. There are seven such locations, in 37 pages, including such delights as the Nexus (a door to other worlds), the City in the Storm (a flying city surrounded by a permanent tempest), and so forth. Each is presented with a description, two suggested uses, adventure hooks, associated characters, and cross-references to materials elsewhere in the book. This is interesting, but probably not something that I'm ever going to use.
Chapter 6 presents the Spellsongs, companion material to the variant Bard. This chapter runs to fourteen pages, which are invaluable if the new Bard is used, and useless if not.
Chapter 7 presents the new Spells. This, for me, is the meat of the book, and the main reason I bought it. The spells here range from the dull (Disdain the Divine gives a bonus to save against divine spells) to the fascinating (Gestalt merges two creatures into a bizarre amalgamation). They are, for the most part, well balanced (although Plunge Deep to the Core, which at 2nd level allows characters to ignore one source of damage reduction, seems rather too powerful). These spells will, with a handful of exceptions, be being immediately added to my current campaign. There are 65 pages of new spells.
Chapter 8 presents new Magic Items, some of which will also be added to my game forthwith. For the most part, these items are more interesting, although often of lesser utility, than their counterparts in the DMG. These are also well-balanced, although I noted a couple of changes that should have been made from 3e to 3.5e, but that weren't (references to nine-tenths cover, for instance), but there were only a few. Chapter 8 lasts 26 pages.
Chapter 9 presents 18 pages of new monsters. These are fine, but, as with feats and prestige classes, hardly exciting.
The Appendix includes a very useful random rune generator. It also includes coversion guidelines for using this book with Arcana Unearthed, which is also very useful, but only to those using that game.
This book has the singular distinction of being the first (non-Monstrous Compendium) third-party sourcebook I will be adding to one of my D&D campaigns. The material here is useful, well-balanced, and interesting. This book, therefore, is highly recommended to those looking for more arcane materials to add to their campaigns.
Tuesday, 3 February 2004
Review: The Point of No Return
This is the year 3 sourcebook for the Babylon 5 d20 game. It describes the state of the galaxy in 2260, and related campaign materials. Like the previous year 2 supplement (The Coming of Shadows), and like the core rulebook of the game, it is dominated by an episode guide, describing the 22 episodes of series 3 of the show, offering ways to tie a B5 campaign to the events of the TV series - a valid approach to presenting the B5 universe, but not necessarily one I like.
This is a 144-page full-colour softcover book. There are four chapters. I should note that the editing in this book is really good, with only a few mistakes slipping in (a diagram showing arcs of fire for B4 is missing - this is probably the worst mistake). This improvement is noteworthy primarily because I've complained about the quality of editing in Mongoose products before.
Chapter one provides updated statistics for the major characters, and adds stats for a few new ones. For instance, we now learn that Marcus is 9th level at the start of 2260. Perhaps most suprising is the very slow rate of progress shown by the key characters - apparently Sheridan gained one level in 2259, Ivonova 2 and Garibaldi 1. Still, I get the feeling that level isn't really an important statistic in the B5 game, so this probably doesn't matter.
What is of more concern is that some of the characters have Feats taken from the Minbari Federation Factbook, and not reprinted here. This means that that other book (which I don't have and won't be getting) is necessary for full use of this one, which is a policy I really don't like. Sorry, but I'd prefer sourcebooks of this sort to be self-contained.
Chapter 1 runs to 11 pages.
Chapter 2 is the episode guide. As with previous books in the series, it has 21 subsections, one for each of the episodes in the season (there was a 2-part episode, which has a single section dedicated to it). Each episode is given a detailed synopsis, followed by some exposition. For instance, the Death of Personality is expanded on. Each episode is also presented with three or so plot hooks, showing how PCs can be brought into the action.
The policy that Mongoose have adopted to B5 campaigns, which is to tie them to the periphery of the series, is implemented well here. I happen to believe it would be better to run a game after the series ends, or in the distant past, or otherwise away from the main action, but that's just me. Just because I would have done things differently should not be taken as a criticism of the way things actually have been done. Chapter 2 spans the bulk of the book, at 107 pages.
Chapter 3 gives some rules additions, such as a detailed description of the method by which Death of Personality is implemented, Prestige Classes for the Anla'shok Ranger and the Prophetess, and the use of telepathy for tracking in hyperspace. This is sloid material, and well-designed and presented. Chapter 3 runs to 15 pages.
The last 6 pages, chapter 4, are spent providing some new equipment and ships. There are servicable stats for several types of Shadow vessel (by which I mean that the stats here can be used, but they probably don't give the whole picture, which I imagine is being saved for the "Shadows and Vorlons" sourcebook), and Centauri Blockade Mines, among others.
There is one huge omission in this book, which I expect is detailed in the Minbari Book: the White Star is not detailed here. This single omission is unforgivable, and essentially removes any utility I had for this book (admittedly, only because Mongoose made the Ranger class available in their web enhancements for the game).
This book is very much like the previous year 2 sourcebook, and is about as useful. It's well done as far as it goes, but suffers greatly from the fact that I wouldn't implement the galaxy guide as it is done here. The absence of the White Star is a crippling blow to the utility of the book, and there is, once again, no updated political map of the galaxy, which would have been very useful.
Given the expense of the B5 line, and the limited usefulness of this book, I don't think I can recommend it, except perhaps to dedicated B5 GMs who are also lukewarm fans of the show (if such a beast exists).
This is a 144-page full-colour softcover book. There are four chapters. I should note that the editing in this book is really good, with only a few mistakes slipping in (a diagram showing arcs of fire for B4 is missing - this is probably the worst mistake). This improvement is noteworthy primarily because I've complained about the quality of editing in Mongoose products before.
Chapter one provides updated statistics for the major characters, and adds stats for a few new ones. For instance, we now learn that Marcus is 9th level at the start of 2260. Perhaps most suprising is the very slow rate of progress shown by the key characters - apparently Sheridan gained one level in 2259, Ivonova 2 and Garibaldi 1. Still, I get the feeling that level isn't really an important statistic in the B5 game, so this probably doesn't matter.
What is of more concern is that some of the characters have Feats taken from the Minbari Federation Factbook, and not reprinted here. This means that that other book (which I don't have and won't be getting) is necessary for full use of this one, which is a policy I really don't like. Sorry, but I'd prefer sourcebooks of this sort to be self-contained.
Chapter 1 runs to 11 pages.
Chapter 2 is the episode guide. As with previous books in the series, it has 21 subsections, one for each of the episodes in the season (there was a 2-part episode, which has a single section dedicated to it). Each episode is given a detailed synopsis, followed by some exposition. For instance, the Death of Personality is expanded on. Each episode is also presented with three or so plot hooks, showing how PCs can be brought into the action.
The policy that Mongoose have adopted to B5 campaigns, which is to tie them to the periphery of the series, is implemented well here. I happen to believe it would be better to run a game after the series ends, or in the distant past, or otherwise away from the main action, but that's just me. Just because I would have done things differently should not be taken as a criticism of the way things actually have been done. Chapter 2 spans the bulk of the book, at 107 pages.
Chapter 3 gives some rules additions, such as a detailed description of the method by which Death of Personality is implemented, Prestige Classes for the Anla'shok Ranger and the Prophetess, and the use of telepathy for tracking in hyperspace. This is sloid material, and well-designed and presented. Chapter 3 runs to 15 pages.
The last 6 pages, chapter 4, are spent providing some new equipment and ships. There are servicable stats for several types of Shadow vessel (by which I mean that the stats here can be used, but they probably don't give the whole picture, which I imagine is being saved for the "Shadows and Vorlons" sourcebook), and Centauri Blockade Mines, among others.
There is one huge omission in this book, which I expect is detailed in the Minbari Book: the White Star is not detailed here. This single omission is unforgivable, and essentially removes any utility I had for this book (admittedly, only because Mongoose made the Ranger class available in their web enhancements for the game).
This book is very much like the previous year 2 sourcebook, and is about as useful. It's well done as far as it goes, but suffers greatly from the fact that I wouldn't implement the galaxy guide as it is done here. The absence of the White Star is a crippling blow to the utility of the book, and there is, once again, no updated political map of the galaxy, which would have been very useful.
Given the expense of the B5 line, and the limited usefulness of this book, I don't think I can recommend it, except perhaps to dedicated B5 GMs who are also lukewarm fans of the show (if such a beast exists).
Monday, 2 February 2004
"You don't expect this to be a serious game?"
A comment made by one of my players at the weekend, in the first session of the new campaign I've started up.
In reply: "I worked hard for four weeks to write up this campaign setting. It's not perfect, but I think it is good. Yes, I damn well do expect this to be a serious game!"
Which is not to say I expect your character to be a faceless drone, going through the campaign I've written for you. By all means, play your character, and if that character is a maladjusted rebel then so be it. However, I expect you to take the game itself seriously.
It's the difference between being disruptive because your character is logically disruptive, and being disruptive because you are an ass.
Anyway, that's enough ranting for now.
In reply: "I worked hard for four weeks to write up this campaign setting. It's not perfect, but I think it is good. Yes, I damn well do expect this to be a serious game!"
Which is not to say I expect your character to be a faceless drone, going through the campaign I've written for you. By all means, play your character, and if that character is a maladjusted rebel then so be it. However, I expect you to take the game itself seriously.
It's the difference between being disruptive because your character is logically disruptive, and being disruptive because you are an ass.
Anyway, that's enough ranting for now.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)