Archived thread started by Mort:
I'm curious as to why you regret not re-starting at 1st level? You have given one reason regarding the equipment. I'm just wondering if there is something else that bothers you about starting at a high level?
Personally I dislike the low levels of play, mostly because your character is utterly and completely useless.
D&D are all about heroic campaigns where your character performs mighty deeds, the stuff of legends. The only problem is that when you start out at first level you'd be happy if you could hit a measly goblin. I think D&D is one of the few games (well high fantasy anyway) where you are utterly crap when you start out. The general idea these days is that if you are playing a high fantasy game you should start out pretty kick ass and only get better as time progresses. Look at Exalted for instance, even a normal mortal character in there can start with a fairly decent amount of kick-assness, in Star Wars they encourage you to start at third level, because you are pants at level one. In Earthdawn a new character can be pretty much the ultimate swordsman, right off the bat. I don't know why everyone insists on trudging through the first few levels in D&D? I guess it's they way it's always been, or something.
If you start at a higher level it's also much easier to create a decent and interesting background for your character, he's not just some schmuck who just wandered in off the street; he's actually done something. All those silly goblins was slain off screen, all the better, it's not much fun anyway. You got some decent equipment and you can get on with some more interesting and heroic adventures. Not to mention skills, at first level you can have a maximum of four in a skills or nine if you blow both of your starting feats as a human on skill focus feats. But taking two skill feats means you suck in other ways because you only have one good skill and that's it. Higher level gives you a decent range of skills that you can actually do something with.
Oh well, this is just my opinion why I dislike low level play. Rant over.
Wednesday, 31 March 2004
Monday, 29 March 2004
The "accidental" munchkin
Archived thread started by Andrew:
With our characters having the point-buy system I decided to try and have a semi-decent Sorcerer who wouldn't be too "munchkiny". Of course with the choices made for race and magic items I now realise I'm heading towards the ultimate munchkin Sorcerer, with maximum Charisma and everything else at 10 (due to racial ability modifiers). I guess more thought should've gone into those choices for the upcoming sessions. Has anyone else created a character they thought was a munchkin purely by accident?
With our characters having the point-buy system I decided to try and have a semi-decent Sorcerer who wouldn't be too "munchkiny". Of course with the choices made for race and magic items I now realise I'm heading towards the ultimate munchkin Sorcerer, with maximum Charisma and everything else at 10 (due to racial ability modifiers). I guess more thought should've gone into those choices for the upcoming sessions. Has anyone else created a character they thought was a munchkin purely by accident?
Characters Created at higher than 1st level
It's quite interesting to compare the equipment selected by characters who are created at 6th level with that possessed by characters who have reached 6th level through play. In theory, these characters should have much the same value of equipment, so only the way that it is spent is changed.
The big difference is that characters created at high level have fewer items than those who reach that level through play. So, whereas the party cleric might have several potions, a scroll or two, and maybe a couple of wands if he's played through those levels, when created at 6th level he'll first allocate the bulk of his starting funds to the best armour, or weapon, or Wisdom-boosting item he can afford. This process is repeated until the character has less than 1,000 gold still to spend, and then mundane items are chosen.
There's nothing inherently wrong with this approach - characters should, in general, be able to collect the items that the player wants. That's one of the (rather unfortunate) assumptions on which the encounter system in 3rd Edition rests. (Since a fighter with a magic bastard sword is less effective than one with a magic longsword, if he has Weapon Focus(longsword) and Improved Critical(longsword), for instance.)
The other odd thing is that players creating higher-than-first-level characters seem to miss options to take masterwork items, partially-charged wands, and items made of special materials. So, the party wizard could very easily purchase a wand of 8d6 fireballs, for the meagre sum of 1,800 gp.
Hmm, perhaps that isn't the very best option.
The big difference is that characters created at high level have fewer items than those who reach that level through play. So, whereas the party cleric might have several potions, a scroll or two, and maybe a couple of wands if he's played through those levels, when created at 6th level he'll first allocate the bulk of his starting funds to the best armour, or weapon, or Wisdom-boosting item he can afford. This process is repeated until the character has less than 1,000 gold still to spend, and then mundane items are chosen.
There's nothing inherently wrong with this approach - characters should, in general, be able to collect the items that the player wants. That's one of the (rather unfortunate) assumptions on which the encounter system in 3rd Edition rests. (Since a fighter with a magic bastard sword is less effective than one with a magic longsword, if he has Weapon Focus(longsword) and Improved Critical(longsword), for instance.)
The other odd thing is that players creating higher-than-first-level characters seem to miss options to take masterwork items, partially-charged wands, and items made of special materials. So, the party wizard could very easily purchase a wand of 8d6 fireballs, for the meagre sum of 1,800 gp.
Hmm, perhaps that isn't the very best option.
Total Party Kill
I killed off the entire party at the weekend. Perhaps not my best ever move, since it kind of puts a dampener on the whole campaign, but not too disasterous.
The circumstances leading to the TPK were, in fact, as follows:
1) The party has been regularly besting encounters two or three ELs higher than might be expected. Consequently, to challenge the party, I had taken to beefing up the threat level a tad. (This seemed to be down to dice rolling. Basically, my dice hate me, and several players seemed to have dice which always rolled well for them. Naturally, when things got bad on Saturday, it coincided with a switch in the dice.)
2) I expected the party to rest before running into that encounter. Now, that wouldn't have made a huge difference, except that the cleric went into the fight having used all his spells. Therefore, when he was called on to heal the fighters during the combat, he could only use his wand of cure light wounds. With rest, I suspect the fight would have gone better, although it still would have been close.
3) The Spell Weaver was well above what the group should have been facing. Now, he only hung around for two rounds, but that was enough to totally incapacitate the group's wizard, and seriously injure one of the fighters. If not for him, the fight would have gone very differently. However, as the Spell Weavers were intended to be the 'big bad' of that section of the campaign, and since the party was in a Spell Weaver temple, it makes sense that a Spell Weaver should be there, both from a realism and drama point of view.
4) When the party saw their opponents, they immediately dived into combat. Naturally, the opposition did likewise, scoring three sneak attacks in the first round. Again, I had expected that there would be some level of banter before the fight, which would have meant no-one started flat-footed, and those sneak attacks wouldn't have happened.
5) When things got really bad, I would have expected the party to consider surrendering. Silly me.
Anyway, the party died, leaving three options:
1) Weasel out of it. "You all wake up in a dank cell..." I really, really hate this approach. If the foe has a reason to keep the party alive, fair enough, but you can't just hand-wave a rescue into existence without it sucking beyond reckoning. In the situation as it was on Saturday, the party had to die.
2) Play something else. This is pretty obvious.
3) Restart. This, too, is obvious. It is also the option that was taken. (In hindsight, I'm starting to regret not restarting at 1st level, but that seems to add two and a half months of playtime to the campaign without much benefit.)
There is one distinctly positive thing to come out of a total party kill: everyone now knows that it can happen. Henceforth, it should be possible to let the dice lie where they land, accept the results that are there, and move forward. And that's a good thing.
The circumstances leading to the TPK were, in fact, as follows:
1) The party has been regularly besting encounters two or three ELs higher than might be expected. Consequently, to challenge the party, I had taken to beefing up the threat level a tad. (This seemed to be down to dice rolling. Basically, my dice hate me, and several players seemed to have dice which always rolled well for them. Naturally, when things got bad on Saturday, it coincided with a switch in the dice.)
2) I expected the party to rest before running into that encounter. Now, that wouldn't have made a huge difference, except that the cleric went into the fight having used all his spells. Therefore, when he was called on to heal the fighters during the combat, he could only use his wand of cure light wounds. With rest, I suspect the fight would have gone better, although it still would have been close.
3) The Spell Weaver was well above what the group should have been facing. Now, he only hung around for two rounds, but that was enough to totally incapacitate the group's wizard, and seriously injure one of the fighters. If not for him, the fight would have gone very differently. However, as the Spell Weavers were intended to be the 'big bad' of that section of the campaign, and since the party was in a Spell Weaver temple, it makes sense that a Spell Weaver should be there, both from a realism and drama point of view.
4) When the party saw their opponents, they immediately dived into combat. Naturally, the opposition did likewise, scoring three sneak attacks in the first round. Again, I had expected that there would be some level of banter before the fight, which would have meant no-one started flat-footed, and those sneak attacks wouldn't have happened.
5) When things got really bad, I would have expected the party to consider surrendering. Silly me.
Anyway, the party died, leaving three options:
1) Weasel out of it. "You all wake up in a dank cell..." I really, really hate this approach. If the foe has a reason to keep the party alive, fair enough, but you can't just hand-wave a rescue into existence without it sucking beyond reckoning. In the situation as it was on Saturday, the party had to die.
2) Play something else. This is pretty obvious.
3) Restart. This, too, is obvious. It is also the option that was taken. (In hindsight, I'm starting to regret not restarting at 1st level, but that seems to add two and a half months of playtime to the campaign without much benefit.)
There is one distinctly positive thing to come out of a total party kill: everyone now knows that it can happen. Henceforth, it should be possible to let the dice lie where they land, accept the results that are there, and move forward. And that's a good thing.
Wednesday, 24 March 2004
Oops, I did it again
I've been reviewing the rules for firing into melee, and true to form I screwed up the ruling.
There are two things that come into play: firing into melee, and cover.
When firing into a melee (which is defined, oddly enough, as any situation where two characters are in melee combat with one another and in adjacent squares), you take a -4 penalty to hit. This is standard, and is negated with the Precise Shot feat. Dead simple.
However, in addition, if you want to fire at a character through the square occupied by another character, then the blocking character provides your target with cover (unless there's a huge difference in size, but that comes up rarely enough to not matter). Anyway, cover provides a further -4 penalty to hit. Precise Shot does nothing to help with this penalty.
Furthermore, if your attack misses by 1-4 points (so, it would have hit if not for the cover), the missile instead hits the object providing the cover, in this case the other target. This has one of three effects. If the attack roll beats the covering character's armour class, then that character takes damage from the missile. If the attack roll doesn't beat the covering character's AC, but does beat his AC versus touch attacks, the missile hits the character's armour and bounces off, without causing damage. Finally, if the attack fails to beat the covering character's touch AC, then it turns out that that character didn't actually provide cover at all; the missile hits its intended target (personally, I don't like this last adjustment - I'd prefer that it either hits or misses the covering character, but there we go).
To illustrate this, let's consider two characters in melee combat, Alf and Bob. Let's imagine that Carl and Dave want to shoot Bob, but neither of them has Precise Shot. Imagine further that Dave has to shoot 'through' Alf to hit Bob, but that Carl does not.
Carl, therefore, takes a -4 penalty to hit Bob. He has no chance of hitting Alf. Dave, on the other hand, takes a -8 penalty to hit Bob. Worse, if he misses by 1-4, he hits Alf instead.
Imagine also that Eloi and Fraser want to shoot Alf. Both have Precise Shot. Fraser has to shoot 'through' Bob to hit Alf, but Eloi does not.
Eloi, therefore, takes no penalty to hit. He has no chance of hitting Bob. Fraser, however, takes a -4 penalty to hit Alf. If he misses by 1-4, he hits Alf instead.
And that's that. My mistake.
There are two things that come into play: firing into melee, and cover.
When firing into a melee (which is defined, oddly enough, as any situation where two characters are in melee combat with one another and in adjacent squares), you take a -4 penalty to hit. This is standard, and is negated with the Precise Shot feat. Dead simple.
However, in addition, if you want to fire at a character through the square occupied by another character, then the blocking character provides your target with cover (unless there's a huge difference in size, but that comes up rarely enough to not matter). Anyway, cover provides a further -4 penalty to hit. Precise Shot does nothing to help with this penalty.
Furthermore, if your attack misses by 1-4 points (so, it would have hit if not for the cover), the missile instead hits the object providing the cover, in this case the other target. This has one of three effects. If the attack roll beats the covering character's armour class, then that character takes damage from the missile. If the attack roll doesn't beat the covering character's AC, but does beat his AC versus touch attacks, the missile hits the character's armour and bounces off, without causing damage. Finally, if the attack fails to beat the covering character's touch AC, then it turns out that that character didn't actually provide cover at all; the missile hits its intended target (personally, I don't like this last adjustment - I'd prefer that it either hits or misses the covering character, but there we go).
To illustrate this, let's consider two characters in melee combat, Alf and Bob. Let's imagine that Carl and Dave want to shoot Bob, but neither of them has Precise Shot. Imagine further that Dave has to shoot 'through' Alf to hit Bob, but that Carl does not.
Carl, therefore, takes a -4 penalty to hit Bob. He has no chance of hitting Alf. Dave, on the other hand, takes a -8 penalty to hit Bob. Worse, if he misses by 1-4, he hits Alf instead.
Imagine also that Eloi and Fraser want to shoot Alf. Both have Precise Shot. Fraser has to shoot 'through' Bob to hit Alf, but Eloi does not.
Eloi, therefore, takes no penalty to hit. He has no chance of hitting Bob. Fraser, however, takes a -4 penalty to hit Alf. If he misses by 1-4, he hits Alf instead.
And that's that. My mistake.
Monday, 22 March 2004
Character Portraits
Archived thread started by Andrew:
Does anyone have good sources of character art that can be used in the current game? I was looking at using a Romain legionnaire but since Vibius now wears full plate I thought this didn't feel quite right. Can anyone help out?
Does anyone have good sources of character art that can be used in the current game? I was looking at using a Romain legionnaire but since Vibius now wears full plate I thought this didn't feel quite right. Can anyone help out?
Sunday, 21 March 2004
Increasingly pissed off...
I don't have a problem with PCs using all their cool toys to best effect. I have no problem with players building their characters to squeeze out as much juice as possible from the system. I have no problem with players having powerful characters (or I wouldn't ever grant experience points).
I do, however, have a problem with players "forgetting" the limits of their powers, or "remembering" what spells they've used between sessions.
The examples that follow come from the current game, although not necessarily yesterday's session:
If you fire a crossbow (or other missile weapon), you have to cross off a bolt. Likewise, charges of wands, your limited lay on hands ability, and so on. Immediately. Don't "remember" it until the end of the combat, and certainly don't "remember" it until the next session.
If you cast a spell, you have to note that on your character sheet as well. Again, it should be done immediately.
If you take damage, this should also normally be noted. However, in this case the hit points are all being tracked centrally, so it doesn't really matter.
If you cast a spell, you need to know exactly what it does. Ideally, you should always look up every spell you cast, just to be sure. You might think some spells are so well-known that this is unnecessary, but if that's the case, here are three questions: What is the range of a fireball? How far apart can the targets of a magic missile be? What is the duration of a shield spell?
There are two reasons for this:
1) The character sheets are being replaced every few weeks. There shouldn't be any risk of them wearing out in the meantime (and even if they do, I can just print new ones).
2) People make mistakes when they're remembering things. This is a fact. Oddly enough, when players are "remembering" that they've fired a certain number of shots, or that they've cast some spells, or that their spell allows them to use wands for three rounds without expending charges, and make a mistake, somehow they always, always make the mistake in their own favour.
When running a game, I don't want to be the guy who constantly has to check up on what players are doing. I don't want to have to constantly remind people to cross off every bloody crossbow bolt they fire, or that their favourite spell works on one wand, not on any wand they use during the duration of the spell.
The other thing is this - creating a powerful character legally within the rules is power-gaming, but basically okay. Forgetting the limits of your characters powers, or combining powers in a way that isn't okay within the rules is munchkinism, is cheating, and screws up the game. And that really pisses me off.
Okay, I'm going to stop ranting now.
I do, however, have a problem with players "forgetting" the limits of their powers, or "remembering" what spells they've used between sessions.
The examples that follow come from the current game, although not necessarily yesterday's session:
If you fire a crossbow (or other missile weapon), you have to cross off a bolt. Likewise, charges of wands, your limited lay on hands ability, and so on. Immediately. Don't "remember" it until the end of the combat, and certainly don't "remember" it until the next session.
If you cast a spell, you have to note that on your character sheet as well. Again, it should be done immediately.
If you take damage, this should also normally be noted. However, in this case the hit points are all being tracked centrally, so it doesn't really matter.
If you cast a spell, you need to know exactly what it does. Ideally, you should always look up every spell you cast, just to be sure. You might think some spells are so well-known that this is unnecessary, but if that's the case, here are three questions: What is the range of a fireball? How far apart can the targets of a magic missile be? What is the duration of a shield spell?
There are two reasons for this:
1) The character sheets are being replaced every few weeks. There shouldn't be any risk of them wearing out in the meantime (and even if they do, I can just print new ones).
2) People make mistakes when they're remembering things. This is a fact. Oddly enough, when players are "remembering" that they've fired a certain number of shots, or that they've cast some spells, or that their spell allows them to use wands for three rounds without expending charges, and make a mistake, somehow they always, always make the mistake in their own favour.
When running a game, I don't want to be the guy who constantly has to check up on what players are doing. I don't want to have to constantly remind people to cross off every bloody crossbow bolt they fire, or that their favourite spell works on one wand, not on any wand they use during the duration of the spell.
The other thing is this - creating a powerful character legally within the rules is power-gaming, but basically okay. Forgetting the limits of your characters powers, or combining powers in a way that isn't okay within the rules is munchkinism, is cheating, and screws up the game. And that really pisses me off.
Okay, I'm going to stop ranting now.
Tuesday, 9 March 2004
Armour.
Archived thread started by Mort:
Well, the armour class stuff can get confusing. The base AC is calculated from your dex, armour and size, then you have a whole bunch of different modifiers you can add on to this. The crux is that each modifier doesn't stack with itself and only the highest modifier of each type counts. Except for dodge modifier, because hey, let's make it more complex that it really needs to be.
Here's a list of the most common modifiers:
Enhancement Bonuses: Enhancement effects make your armor better.
Deflection Bonus: Magical deflection effects ward off attacks and improve your AC.
Natural Armor: Natural armor improves your AC.
Dodge Bonuses: Some other AC bonuses represent actively avoiding blows. These bonuses are called dodge bonuses. Any situation that denies you your Dexterity bonus also denies you dodge bonuses. (Wearing armor, however, does not limit these bonuses the way it limits a Dexterity bonus to AC.) Unlike most sorts of bonuses, dodge bonuses stack with each other.
Touch Attacks: Some attacks disregard armor, including shields and natural armor. In these cases, the attacker makes a touch attack roll (either ranged or melee). When you are the target of a touch attack, your AC doesn’t include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. All other modifiers, such as your size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) apply normally.
See the problem I had was that I assumed that bracers of armour gave an enhancement bonus, but nope, just a bog standard pissy armour bonus on those, yes indeed.
Well, the armour class stuff can get confusing. The base AC is calculated from your dex, armour and size, then you have a whole bunch of different modifiers you can add on to this. The crux is that each modifier doesn't stack with itself and only the highest modifier of each type counts. Except for dodge modifier, because hey, let's make it more complex that it really needs to be.
Here's a list of the most common modifiers:
Enhancement Bonuses: Enhancement effects make your armor better.
Deflection Bonus: Magical deflection effects ward off attacks and improve your AC.
Natural Armor: Natural armor improves your AC.
Dodge Bonuses: Some other AC bonuses represent actively avoiding blows. These bonuses are called dodge bonuses. Any situation that denies you your Dexterity bonus also denies you dodge bonuses. (Wearing armor, however, does not limit these bonuses the way it limits a Dexterity bonus to AC.) Unlike most sorts of bonuses, dodge bonuses stack with each other.
Touch Attacks: Some attacks disregard armor, including shields and natural armor. In these cases, the attacker makes a touch attack roll (either ranged or melee). When you are the target of a touch attack, your AC doesn’t include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. All other modifiers, such as your size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) apply normally.
See the problem I had was that I assumed that bracers of armour gave an enhancement bonus, but nope, just a bog standard pissy armour bonus on those, yes indeed.
Monday, 8 March 2004
Review: Unearthed Arcana
I really wanted to like this book. A big book of options and expansions for D&D, new rules for races, classes, skills, magic, and campaigns? Sounded really good. But, no.
Please bear in mind that my new judgement of how good an RPG book is - will I use it in my campaign?
Unearthed Arcana is a 224-page full-colour hardback. It cost some ?23 pounds, which is already a lot. There are six chapters, and a very short appendix.
Chapter 1 is all about races. 42 pages about races, to be exact. This included terrain-based variants to PC races (so, we have aquatic races, arctic races, jungle races, and so on. It included elemental race variants (dwarves are stone aligned, elves fire aligned, and so on). It included a rule for reducing level adjustments, which favours characters of non-standard races. It included rules for bloodlines, where you gain a little bit of extra power earlier on, but later have to spend levels to square it up with other characters. It included racial paragons, which match the racial classes from Arcana Unearthed, and which are also familiar to Aspected and Ogrekin characters in the current campaign.
This material is well-written, it is balanced, and some of it is quite cool. The racial paragons, and the bloodlines are especially interesting. However, I would probably feel the need to adjust either before I use it, and therefore could have come up with them on my own.
Chapter 2 deals with classes. We have 32 pages about classes. There are variants on existing classes, such as a wilderness rogue, the cloistered cleric (skill based rather than combat based), paladins of the CG, LE and CE alignments, and so on. There are rules for spontaneous divine casters (so, a clerical sorcerer). There are rules for variant class features, such as the ability to banish outsiders instead of turning undead, or favoured terrains instead of favoured enemies. There are prestige class versions of the bard, paladin and ranger. Then there are rules for gestalt characters, who advance two classes at the same time (a very high-powered option - think a near-doubling of PC power). There are rules for generic classes (warrior, spellcaster and expert).
Again, these are well-written and quite balanced. Obviously, you wouldn't use Gestalts for one PC and not for others, but other options can generally be used or not with fairly little impact. Again, though, the only things I would onsider using are some of the variant classes (Cloistered Cleric), and perhaps the spontaneous divine casters. In both cases, again, I would be strongly inclined to change the classes significantly before using them.
Chapter 3 is about building characters, and lasts 30 pages. We have rules for complex skill checks (like the extended checks in storyteller). There are two simpler methods of tracking skills (you either have a skill or you don't, but if you have it you have max ranks). There are rules for traits, which tie an advantage and a disadvantage together (like Merits and Flaws in storyteller, but with every merit tied to a corresponding flaw). Entirely seperate are character flaws, which act as anti-feats (you take a flaw, you get an extra feat to spend, but you can only take up to 2 flaws, and only at 1st level). There are some spell-touched feats, which allow characters who have been exposed to certain spells to learn to manifest specific near-magic powers. Then there are weapon group feats, which expand the weapon proficiency rules quite neatly. Craft points come next, which abstract the rules for the craft skill somewhat. Then there are extensive tables for character background, which try to help speed the creation of 'realistic' higher-level characters.
The spell-touched feats are really cool. The weapon group proficiency rules are also very nice, and something I would strongly consider using. The background tables are a nightmare, however, as they produce characters that are heavily multiclassed, without accounting for the vast weakening that this may result in. The traits and flaws rules pretend to be quite benign, but strike me as very dangerous, while the craft rules are rather silly. The skill systems are either unnecessarily complex or unnecessarily simplistic.
Chapter 4 gives us rules for Adventuring. Here we have the rules for a class-based defense bonus (nice), armour as damage reduction (nice), damage conversion (armour doesn't negate damage - it converts some of it to non-lethal damage; nice), injuries (a replacement for hit points that rather resembles the health levels in storyteller; not so nice), vitality and wound points (as in Star Wars; I don't like these, others might), reserve points (another track of hit points, characters who rest convert reserve points into lost hit points at a rate of 1 per minute; nice for a party without a cleric), rules for adjusting the massive damage threshold (nice), variants on the rules for death and dying (using a Fort save instead of the current stabilisation mechanic, for instance; okay), action points (as in d20 Modern; nice), rules for facing (nasty), rules for using a hex grid (don't see the point), rules for variant modifiers (so, instead of adding +2, you add +1d4, and so on; nice), rules for using 3d6 instead of d20 (okay), and rules for allowing players to roll all the dice (monsters don't roll to hit them, they roll to parry attacks; okay).
There's quite a lot here I might consider using. However, the rules for defence bonuses, rules for armour as damage reduction, rules for damage conversion and rules for changing the massive damage threshold are exactly as I would have done them, while the rules for vitality and wound points, for action points, and for using a Fort save for stabilisation come directly from other d20 games. The rest I either fear greatly (facing), or don't see any great advantage in (hex grids, players rolling all the dice, rolling 3d6 instead of d20).
Chapter 5 is about magic. The chapter opens with magic ratings for all classes. Under this variant, a multiclass spellcaster will gain a (small) benefit from other classes, adding to his caster level (but not spells per day) as he goes up in level. For instance, under these rules, a Fighter 8/Wizard 5 will have the same number of spells per day as a Wizard 5, but his caster level will be 7, so his fireball will do 7d6 damage. I like this rule unreservedly. The chapter then has advice on customising the summon monster lists for individual casters. 'cos that's so hard. Then there are rules for power components, where casters use rare an expensive material components to get 'free' uses of metamagic feats. Then there are a bunch of variants for metamagic feats, trying to get away from that awful "requires a slot 4 levels higher than normal" thing. One variant limits metamagic feats to 3 uses per day, while the other uses multiple slots of the same level to cast a metamagic spell. Either is better than the original, but the first is too powerful, and the second too expensive to use. For a far better metamagic system, see Arcana Unearthed. Then we have a spell-points system ripped from the Psionics Handbook. Then a system whereby casters 'recharge' spell levels after use, rather than losing a slot for the day. So, if you cast fireball, you must wait a few rounds before you can cast another 3rd level spell, but can in theory cast a hundred fireballs a day. This system is wonderfully balanced, in much the same way as the Mystic Theurge isn't totally broken. Then we have Legendary Weapons, which are magic items that gain in power as their owner gains levels (like the Samurai ability to improve their katana). This is, of course, implemented with Prestige Classes. Heaven forbid we should do anything else. The chapter is rounded out with rules for Item Familiars, which I initially thought would be a system for replacing the Familiar ability with rules for a wizard's staff, a la Lord of the Rings, but isn't; and rules for Incantations, which are ritual magic usable by non-spellcasters.
There's quite a lot of interesting stuff here. There's quite a lot of crap here. There's quite a lot of really broken stuff here. Truthfully, the only things I might use are the magic ratings for non-spellcaster classes, and the power components for metamagic. The incantations come from Urban Arcana. The legendary weapons would have been fine, except that they're done with prestige classes, the rechange rules are broken, and neither metamagic system solves the 'problem' that they wanted to solve. Oh, and the summon monster variants are fine, but so obvious that there's no point in having them. I mean, honestly.
But my biggest gripe with this chapter is that it's way too short, and has too much stuff in it. I think there is justification for an entire book as thick as this one, which would explore all aspects of variant magic systems, completely stripping out and replacing the existing magic paradigm. But perhaps that's just me.
Chapter 6 finishes the book with rules for campaigns. This chapter is a bit of a grab-bag of stuff. We have rules for contacts, which are fine but pretty basic. We have rules for reputation (from Star Wars or d20 Modern). We have rules for honour (from Oriental Adventures). We have rules for Taint (pretty sure they're from Oriental Adventures as well). And we have rules for Sanity (from Call of Cthulhu).
The rules for reputation should be in the core rules, and most likely will be present in 4th edition. The rest I can take or leave. Only the rules for contacts are genuinely new, and I could have come up with them on my own.
The appendix discusses ways to use all of this material in a single campaign, by running a world-hopping game. This I found to be rather inane - the rules of the game are there to model reality, so why would they change significantly when your character moves world? He presumably doesn't use his armour any differently, so why does it suddenly reduce damage rather than negate it? That's just a matter of choosing your abstraction, and if the maths are the same, making the change is just stupid.
There's quite a lot to like in this book. There's quite a lot I might use. But, the best bits have all been seen before. Call of Cthulhu, Star Wars, d20 Modern, Arcana Unearthed and Oriental Adventures have given us all of the best material from this book, and a lot of it has been done better elsewhere. The good stuff that hasn't been seen before I could have come up with on my own, and in some cases I did (there are posts about class-based defense bonuses on this blog, for instance. The numbers generally match). That appears to leave the Bloodlines rules, which I quite like.
A lot of my problems with this book stem from my dislike of house rules (which may surprise you, gives the reams of rules material we're using in my current campaign), which I have recently expanded to include a dislike of supplements (turns out the game runs better without). I suppose it's nice to have all this material gathered in one place, and under the D&D name. I just don't think I'd use much of it.
Aside: Virtually all of this book is labelled open game content. This means that d20 publishers can now include the vitality system without special permission from Wizards of the Coast (which AEG had to get for Spycraft, for instance). This is a nice thing to have, if you're a d20 publisher. However, from the gamer's point of view, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference, so I'm somewhat mystified as to why the various messageboards have been hailing this as a major coup.
Please bear in mind that my new judgement of how good an RPG book is - will I use it in my campaign?
Unearthed Arcana is a 224-page full-colour hardback. It cost some ?23 pounds, which is already a lot. There are six chapters, and a very short appendix.
Chapter 1 is all about races. 42 pages about races, to be exact. This included terrain-based variants to PC races (so, we have aquatic races, arctic races, jungle races, and so on. It included elemental race variants (dwarves are stone aligned, elves fire aligned, and so on). It included a rule for reducing level adjustments, which favours characters of non-standard races. It included rules for bloodlines, where you gain a little bit of extra power earlier on, but later have to spend levels to square it up with other characters. It included racial paragons, which match the racial classes from Arcana Unearthed, and which are also familiar to Aspected and Ogrekin characters in the current campaign.
This material is well-written, it is balanced, and some of it is quite cool. The racial paragons, and the bloodlines are especially interesting. However, I would probably feel the need to adjust either before I use it, and therefore could have come up with them on my own.
Chapter 2 deals with classes. We have 32 pages about classes. There are variants on existing classes, such as a wilderness rogue, the cloistered cleric (skill based rather than combat based), paladins of the CG, LE and CE alignments, and so on. There are rules for spontaneous divine casters (so, a clerical sorcerer). There are rules for variant class features, such as the ability to banish outsiders instead of turning undead, or favoured terrains instead of favoured enemies. There are prestige class versions of the bard, paladin and ranger. Then there are rules for gestalt characters, who advance two classes at the same time (a very high-powered option - think a near-doubling of PC power). There are rules for generic classes (warrior, spellcaster and expert).
Again, these are well-written and quite balanced. Obviously, you wouldn't use Gestalts for one PC and not for others, but other options can generally be used or not with fairly little impact. Again, though, the only things I would onsider using are some of the variant classes (Cloistered Cleric), and perhaps the spontaneous divine casters. In both cases, again, I would be strongly inclined to change the classes significantly before using them.
Chapter 3 is about building characters, and lasts 30 pages. We have rules for complex skill checks (like the extended checks in storyteller). There are two simpler methods of tracking skills (you either have a skill or you don't, but if you have it you have max ranks). There are rules for traits, which tie an advantage and a disadvantage together (like Merits and Flaws in storyteller, but with every merit tied to a corresponding flaw). Entirely seperate are character flaws, which act as anti-feats (you take a flaw, you get an extra feat to spend, but you can only take up to 2 flaws, and only at 1st level). There are some spell-touched feats, which allow characters who have been exposed to certain spells to learn to manifest specific near-magic powers. Then there are weapon group feats, which expand the weapon proficiency rules quite neatly. Craft points come next, which abstract the rules for the craft skill somewhat. Then there are extensive tables for character background, which try to help speed the creation of 'realistic' higher-level characters.
The spell-touched feats are really cool. The weapon group proficiency rules are also very nice, and something I would strongly consider using. The background tables are a nightmare, however, as they produce characters that are heavily multiclassed, without accounting for the vast weakening that this may result in. The traits and flaws rules pretend to be quite benign, but strike me as very dangerous, while the craft rules are rather silly. The skill systems are either unnecessarily complex or unnecessarily simplistic.
Chapter 4 gives us rules for Adventuring. Here we have the rules for a class-based defense bonus (nice), armour as damage reduction (nice), damage conversion (armour doesn't negate damage - it converts some of it to non-lethal damage; nice), injuries (a replacement for hit points that rather resembles the health levels in storyteller; not so nice), vitality and wound points (as in Star Wars; I don't like these, others might), reserve points (another track of hit points, characters who rest convert reserve points into lost hit points at a rate of 1 per minute; nice for a party without a cleric), rules for adjusting the massive damage threshold (nice), variants on the rules for death and dying (using a Fort save instead of the current stabilisation mechanic, for instance; okay), action points (as in d20 Modern; nice), rules for facing (nasty), rules for using a hex grid (don't see the point), rules for variant modifiers (so, instead of adding +2, you add +1d4, and so on; nice), rules for using 3d6 instead of d20 (okay), and rules for allowing players to roll all the dice (monsters don't roll to hit them, they roll to parry attacks; okay).
There's quite a lot here I might consider using. However, the rules for defence bonuses, rules for armour as damage reduction, rules for damage conversion and rules for changing the massive damage threshold are exactly as I would have done them, while the rules for vitality and wound points, for action points, and for using a Fort save for stabilisation come directly from other d20 games. The rest I either fear greatly (facing), or don't see any great advantage in (hex grids, players rolling all the dice, rolling 3d6 instead of d20).
Chapter 5 is about magic. The chapter opens with magic ratings for all classes. Under this variant, a multiclass spellcaster will gain a (small) benefit from other classes, adding to his caster level (but not spells per day) as he goes up in level. For instance, under these rules, a Fighter 8/Wizard 5 will have the same number of spells per day as a Wizard 5, but his caster level will be 7, so his fireball will do 7d6 damage. I like this rule unreservedly. The chapter then has advice on customising the summon monster lists for individual casters. 'cos that's so hard. Then there are rules for power components, where casters use rare an expensive material components to get 'free' uses of metamagic feats. Then there are a bunch of variants for metamagic feats, trying to get away from that awful "requires a slot 4 levels higher than normal" thing. One variant limits metamagic feats to 3 uses per day, while the other uses multiple slots of the same level to cast a metamagic spell. Either is better than the original, but the first is too powerful, and the second too expensive to use. For a far better metamagic system, see Arcana Unearthed. Then we have a spell-points system ripped from the Psionics Handbook. Then a system whereby casters 'recharge' spell levels after use, rather than losing a slot for the day. So, if you cast fireball, you must wait a few rounds before you can cast another 3rd level spell, but can in theory cast a hundred fireballs a day. This system is wonderfully balanced, in much the same way as the Mystic Theurge isn't totally broken. Then we have Legendary Weapons, which are magic items that gain in power as their owner gains levels (like the Samurai ability to improve their katana). This is, of course, implemented with Prestige Classes. Heaven forbid we should do anything else. The chapter is rounded out with rules for Item Familiars, which I initially thought would be a system for replacing the Familiar ability with rules for a wizard's staff, a la Lord of the Rings, but isn't; and rules for Incantations, which are ritual magic usable by non-spellcasters.
There's quite a lot of interesting stuff here. There's quite a lot of crap here. There's quite a lot of really broken stuff here. Truthfully, the only things I might use are the magic ratings for non-spellcaster classes, and the power components for metamagic. The incantations come from Urban Arcana. The legendary weapons would have been fine, except that they're done with prestige classes, the rechange rules are broken, and neither metamagic system solves the 'problem' that they wanted to solve. Oh, and the summon monster variants are fine, but so obvious that there's no point in having them. I mean, honestly.
But my biggest gripe with this chapter is that it's way too short, and has too much stuff in it. I think there is justification for an entire book as thick as this one, which would explore all aspects of variant magic systems, completely stripping out and replacing the existing magic paradigm. But perhaps that's just me.
Chapter 6 finishes the book with rules for campaigns. This chapter is a bit of a grab-bag of stuff. We have rules for contacts, which are fine but pretty basic. We have rules for reputation (from Star Wars or d20 Modern). We have rules for honour (from Oriental Adventures). We have rules for Taint (pretty sure they're from Oriental Adventures as well). And we have rules for Sanity (from Call of Cthulhu).
The rules for reputation should be in the core rules, and most likely will be present in 4th edition. The rest I can take or leave. Only the rules for contacts are genuinely new, and I could have come up with them on my own.
The appendix discusses ways to use all of this material in a single campaign, by running a world-hopping game. This I found to be rather inane - the rules of the game are there to model reality, so why would they change significantly when your character moves world? He presumably doesn't use his armour any differently, so why does it suddenly reduce damage rather than negate it? That's just a matter of choosing your abstraction, and if the maths are the same, making the change is just stupid.
There's quite a lot to like in this book. There's quite a lot I might use. But, the best bits have all been seen before. Call of Cthulhu, Star Wars, d20 Modern, Arcana Unearthed and Oriental Adventures have given us all of the best material from this book, and a lot of it has been done better elsewhere. The good stuff that hasn't been seen before I could have come up with on my own, and in some cases I did (there are posts about class-based defense bonuses on this blog, for instance. The numbers generally match). That appears to leave the Bloodlines rules, which I quite like.
A lot of my problems with this book stem from my dislike of house rules (which may surprise you, gives the reams of rules material we're using in my current campaign), which I have recently expanded to include a dislike of supplements (turns out the game runs better without). I suppose it's nice to have all this material gathered in one place, and under the D&D name. I just don't think I'd use much of it.
Aside: Virtually all of this book is labelled open game content. This means that d20 publishers can now include the vitality system without special permission from Wizards of the Coast (which AEG had to get for Spycraft, for instance). This is a nice thing to have, if you're a d20 publisher. However, from the gamer's point of view, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference, so I'm somewhat mystified as to why the various messageboards have been hailing this as a major coup.
Friday, 5 March 2004
"Game Portal"
Archived thread started by Andrew:
I like the current idea Stephen uses for having a campaign log, quotes from the game and downloadable character sheets. In long-term games such as the current one it's very handy for me to have access to these documents to refresh my memory as to what's going on and what stage my character is at. How much work is spent on the site after the session and is this the first time you've (Stephen) done this? Has Andreas ever created one for a previous campaign? How about linking this blog to the site and allowing others to find it easily?
I like the current idea Stephen uses for having a campaign log, quotes from the game and downloadable character sheets. In long-term games such as the current one it's very handy for me to have access to these documents to refresh my memory as to what's going on and what stage my character is at. How much work is spent on the site after the session and is this the first time you've (Stephen) done this? Has Andreas ever created one for a previous campaign? How about linking this blog to the site and allowing others to find it easily?
Thursday, 4 March 2004
More Player Assistance for the DM
In addition to knowing all the abilities of his character and applying these appropriately and fairly, the big thing that a player can do to assist the DM in running a game, and particularly a complex game like D&D, is to be ready on his turn, with the details of what he's going to do all worked out. Chances are, you've had about a minute since your last turn, which should have been plenty of time to decide what to do, look up the appropriate spell effects, and so on. So, really, all you should have to do is announce your action, pass the spell description to the DM (if needed), and get rolling dice.
Now, of course, this isn't a hard and fast rule. You may not know what you're doing next for several reasons, from a sudden shift in the tactical situation in the last character's turn, or due to needing more information from the DM on the situation. But, barring such circumstances, if your action is to step back and cast Burning Hands, there is no excuse for not being ready.
(It's perhaps worth noting that it is usually spell-casters who slow things up in this fashion, simply because they have more options, and more fiddly options, open to them. It's just easier to be ready when your action consists of 'hitting him again with my longsword'.)
Now, of course, this isn't a hard and fast rule. You may not know what you're doing next for several reasons, from a sudden shift in the tactical situation in the last character's turn, or due to needing more information from the DM on the situation. But, barring such circumstances, if your action is to step back and cast Burning Hands, there is no excuse for not being ready.
(It's perhaps worth noting that it is usually spell-casters who slow things up in this fashion, simply because they have more options, and more fiddly options, open to them. It's just easier to be ready when your action consists of 'hitting him again with my longsword'.)
Cleave and Great Cleave
I've just noticed that the Cleave ability can be used only once per round, not once per attack, as I previously thought. This makes the Great Cleave much more useful.
See, what I thought was the case was that if Fighter was facing three ogres, and had three attacks normally, he could attack Ogre 1 and kill him, then Cleave Ogre 2. With his second attack, he could then kill Ogre 2, and Cleave Ogre 3. Then, finally, he could use his third regular attack to kill Ogre 3.
The reality is that if Fighter drops Ogre 1, he can Cleave Ogre 2, then use his second regular attack to kill Ogre 2. However, he cannot then Cleave Ogre 3, but rather can only use his third regular attack, leaving him with one very pissed off ogre to fight.
Of course, it's entirely possible that everyone else already knew this.
See, what I thought was the case was that if Fighter was facing three ogres, and had three attacks normally, he could attack Ogre 1 and kill him, then Cleave Ogre 2. With his second attack, he could then kill Ogre 2, and Cleave Ogre 3. Then, finally, he could use his third regular attack to kill Ogre 3.
The reality is that if Fighter drops Ogre 1, he can Cleave Ogre 2, then use his second regular attack to kill Ogre 2. However, he cannot then Cleave Ogre 3, but rather can only use his third regular attack, leaving him with one very pissed off ogre to fight.
Of course, it's entirely possible that everyone else already knew this.
Wednesday, 3 March 2004
Heritage
With only the exception of the hobbits, no member of the Fellowship of the Ring (or the major NPCs associated with the story) is just 'some guy'. Aragorn is the heir of Isildur, the lost king of Gondor, and the last scion of tha bloodline dating all the way back to the union of man and elf. Boromir is the eldest son of the Steward of Gondor, another ancient bloodline. Gimli is the cousin of Balin, the lord of Moria, and certainly dwarven nobility, if not royalty. Legolas is a prince of the wood elves. And Gandalf, of course, is one of the wizards.
By contrast, characters in D&D are invariably just 'some guy'. Typically, you'll get a bunch of mercenaries, or a random elf, or perhaps an exile. Occasionally, you'll get a minor noble.
Partly, this is because players have been trained to not make their characters important people. They would be the sons of nobility, but the DM won't allow it, because royalty carries with it money, prestige and power, which the DM doesn't want in the hands of 1st level characters. And the 'dispossessed noble' thing has long since lost its charm.
Partly, this is because players don't want their characters to be important people. Royalty carries with it a great deal of responsibility and attention, which the player probably doesn't want to deal with. Again, the 'lost son' thing has long since lost its charm.
Partly, this is because players don't think about their backgrounds before play has begun, or the world isn't detailed enough to provide the desired mechanism. You can't be the lost son of a dead royal line if the world doesn't have any dead royal lines, or if the DM just doesn't know, and your character can't suddenly become the last son of such a line after you've been playing him for three months. (And, if starting at 1st level, who would want to be the last son, when you might well be dead by the third hour of the campaign.)
And partly, I think, it's because D&D carries no mechanic for nobility and heritage. Aragorn gained long life, strong will, and healing power from his position as king. Boromir was the preeminent warrior of Gondor (and, it should be noted, he shared many traits with Faramir, but was considered far greater. The benefits of being the elder son in epic tales).
I've been reading "Unearthed Arcana", the new supplementary rule-book for D&D. It contains a whole load of variants, including rules for bloodlines. Now, as written, these are intended for celestial, devilish or demonic, elemental, or draconic bloodlines. However, perhaps they could be re-written for use in a more Lord of the Rings-esque campaign?
By contrast, characters in D&D are invariably just 'some guy'. Typically, you'll get a bunch of mercenaries, or a random elf, or perhaps an exile. Occasionally, you'll get a minor noble.
Partly, this is because players have been trained to not make their characters important people. They would be the sons of nobility, but the DM won't allow it, because royalty carries with it money, prestige and power, which the DM doesn't want in the hands of 1st level characters. And the 'dispossessed noble' thing has long since lost its charm.
Partly, this is because players don't want their characters to be important people. Royalty carries with it a great deal of responsibility and attention, which the player probably doesn't want to deal with. Again, the 'lost son' thing has long since lost its charm.
Partly, this is because players don't think about their backgrounds before play has begun, or the world isn't detailed enough to provide the desired mechanism. You can't be the lost son of a dead royal line if the world doesn't have any dead royal lines, or if the DM just doesn't know, and your character can't suddenly become the last son of such a line after you've been playing him for three months. (And, if starting at 1st level, who would want to be the last son, when you might well be dead by the third hour of the campaign.)
And partly, I think, it's because D&D carries no mechanic for nobility and heritage. Aragorn gained long life, strong will, and healing power from his position as king. Boromir was the preeminent warrior of Gondor (and, it should be noted, he shared many traits with Faramir, but was considered far greater. The benefits of being the elder son in epic tales).
I've been reading "Unearthed Arcana", the new supplementary rule-book for D&D. It contains a whole load of variants, including rules for bloodlines. Now, as written, these are intended for celestial, devilish or demonic, elemental, or draconic bloodlines. However, perhaps they could be re-written for use in a more Lord of the Rings-esque campaign?
Monday, 1 March 2004
Combat Casting
It amuses me that both of the casters in the group have this particular feat. Frankly, I think it's one of the least useful in the game.
See Combat Casting gives a +4 bonus on Concentration checks to cast spells defensively. And that's all. It does not help you on Concentration checks made when hit for damage while in combat, or when distracted by any other problems, or whatever. Just that one roll.
Now, how often does a spellcaster get hit while casting a spell?
Well, if the casting time is 1 round or greater, they might. Combat Casting doesn't help. If the opponent has a readied action, they might. Combat Casting doesn't help. Or, finally, from an attack of opportunity. Combat Casting doesn't help directly here, either, except insofar as you can cast defensively, avoiding the AoO.
So, Combat Casting is useless, except for those cases where the caster wishes to avoid an attack of opportunity. However, there is another mechanism for doing the same thing: the five foot step. Take one of those and, presto(!), no attack of opportunity.
Frankly, the only time a charcter should need to cast defensively is when using touch-range spells, and those really aren't the weapon of choice of the clever wizard.
Besides, the difficulty of the check for casting defensively is 15 + spell level. A 1st level Wizard with a Con of 13 (probably quite a few; Con is probably the 3rd most useful stat for Wizards) and maxed Concentration will have a check bonus of +5. So, he succeeds 55% of the time with 0-level spells, and 50% of the time with 1st level spells. By 5th level, the same wizard will have Concentration +9, succeeding 75% of the time with 0-level spells, and 60% of the time with his most powerful spells. And by 18th level, Concentration will be at +21, automatically passing for all spells of 7th level of lower, and 90% of the time on even 9th level spells.
And, you know what else is possible? Add the Skill Focus(concentration) feat to get a +3 bonus to all Concentration checks, regardless of cause. Which would help with the damage from a readied attack, or an attack during a full-round casting.
('course, a 1st level Human Wizard could have both, for a total +13 bonus on that casting defensively roll, succeeding on 90% for 1st level spells, or 95% for 0-level spells. But that's probably overkill.)
See Combat Casting gives a +4 bonus on Concentration checks to cast spells defensively. And that's all. It does not help you on Concentration checks made when hit for damage while in combat, or when distracted by any other problems, or whatever. Just that one roll.
Now, how often does a spellcaster get hit while casting a spell?
Well, if the casting time is 1 round or greater, they might. Combat Casting doesn't help. If the opponent has a readied action, they might. Combat Casting doesn't help. Or, finally, from an attack of opportunity. Combat Casting doesn't help directly here, either, except insofar as you can cast defensively, avoiding the AoO.
So, Combat Casting is useless, except for those cases where the caster wishes to avoid an attack of opportunity. However, there is another mechanism for doing the same thing: the five foot step. Take one of those and, presto(!), no attack of opportunity.
Frankly, the only time a charcter should need to cast defensively is when using touch-range spells, and those really aren't the weapon of choice of the clever wizard.
Besides, the difficulty of the check for casting defensively is 15 + spell level. A 1st level Wizard with a Con of 13 (probably quite a few; Con is probably the 3rd most useful stat for Wizards) and maxed Concentration will have a check bonus of +5. So, he succeeds 55% of the time with 0-level spells, and 50% of the time with 1st level spells. By 5th level, the same wizard will have Concentration +9, succeeding 75% of the time with 0-level spells, and 60% of the time with his most powerful spells. And by 18th level, Concentration will be at +21, automatically passing for all spells of 7th level of lower, and 90% of the time on even 9th level spells.
And, you know what else is possible? Add the Skill Focus(concentration) feat to get a +3 bonus to all Concentration checks, regardless of cause. Which would help with the damage from a readied attack, or an attack during a full-round casting.
('course, a 1st level Human Wizard could have both, for a total +13 bonus on that casting defensively roll, succeeding on 90% for 1st level spells, or 95% for 0-level spells. But that's probably overkill.)
Dodge
Archive thread started by Mort...
I hate dodge, I keep forgetting to use the damn thing.
A question about that though, if you forget to declare dodge on your turn, a standard for me, would it be ok to declare it when the bad guys are trying to attack you? After all, if you declare it before the enemy attacks are rolled you havn't affected anything after it was resolved. Of course it might be annying for the GM, but then again it might make it easier for the GM to remember to include the extra dodge bonus.
Uh, I hope that made any sense.
In the end it doesn't matter, I keep getting bloody hit anyway, Stephens dice hate me.
I hate dodge, I keep forgetting to use the damn thing.
A question about that though, if you forget to declare dodge on your turn, a standard for me, would it be ok to declare it when the bad guys are trying to attack you? After all, if you declare it before the enemy attacks are rolled you havn't affected anything after it was resolved. Of course it might be annying for the GM, but then again it might make it easier for the GM to remember to include the extra dodge bonus.
Uh, I hope that made any sense.
In the end it doesn't matter, I keep getting bloody hit anyway, Stephens dice hate me.
Those Elves
So, you met the first of the elves in my current setting. Scary, aren't they?
Actually, I'll admit that I screwed up. I think I've got the CR of the elves about right, but I set you up against far too many of them. Worse, I compounded the situation by putting you in terrain that definately didn't suit you.
So, sorry about that.
Actually, I'll admit that I screwed up. I think I've got the CR of the elves about right, but I set you up against far too many of them. Worse, I compounded the situation by putting you in terrain that definately didn't suit you.
So, sorry about that.
Declaring Things Clearly
A related matter, attached to the issue of players keeping accurate track of their PCs, is the issue of clearly declaring your actions.
Now, this isn't a rant at Roger. I've had trouble in the past in keeping track of whether his Mage Armor is running or not, but that's because I've missed his declaration, rather than that he hasn't declared it.
It is a rant at people who want to claim the benefits of their feats, but fail to indicate which ones they're using, and against whom.
If you want to use Power Attack, you have to mention it before you make your first attack of the round, and mention how much of a penalty to attack rolls you're taking. Likewise, when using Combat Expertise, you need to declare it clearly before making your first attack. When using Dodge, you need to let the DM know who you're claiming the AC bonus against.
(Otherwise, what's to stop you from making an attack roll, discovering you've hit by 4 points, and then saying, "oh, I was using Power Attack 4, of course"? If a player were to try this, the DM should catch it, and either declare that he forgot to use Power Attack, or demand a re-roll. Either is valid. However, the DM shouldn't have to be on the lookout for cheats.)
Players should, absolutely, be encouraged to use every power and ability possessed by their character. But they shouldn't cheat to gain the best possible benefit.
Now, this isn't a rant at Roger. I've had trouble in the past in keeping track of whether his Mage Armor is running or not, but that's because I've missed his declaration, rather than that he hasn't declared it.
It is a rant at people who want to claim the benefits of their feats, but fail to indicate which ones they're using, and against whom.
If you want to use Power Attack, you have to mention it before you make your first attack of the round, and mention how much of a penalty to attack rolls you're taking. Likewise, when using Combat Expertise, you need to declare it clearly before making your first attack. When using Dodge, you need to let the DM know who you're claiming the AC bonus against.
(Otherwise, what's to stop you from making an attack roll, discovering you've hit by 4 points, and then saying, "oh, I was using Power Attack 4, of course"? If a player were to try this, the DM should catch it, and either declare that he forgot to use Power Attack, or demand a re-roll. Either is valid. However, the DM shouldn't have to be on the lookout for cheats.)
Players should, absolutely, be encouraged to use every power and ability possessed by their character. But they shouldn't cheat to gain the best possible benefit.
D&D and Rules Mastery
The thing is, the core rules in D&D 3rd Edition are actually fairly simple - roll d20, add modifiers, try to beat target number.
The bugger of it is the details. In the Player's Handbook alone there are stacks of feats and hundreds of spells, all of which do subtly different things. And you don't just need to know what they all do; you need to watch the combinations as well.
Now, in an ideal universe, the players would take a bunch of this off the shoulders of the DM. If every player can be relied upon to know everything about their character, to keep track of exactly what bonuses stack and which don't, to look up every spell before they cast it, and so forth, the DM wouldn't need to worry about such things.
However, many players just don't know the rules (and I'm not making a value judgement here - not everyone needs to be as anal as me), don't think to do these things (looking up spells or tracking ammo), or are just plain cheats (oops, I forgot to mark off those magic arrows).
This isn't restricted to rules-heavy games, either. Have you ever seen a character, in any game, ever stop to reload his shotgun? I haven't, yet these weapons typically carry the smallest number of rounds of any firearms in the game, or at least any that are used.
The bugger of it is the details. In the Player's Handbook alone there are stacks of feats and hundreds of spells, all of which do subtly different things. And you don't just need to know what they all do; you need to watch the combinations as well.
Now, in an ideal universe, the players would take a bunch of this off the shoulders of the DM. If every player can be relied upon to know everything about their character, to keep track of exactly what bonuses stack and which don't, to look up every spell before they cast it, and so forth, the DM wouldn't need to worry about such things.
However, many players just don't know the rules (and I'm not making a value judgement here - not everyone needs to be as anal as me), don't think to do these things (looking up spells or tracking ammo), or are just plain cheats (oops, I forgot to mark off those magic arrows).
This isn't restricted to rules-heavy games, either. Have you ever seen a character, in any game, ever stop to reload his shotgun? I haven't, yet these weapons typically carry the smallest number of rounds of any firearms in the game, or at least any that are used.
Party Unity
There is a definate distinction between games like Vampire: the Masquerade and games like Dungeons & Dragons, in that the former is much more fogiving of 'loose' parties where everyone wanders off much of the time to do their own thing, whereas D&D very much has the "don't split the party" mentality.
I think the key difference is that Vampire games tend to be restricted to a relatively small setting. Generally, characters confine themselves to a single city, with only the occasional journey elsewhere. Even within the city, there will be a fairly small number of locations that get reused over and over, plus quite afew 'throwaway' locations, that tend to be fairly generic in nature. So, the GM has relatively little preparation work to do, as far as locations are concerned. Additionally, modern communications mean that PCs are rarely out of contact with one another.
By contrast, D&D (and Exalted, and other similar games) feature fairly large settings, with characters able to travel where they will. Moreover, when characters seperate, they are genuinely out of contact for the majority of the time. This means that a party that splits for a long time will, effectively, be part of two completely distinct campaigns, at least until they re-unite.
Neither style is inherently better than the other, except that 'loose' parties work well wth a small number of players, while they don't work at all with large groups. You can't for instance, run the 'classic' Vampire chronicle with more than about 4 players, whereas D&D is fine with as many as 6.
As regards the particular situation in question, when introducing a new character to an ongoing game, you have to build one that fits the current play style. So, if the game has a 'tight' party, you need to bring in a character with some motivation to join the group. If the game has a 'loose' party structure, you need to have some idea of where he's going to fit in to the ongoing plots.
I think the key difference is that Vampire games tend to be restricted to a relatively small setting. Generally, characters confine themselves to a single city, with only the occasional journey elsewhere. Even within the city, there will be a fairly small number of locations that get reused over and over, plus quite afew 'throwaway' locations, that tend to be fairly generic in nature. So, the GM has relatively little preparation work to do, as far as locations are concerned. Additionally, modern communications mean that PCs are rarely out of contact with one another.
By contrast, D&D (and Exalted, and other similar games) feature fairly large settings, with characters able to travel where they will. Moreover, when characters seperate, they are genuinely out of contact for the majority of the time. This means that a party that splits for a long time will, effectively, be part of two completely distinct campaigns, at least until they re-unite.
Neither style is inherently better than the other, except that 'loose' parties work well wth a small number of players, while they don't work at all with large groups. You can't for instance, run the 'classic' Vampire chronicle with more than about 4 players, whereas D&D is fine with as many as 6.
As regards the particular situation in question, when introducing a new character to an ongoing game, you have to build one that fits the current play style. So, if the game has a 'tight' party, you need to bring in a character with some motivation to join the group. If the game has a 'loose' party structure, you need to have some idea of where he's going to fit in to the ongoing plots.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)