Thread started by Mort:
Went off to Static today, just because it's a lovely weather outside and I wanted to spend most of my lunch break out of the office. And what do I find? Not only the Sidereal hardback but also the Players guide. So obviously I had to pick them both up. Sigh, I really can't afford this, but I just had to have the player’s guide... you know, because.
I've had a brief flick through the players guide, and this is a short summary of it:
In true white wolf style the players guide has got the obligatory merits and flaws in it, I'm not a huge fan of the merit/flaw stuff, as it tends to boil down to munchkinism, but I need to look through them before I give full judgement. Then there's a full guide for creating god-blooded characters, god-blooded are basically mortals who has been infused by the blood of some supernatural entity. Be it a small god, demon or even ghosts. A god-blooded is very weak compared to a full-blown exalt, but may prove an interesting option in gameplay. They can also use thaumaturgy, which is explained in another chapter of the book.
Then we have the Dragon kings, these are basically the ones who ruled creation before humans, old lizard creatures, most of which has reverted back to their animal instincts and is nothing more than slavering beasts. But there are rules for playing Dragon kings who has regained their lost glory, not sure I care much about this.
The most interesting chapter is the updated rules, with rules for power combat, as they call it. It's basically guidelines on how to make combat more flowing and a bit more deadly, as well as rewarding stunts even more than before. From my quick glance they've got some really interesting ideas here.
There's also a bunch of new charms and shit like that, but that's only expected.
The Sidereals is about, well the Sidereals, the chosen of the maidens. These guys are cool; most like every other sort of exalt around really. They tamper with fate and astronomy, and can be likened with mages, although their power isn't as open ended as a WOD mage is. The best thing with them is that they actually live in the city of the gods, and run errands for the celestial bureaucracy. Gives me so many adventure ideas it's not even funny. Especially since I watched Spirited Away last night and the first thing I could think about was: This would be so cool in Exalted...
The only problem is that I don’t have a clue where to begin, there are so many stories that can be told in the Exalted world, and so many different types of exalted to use. There is a distinct risk of going overboard and trying to fit it all in, which means you end up with a rather crap story.
Monday, 26 April 2004
Friday, 16 April 2004
Counterspells of Opportunity
The rules, as they currently stand, make counterspelling a pretty worthless option. You get to hold your action, when you could be casting a potentially devastating spell, in return for the chance to cancel an enemy spellcaster's spell, provided you can pass a Spellcraft check and have the same spell memorised? Better simply to unleash that fireball, and take the reponse like a man.
I would prefer to see counterspelling using much the same rules as attacks of opportunity, as follows:
Counterspell
Whenever an enemy spellcaster casts a spell, you may make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell level). Success indicates that you correctly identify the spell. You then have the option to counterspell. Counterspelling requires that you cast an abridged version of the same (or countering; see below) spell to negate the spell being cast.
You may counterspell any spell with the same spell. You may counter any spell with dispel magic or greater dispel magic. If you have the Improved Counterspell feat, you may counter any spell with a higher level spell of the same school. Finally, some spells specifically state that they counter certain other spells, as noted in their description. Metamagic feats have no impact on whether a given spell will counter another spell - a heightened spell will counter a normal version of the same spell, and will be countered by a normal version of the spell.
To counterspell, you must be able to cast the requisite spell. For instance, a wizard who wishes to counter a fireball must have fireball memorised. A sorcerer must know fireball, and have a spell slot of 3rd level or higher free to cast it. Additionally, you must fulfil all the component requirements for the spell - you must be able to speak to counter a spell with a verbal component, must have at least one hand free for spells with a somatic component, must have any material or focus components already in hand, and must spend any required experience points. However, the casting time for a counterspell is free; that is, you can instantly counterspell a spell with a casting time of ten rounds, for example.
Finally, counterspelling takes the place of making an attack of opportunity. That is, you cannot make an attack of opportunity in the same round as using a counterspell. A caster with the Combat Reflexes feat cannot make any attacks of opportunity in the same round as using a counterspell. You can counterspell only once in the round (but see below). A character cannot counterspell while flat-footed, or otherwise unable to make an attack of opportunity.
Once the character has fulfilled all the requirements for a counterspell, he must make a counterspell check to successfully negate an opposing spell. This check is a d20 roll, to which he adds his caster level (there is a maximum bonus of +10 or +20 when counterspelling with dispel magic or greater dispel magic, respectively. This does not apply to other spells). The DC for the check is 11 + the caster level of the opposing spell.
For instance, if Malgo, a 6th level Sorcerer, is casting fireball, and Ralf, a 9th level Wizard wishes to counter, Ralf must make a counterspell check (d20 + 9), against a DC of 17 (11 + 6).
It is possible to counterspell spell-like abilities, to counterspell using spell-like abilities, to counterspell spells cast from items, and to counterspell using spells cast from items. Spell-like abilities are countered just as would be a spell of the same name. Likewise, they counter spells of the same name. Items are countered by spells of the same name, as normal. They counter as spells of the same name, but can only be used in this manner if the item is held in the user's hand prior to counterspelling - there is no time to ready the action before use (in the same way you can't ready a material component before counterspelling - you're either ready or you can't counterspell). Either way, the caster level for spells cast from an item are determined by the item, not by the character using the item. Counterspelling with an item uses a charge as though using the item normally. Likewise, counterspelling with a spell-like ability uses one of the character's uses per day.
Edit: Oops, it turns out that spell-like abilities can't be used to counterspell, and aren't themselves subject to counterspelling. I also suspsect (although can't find the ruling anywhere), that you can't counterspell with a magic item (although you probably can counterspell a spell cast from a magic item).
So, if Malgo is casting fireball, and Ralf wishes to counter with a scroll of dispel magic (caster level 5th), Ralf must make a counterspell check (d20 + 5) against a DC of 17.
Feat: Reflexive Counterspell
You can respond quickly and repeatedly to opponents who cast spells in combat.
Benefit: When foes cast spells in combat, you may make an additional number of counterspell attempts equal to your Intelligence bonus. For example, a wizard with an Intelligence of 15 can make a total of three counterspell attempts in 1 round - the one any character is entitled two, plus two more because of his Intelligence bonus. You can still make only one counterspell attempt per spell cast by the enemy. With this feat, you can also make counterspell attempts while flat-footed.
Normal: A character without this feat can make only one counterspell attempt per round, and can't make counterspell attempts while flat-footed.
Counterspells and Attacks of Opportunity
In the same way that making an attack of opportunity can provoke an attack of opportunity itself (if, for instance, you choose to disarm), so too does counterspelling. Basically, if casting the spell itself under those conditions provokes an attack of opportunity then using that spell as a counterspell does to (for instance, if you counterspell by casting a fireball, that provokes an attack of opportunity. If you counterspell by casting fireball from a wand, however, that does not).
What this does is adds another level of tactical thinking to combat - the wizard will want to guide his allies into position to attack the opposing spellcaster, so that said spellcaster can't shut him down without suffering attacks of opportunity. I don't consider this to be a bad thing, although it drops the party wizard in the shit if the enemy spellcaster gets there first.
Of course, it would be possible to counterspell defensively, requiring a Concentration check as normal.
Consequences of this Change
Adding these rules has a fairly significant effect on play. Firstly, it makes counterspelling a much more attractive option, since doing so is less of a gamble, and much less costly. Secondly, it can lead to the party spellcasters running out of spells much more quickly, depending on the prevalence of spellcasting foes.
A more subtle effect is that two wizards of the same level are likely to take each other out of the game during combat, as each counters around 50% of the other's spells (actually, rather less unless they've memorised the same selection). This can be a good thing, as it forces each to try to outwit the other, and to use less common spells. It also increases the utility of non-standard, rare and custom spells. If you're the only caster in the world to know Ralf's baleful anger, you cannot be counterspelled easily, whereas everyone knows how to counter fireball. This, then, would encourage characters to seek out lost and unusual spells, which is a good thing.
However, a spellcaster of the same level as the party will not be able to provide a meaningful challenge to the party under this mechanism. The party wizard will effectively shut down the enemy, allowing the party warriors to simply walk over and exterminate him. I'm not sure how different this is from the current state of affairs - lone spellcasters don't do well against full parties.
Finally, this option changes the balance between the Sorcerer and the Wizard somewhat, as the former will have a more potent counterspelling weapon than the latter. This is part of the reason why the Reflexive Counterspell feat relies on Intelligence, to restore parity between the classes.
I would doubt very much that this option would seriously damage any games in which it was used. Counterspelling would certainly become more common, but is unlikely to dominate the game.
I would prefer to see counterspelling using much the same rules as attacks of opportunity, as follows:
Counterspell
Whenever an enemy spellcaster casts a spell, you may make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell level). Success indicates that you correctly identify the spell. You then have the option to counterspell. Counterspelling requires that you cast an abridged version of the same (or countering; see below) spell to negate the spell being cast.
You may counterspell any spell with the same spell. You may counter any spell with dispel magic or greater dispel magic. If you have the Improved Counterspell feat, you may counter any spell with a higher level spell of the same school. Finally, some spells specifically state that they counter certain other spells, as noted in their description. Metamagic feats have no impact on whether a given spell will counter another spell - a heightened spell will counter a normal version of the same spell, and will be countered by a normal version of the spell.
To counterspell, you must be able to cast the requisite spell. For instance, a wizard who wishes to counter a fireball must have fireball memorised. A sorcerer must know fireball, and have a spell slot of 3rd level or higher free to cast it. Additionally, you must fulfil all the component requirements for the spell - you must be able to speak to counter a spell with a verbal component, must have at least one hand free for spells with a somatic component, must have any material or focus components already in hand, and must spend any required experience points. However, the casting time for a counterspell is free; that is, you can instantly counterspell a spell with a casting time of ten rounds, for example.
Finally, counterspelling takes the place of making an attack of opportunity. That is, you cannot make an attack of opportunity in the same round as using a counterspell. A caster with the Combat Reflexes feat cannot make any attacks of opportunity in the same round as using a counterspell. You can counterspell only once in the round (but see below). A character cannot counterspell while flat-footed, or otherwise unable to make an attack of opportunity.
Once the character has fulfilled all the requirements for a counterspell, he must make a counterspell check to successfully negate an opposing spell. This check is a d20 roll, to which he adds his caster level (there is a maximum bonus of +10 or +20 when counterspelling with dispel magic or greater dispel magic, respectively. This does not apply to other spells). The DC for the check is 11 + the caster level of the opposing spell.
For instance, if Malgo, a 6th level Sorcerer, is casting fireball, and Ralf, a 9th level Wizard wishes to counter, Ralf must make a counterspell check (d20 + 9), against a DC of 17 (11 + 6).
It is possible to counterspell spell-like abilities, to counterspell using spell-like abilities, to counterspell spells cast from items, and to counterspell using spells cast from items. Spell-like abilities are countered just as would be a spell of the same name. Likewise, they counter spells of the same name. Items are countered by spells of the same name, as normal. They counter as spells of the same name, but can only be used in this manner if the item is held in the user's hand prior to counterspelling - there is no time to ready the action before use (in the same way you can't ready a material component before counterspelling - you're either ready or you can't counterspell). Either way, the caster level for spells cast from an item are determined by the item, not by the character using the item. Counterspelling with an item uses a charge as though using the item normally. Likewise, counterspelling with a spell-like ability uses one of the character's uses per day.
Edit: Oops, it turns out that spell-like abilities can't be used to counterspell, and aren't themselves subject to counterspelling. I also suspsect (although can't find the ruling anywhere), that you can't counterspell with a magic item (although you probably can counterspell a spell cast from a magic item).
So, if Malgo is casting fireball, and Ralf wishes to counter with a scroll of dispel magic (caster level 5th), Ralf must make a counterspell check (d20 + 5) against a DC of 17.
Feat: Reflexive Counterspell
You can respond quickly and repeatedly to opponents who cast spells in combat.
Benefit: When foes cast spells in combat, you may make an additional number of counterspell attempts equal to your Intelligence bonus. For example, a wizard with an Intelligence of 15 can make a total of three counterspell attempts in 1 round - the one any character is entitled two, plus two more because of his Intelligence bonus. You can still make only one counterspell attempt per spell cast by the enemy. With this feat, you can also make counterspell attempts while flat-footed.
Normal: A character without this feat can make only one counterspell attempt per round, and can't make counterspell attempts while flat-footed.
Counterspells and Attacks of Opportunity
In the same way that making an attack of opportunity can provoke an attack of opportunity itself (if, for instance, you choose to disarm), so too does counterspelling. Basically, if casting the spell itself under those conditions provokes an attack of opportunity then using that spell as a counterspell does to (for instance, if you counterspell by casting a fireball, that provokes an attack of opportunity. If you counterspell by casting fireball from a wand, however, that does not).
What this does is adds another level of tactical thinking to combat - the wizard will want to guide his allies into position to attack the opposing spellcaster, so that said spellcaster can't shut him down without suffering attacks of opportunity. I don't consider this to be a bad thing, although it drops the party wizard in the shit if the enemy spellcaster gets there first.
Of course, it would be possible to counterspell defensively, requiring a Concentration check as normal.
Consequences of this Change
Adding these rules has a fairly significant effect on play. Firstly, it makes counterspelling a much more attractive option, since doing so is less of a gamble, and much less costly. Secondly, it can lead to the party spellcasters running out of spells much more quickly, depending on the prevalence of spellcasting foes.
A more subtle effect is that two wizards of the same level are likely to take each other out of the game during combat, as each counters around 50% of the other's spells (actually, rather less unless they've memorised the same selection). This can be a good thing, as it forces each to try to outwit the other, and to use less common spells. It also increases the utility of non-standard, rare and custom spells. If you're the only caster in the world to know Ralf's baleful anger, you cannot be counterspelled easily, whereas everyone knows how to counter fireball. This, then, would encourage characters to seek out lost and unusual spells, which is a good thing.
However, a spellcaster of the same level as the party will not be able to provide a meaningful challenge to the party under this mechanism. The party wizard will effectively shut down the enemy, allowing the party warriors to simply walk over and exterminate him. I'm not sure how different this is from the current state of affairs - lone spellcasters don't do well against full parties.
Finally, this option changes the balance between the Sorcerer and the Wizard somewhat, as the former will have a more potent counterspelling weapon than the latter. This is part of the reason why the Reflexive Counterspell feat relies on Intelligence, to restore parity between the classes.
I would doubt very much that this option would seriously damage any games in which it was used. Counterspelling would certainly become more common, but is unlikely to dominate the game.
Reach Weapons
One thing that bothers me about D&D as it stands is that there's no way for a character with a reach weapon to prevent another character from getting within that reach. At best, you get either an attack of opportunity, or a one-round respite before your opponent takes a 5 ft. step within reach. Then, your only option is to back off, which may not be a viable option.
That being the case, here's the system for a new combat option:
Warding
A character with a reach weapon has the option of readying to ward off opponents. Using this option allows the character to resist attempts by other characters to approach.
In order to pass beyond the outer edges of a character's reach, or to move closer in the case of characters with reach beyond 10 ft. (where the attacker may begin his movement within that outer edge), the character must pass on opposed check. Failure indicates that the character can move no closer to the character than his current position, or the outer edge of the defender's reach, whichever is closer.
For the purposes of this option, the stationary character with the reach weapon is the defender, while the character attempting to approach is the attacker.
In order to use this option, the defender must declare his intent to "ready to ward". Thereafter, whenever an attacker attempts to move closer to the defender than the outer edges of the defender's reach (or his current position, whichever is closer), the defender has the option to ward the character off, preventing him from approaching. Since doing so discharges the readied action, the defender may only ward off a single character each round, and so may not necessarily choose to block the first such attacker.
To resolve the ward attampt, the following sequence of events should be followed. Firstly, if the attacker's intended action would provoke an attack of opportunity from the defender, that should be resolved first. This applies regardless of the eventual success of the warding attempt.
Secondly, the attacker and defender make opposed attack rolls. If the attacker is intending to move a distance greater than 5 feet, he receives a +2 bonus on this check. If the attacker is intending to move a distance greater than his base movement, he instead receives a +4 bonus on the check. Finally, if the attacker is charging, the attacker receives a further +2 bonus; this applies in addition to whichever of the previous bonuses apply.
If the attacker wins this opposed check, he completes his action as desired. If the defender wins, the attacker's movement ends at the outer edge of the defender's reach (or his current position, whichever is closer). Ties favour the defender.
Example: Marcus is facing a dragon with reach of 15 feet. Marcus has a base movement of 20 feet (due to plate armour). He is currently standing 20 feet from the dragon. The dragon declares that it is "ready to ward". Marcus charges the dragon. (Marcus has a total bonus of +12 to attack rolls, the dragon has a total bonus of +14 with its bite.)
Firstly, the dragon receives an attack of opportunity against Marcus. This is made with the normal +14 bonus to the attack roll, and Marcus suffers the normal -2 penalty to armour class for charging. Not surprisingly, the dragon hits, but doesn't kill Marcus.
Next, Marcus and the dragon make opposed attack rolls. Here, the dragon still has a +14 bonus to the attack roll. Marcus has a total bonus of +16 (+12 base; +2 for moving more than 5 ft., but not more than 20 ft.; +2 for charging).
If the dragon wins this opposed roll, Marcus moves a total of 5 ft. closer to the dragon, placing him at the outer edge of the dragon's reach. If Marcus wins, he moves his intended 20 ft., and can immediately attack the dragon. If there's a tie, Marcus loses. (Obviously, if Marcus loses, he can't attack the dragon this round, as he doesn't have reach.)
Assuming Marcus loses, the dragon can opt to "ready to ward" again on the next round. If Marcus again charges, the same sequence of events again plays out; the dragon makes an attack of opportunity, then the two make opposed rolls, and so on.
If, instead, Marcus elects to approach the dragon more cautiously, and makes only a 5 ft. step towards the dragon, then the dragon does not get to make an attack of opportunity. However, the two still make opposed attack rolls. This time, Marcus only gets his base +12 bonus to the attack roll (as he's only moving 5 ft., and not charging). If Marcus wins, he moves 5 ft. towards the dragon. If the dragon wins, or there's a tie, Marcus does not move. Either way, Marcus cannot move more than 5 ft. closer to the dragon, nor may he now make a 5 ft. step in any other direction - he has already expended his 5 ft. step (or a move action), even though he was unable to change his position.
Assuming Marcus wins the second contest, and is now 10 ft. from the dragon, the dragon may yet again "ready to ward". On his action, Marcus chooses to approach 10 ft. and attack. The dragon again get an attack of opportunity (+14 to the attack roll; Marcus suffers no AC bonus as he's not charging). The two then make opposed attack rolls again. Here, Marcus has a +14 bonus (+12 base; +2 for 10 ft. of movement). If Marcus wins, he approaches the dragon and can attack. If the dragon wins, or there's a tie, Marcus remains where he is. He is not forced to retreat to the edge of the dragon's reach.
Consequences of Using this Option
If this option is used in the game, it makes reach weapons slightly more useful. It makes creatures with reach slightly more dangerous. However, it makes creatures with reach greater than 10 ft., or creatures with natural reach and reach weapons quite significantly more dangerous. Finally, it makes groups of creatures with reach weapons a lot more dangerous - some of the creatures can ready to ward, while others simply hold their action, then make full attacks against potential attackers who are held at bay.
That said, readying to ward is a poor choice for a single creature faced with several opponents. Such a creature will find itself rushed quite quickly, as it will have to discharge its ward against one of the attackers, and then will have no defence against the others (except any unused attacks of opportunity, of course).
It is unlikely that player characters will make extensive use of this option, as they also tend not to use reach weapons often, and tend also to lack reach greater than 10 ft., or to use group tactics as described above. However, town guards, who frequently do use reach weapons, and such group tactics, will benefit greatly from this option; and this can be considered a good thing in games where the PCs get just a bit too blase about their foes' capabilities.
That being the case, here's the system for a new combat option:
Warding
A character with a reach weapon has the option of readying to ward off opponents. Using this option allows the character to resist attempts by other characters to approach.
In order to pass beyond the outer edges of a character's reach, or to move closer in the case of characters with reach beyond 10 ft. (where the attacker may begin his movement within that outer edge), the character must pass on opposed check. Failure indicates that the character can move no closer to the character than his current position, or the outer edge of the defender's reach, whichever is closer.
For the purposes of this option, the stationary character with the reach weapon is the defender, while the character attempting to approach is the attacker.
In order to use this option, the defender must declare his intent to "ready to ward". Thereafter, whenever an attacker attempts to move closer to the defender than the outer edges of the defender's reach (or his current position, whichever is closer), the defender has the option to ward the character off, preventing him from approaching. Since doing so discharges the readied action, the defender may only ward off a single character each round, and so may not necessarily choose to block the first such attacker.
To resolve the ward attampt, the following sequence of events should be followed. Firstly, if the attacker's intended action would provoke an attack of opportunity from the defender, that should be resolved first. This applies regardless of the eventual success of the warding attempt.
Secondly, the attacker and defender make opposed attack rolls. If the attacker is intending to move a distance greater than 5 feet, he receives a +2 bonus on this check. If the attacker is intending to move a distance greater than his base movement, he instead receives a +4 bonus on the check. Finally, if the attacker is charging, the attacker receives a further +2 bonus; this applies in addition to whichever of the previous bonuses apply.
If the attacker wins this opposed check, he completes his action as desired. If the defender wins, the attacker's movement ends at the outer edge of the defender's reach (or his current position, whichever is closer). Ties favour the defender.
Example: Marcus is facing a dragon with reach of 15 feet. Marcus has a base movement of 20 feet (due to plate armour). He is currently standing 20 feet from the dragon. The dragon declares that it is "ready to ward". Marcus charges the dragon. (Marcus has a total bonus of +12 to attack rolls, the dragon has a total bonus of +14 with its bite.)
Firstly, the dragon receives an attack of opportunity against Marcus. This is made with the normal +14 bonus to the attack roll, and Marcus suffers the normal -2 penalty to armour class for charging. Not surprisingly, the dragon hits, but doesn't kill Marcus.
Next, Marcus and the dragon make opposed attack rolls. Here, the dragon still has a +14 bonus to the attack roll. Marcus has a total bonus of +16 (+12 base; +2 for moving more than 5 ft., but not more than 20 ft.; +2 for charging).
If the dragon wins this opposed roll, Marcus moves a total of 5 ft. closer to the dragon, placing him at the outer edge of the dragon's reach. If Marcus wins, he moves his intended 20 ft., and can immediately attack the dragon. If there's a tie, Marcus loses. (Obviously, if Marcus loses, he can't attack the dragon this round, as he doesn't have reach.)
Assuming Marcus loses, the dragon can opt to "ready to ward" again on the next round. If Marcus again charges, the same sequence of events again plays out; the dragon makes an attack of opportunity, then the two make opposed rolls, and so on.
If, instead, Marcus elects to approach the dragon more cautiously, and makes only a 5 ft. step towards the dragon, then the dragon does not get to make an attack of opportunity. However, the two still make opposed attack rolls. This time, Marcus only gets his base +12 bonus to the attack roll (as he's only moving 5 ft., and not charging). If Marcus wins, he moves 5 ft. towards the dragon. If the dragon wins, or there's a tie, Marcus does not move. Either way, Marcus cannot move more than 5 ft. closer to the dragon, nor may he now make a 5 ft. step in any other direction - he has already expended his 5 ft. step (or a move action), even though he was unable to change his position.
Assuming Marcus wins the second contest, and is now 10 ft. from the dragon, the dragon may yet again "ready to ward". On his action, Marcus chooses to approach 10 ft. and attack. The dragon again get an attack of opportunity (+14 to the attack roll; Marcus suffers no AC bonus as he's not charging). The two then make opposed attack rolls again. Here, Marcus has a +14 bonus (+12 base; +2 for 10 ft. of movement). If Marcus wins, he approaches the dragon and can attack. If the dragon wins, or there's a tie, Marcus remains where he is. He is not forced to retreat to the edge of the dragon's reach.
Consequences of Using this Option
If this option is used in the game, it makes reach weapons slightly more useful. It makes creatures with reach slightly more dangerous. However, it makes creatures with reach greater than 10 ft., or creatures with natural reach and reach weapons quite significantly more dangerous. Finally, it makes groups of creatures with reach weapons a lot more dangerous - some of the creatures can ready to ward, while others simply hold their action, then make full attacks against potential attackers who are held at bay.
That said, readying to ward is a poor choice for a single creature faced with several opponents. Such a creature will find itself rushed quite quickly, as it will have to discharge its ward against one of the attackers, and then will have no defence against the others (except any unused attacks of opportunity, of course).
It is unlikely that player characters will make extensive use of this option, as they also tend not to use reach weapons often, and tend also to lack reach greater than 10 ft., or to use group tactics as described above. However, town guards, who frequently do use reach weapons, and such group tactics, will benefit greatly from this option; and this can be considered a good thing in games where the PCs get just a bit too blase about their foes' capabilities.
Wednesday, 14 April 2004
Oh yes, the Gangrel
Many moons ago, when reviewing the book on Gehenna for Vampire, I lamented that I'd never find out just what Xavier said when he had the Gangrel succeed from the Camarilla. Well, I've been reading through the Clan Novel anthologies, which are fiction set about that time, and the fateful meeting has just taken place. And, alas, he said a lot more than the rumoured two words.
Now, of course, the fiction is not necessarily the single, canonical source of truth in the World of Darkness, but I expect it's the only official answers as far as this question is concerned.
In case you care, he said:
Very well, then. The Final Nights are at hand. I leave the blind to lead the blind. This is not the first time the clans of the Camarilla have shown their disdain for the sacrifices of the Gangrel. But it will be the last. See how well you find your way without us. Tell your masters if you wish. I'll tell them soon enough in person. Let the union be dissolved.
Now, of course, the fiction is not necessarily the single, canonical source of truth in the World of Darkness, but I expect it's the only official answers as far as this question is concerned.
In case you care, he said:
Very well, then. The Final Nights are at hand. I leave the blind to lead the blind. This is not the first time the clans of the Camarilla have shown their disdain for the sacrifices of the Gangrel. But it will be the last. See how well you find your way without us. Tell your masters if you wish. I'll tell them soon enough in person. Let the union be dissolved.
Reading Setting Material
The impression that I get, right or wrong, is that the majority of the players in the current game haven't read the bulk of the setting bible produced for the campaign. That's not a complaint, just an observation. I suspect further that a great many players generally don't read up on the campaign setting for the games in which they're playing (unless they also GM in that setting). Now, a large part of this is that they don't want to get into the campaign secrets (and published works are rather poor at segregating player knowledge from GM knowledge). Other reasons include a lack of time, or a simple lack of inclination. (And, let's be fair, most of the material just ain't that interesting - in order to properly flesh out a world you need to detail such things as the constellations, the calendars, measurement systems, and so on, which really aren't that exciting, and which generally get ignored during play.
I see this as having two consequences. Firstly, it means that games set in the Forgotten Realms, Middle Earth (if the RPG hadn't collapsed), the Star Wars, Star Trek or Babylon 5 universes (and latterly Buffy and Angel) have a significant advantage, in that many if not most role-players have had some exposure to these settings from other sources, whether the associated books, movies, series, or computer games. This means that players can instantly recognise some elements of a setting (Jawas are recognisable in a way that the Aspected never will be), and should have some sort of common ground from which to work. On the other hand, the players will also come to the table with some pre-set notions of what Star Wars really is, and if these differ from the GM's vision (or the GM deliberately wants to do something different), the result can be jarring and unsatisfying, not unlike the reactions many fans had to Episode I.
The other consequence of this is that a prospective world designer has to be aware of the mindset of players in the game. If you include elves in the setting, no matter how you detail them in the campaign bible, when a player portrays such a character you will almost certainly get Drizzt, Legolas, or the standard tree-hugging hippie. Dwarves will be hard-drinking Scotsmen, Halflings will either be Hobbits or Kender, and so on and so forth.
That's a large part of the reason that I wanted all-new PC races for the Tollis campaign (that and I really wanted rid of the 'gay elf' thing, a goal in which I succeeded). For the most part, the races in Tollis have analogues in the standard races, although they're not obvious (I used the rather interesting archetypology articles on rpg.net to get at the underlying themes behind the races, and then built new races on those same themes). Also for the most part, I was happy with the way that the races were used and were portrayed.
The problem with the new races, however, is that they don't have familiarity with PCs. Any D&D player (or person who has read or seen Lord of the Rings) can tell you what an Elf is. It's not so certain that they'll get what an Aspected is, as noted above. I think perhaps this is one of the reasons that the new group is almost entirely Human (although it's also entirely possible that everyone just wanted to play a Human, either way I'm not complaining).
In case anyone's interested, the analogues for the standard races are as follows:
Aspected are both elves and orcs. The source articles suggest that the elves were derived from angels, the orcs from the fallen angels. In both cases, they represent the better and worse aspects of humanity. The aspected embody both of these, or at least that was the intention.
Satorans are dwarves. The dwarf allegedly represents man's lust for possessions. The satorans instead represent man's lust for knowledge and for pleasure.
The Ogrekin represent gnomes, the trickster race.
The Sloth are hobbits. This one, I think, should be fairly obvious.
The Whimlings are kender. Much like the sloth, they represent the halfling, which in turn represents us (since they also see the world from the point of view of the 'little guy', and not the powers that be). However, whereas the Sloth is intimidated by the world and retreats from it, the Whimling is enchanted and curious.
The Vaggatz are closest to half-orcs, although with less of the being caught between two worlds thing, and more of the noble savage about them.
The other thing I had in mind was the notion of the generations in this. In this regard, Humans represented young adults, just taking their place in the world. The Ogrekin represent the older generation, having taught the young adults they now step aside. The Vaggatz represent the younger brother, a few steps behind you, while the Orcs are a much younger sibling, still wild and destructive. Whimlings are, of course, young children. The Aspected and Satorans are also young adults, but they are less mature adults than the Humans. The Aspected, under this system, represent the totally self-centred adult, more interested in getting ahead than helping others. The Satoran is the pleasure-driven loser who spends his time in a drink or drug-fuelled haze. Finally, the Sloth are those adults who just want to get their heads down, get on with their lives, and not rock the boat.
I see this as having two consequences. Firstly, it means that games set in the Forgotten Realms, Middle Earth (if the RPG hadn't collapsed), the Star Wars, Star Trek or Babylon 5 universes (and latterly Buffy and Angel) have a significant advantage, in that many if not most role-players have had some exposure to these settings from other sources, whether the associated books, movies, series, or computer games. This means that players can instantly recognise some elements of a setting (Jawas are recognisable in a way that the Aspected never will be), and should have some sort of common ground from which to work. On the other hand, the players will also come to the table with some pre-set notions of what Star Wars really is, and if these differ from the GM's vision (or the GM deliberately wants to do something different), the result can be jarring and unsatisfying, not unlike the reactions many fans had to Episode I.
The other consequence of this is that a prospective world designer has to be aware of the mindset of players in the game. If you include elves in the setting, no matter how you detail them in the campaign bible, when a player portrays such a character you will almost certainly get Drizzt, Legolas, or the standard tree-hugging hippie. Dwarves will be hard-drinking Scotsmen, Halflings will either be Hobbits or Kender, and so on and so forth.
That's a large part of the reason that I wanted all-new PC races for the Tollis campaign (that and I really wanted rid of the 'gay elf' thing, a goal in which I succeeded). For the most part, the races in Tollis have analogues in the standard races, although they're not obvious (I used the rather interesting archetypology articles on rpg.net to get at the underlying themes behind the races, and then built new races on those same themes). Also for the most part, I was happy with the way that the races were used and were portrayed.
The problem with the new races, however, is that they don't have familiarity with PCs. Any D&D player (or person who has read or seen Lord of the Rings) can tell you what an Elf is. It's not so certain that they'll get what an Aspected is, as noted above. I think perhaps this is one of the reasons that the new group is almost entirely Human (although it's also entirely possible that everyone just wanted to play a Human, either way I'm not complaining).
In case anyone's interested, the analogues for the standard races are as follows:
Aspected are both elves and orcs. The source articles suggest that the elves were derived from angels, the orcs from the fallen angels. In both cases, they represent the better and worse aspects of humanity. The aspected embody both of these, or at least that was the intention.
Satorans are dwarves. The dwarf allegedly represents man's lust for possessions. The satorans instead represent man's lust for knowledge and for pleasure.
The Ogrekin represent gnomes, the trickster race.
The Sloth are hobbits. This one, I think, should be fairly obvious.
The Whimlings are kender. Much like the sloth, they represent the halfling, which in turn represents us (since they also see the world from the point of view of the 'little guy', and not the powers that be). However, whereas the Sloth is intimidated by the world and retreats from it, the Whimling is enchanted and curious.
The Vaggatz are closest to half-orcs, although with less of the being caught between two worlds thing, and more of the noble savage about them.
The other thing I had in mind was the notion of the generations in this. In this regard, Humans represented young adults, just taking their place in the world. The Ogrekin represent the older generation, having taught the young adults they now step aside. The Vaggatz represent the younger brother, a few steps behind you, while the Orcs are a much younger sibling, still wild and destructive. Whimlings are, of course, young children. The Aspected and Satorans are also young adults, but they are less mature adults than the Humans. The Aspected, under this system, represent the totally self-centred adult, more interested in getting ahead than helping others. The Satoran is the pleasure-driven loser who spends his time in a drink or drug-fuelled haze. Finally, the Sloth are those adults who just want to get their heads down, get on with their lives, and not rock the boat.
Tuesday, 13 April 2004
Customising the Classes
A lot of the existing prestige classes seem to take the form of "an x, but focussing more on y", where x is one of the base classes, and y is one of the powers of the class. For instance, the Shifter is a druid with more focus on shapeshifting, and so on.
Instead of this, I would prefer to see more flexible character classes. And, to do that I'm going to once again take a page out of d20 Modern, and steal the idea of talent trees.
The basic idea is that each class should have a fixed progression at low levels. At higher levels (say above 8th), at each level the character chooses a power from a talent tree. In order to get the more powerful powers you need to get the weaker ones, of course.
So, for instance, the Wizard would have two trees, the Familiar Tree and the Arcane Mastery Tree. Each step on the Arcane Mastery Tree gives the character a bonus item creation or metamagic feat. Each step on the Familiar Tree grants the familiar new powers (as described on p.53 of the 3.5 PHB - essentially, the familiar becomes more powerful as the character goes up in level).
The Wizard would then have a fixed progression of powers for the first 6 levels, getting the first two steps on the Arcane Mastery Tree, and the first three on the Familiar Tree. Thereafter, at levels 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19 and 20, the character may choose an additional step from either tree. (Actually, it should be 15th twice, instead of 15 and 16, but you get the idea.)
The Wizard would, of course, advance in spells as normal.
Then, instead of adding lots of Prestige Classes that are generally very similar, classes would be further customised by adding new talent trees. For instance, you might add a High Arcana Tree, which allows the character to permanently trade spell slots for special abilities, as described under the Archmage prestige class (on p.178 of the 3.5 DMG). You'd need to add appropriate prerequisites on the abilities of the High Arcana Tree, but that's hardly problematic.
Doing this removes the need for a Prestige Class that's a Ranger with more focus on favoured enemies, one with more survival skills, one with more spells, one with better two-weapon fighting, and so on ad infinitum. It would then, hopefully, allow people to start coming up with more interesting prestige classes, classes that fit more with the campaign setting, and it would also remove the need to assume that any character will obviously 'have' to develop towards a prestige class, as sometimes seems to be the assumption people are using (and which I really, really hate).
From a monetary point of view, of course, this makes really poor sense. Talent trees as I've just described take up less space than prestige classes, and require about the same amount of design work. Therefore, it's harder to pack a thivk hardback with them than with prestige classes doing the same thing. And since Wizards are the company most capable of doing the big classbooks of prestige classes...
Instead of this, I would prefer to see more flexible character classes. And, to do that I'm going to once again take a page out of d20 Modern, and steal the idea of talent trees.
The basic idea is that each class should have a fixed progression at low levels. At higher levels (say above 8th), at each level the character chooses a power from a talent tree. In order to get the more powerful powers you need to get the weaker ones, of course.
So, for instance, the Wizard would have two trees, the Familiar Tree and the Arcane Mastery Tree. Each step on the Arcane Mastery Tree gives the character a bonus item creation or metamagic feat. Each step on the Familiar Tree grants the familiar new powers (as described on p.53 of the 3.5 PHB - essentially, the familiar becomes more powerful as the character goes up in level).
The Wizard would then have a fixed progression of powers for the first 6 levels, getting the first two steps on the Arcane Mastery Tree, and the first three on the Familiar Tree. Thereafter, at levels 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19 and 20, the character may choose an additional step from either tree. (Actually, it should be 15th twice, instead of 15 and 16, but you get the idea.)
The Wizard would, of course, advance in spells as normal.
Then, instead of adding lots of Prestige Classes that are generally very similar, classes would be further customised by adding new talent trees. For instance, you might add a High Arcana Tree, which allows the character to permanently trade spell slots for special abilities, as described under the Archmage prestige class (on p.178 of the 3.5 DMG). You'd need to add appropriate prerequisites on the abilities of the High Arcana Tree, but that's hardly problematic.
Doing this removes the need for a Prestige Class that's a Ranger with more focus on favoured enemies, one with more survival skills, one with more spells, one with better two-weapon fighting, and so on ad infinitum. It would then, hopefully, allow people to start coming up with more interesting prestige classes, classes that fit more with the campaign setting, and it would also remove the need to assume that any character will obviously 'have' to develop towards a prestige class, as sometimes seems to be the assumption people are using (and which I really, really hate).
From a monetary point of view, of course, this makes really poor sense. Talent trees as I've just described take up less space than prestige classes, and require about the same amount of design work. Therefore, it's harder to pack a thivk hardback with them than with prestige classes doing the same thing. And since Wizards are the company most capable of doing the big classbooks of prestige classes...
Abstract Wealth in D&D
Here's a modification of the rules for wealth in d20 Modern, applied to D&D. Using these rules allows characters to purchase an arbitrary number of cheap items, but a very limited number of more expensive items. It also makes the Diplomacy skill (and Charisma attribute) a lot more valuable, and also changes the tenor of adventures quite a lot (the DM can no longer have the group simply adventuring for big piles of gold - the party now either needs personal motivations for their adventures, or they need to be hunting for specific rare and expensive items). This may or may not be a good thing.
The Wealth Score
Each character has a Wealth bonus, which represents his ability to gather funds, haggle for good deals, and find and acquire the items he wants. This bonus is applied to rolls made to purchase items.
At character creation, the Wealth bonus is generated by rolling 2d4 and adding a class-based bonus. The Great Wealth feat (see below) adds a further bonus.
The class-based bonuses are as follows:
Monk: -3 (minimum Wealth bonus +0)
Druid: +0
Sorcerer, Wizard: +1
Barbarian, Bard: +2
Cleric, Rogue: +3
Fighter, Paladin, Ranger: +4
At each level beyond the first, characters may make a Diplomacy check to increase their Wealth bonus. They may not take 10 or 20 on this roll. The DC of the roll is the character's current Wealth bonus. Success by 0-4 points increases the character's Wealth bonus by 1, success by 5-9 points increases the bonus by 2, and so forth. For every 5 full points by which the character succeeds at this roll, the bonus increases by a further +1.
(Why Diplomacy? Well, this represents the character's increased reputation, his improved ability to haggle, and his expanding circle of contacts as he goes up in level. It also makes Charisma more useful, which is always a good thing.)
Alternatively, a character may determine his Wealth bonus using his Profession skill. For every 5 ranks possessed (or fraction thereof), the character has a Wealth bonus of +1. However, a character's Wealth bonus by Profession does not increase with his level, and does not include a class-based bonus.
Feat: Great Wealth
You are particularly wealthy.
Benefit: Your Wealth bonus increases by +3. Also, this bonus grants a +1 bonus on all Diplomacy checks to increase Wealth bonus.
Special: You may select this feat multiple times. Each time, both of its effects stack.
Buying Stuff
To buy things, a character must go to a suitable supplier, and make a Purchase check. This is a d20 roll, to which the Wealth bonus applies. A character may take 10 or take 20 on this roll as normal. If successful, the character acquires the desired item. (Note: A natural 1 on this roll is not an automatic failure, and a natural 20 is not an automatic success.) (Also, a character may not take 20 during character creation, although he may take 10.)
A character may freely purchase anything up to his Wealth bonus without consequence. However, purchasing items above a purchase DC of 15, or above the character's Wealth bonus, will reduce the character's Wealth bonus (representing him stretching his resources significantly). The reductions are as follows:
DC 15 or higher: reduction by 1.
DC 1-10 points higher than Wealth bonus: reduction by 1
DC 11-15 points higher than Wealth bonus: reduction by 1d6
DC 16+ points higher than Wealth bonus: reduction by 2d6.
If the DC is both higher than the character's current Wealth bonus and is higher than 15, both reductions apply. So, if the character's Wealth bonus is 14, and he wishes to purchase Chainmail armour (DC 19), his Wealth bonus will reduce by 2 points. A character's Wealth bonus cannot drop below +0, regardless of reductions.
As should be obvious, when buying stuff, you should always buy anything under your Wealth bonus (or 15, whichever's lower) first. Then buy the most important items first, as you may run out of Wealth before getting to the other items.
Selling Stuff
Most items may be sold at a DC equal to that used to by them, minus 3. So, used Chainmail is sold at an equivalent DC of 16. Selling stuff may provide an increase to the character's Wealth bonus equal to the reduction that would have been incurred for buying such an item. So, a character with Wealth bonus +14 who sold a suit of Chainmail would increase his Wealth bonus by 2.
However, if a character's Wealth bonus is 15 or higher, he does not qualify for the +1 bonus gained for selling items of DC 15 or higher. So, if a character with Wealth bonus of 15 sold the same suit of Chainmail, he would only increase his Wealth bonus by +1. Thus, it becomes harder for a character to increase his Wealth bonus as he himself becomes more wealthy.
Some special (and usually unique) items can be sold at their full normal bonus. Typically, these include gemstones and artworks, but also powerful and unique magic items, holy relics, and the like. This is determined purely at the DM's discretion. A standard longsword +1, for instance, would not be considered rare and unusual, but a holy avenger with a long and glorious history probably would.
Pooling Funds
Characters may attempt to purchase items together. One character will be the main purchaser, and the others will use the Aid Another action as usual (they make DC 10 purchase checks, if successful, the main character gains +2 to his roll). However, each character who succeeds at the Aid Another action reduces his Wealth bonus by 1, while the main purchaser reduces his Wealth bonus as normal for the purchase.
Costs of Items
The following DCs show how to convert items from a gold piece cost to a purchase DC. All DCs round up (so, an item costing 25 gp is DC 13, not DC 12).
DC 2: 5 sp
DC 3: 1 gp 2 sp
DC 4: 2 gp
DC 5: 3 gp
DC 6: 4 gp
DC 7: 5 gp 5 sp
DC 8: 7 gp
DC 9: 9 gp
DC 10: 12 gp
DC 11: 15 gp
DC 12: 20 gp
DC 13: 27 gp 5 sp
DC 14: 35 gp
DC 15: 50 gp
DC 16: 65 gp
DC 17: 90 gp
DC 18: 120 gp
DC 19: 150 gp
DC 20: 200 gp
Thereafter, increasing the DC by 8 multiplies the value by 10. So, a 2,000 gp item has DC 28. Most +1 magical items are DC 29.
Wealth Bonus by Level
Typical Wealth bonuses by level are as follows:
1st: +7
2nd: +5
3rd: +6
4th: +7
5th: +8
6th: +8
7th: +9
8th: +9
9th: +10
10th: +10
11th: +11
Thereafter, it increases by +1 per two levels.
Typical Rewards by EL
The typical reward for a given encounter should be approximately equal to the encounter level +3. So, an encounter with four Orcs (4 x CR 1/2 = EL 3) would give an average reward equivalent to a wealth bonus of +6. If, instead, the DM wishes to combine the rewards for multiple encounters into a single award (the end-of-level bad guy), the reward for a sequence of encounters is calculated by totalling the rewards for the encounters taken sequentially, and then halving the total.
Normally, such rewards would be split amongst the group, so each of the four characters would get a +1.5 increase to their Wealth bonus, which rounds down to a +1 bonus.
Consequences of All of This
On average, a character won't be able to purchase a longsword +1 until 8th level, and then will have to wait for it a long time (take 20). This would seem to indicate that either the Wealth bonuses by level are too low, the purchase DCs are too high, or that characters should not be purchasing such items, but rather making them, or adventuring for them. I'm inclined to believe that the answer is somewhere between the first and the second: these rules were adapted from d20 Modern, where equipment is a lot less important. Therefore, although the core of the system is basically fine, the mechanisms still need work.
As noted above, under this system, adventuring for treasure really sucks (ooh, we found a +10 treasure!). Therefore, the DM either needs to motivate characters differently, or they have to introduce unique and special treasures for the adventurers to go after. So, you're not hunting for a generic holy artifact, you're hunting for the Lost Ark of the Covenant. Or whatever. I don't think that's a bad thing.
So, what do you think?
The Wealth Score
Each character has a Wealth bonus, which represents his ability to gather funds, haggle for good deals, and find and acquire the items he wants. This bonus is applied to rolls made to purchase items.
At character creation, the Wealth bonus is generated by rolling 2d4 and adding a class-based bonus. The Great Wealth feat (see below) adds a further bonus.
The class-based bonuses are as follows:
Monk: -3 (minimum Wealth bonus +0)
Druid: +0
Sorcerer, Wizard: +1
Barbarian, Bard: +2
Cleric, Rogue: +3
Fighter, Paladin, Ranger: +4
At each level beyond the first, characters may make a Diplomacy check to increase their Wealth bonus. They may not take 10 or 20 on this roll. The DC of the roll is the character's current Wealth bonus. Success by 0-4 points increases the character's Wealth bonus by 1, success by 5-9 points increases the bonus by 2, and so forth. For every 5 full points by which the character succeeds at this roll, the bonus increases by a further +1.
(Why Diplomacy? Well, this represents the character's increased reputation, his improved ability to haggle, and his expanding circle of contacts as he goes up in level. It also makes Charisma more useful, which is always a good thing.)
Alternatively, a character may determine his Wealth bonus using his Profession skill. For every 5 ranks possessed (or fraction thereof), the character has a Wealth bonus of +1. However, a character's Wealth bonus by Profession does not increase with his level, and does not include a class-based bonus.
Feat: Great Wealth
You are particularly wealthy.
Benefit: Your Wealth bonus increases by +3. Also, this bonus grants a +1 bonus on all Diplomacy checks to increase Wealth bonus.
Special: You may select this feat multiple times. Each time, both of its effects stack.
Buying Stuff
To buy things, a character must go to a suitable supplier, and make a Purchase check. This is a d20 roll, to which the Wealth bonus applies. A character may take 10 or take 20 on this roll as normal. If successful, the character acquires the desired item. (Note: A natural 1 on this roll is not an automatic failure, and a natural 20 is not an automatic success.) (Also, a character may not take 20 during character creation, although he may take 10.)
A character may freely purchase anything up to his Wealth bonus without consequence. However, purchasing items above a purchase DC of 15, or above the character's Wealth bonus, will reduce the character's Wealth bonus (representing him stretching his resources significantly). The reductions are as follows:
DC 15 or higher: reduction by 1.
DC 1-10 points higher than Wealth bonus: reduction by 1
DC 11-15 points higher than Wealth bonus: reduction by 1d6
DC 16+ points higher than Wealth bonus: reduction by 2d6.
If the DC is both higher than the character's current Wealth bonus and is higher than 15, both reductions apply. So, if the character's Wealth bonus is 14, and he wishes to purchase Chainmail armour (DC 19), his Wealth bonus will reduce by 2 points. A character's Wealth bonus cannot drop below +0, regardless of reductions.
As should be obvious, when buying stuff, you should always buy anything under your Wealth bonus (or 15, whichever's lower) first. Then buy the most important items first, as you may run out of Wealth before getting to the other items.
Selling Stuff
Most items may be sold at a DC equal to that used to by them, minus 3. So, used Chainmail is sold at an equivalent DC of 16. Selling stuff may provide an increase to the character's Wealth bonus equal to the reduction that would have been incurred for buying such an item. So, a character with Wealth bonus +14 who sold a suit of Chainmail would increase his Wealth bonus by 2.
However, if a character's Wealth bonus is 15 or higher, he does not qualify for the +1 bonus gained for selling items of DC 15 or higher. So, if a character with Wealth bonus of 15 sold the same suit of Chainmail, he would only increase his Wealth bonus by +1. Thus, it becomes harder for a character to increase his Wealth bonus as he himself becomes more wealthy.
Some special (and usually unique) items can be sold at their full normal bonus. Typically, these include gemstones and artworks, but also powerful and unique magic items, holy relics, and the like. This is determined purely at the DM's discretion. A standard longsword +1, for instance, would not be considered rare and unusual, but a holy avenger with a long and glorious history probably would.
Pooling Funds
Characters may attempt to purchase items together. One character will be the main purchaser, and the others will use the Aid Another action as usual (they make DC 10 purchase checks, if successful, the main character gains +2 to his roll). However, each character who succeeds at the Aid Another action reduces his Wealth bonus by 1, while the main purchaser reduces his Wealth bonus as normal for the purchase.
Costs of Items
The following DCs show how to convert items from a gold piece cost to a purchase DC. All DCs round up (so, an item costing 25 gp is DC 13, not DC 12).
DC 2: 5 sp
DC 3: 1 gp 2 sp
DC 4: 2 gp
DC 5: 3 gp
DC 6: 4 gp
DC 7: 5 gp 5 sp
DC 8: 7 gp
DC 9: 9 gp
DC 10: 12 gp
DC 11: 15 gp
DC 12: 20 gp
DC 13: 27 gp 5 sp
DC 14: 35 gp
DC 15: 50 gp
DC 16: 65 gp
DC 17: 90 gp
DC 18: 120 gp
DC 19: 150 gp
DC 20: 200 gp
Thereafter, increasing the DC by 8 multiplies the value by 10. So, a 2,000 gp item has DC 28. Most +1 magical items are DC 29.
Wealth Bonus by Level
Typical Wealth bonuses by level are as follows:
1st: +7
2nd: +5
3rd: +6
4th: +7
5th: +8
6th: +8
7th: +9
8th: +9
9th: +10
10th: +10
11th: +11
Thereafter, it increases by +1 per two levels.
Typical Rewards by EL
The typical reward for a given encounter should be approximately equal to the encounter level +3. So, an encounter with four Orcs (4 x CR 1/2 = EL 3) would give an average reward equivalent to a wealth bonus of +6. If, instead, the DM wishes to combine the rewards for multiple encounters into a single award (the end-of-level bad guy), the reward for a sequence of encounters is calculated by totalling the rewards for the encounters taken sequentially, and then halving the total.
Normally, such rewards would be split amongst the group, so each of the four characters would get a +1.5 increase to their Wealth bonus, which rounds down to a +1 bonus.
Consequences of All of This
On average, a character won't be able to purchase a longsword +1 until 8th level, and then will have to wait for it a long time (take 20). This would seem to indicate that either the Wealth bonuses by level are too low, the purchase DCs are too high, or that characters should not be purchasing such items, but rather making them, or adventuring for them. I'm inclined to believe that the answer is somewhere between the first and the second: these rules were adapted from d20 Modern, where equipment is a lot less important. Therefore, although the core of the system is basically fine, the mechanisms still need work.
As noted above, under this system, adventuring for treasure really sucks (ooh, we found a +10 treasure!). Therefore, the DM either needs to motivate characters differently, or they have to introduce unique and special treasures for the adventurers to go after. So, you're not hunting for a generic holy artifact, you're hunting for the Lost Ark of the Covenant. Or whatever. I don't think that's a bad thing.
So, what do you think?
Sunday, 11 April 2004
Review: Medieval Player's Manual
This is the fourth book in Green Ronin's Mythic Vistas line. It details the middle ages for use in d20, with a focus on England and north-western France in the years following the death of William the Conquerer. This book claims to present the middle ages in a more realistic sense than is found in the typical RPG book, a goal in which it succeeds somewhat, although in doing so it opens itself up to some criticisms that would not otherwise apply.
This is a 126-page black and white softcover. As with other Green Ronin books, the editing is near-flawless, and the rules mastery is impressive. There are six chapters.
Chapter 1 is an overview of the setting, discussing the roles of religion, race and sex, and giving some guidance on using the book and using the setting. This is short; it runs to only 4 pages.
Chapter 2 deals with magic in the middle ages. This takes the form of astrology, theurgy, necromancy, and folk charms. The emphasis is on more subtle forms of magic. The existing magic-using classes are considered inappropriate, and are replaced with less flashy variants. In terms of balance, these appear to hit the right level; although less magically potent than the wizard, they usually have more spells per day (with limitations), or better access to skills. This material is well done, but it's a bit dry. This chapter runs to 29 pages.
Chapter 3 repeats the process for religion, with the emphasis squarely on Christianity. Indeed, Islam and Judiasm (the other relevant religions of the day) are barely mentioned, and the classes here aren't suitable for use in modelling followers of those faiths. The chapter presents some new classes, to supplement the Cleric and Paladin (the Druid is removed in this setting), and then has a whole new type of feat: the Charism. These are feats granted to the especially holy, representing drect gifts from God. This material is all well handled, and seems balanced. As before, though, it's rather dry, although less so than the previous chapter. This chapter is 28 pages long.
Chapter 4 deals with the world of the artist, the philosopher and the politician. It describes some new classes (that are best suited for use as NPCs, or in a distinctly unusual campaign), and rules for the creation of books, artworks, and so forth. There is a social combat/debating system that is similar to the combat system, for use in the non-standard campaign I've just mentioned. The chapter concludes with a discussion of campaign options using this material. The entire chapter is well done, but probably of limited utility in most cases. The chapter is 30 pages long.
Chapter 5 presents the history of the setting, from 1066 to the ascention of Henry Plantagenet to the English throne. The emphasis is definately on England and Normandy. The chapter also presents some key characters. All in 14 pages, which is probably enough.
Finally, chapter 6 is 14 pages about life in the middle ages. This also includes some key characters of the setting, focussing on thinkers and philosophers rather than kings and bishops.
The book concludes with a summary sheet of the feats presented herein and an index.
For the most part, the material here is fine. However, I have three key complaints. The first is that this is a very dry read. This is probably due to over-familiarity; this has been done before, and better, in Vampire: Dark Ages.
Secondly, this book runs into a problem with religion. There is an underlying stance that Christianity is the correct religion, for the most part. This is a fair enough assumption upon which to build a setting, and is appropriate given the focus of the book. However, it is not carried through. The book states that the Crusades feature clerics and paladins on both sides. If Christiantity is right, though, this can't be the case. Basically, they haven't followed through on the tenets of the setting.
I should note here that I don't object to the notion of there being Islamic paladins and clerics in the crusades. The explanation used by Vampire, that it is the faith of the individual that grants the powers, would be the ideal solution. It would also allow for there to be clerics and other priests of all alignments, which would definately be a good thing. However, having stated that Christianity is right, it should have been carried through.
Thirdly, the book goes to pains, in at least two places, to present the setting in such a manner as to be accomodating to female characters. One character "could be portrayed as a proto-feminist", despite the fact that this is not consistent with history. Another example goes to pains to show that the female thinker is clearly superior to her male counterpart, despite the fact that her own notions are as nonsensical as his.
The simple truth is that the middle ages did not include many women in prominent positions. This can be demonstrated quite simply - for every such woman who can be named, you can probably name half a dozen equally prominent men. If you're going to present the setting in a 'realistic' sense, you simply have to acknowledge this. Hell, it's not even as if there's a big problem - adventurers are inherently a special breed, so there's absolutely no reason why you can't simply assume that women are equally populous within this breed.
One more, minor, point popped up when I was reading this book. I couldn't help thinking that perhaps d20 Modern might be a better system for this sort of game than D&D itself. True, you would need to add new equipment lists, and remove the firearm rules, but that's hardly a problem. d20 Modern also involves the supernatural in a much less prominent position than D&D, which would seem appropriate here.
Unfortunately, I can't recommend this book. I think the setting is better handled elsewhere. I think the setting can be better modelled with d20 Modern, and I have a few specific issues with the setting as presented here. Finally, it's rather dry. Unfortunately, this is also the third book in this series that's less good than its predecessor. Testament was great. Skull & Bones was also great, although not quite as good. Mindshadows wasn't anywhere near as good as either of the others, and this book is less good still. I just hope the next one (which deals with a werewolf-ruled kingdom) is better.
Not recommended.
This is a 126-page black and white softcover. As with other Green Ronin books, the editing is near-flawless, and the rules mastery is impressive. There are six chapters.
Chapter 1 is an overview of the setting, discussing the roles of religion, race and sex, and giving some guidance on using the book and using the setting. This is short; it runs to only 4 pages.
Chapter 2 deals with magic in the middle ages. This takes the form of astrology, theurgy, necromancy, and folk charms. The emphasis is on more subtle forms of magic. The existing magic-using classes are considered inappropriate, and are replaced with less flashy variants. In terms of balance, these appear to hit the right level; although less magically potent than the wizard, they usually have more spells per day (with limitations), or better access to skills. This material is well done, but it's a bit dry. This chapter runs to 29 pages.
Chapter 3 repeats the process for religion, with the emphasis squarely on Christianity. Indeed, Islam and Judiasm (the other relevant religions of the day) are barely mentioned, and the classes here aren't suitable for use in modelling followers of those faiths. The chapter presents some new classes, to supplement the Cleric and Paladin (the Druid is removed in this setting), and then has a whole new type of feat: the Charism. These are feats granted to the especially holy, representing drect gifts from God. This material is all well handled, and seems balanced. As before, though, it's rather dry, although less so than the previous chapter. This chapter is 28 pages long.
Chapter 4 deals with the world of the artist, the philosopher and the politician. It describes some new classes (that are best suited for use as NPCs, or in a distinctly unusual campaign), and rules for the creation of books, artworks, and so forth. There is a social combat/debating system that is similar to the combat system, for use in the non-standard campaign I've just mentioned. The chapter concludes with a discussion of campaign options using this material. The entire chapter is well done, but probably of limited utility in most cases. The chapter is 30 pages long.
Chapter 5 presents the history of the setting, from 1066 to the ascention of Henry Plantagenet to the English throne. The emphasis is definately on England and Normandy. The chapter also presents some key characters. All in 14 pages, which is probably enough.
Finally, chapter 6 is 14 pages about life in the middle ages. This also includes some key characters of the setting, focussing on thinkers and philosophers rather than kings and bishops.
The book concludes with a summary sheet of the feats presented herein and an index.
For the most part, the material here is fine. However, I have three key complaints. The first is that this is a very dry read. This is probably due to over-familiarity; this has been done before, and better, in Vampire: Dark Ages.
Secondly, this book runs into a problem with religion. There is an underlying stance that Christianity is the correct religion, for the most part. This is a fair enough assumption upon which to build a setting, and is appropriate given the focus of the book. However, it is not carried through. The book states that the Crusades feature clerics and paladins on both sides. If Christiantity is right, though, this can't be the case. Basically, they haven't followed through on the tenets of the setting.
I should note here that I don't object to the notion of there being Islamic paladins and clerics in the crusades. The explanation used by Vampire, that it is the faith of the individual that grants the powers, would be the ideal solution. It would also allow for there to be clerics and other priests of all alignments, which would definately be a good thing. However, having stated that Christianity is right, it should have been carried through.
Thirdly, the book goes to pains, in at least two places, to present the setting in such a manner as to be accomodating to female characters. One character "could be portrayed as a proto-feminist", despite the fact that this is not consistent with history. Another example goes to pains to show that the female thinker is clearly superior to her male counterpart, despite the fact that her own notions are as nonsensical as his.
The simple truth is that the middle ages did not include many women in prominent positions. This can be demonstrated quite simply - for every such woman who can be named, you can probably name half a dozen equally prominent men. If you're going to present the setting in a 'realistic' sense, you simply have to acknowledge this. Hell, it's not even as if there's a big problem - adventurers are inherently a special breed, so there's absolutely no reason why you can't simply assume that women are equally populous within this breed.
One more, minor, point popped up when I was reading this book. I couldn't help thinking that perhaps d20 Modern might be a better system for this sort of game than D&D itself. True, you would need to add new equipment lists, and remove the firearm rules, but that's hardly a problem. d20 Modern also involves the supernatural in a much less prominent position than D&D, which would seem appropriate here.
Unfortunately, I can't recommend this book. I think the setting is better handled elsewhere. I think the setting can be better modelled with d20 Modern, and I have a few specific issues with the setting as presented here. Finally, it's rather dry. Unfortunately, this is also the third book in this series that's less good than its predecessor. Testament was great. Skull & Bones was also great, although not quite as good. Mindshadows wasn't anywhere near as good as either of the others, and this book is less good still. I just hope the next one (which deals with a werewolf-ruled kingdom) is better.
Not recommended.
Saturday, 10 April 2004
Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (d20)
One of the trends for the year appears to be the production of 'advanced' books for the d20 system. Both Sword & Sorcery Studios and Green Ronin are doing advanced books, and Wizards have already put out Unearthed Arcana, which seems to do a very similar job. Truthfully, I view these projects with a little apprehansion (insofar as I care; I'm well aware that I can just not buy these products. But it's hard to get a good rant going from a position of apathy).
There are, as I see it, two ways to do an 'advanced' D&D game. The first is to layer on more rules, more systems, and generally make things more complex. The second is to add more options, more customisation, and make character management/adventure creation more complex. Of these, my definate preference is for the second, but even then, I feel wary.
The last thing the d20 system needs is more rules. The game is complex enough without trying to add 'realistic' combat rules, initiative rules including speed factors or weapon reach as defining factors, detailed spell component systems, or whatever. If anything, I'd like to see systems being removed where they don't help the game in play. And, in that regard, I viewed 3.5 as a step forward; a lot of the special combat manoeuvers were adjusted in the new books to make them consistent with one another. So, it's safe to say that option 1 does not appeal to me at all.
The second option, adding more options, is something I could see myself liking. Certainly, Green Ronin's "Advanced Bestiary" appeals, as it's a big book of templates, which should increase the available range of monsters far beyond the gains achieved by adding, for example, Monster Manual II.
Likewise, I would like to see options for customising the skill lists for the existing classes, and the addition of one or two new base classes to fill gaps in the existing system (a skill-based Cleric, a spontaneous divine castrer, and a warmage spring to mind). Also, since many prestige classes are "a ranger (or whatever) with more focus on special enemies (or other power)", if a mechanism was in place for classes to be customised in this way, without recourse to the prestige class, I would be very happy.
The down-sides of this are that adding customisation of this sort makes prep time for adventures much greater (since adding templates can't easily be done on the fly), makes character management more difficult (so levelling-up requires more effort, and takes more time from actual play), and presents compatibility problems with existing material.
Here's what I mean by that last: a lot of the existing prestige classes are intended for specific classes to enter. There is also a background assumption that you shouldn't get into a given class until a specific level. However, this last is controlled not by assigning a minimum level, but by requiring a minimum BAB, of skill ranks, or whatever. So, perhaps there's a Cleric-intended PrC with a mimimum BAB of +5. This effectively requires the character to have 7 levels of Cleric before entering the class (or to multiclass with Fighter to get a quicker BAB progression). If you allow customisation, however, one of the options is likely to include a faster BAB progression, meaning the Cleric can get into the class more quickly. This may (or, indeed, may not) cause problems with balance.
Likewise, many of the Fighter-intended PrCs control access by requiring ranks in cross-class skills. If the Fighter can customise his skills list, these are likely to become class skills, and thus afford the Fighter much easier access to the class. Again, this might or might not cause a problem.
The last problem with adding lots of options, and it's a problem that already exists and is only getting worse, is that the DM needs to vet the material that is and is not in use in the campaign. In the latter days of 2nd Edition, it became near-impossible to keep track of what books would be used, what house rules governed the use of that material, and so on.
With 3rd Edition, the need to use house rules was greatly reduced (although not eliminated outright, alas), and it became easier to add new material. However, it remains the case that not all the available material is balanced and sensible (this is an inevitable result of the d20 license), so the DM must keep track of which options are used and which are not. 'Advanced' books will add to this burden, probably requiring additional house rules to retain the balance in the campaign.
There are, as I see it, two ways to do an 'advanced' D&D game. The first is to layer on more rules, more systems, and generally make things more complex. The second is to add more options, more customisation, and make character management/adventure creation more complex. Of these, my definate preference is for the second, but even then, I feel wary.
The last thing the d20 system needs is more rules. The game is complex enough without trying to add 'realistic' combat rules, initiative rules including speed factors or weapon reach as defining factors, detailed spell component systems, or whatever. If anything, I'd like to see systems being removed where they don't help the game in play. And, in that regard, I viewed 3.5 as a step forward; a lot of the special combat manoeuvers were adjusted in the new books to make them consistent with one another. So, it's safe to say that option 1 does not appeal to me at all.
The second option, adding more options, is something I could see myself liking. Certainly, Green Ronin's "Advanced Bestiary" appeals, as it's a big book of templates, which should increase the available range of monsters far beyond the gains achieved by adding, for example, Monster Manual II.
Likewise, I would like to see options for customising the skill lists for the existing classes, and the addition of one or two new base classes to fill gaps in the existing system (a skill-based Cleric, a spontaneous divine castrer, and a warmage spring to mind). Also, since many prestige classes are "a ranger (or whatever) with more focus on special enemies (or other power)", if a mechanism was in place for classes to be customised in this way, without recourse to the prestige class, I would be very happy.
The down-sides of this are that adding customisation of this sort makes prep time for adventures much greater (since adding templates can't easily be done on the fly), makes character management more difficult (so levelling-up requires more effort, and takes more time from actual play), and presents compatibility problems with existing material.
Here's what I mean by that last: a lot of the existing prestige classes are intended for specific classes to enter. There is also a background assumption that you shouldn't get into a given class until a specific level. However, this last is controlled not by assigning a minimum level, but by requiring a minimum BAB, of skill ranks, or whatever. So, perhaps there's a Cleric-intended PrC with a mimimum BAB of +5. This effectively requires the character to have 7 levels of Cleric before entering the class (or to multiclass with Fighter to get a quicker BAB progression). If you allow customisation, however, one of the options is likely to include a faster BAB progression, meaning the Cleric can get into the class more quickly. This may (or, indeed, may not) cause problems with balance.
Likewise, many of the Fighter-intended PrCs control access by requiring ranks in cross-class skills. If the Fighter can customise his skills list, these are likely to become class skills, and thus afford the Fighter much easier access to the class. Again, this might or might not cause a problem.
The last problem with adding lots of options, and it's a problem that already exists and is only getting worse, is that the DM needs to vet the material that is and is not in use in the campaign. In the latter days of 2nd Edition, it became near-impossible to keep track of what books would be used, what house rules governed the use of that material, and so on.
With 3rd Edition, the need to use house rules was greatly reduced (although not eliminated outright, alas), and it became easier to add new material. However, it remains the case that not all the available material is balanced and sensible (this is an inevitable result of the d20 license), so the DM must keep track of which options are used and which are not. 'Advanced' books will add to this burden, probably requiring additional house rules to retain the balance in the campaign.
Friday, 9 April 2004
Special Edition Players' Handbook
So, for the 30th anniversary of the creation of D&D, Wizards are putting out a special edition PHB. From what I can make out, this is a low-volume item with fancy covers, durable materials, and so on. However, the contents will exactly match the current PHB.
Now, this is not the sort of thing I have any interest in. I might be interested if it was released in advance of the new edition (for instance, if this had been published a year before 3.5 edition, for instance). However, as it is, I'll pass. On the other hand, I don't begrudge Wizards the right to produce the book; I don't carry any silly notions that every book they produce should entice me to buy. So, no big deal.
One thing that irks me, however, is that this book probably will not include the known errata for the PHB. Meaning that they are knowingly publishing a book containing incorrect information. Give that they're planning to charge people $75 for the priviledge of owning this monstrosity, don't they then have the responsibility to make it the best product they possibly can?
(Actually, that pisses me off more than just as regards this book. The people who work at Wizards of the Coast are professionals. Wherever possible, they have a responsibility to produce the best product they can, and while mistakes are inevitable, they do have a resposibility to ensure that they are not propogated further than necessary. What this means is that unless it is absolutely impossible, they should ensure that the errata are incorporated, not only into new versions of the books, but also into second and subsequent printings. And the same goes for all other companies who produce second printings of their works - if there are known errors, and there are known fixes for these errors, the fixes should be present in new printings unless it is impossible to do so. Otherwise, you are knowingly selling defective goods.)
I'm going to take a break from ranting now...
Now, this is not the sort of thing I have any interest in. I might be interested if it was released in advance of the new edition (for instance, if this had been published a year before 3.5 edition, for instance). However, as it is, I'll pass. On the other hand, I don't begrudge Wizards the right to produce the book; I don't carry any silly notions that every book they produce should entice me to buy. So, no big deal.
One thing that irks me, however, is that this book probably will not include the known errata for the PHB. Meaning that they are knowingly publishing a book containing incorrect information. Give that they're planning to charge people $75 for the priviledge of owning this monstrosity, don't they then have the responsibility to make it the best product they possibly can?
(Actually, that pisses me off more than just as regards this book. The people who work at Wizards of the Coast are professionals. Wherever possible, they have a responsibility to produce the best product they can, and while mistakes are inevitable, they do have a resposibility to ensure that they are not propogated further than necessary. What this means is that unless it is absolutely impossible, they should ensure that the errata are incorporated, not only into new versions of the books, but also into second and subsequent printings. And the same goes for all other companies who produce second printings of their works - if there are known errors, and there are known fixes for these errors, the fixes should be present in new printings unless it is impossible to do so. Otherwise, you are knowingly selling defective goods.)
I'm going to take a break from ranting now...
Tuesday, 6 April 2004
Breaking the Fight/Rest Paradigm
Of late, I've been giving some thought to the D&D approach, where you adventure for a bit, until you're low on hit points and/or your priest has cast all his healing spells, and then you bed down in the monster's lair and rest. Then you continue on, until you're again beaten up, and then you rest again.
This, unsurprisingly, leads to the oddity that characters will typically adventure for a couple of hours in the day, and then feel the need to rest for the remainder of the day to get back spells. And it's even worse if the party healers can't deal with the group's injuries in one day - you might have to camp for days at a time in the heart of a monster lair.
So, here's an attempt at solving this problem. My working assumption is that characters will be using fixed hit points per level at the rates used in the current game. Without that assumption, this system may be over-generous to PCs.
This model works on the notion that only a small part of the hit point damage taken by characters in any combat is actual wounds. The rest takes the form of exhaustion, near-fatal blows turned aside, or simple luck or divine favour. As a result, although these dwindle during a fight, and funning out will be fatal, they should be recovered quite quickly with rest.
During combat, wounds are as normal. Characters track hit points, and become incapacitated at -1 hit points, and dead at -10, as normal. However, in addition to the other effects, it is necessary to track when a character takes damage from a single attack doing more damage than his hit die type (the highest one for multiclass characters). This number of attacks is the number of wounds dealt in combat. Any attack that does fewer hit points of damage than the character's hit die type is ignored (other than the actual hit point loss).
At the end of combat, once they've had a chance to rest, characters take stock of the impact of their wounds. The level of the wounding should be calculated immediately, although perhaps only indicated to a character who examines the character with a Heal check (DC 10). The effect of the wounds will be applied 10 minutes after the end of combat, at which time the permanent effect of the wounds will be applied, and the character will regain hit points. (This lag time could be quite important, as this gives a cleric 10 minutes to apply healing to a character who might be mortally wounded without it.)
Note that a group that is attacked immediately after one combat will still be suffering hit point loss from that combat, but will not suffer the more permanent effects of combat.
After ten minutes have passed, all characters who have lost hit points must first check the extent of their injuries. This requires a Fortitude save (DC 15 + no of wounds taken in the combat - note that I'm not sure this DC is set to the right value). If this save is successful, the character suffers no lasting ill effects from the combat. If the save is failed by 1 or 2 points, the character suffers from bleeding. If the save fails by 3 to 5 points, the character has a light wound. Failure by 6 to 8 points indicates a moderate wound. Failure by 9 to 11 is a serious wound and 12 or more a critical wound. A character who takes a light or more serious wound from combat is also considered to be bleeding.
A character who suffers from bleeding suffers no great problems, but cannot regain hit points until the bleeding is stopped. A character with a light wound suffers 2 points of Constitution damage, moderate wounds cause 4 points, serious wounds 6 points, and critical wounds 8 points of Constitution damage. All such damage is cumulative, so a character carrying a light wound into combat who is then moderately wounded has suffered a total of 6 points of Constitution damage. This damage can easily kill a character. Basically, in such an instance, the character was mortally wounded during the combat, and so died once the adrenaline wore off.
Curing bleeding is accomplished simply a matter of applying a Heal skill check (DC 15). This requires a full-round action, if such becomes important. The cure minor wounds spell (or any more powerful cure spell) will automatically stop bleeding. This can be done regardless of whether the character's other wounds can be tended to (so, a character who took a serious wound can have his bleeding stopped, even if the party cleric has no remaining spells available). Curing the other wounds is achieved by resting (at the normal rate), through the use of the restoration spells (of course), or through the use of cure spells.
The caster of a cure spell may choose whether to heal hit point damage or wound damage. If used for the former, the spell functions as normal (and stops bleeding). If used for the latter, the spell restores 2, 4, 6 or 8 points of Constution damage.
The other part of the handling of injuries, that ensures this doesn't completely screw over PCs, is that once the extent of a character's wounds have been ascertained, and once the bleeding is stopped, the character may immediately roll his hit dice (applying his newly reduced Con modifier), and regain the number of hit points indicated.
One final detail: Under this system, Clerics lose the ability to spontaneously cast cure spells. Quite simply, they don't need them so often, so can do without. Also, I like being an evil bastard.
(Note that the term bleeding, as used above, does not necessarily refer to simple blood loss. It applies to any condition that would prevent the character from regaining hit points. So, a character who takes a nasty fall could be considered to be bleeding, even if he didn't actually have any open wounds. Likewise a character hit by a lightning bolt, or whatever. This should be obvious, but I'll just state it to prevent people from trying to weasel around the actual wording used.)
An extended example: Tekkis is in combat with three orcs. He's a barbarian, so has d12 hit dice. He has a Con of 14, and 38 hit points (3rd level). During the course of the combat, Tekkis is hit twice, for 3 and 7 hit points of damage. Consequently, he takes no wounds.
At the end of the combat, Tekkis makes a Fort save (DC 15). He passes this check, and so is not even bleeding. Tekkis' player then rolls 3d12+6, and adds those back to his hit points, restoring Tekkis to full health.
Later, Tekkis is attacked by an ogre. During the fight, Tekkis is hit twice, for 13 and 15 hit points of damage. Thus, he takes 2 wounds. After the combat, he must again roll a Fort save (DC 17). Assuming he fails this by 4, he takes a light wound. Tekkis is also bleeding. Tekkis thus takes 2 points of Con damage from his wound, and thus loses a further 3 hit points. However, once the bleeding stops, Tekkis will regain 3d12+3 hit points (if he's still alive). A cure light wounds spell will restore Tekkis' Con score, and in turn restore those 3 lost hit points.
(For more detail, add a "wound infection" disease that can affect any character who does not have his bleeding stopped within 1 hour, or anyone who takes a serious or more serious wound. This disease would have 0 incubation time, a Fort save DC of 15, and do 1d3 points of Con damage. So, a character could potentially be wounded non-fatally, but then die some time later from infection. Of course, remove disease would counter it. Actually, if you go this far, you're starting to get towards a 'realistic' injury system, except without the risk of characters being permanently maimed.)
This, unsurprisingly, leads to the oddity that characters will typically adventure for a couple of hours in the day, and then feel the need to rest for the remainder of the day to get back spells. And it's even worse if the party healers can't deal with the group's injuries in one day - you might have to camp for days at a time in the heart of a monster lair.
So, here's an attempt at solving this problem. My working assumption is that characters will be using fixed hit points per level at the rates used in the current game. Without that assumption, this system may be over-generous to PCs.
This model works on the notion that only a small part of the hit point damage taken by characters in any combat is actual wounds. The rest takes the form of exhaustion, near-fatal blows turned aside, or simple luck or divine favour. As a result, although these dwindle during a fight, and funning out will be fatal, they should be recovered quite quickly with rest.
During combat, wounds are as normal. Characters track hit points, and become incapacitated at -1 hit points, and dead at -10, as normal. However, in addition to the other effects, it is necessary to track when a character takes damage from a single attack doing more damage than his hit die type (the highest one for multiclass characters). This number of attacks is the number of wounds dealt in combat. Any attack that does fewer hit points of damage than the character's hit die type is ignored (other than the actual hit point loss).
At the end of combat, once they've had a chance to rest, characters take stock of the impact of their wounds. The level of the wounding should be calculated immediately, although perhaps only indicated to a character who examines the character with a Heal check (DC 10). The effect of the wounds will be applied 10 minutes after the end of combat, at which time the permanent effect of the wounds will be applied, and the character will regain hit points. (This lag time could be quite important, as this gives a cleric 10 minutes to apply healing to a character who might be mortally wounded without it.)
Note that a group that is attacked immediately after one combat will still be suffering hit point loss from that combat, but will not suffer the more permanent effects of combat.
After ten minutes have passed, all characters who have lost hit points must first check the extent of their injuries. This requires a Fortitude save (DC 15 + no of wounds taken in the combat - note that I'm not sure this DC is set to the right value). If this save is successful, the character suffers no lasting ill effects from the combat. If the save is failed by 1 or 2 points, the character suffers from bleeding. If the save fails by 3 to 5 points, the character has a light wound. Failure by 6 to 8 points indicates a moderate wound. Failure by 9 to 11 is a serious wound and 12 or more a critical wound. A character who takes a light or more serious wound from combat is also considered to be bleeding.
A character who suffers from bleeding suffers no great problems, but cannot regain hit points until the bleeding is stopped. A character with a light wound suffers 2 points of Constitution damage, moderate wounds cause 4 points, serious wounds 6 points, and critical wounds 8 points of Constitution damage. All such damage is cumulative, so a character carrying a light wound into combat who is then moderately wounded has suffered a total of 6 points of Constitution damage. This damage can easily kill a character. Basically, in such an instance, the character was mortally wounded during the combat, and so died once the adrenaline wore off.
Curing bleeding is accomplished simply a matter of applying a Heal skill check (DC 15). This requires a full-round action, if such becomes important. The cure minor wounds spell (or any more powerful cure spell) will automatically stop bleeding. This can be done regardless of whether the character's other wounds can be tended to (so, a character who took a serious wound can have his bleeding stopped, even if the party cleric has no remaining spells available). Curing the other wounds is achieved by resting (at the normal rate), through the use of the restoration spells (of course), or through the use of cure spells.
The caster of a cure spell may choose whether to heal hit point damage or wound damage. If used for the former, the spell functions as normal (and stops bleeding). If used for the latter, the spell restores 2, 4, 6 or 8 points of Constution damage.
The other part of the handling of injuries, that ensures this doesn't completely screw over PCs, is that once the extent of a character's wounds have been ascertained, and once the bleeding is stopped, the character may immediately roll his hit dice (applying his newly reduced Con modifier), and regain the number of hit points indicated.
One final detail: Under this system, Clerics lose the ability to spontaneously cast cure spells. Quite simply, they don't need them so often, so can do without. Also, I like being an evil bastard.
(Note that the term bleeding, as used above, does not necessarily refer to simple blood loss. It applies to any condition that would prevent the character from regaining hit points. So, a character who takes a nasty fall could be considered to be bleeding, even if he didn't actually have any open wounds. Likewise a character hit by a lightning bolt, or whatever. This should be obvious, but I'll just state it to prevent people from trying to weasel around the actual wording used.)
An extended example: Tekkis is in combat with three orcs. He's a barbarian, so has d12 hit dice. He has a Con of 14, and 38 hit points (3rd level). During the course of the combat, Tekkis is hit twice, for 3 and 7 hit points of damage. Consequently, he takes no wounds.
At the end of the combat, Tekkis makes a Fort save (DC 15). He passes this check, and so is not even bleeding. Tekkis' player then rolls 3d12+6, and adds those back to his hit points, restoring Tekkis to full health.
Later, Tekkis is attacked by an ogre. During the fight, Tekkis is hit twice, for 13 and 15 hit points of damage. Thus, he takes 2 wounds. After the combat, he must again roll a Fort save (DC 17). Assuming he fails this by 4, he takes a light wound. Tekkis is also bleeding. Tekkis thus takes 2 points of Con damage from his wound, and thus loses a further 3 hit points. However, once the bleeding stops, Tekkis will regain 3d12+3 hit points (if he's still alive). A cure light wounds spell will restore Tekkis' Con score, and in turn restore those 3 lost hit points.
(For more detail, add a "wound infection" disease that can affect any character who does not have his bleeding stopped within 1 hour, or anyone who takes a serious or more serious wound. This disease would have 0 incubation time, a Fort save DC of 15, and do 1d3 points of Con damage. So, a character could potentially be wounded non-fatally, but then die some time later from infection. Of course, remove disease would counter it. Actually, if you go this far, you're starting to get towards a 'realistic' injury system, except without the risk of characters being permanently maimed.)
Paladins of War
Archived thread started by Johannes:
I noticed yesterday in the setting bible that paladins of war don't have a proper ruled order and everything is fairly loose in terms of organisation. how did Marius and Arrhenius then get their training? It kinda would a little bit screw over the background I had, because I always thought of it as some sort of knightly order with a proper headquarters and all. If that poses some sort of problem would it be better to choose from one of the other three orders?
I noticed yesterday in the setting bible that paladins of war don't have a proper ruled order and everything is fairly loose in terms of organisation. how did Marius and Arrhenius then get their training? It kinda would a little bit screw over the background I had, because I always thought of it as some sort of knightly order with a proper headquarters and all. If that poses some sort of problem would it be better to choose from one of the other three orders?
If I ruled the world: D&D 4th Edition
Well, firstly, if I ruled the world, 4th edition would still be a long way off, since I don't see any need for it, nor much by way of benefit. However, it's likely that 4th edition is not too far away (I would be surprised if we get to 2006 without a clear release date being announced). It's also likely that 4th edition will remain based on much the same system as is currently used, that it will integrate miniatures even more tightly with the rest of the combat system, and that it will continue to use the d20 license scheme (all for money reasons - omit the first, and you're suddenly competing with a fairly huge and well-established d20 market with a high level of rules understanding amongst the player base, adding the second allows Hasbro to sell huge numbers of miniatures, and omitting the third has much the same effect as omitting the first. Basically, d20 has been very good for D&D and for Wizards, and they would be foolish to throw that away. However, I would not be remotely surprised to see a further tightening of the license.)
Anyway, with those assumptions in place, there are some changes I would incorporate into the system if I was running the show. As is my wont, these are mostly involved with character management - I think the game actually runs mostly fine as-is, and that the spells and monsters are basically fine.
Races: Ditch the 'weapon familiarity' for dwarves and gnomes. Replace the elven proficiency feats with the equivalent weapon group proficiencies.
Classes: Rename the barbarian to berserker, and remove the illiteracy penalty. Remove the multiclass restrictions from monks and paladins. Remove the druidic medium armour proficiency, but allow them to wear metal armour. Add several new classes, including a core-class assassin based on the existing prestige class, a sorcerous cleric, and perhaps a skill-based cleric class. Transform the rogue's trapfinding class feature into a feat that all rogues get for free at first level. Likewise the assassin's ability to use poison safely.
Something needs to be done with multi-class spellcasters. What I suggest is that each class (including non-magical classes) adds a small caster level bonus at each level. This does not give any extra spells per day, or spells known. However, it does add to the level-based effects of the wizard's existing spells. (So, a wizard 6/fighter 4 might be able to throw fireballs that do 7d6 points of damage, or whatever.)
Prestige Classes: I would love to see these removed. Alas, it will never happen.
Skills: Three changes here. Firstly, once a skill becomes a class skill, it is forevermore a class skill for that character. Secondly, each class will have a fixed list of class skills, and another list of 'favoured skills'. During character creation, the player will choose a subset of the favoured skills to become class skills for that character. Choosing a non-favoured skill would also be allowed, but would cost double.
Multiclass characters would, naturally, gain access to any of the class skills of their new class that aren't already class skills. In addition, if they switch to a more skilled class, they would get a small number of additional choices from their favoured skills list. (So, if the rogue list has 10 core and 10 favoured skills, of which the rogue chooses 8, and if the fighter has 6 core and 4 favoured skills, of which he chooses 2, then a fighter who becomes a rogue will gain any of the rogue core skills that aren't already class skills, and a further 6 choices from the rogue favoured skill list.)
Add a 'run' skill that is used to increase your speed above twice your base rate. This would be used during chases. This would be based on Dex, and would apply the armour check penalty.
Feats: More feats needed! Since I want rid of prestige classes, the more feats are available, especially to fighters, the better. However, there are some particular changes and additions that I'd like to see made.
Trapfinding and Poison Use should be feats, as indicated above. I would like to see Exotic Armour Proficiency added (more on that later). Additionally, I'd like to see the application of the weapon group proficiencies from Unearthed Arcana. So, rather than Martial Weapon Proficiency granting the use of a single weapon, it might grant the use of all bows, and so forth. Corresponding to this, feats like Weapon Focus, Improved Critical and the like should also apply to all weapons in a group, and not to a single weapon. In effect, this is a marginal increase in the power of a fighter, since at most he can use two weapons at a time.
One change from Unearthed Arcana is that those groups that are currently part of the Simple Weapon Proficiency feat should all remain under the control of that single feat. Simply put, these weapons are inferior to the martial weapons, and so should be easier to master.
Description/Alignment/Etc: Add the rules for Reputation and Action Points. Otherwise, leave these areas as-is. And, yes, keep alignment.
Equipment: Add exotic armours, as described in Arcana Unearthed. These can include ultra-heavy armour, but also spiked armour, and whatever else I could come up with. Add dire and ultra-light weapons, again as described in Arcana Unearthed.
To give the short version: Dire weapons cost +300 gp, make the weapon Exotic, but grant +2 damage. Ultra-light also cost +300 gp, make the weapon Exotic, and cause the weapon to be considered one category smaller.
Add one more category of weapons, the over-size weapons. These are basically two-handed weapons, but bigger. In order to wield these at all, you require the Exotic Weapon feat, and even then take a -4 penalty to attack rolls. However, either by gaining the Monkey Grip feat, or making the weapon ultra-light, it can be used two-handed without penalty. With both feat and ultra-light weapon, it can even be used one-handed, with a -4 penalty to hit.
(Monkey Grip, under this system would require Exotic Weapon Group Proficiency feat, and allow two-handed weapons to be used one-handed with a -4 penalty to attack rolls.)
As an option in the DMG, offer a wealth bonus system for buying equipment, as used in d20 Modern. Note, however, that this drastically changes the tenor of the game, since you would then be unable to run a simply game of hunting for treasure. (Yippee! We found a +4 treasure!)
And that's pretty much it.
Anyway, with those assumptions in place, there are some changes I would incorporate into the system if I was running the show. As is my wont, these are mostly involved with character management - I think the game actually runs mostly fine as-is, and that the spells and monsters are basically fine.
Races: Ditch the 'weapon familiarity' for dwarves and gnomes. Replace the elven proficiency feats with the equivalent weapon group proficiencies.
Classes: Rename the barbarian to berserker, and remove the illiteracy penalty. Remove the multiclass restrictions from monks and paladins. Remove the druidic medium armour proficiency, but allow them to wear metal armour. Add several new classes, including a core-class assassin based on the existing prestige class, a sorcerous cleric, and perhaps a skill-based cleric class. Transform the rogue's trapfinding class feature into a feat that all rogues get for free at first level. Likewise the assassin's ability to use poison safely.
Something needs to be done with multi-class spellcasters. What I suggest is that each class (including non-magical classes) adds a small caster level bonus at each level. This does not give any extra spells per day, or spells known. However, it does add to the level-based effects of the wizard's existing spells. (So, a wizard 6/fighter 4 might be able to throw fireballs that do 7d6 points of damage, or whatever.)
Prestige Classes: I would love to see these removed. Alas, it will never happen.
Skills: Three changes here. Firstly, once a skill becomes a class skill, it is forevermore a class skill for that character. Secondly, each class will have a fixed list of class skills, and another list of 'favoured skills'. During character creation, the player will choose a subset of the favoured skills to become class skills for that character. Choosing a non-favoured skill would also be allowed, but would cost double.
Multiclass characters would, naturally, gain access to any of the class skills of their new class that aren't already class skills. In addition, if they switch to a more skilled class, they would get a small number of additional choices from their favoured skills list. (So, if the rogue list has 10 core and 10 favoured skills, of which the rogue chooses 8, and if the fighter has 6 core and 4 favoured skills, of which he chooses 2, then a fighter who becomes a rogue will gain any of the rogue core skills that aren't already class skills, and a further 6 choices from the rogue favoured skill list.)
Add a 'run' skill that is used to increase your speed above twice your base rate. This would be used during chases. This would be based on Dex, and would apply the armour check penalty.
Feats: More feats needed! Since I want rid of prestige classes, the more feats are available, especially to fighters, the better. However, there are some particular changes and additions that I'd like to see made.
Trapfinding and Poison Use should be feats, as indicated above. I would like to see Exotic Armour Proficiency added (more on that later). Additionally, I'd like to see the application of the weapon group proficiencies from Unearthed Arcana. So, rather than Martial Weapon Proficiency granting the use of a single weapon, it might grant the use of all bows, and so forth. Corresponding to this, feats like Weapon Focus, Improved Critical and the like should also apply to all weapons in a group, and not to a single weapon. In effect, this is a marginal increase in the power of a fighter, since at most he can use two weapons at a time.
One change from Unearthed Arcana is that those groups that are currently part of the Simple Weapon Proficiency feat should all remain under the control of that single feat. Simply put, these weapons are inferior to the martial weapons, and so should be easier to master.
Description/Alignment/Etc: Add the rules for Reputation and Action Points. Otherwise, leave these areas as-is. And, yes, keep alignment.
Equipment: Add exotic armours, as described in Arcana Unearthed. These can include ultra-heavy armour, but also spiked armour, and whatever else I could come up with. Add dire and ultra-light weapons, again as described in Arcana Unearthed.
To give the short version: Dire weapons cost +300 gp, make the weapon Exotic, but grant +2 damage. Ultra-light also cost +300 gp, make the weapon Exotic, and cause the weapon to be considered one category smaller.
Add one more category of weapons, the over-size weapons. These are basically two-handed weapons, but bigger. In order to wield these at all, you require the Exotic Weapon feat, and even then take a -4 penalty to attack rolls. However, either by gaining the Monkey Grip feat, or making the weapon ultra-light, it can be used two-handed without penalty. With both feat and ultra-light weapon, it can even be used one-handed, with a -4 penalty to hit.
(Monkey Grip, under this system would require Exotic Weapon Group Proficiency feat, and allow two-handed weapons to be used one-handed with a -4 penalty to attack rolls.)
As an option in the DMG, offer a wealth bonus system for buying equipment, as used in d20 Modern. Note, however, that this drastically changes the tenor of the game, since you would then be unable to run a simply game of hunting for treasure. (Yippee! We found a +4 treasure!)
And that's pretty much it.
Sunday, 4 April 2004
Fighting the Gladiatrix
Okay, so the creatures you fought at the end of yesterday's game were too much for you. There are, broadly speaking, two reasons for this: damage reduction and spell immunity.
The damage reduction of the Gladiatrix is 10/good. This means that they take 10 fewer points of damage from any attack that is not made with a good-aligned weapon. And, unlike previous versions of the game, magic weapons do not supercede other weapons, so it really does need to be good weapons.
Applying the damage reduction, the top two warriors in the group, the fighter and the paladin, are the only ones who can harm these creatures, doing a maximum of 3 and 7 points, respectively (actually, not quite true - a maximum damage sneak attack from the rogue can do 1 point of damage. But the Gladiatrix has improved uncanny dodge, and so cannot be flat-footed and cannot be flanked, something I forgot yesterday).
However, the creatures are quite easy to hit ("only" AC 21, so the top warriors have a 55% chance of hitting with their main attack). So, a character with Power Attack would have a decent chance of doing damage, especially with a two-handed weapon. More to the point, if armed with good aligned weapons, the party should find these creatures beatable, if not easy.
The spell immunity is a trickier beast. There are two aspects to this, the specific and the general. Generally speaking, the Gladiatrix has SR 18, meaning that the current sorcerer has a 50% chance of affecting the creature with a given spell. Yesterday, this meant that no spells seemed to work, but in general it shouldn't be so extreme in effect.
However, the current sorcerer has a bigger problem against the Gladiatrix: his spells are blocked. The most powerful spell he has is hold person which, of course, doesn't work against outsiders. The next most powerful is flaming sphere, which is blocked by her specific immunity to fire. This effectively means the sorcerer is reduced to magic missile as his most effective spell against these creatures, which is not a good thing.
Now, I've commented about the sorcerer's lack of flexibility before, and don't intend to address it further here. Basically, once he reaches 7th level, Luc should see this problem reduced somewhat (he gains a 1st, 2nd and 3rd level spell - I recommend choosing spells that will do a variety of energy damage types, so perhaps lightning bolt, or a spell that does cold, acid or sonic damage. Or perhaps Forceblast from the Book of Eldritch Might, which works like fireball except that it does d4's of damage instead of d6's, but which does force damage. No creature has immunity to force damage, and there are no spells that grant protection against force damage, so only a creature's spell resistance would protect it. Of course, against most creatures, fireball is better, as it does most damage. So it's a trade-off.)
Where was I?
Oh, yes, sorcerers. Anyway, a sorcerer's choice of spells absolutely should cause him problems from time to time. On the other hand, he should also reap the rewards of being able to cast lots of spells, again from time to time. Thus, it's not entirely inappropriate to find the Gladiatrices cause problems, given the fairly huge effectiveness of hold person against the minotaurs. (It's also a good argument for the selection of metamagic feats, since an empowered magic missile could have been quite useful yesterday. And we certainly need arguments for metamagic feats, as they're generally too expensive to be worthwhile.)
The damage reduction is a rather more tricky matter, as it transformed a tough but doable encounter into a near total party kill.
The answer here is one of research and preparation. With a successful knowledge(the planes) check, it should be possible not only to identify the creature involved, but also the specifics of its damage reduction. The party could then cast align weapon, and the problem disappears. Similarly, the party should stock up on silver weapons when they're expecting to meet werewolves, cold iron weapons for fey, and so on. It's the Buffy model, where they inevitably hit the books to find out what they're dealing with, and how to defeat it.
(Of course, that wouldn't have helped the current group, since I don't think anyone has knoweldge(the planes), so you're screwed. But that's not my fault. Anyway, the use of align weapon when fighting demons of various sorts is an eminently reasonable course of action, so there's nothing stopping you from doing that next time, if Talran wants to.)
Upon re-reading it, a lot of this post comes off as me being defensive about my choice of monsters (which did, to be fair, almost kill the party again). I'm not really, since I don't see a big problem in pitting the PCs against tough opponents, or even against opponents that they can't beat. However, yesterday's opponents were a lot tougher than I expected, and I do think there are worthwhile things to say about why that is.
Anyway, you all survived, so no harm done.
The damage reduction of the Gladiatrix is 10/good. This means that they take 10 fewer points of damage from any attack that is not made with a good-aligned weapon. And, unlike previous versions of the game, magic weapons do not supercede other weapons, so it really does need to be good weapons.
Applying the damage reduction, the top two warriors in the group, the fighter and the paladin, are the only ones who can harm these creatures, doing a maximum of 3 and 7 points, respectively (actually, not quite true - a maximum damage sneak attack from the rogue can do 1 point of damage. But the Gladiatrix has improved uncanny dodge, and so cannot be flat-footed and cannot be flanked, something I forgot yesterday).
However, the creatures are quite easy to hit ("only" AC 21, so the top warriors have a 55% chance of hitting with their main attack). So, a character with Power Attack would have a decent chance of doing damage, especially with a two-handed weapon. More to the point, if armed with good aligned weapons, the party should find these creatures beatable, if not easy.
The spell immunity is a trickier beast. There are two aspects to this, the specific and the general. Generally speaking, the Gladiatrix has SR 18, meaning that the current sorcerer has a 50% chance of affecting the creature with a given spell. Yesterday, this meant that no spells seemed to work, but in general it shouldn't be so extreme in effect.
However, the current sorcerer has a bigger problem against the Gladiatrix: his spells are blocked. The most powerful spell he has is hold person which, of course, doesn't work against outsiders. The next most powerful is flaming sphere, which is blocked by her specific immunity to fire. This effectively means the sorcerer is reduced to magic missile as his most effective spell against these creatures, which is not a good thing.
Now, I've commented about the sorcerer's lack of flexibility before, and don't intend to address it further here. Basically, once he reaches 7th level, Luc should see this problem reduced somewhat (he gains a 1st, 2nd and 3rd level spell - I recommend choosing spells that will do a variety of energy damage types, so perhaps lightning bolt, or a spell that does cold, acid or sonic damage. Or perhaps Forceblast from the Book of Eldritch Might, which works like fireball except that it does d4's of damage instead of d6's, but which does force damage. No creature has immunity to force damage, and there are no spells that grant protection against force damage, so only a creature's spell resistance would protect it. Of course, against most creatures, fireball is better, as it does most damage. So it's a trade-off.)
Where was I?
Oh, yes, sorcerers. Anyway, a sorcerer's choice of spells absolutely should cause him problems from time to time. On the other hand, he should also reap the rewards of being able to cast lots of spells, again from time to time. Thus, it's not entirely inappropriate to find the Gladiatrices cause problems, given the fairly huge effectiveness of hold person against the minotaurs. (It's also a good argument for the selection of metamagic feats, since an empowered magic missile could have been quite useful yesterday. And we certainly need arguments for metamagic feats, as they're generally too expensive to be worthwhile.)
The damage reduction is a rather more tricky matter, as it transformed a tough but doable encounter into a near total party kill.
The answer here is one of research and preparation. With a successful knowledge(the planes) check, it should be possible not only to identify the creature involved, but also the specifics of its damage reduction. The party could then cast align weapon, and the problem disappears. Similarly, the party should stock up on silver weapons when they're expecting to meet werewolves, cold iron weapons for fey, and so on. It's the Buffy model, where they inevitably hit the books to find out what they're dealing with, and how to defeat it.
(Of course, that wouldn't have helped the current group, since I don't think anyone has knoweldge(the planes), so you're screwed. But that's not my fault. Anyway, the use of align weapon when fighting demons of various sorts is an eminently reasonable course of action, so there's nothing stopping you from doing that next time, if Talran wants to.)
Upon re-reading it, a lot of this post comes off as me being defensive about my choice of monsters (which did, to be fair, almost kill the party again). I'm not really, since I don't see a big problem in pitting the PCs against tough opponents, or even against opponents that they can't beat. However, yesterday's opponents were a lot tougher than I expected, and I do think there are worthwhile things to say about why that is.
Anyway, you all survived, so no harm done.
Friday, 2 April 2004
Armour destroying critters.
Archived thread started by Mort:
Hmm I can recall the prevous D&D campaign, where my fighter was prancing around in his newly found full plate +2, then in the first fight he got into there was some evil demon thing that ripped it to shreds. I guess that was a Bebilith then.
I'm not holding a grudge, no no, not at all, mumble grumble mumble.
Hmm I can recall the prevous D&D campaign, where my fighter was prancing around in his newly found full plate +2, then in the first fight he got into there was some evil demon thing that ripped it to shreds. I guess that was a Bebilith then.
I'm not holding a grudge, no no, not at all, mumble grumble mumble.
Other Historical Fantasy Settings
Archived thread started by Andrew:
With Stephen's current Roman-esque setting, I was starting to think about alternative settings that have been attempted in other game systems. Most probably have the "generic" fantasy, King Arthur or the orient (with Zombie Ninjas!), but I was wondering about settings like pre-colonial Africa, Aztecs and ancient Egypt/Middle East. We know enough about legends and myths to make interesting campaigns and I was wondering if anyone else thought about these or other non-standard settings for a fantasy campaign?
With Stephen's current Roman-esque setting, I was starting to think about alternative settings that have been attempted in other game systems. Most probably have the "generic" fantasy, King Arthur or the orient (with Zombie Ninjas!), but I was wondering about settings like pre-colonial Africa, Aztecs and ancient Egypt/Middle East. We know enough about legends and myths to make interesting campaigns and I was wondering if anyone else thought about these or other non-standard settings for a fantasy campaign?
Thursday, 1 April 2004
Plate squad are go!
Archiving a thread started by Mort:
So four out of six people in the new group has got full plate. I guess any kind of subtle operation is just out of the question now.
Oh well I suppose we can use them as a distraction tool, 'you guys run that way, and I'll sneak in while everyone is trying to figure out where the infernal racket is coming from.'
So four out of six people in the new group has got full plate. I guess any kind of subtle operation is just out of the question now.
Oh well I suppose we can use them as a distraction tool, 'you guys run that way, and I'll sneak in while everyone is trying to figure out where the infernal racket is coming from.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)