With only the exception of the hobbits, no member of the Fellowship of the Ring (or the major NPCs associated with the story) is just 'some guy'. Aragorn is the heir of Isildur, the lost king of Gondor, and the last scion of tha bloodline dating all the way back to the union of man and elf. Boromir is the eldest son of the Steward of Gondor, another ancient bloodline. Gimli is the cousin of Balin, the lord of Moria, and certainly dwarven nobility, if not royalty. Legolas is a prince of the wood elves. And Gandalf, of course, is one of the wizards.
By contrast, characters in D&D are invariably just 'some guy'. Typically, you'll get a bunch of mercenaries, or a random elf, or perhaps an exile. Occasionally, you'll get a minor noble.
Partly, this is because players have been trained to not make their characters important people. They would be the sons of nobility, but the DM won't allow it, because royalty carries with it money, prestige and power, which the DM doesn't want in the hands of 1st level characters. And the 'dispossessed noble' thing has long since lost its charm.
Partly, this is because players don't want their characters to be important people. Royalty carries with it a great deal of responsibility and attention, which the player probably doesn't want to deal with. Again, the 'lost son' thing has long since lost its charm.
Partly, this is because players don't think about their backgrounds before play has begun, or the world isn't detailed enough to provide the desired mechanism. You can't be the lost son of a dead royal line if the world doesn't have any dead royal lines, or if the DM just doesn't know, and your character can't suddenly become the last son of such a line after you've been playing him for three months. (And, if starting at 1st level, who would want to be the last son, when you might well be dead by the third hour of the campaign.)
And partly, I think, it's because D&D carries no mechanic for nobility and heritage. Aragorn gained long life, strong will, and healing power from his position as king. Boromir was the preeminent warrior of Gondor (and, it should be noted, he shared many traits with Faramir, but was considered far greater. The benefits of being the elder son in epic tales).
I've been reading "Unearthed Arcana", the new supplementary rule-book for D&D. It contains a whole load of variants, including rules for bloodlines. Now, as written, these are intended for celestial, devilish or demonic, elemental, or draconic bloodlines. However, perhaps they could be re-written for use in a more Lord of the Rings-esque campaign?
Wednesday, 3 March 2004
Monday, 1 March 2004
Combat Casting
It amuses me that both of the casters in the group have this particular feat. Frankly, I think it's one of the least useful in the game.
See Combat Casting gives a +4 bonus on Concentration checks to cast spells defensively. And that's all. It does not help you on Concentration checks made when hit for damage while in combat, or when distracted by any other problems, or whatever. Just that one roll.
Now, how often does a spellcaster get hit while casting a spell?
Well, if the casting time is 1 round or greater, they might. Combat Casting doesn't help. If the opponent has a readied action, they might. Combat Casting doesn't help. Or, finally, from an attack of opportunity. Combat Casting doesn't help directly here, either, except insofar as you can cast defensively, avoiding the AoO.
So, Combat Casting is useless, except for those cases where the caster wishes to avoid an attack of opportunity. However, there is another mechanism for doing the same thing: the five foot step. Take one of those and, presto(!), no attack of opportunity.
Frankly, the only time a charcter should need to cast defensively is when using touch-range spells, and those really aren't the weapon of choice of the clever wizard.
Besides, the difficulty of the check for casting defensively is 15 + spell level. A 1st level Wizard with a Con of 13 (probably quite a few; Con is probably the 3rd most useful stat for Wizards) and maxed Concentration will have a check bonus of +5. So, he succeeds 55% of the time with 0-level spells, and 50% of the time with 1st level spells. By 5th level, the same wizard will have Concentration +9, succeeding 75% of the time with 0-level spells, and 60% of the time with his most powerful spells. And by 18th level, Concentration will be at +21, automatically passing for all spells of 7th level of lower, and 90% of the time on even 9th level spells.
And, you know what else is possible? Add the Skill Focus(concentration) feat to get a +3 bonus to all Concentration checks, regardless of cause. Which would help with the damage from a readied attack, or an attack during a full-round casting.
('course, a 1st level Human Wizard could have both, for a total +13 bonus on that casting defensively roll, succeeding on 90% for 1st level spells, or 95% for 0-level spells. But that's probably overkill.)
See Combat Casting gives a +4 bonus on Concentration checks to cast spells defensively. And that's all. It does not help you on Concentration checks made when hit for damage while in combat, or when distracted by any other problems, or whatever. Just that one roll.
Now, how often does a spellcaster get hit while casting a spell?
Well, if the casting time is 1 round or greater, they might. Combat Casting doesn't help. If the opponent has a readied action, they might. Combat Casting doesn't help. Or, finally, from an attack of opportunity. Combat Casting doesn't help directly here, either, except insofar as you can cast defensively, avoiding the AoO.
So, Combat Casting is useless, except for those cases where the caster wishes to avoid an attack of opportunity. However, there is another mechanism for doing the same thing: the five foot step. Take one of those and, presto(!), no attack of opportunity.
Frankly, the only time a charcter should need to cast defensively is when using touch-range spells, and those really aren't the weapon of choice of the clever wizard.
Besides, the difficulty of the check for casting defensively is 15 + spell level. A 1st level Wizard with a Con of 13 (probably quite a few; Con is probably the 3rd most useful stat for Wizards) and maxed Concentration will have a check bonus of +5. So, he succeeds 55% of the time with 0-level spells, and 50% of the time with 1st level spells. By 5th level, the same wizard will have Concentration +9, succeeding 75% of the time with 0-level spells, and 60% of the time with his most powerful spells. And by 18th level, Concentration will be at +21, automatically passing for all spells of 7th level of lower, and 90% of the time on even 9th level spells.
And, you know what else is possible? Add the Skill Focus(concentration) feat to get a +3 bonus to all Concentration checks, regardless of cause. Which would help with the damage from a readied attack, or an attack during a full-round casting.
('course, a 1st level Human Wizard could have both, for a total +13 bonus on that casting defensively roll, succeeding on 90% for 1st level spells, or 95% for 0-level spells. But that's probably overkill.)
Dodge
Archive thread started by Mort...
I hate dodge, I keep forgetting to use the damn thing.
A question about that though, if you forget to declare dodge on your turn, a standard for me, would it be ok to declare it when the bad guys are trying to attack you? After all, if you declare it before the enemy attacks are rolled you havn't affected anything after it was resolved. Of course it might be annying for the GM, but then again it might make it easier for the GM to remember to include the extra dodge bonus.
Uh, I hope that made any sense.
In the end it doesn't matter, I keep getting bloody hit anyway, Stephens dice hate me.
I hate dodge, I keep forgetting to use the damn thing.
A question about that though, if you forget to declare dodge on your turn, a standard for me, would it be ok to declare it when the bad guys are trying to attack you? After all, if you declare it before the enemy attacks are rolled you havn't affected anything after it was resolved. Of course it might be annying for the GM, but then again it might make it easier for the GM to remember to include the extra dodge bonus.
Uh, I hope that made any sense.
In the end it doesn't matter, I keep getting bloody hit anyway, Stephens dice hate me.
Those Elves
So, you met the first of the elves in my current setting. Scary, aren't they?
Actually, I'll admit that I screwed up. I think I've got the CR of the elves about right, but I set you up against far too many of them. Worse, I compounded the situation by putting you in terrain that definately didn't suit you.
So, sorry about that.
Actually, I'll admit that I screwed up. I think I've got the CR of the elves about right, but I set you up against far too many of them. Worse, I compounded the situation by putting you in terrain that definately didn't suit you.
So, sorry about that.
Declaring Things Clearly
A related matter, attached to the issue of players keeping accurate track of their PCs, is the issue of clearly declaring your actions.
Now, this isn't a rant at Roger. I've had trouble in the past in keeping track of whether his Mage Armor is running or not, but that's because I've missed his declaration, rather than that he hasn't declared it.
It is a rant at people who want to claim the benefits of their feats, but fail to indicate which ones they're using, and against whom.
If you want to use Power Attack, you have to mention it before you make your first attack of the round, and mention how much of a penalty to attack rolls you're taking. Likewise, when using Combat Expertise, you need to declare it clearly before making your first attack. When using Dodge, you need to let the DM know who you're claiming the AC bonus against.
(Otherwise, what's to stop you from making an attack roll, discovering you've hit by 4 points, and then saying, "oh, I was using Power Attack 4, of course"? If a player were to try this, the DM should catch it, and either declare that he forgot to use Power Attack, or demand a re-roll. Either is valid. However, the DM shouldn't have to be on the lookout for cheats.)
Players should, absolutely, be encouraged to use every power and ability possessed by their character. But they shouldn't cheat to gain the best possible benefit.
Now, this isn't a rant at Roger. I've had trouble in the past in keeping track of whether his Mage Armor is running or not, but that's because I've missed his declaration, rather than that he hasn't declared it.
It is a rant at people who want to claim the benefits of their feats, but fail to indicate which ones they're using, and against whom.
If you want to use Power Attack, you have to mention it before you make your first attack of the round, and mention how much of a penalty to attack rolls you're taking. Likewise, when using Combat Expertise, you need to declare it clearly before making your first attack. When using Dodge, you need to let the DM know who you're claiming the AC bonus against.
(Otherwise, what's to stop you from making an attack roll, discovering you've hit by 4 points, and then saying, "oh, I was using Power Attack 4, of course"? If a player were to try this, the DM should catch it, and either declare that he forgot to use Power Attack, or demand a re-roll. Either is valid. However, the DM shouldn't have to be on the lookout for cheats.)
Players should, absolutely, be encouraged to use every power and ability possessed by their character. But they shouldn't cheat to gain the best possible benefit.
D&D and Rules Mastery
The thing is, the core rules in D&D 3rd Edition are actually fairly simple - roll d20, add modifiers, try to beat target number.
The bugger of it is the details. In the Player's Handbook alone there are stacks of feats and hundreds of spells, all of which do subtly different things. And you don't just need to know what they all do; you need to watch the combinations as well.
Now, in an ideal universe, the players would take a bunch of this off the shoulders of the DM. If every player can be relied upon to know everything about their character, to keep track of exactly what bonuses stack and which don't, to look up every spell before they cast it, and so forth, the DM wouldn't need to worry about such things.
However, many players just don't know the rules (and I'm not making a value judgement here - not everyone needs to be as anal as me), don't think to do these things (looking up spells or tracking ammo), or are just plain cheats (oops, I forgot to mark off those magic arrows).
This isn't restricted to rules-heavy games, either. Have you ever seen a character, in any game, ever stop to reload his shotgun? I haven't, yet these weapons typically carry the smallest number of rounds of any firearms in the game, or at least any that are used.
The bugger of it is the details. In the Player's Handbook alone there are stacks of feats and hundreds of spells, all of which do subtly different things. And you don't just need to know what they all do; you need to watch the combinations as well.
Now, in an ideal universe, the players would take a bunch of this off the shoulders of the DM. If every player can be relied upon to know everything about their character, to keep track of exactly what bonuses stack and which don't, to look up every spell before they cast it, and so forth, the DM wouldn't need to worry about such things.
However, many players just don't know the rules (and I'm not making a value judgement here - not everyone needs to be as anal as me), don't think to do these things (looking up spells or tracking ammo), or are just plain cheats (oops, I forgot to mark off those magic arrows).
This isn't restricted to rules-heavy games, either. Have you ever seen a character, in any game, ever stop to reload his shotgun? I haven't, yet these weapons typically carry the smallest number of rounds of any firearms in the game, or at least any that are used.
Party Unity
There is a definate distinction between games like Vampire: the Masquerade and games like Dungeons & Dragons, in that the former is much more fogiving of 'loose' parties where everyone wanders off much of the time to do their own thing, whereas D&D very much has the "don't split the party" mentality.
I think the key difference is that Vampire games tend to be restricted to a relatively small setting. Generally, characters confine themselves to a single city, with only the occasional journey elsewhere. Even within the city, there will be a fairly small number of locations that get reused over and over, plus quite afew 'throwaway' locations, that tend to be fairly generic in nature. So, the GM has relatively little preparation work to do, as far as locations are concerned. Additionally, modern communications mean that PCs are rarely out of contact with one another.
By contrast, D&D (and Exalted, and other similar games) feature fairly large settings, with characters able to travel where they will. Moreover, when characters seperate, they are genuinely out of contact for the majority of the time. This means that a party that splits for a long time will, effectively, be part of two completely distinct campaigns, at least until they re-unite.
Neither style is inherently better than the other, except that 'loose' parties work well wth a small number of players, while they don't work at all with large groups. You can't for instance, run the 'classic' Vampire chronicle with more than about 4 players, whereas D&D is fine with as many as 6.
As regards the particular situation in question, when introducing a new character to an ongoing game, you have to build one that fits the current play style. So, if the game has a 'tight' party, you need to bring in a character with some motivation to join the group. If the game has a 'loose' party structure, you need to have some idea of where he's going to fit in to the ongoing plots.
I think the key difference is that Vampire games tend to be restricted to a relatively small setting. Generally, characters confine themselves to a single city, with only the occasional journey elsewhere. Even within the city, there will be a fairly small number of locations that get reused over and over, plus quite afew 'throwaway' locations, that tend to be fairly generic in nature. So, the GM has relatively little preparation work to do, as far as locations are concerned. Additionally, modern communications mean that PCs are rarely out of contact with one another.
By contrast, D&D (and Exalted, and other similar games) feature fairly large settings, with characters able to travel where they will. Moreover, when characters seperate, they are genuinely out of contact for the majority of the time. This means that a party that splits for a long time will, effectively, be part of two completely distinct campaigns, at least until they re-unite.
Neither style is inherently better than the other, except that 'loose' parties work well wth a small number of players, while they don't work at all with large groups. You can't for instance, run the 'classic' Vampire chronicle with more than about 4 players, whereas D&D is fine with as many as 6.
As regards the particular situation in question, when introducing a new character to an ongoing game, you have to build one that fits the current play style. So, if the game has a 'tight' party, you need to bring in a character with some motivation to join the group. If the game has a 'loose' party structure, you need to have some idea of where he's going to fit in to the ongoing plots.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)