Skill Challenges

Possibly the biggest new mechanic introduced in 4e was the Skill Challenge, which was essentially an extended skill check. The idea was that the party was presented with a challenge (build a temple, climb a mountain, persuade the duke to help...) and they had to use their skills to do so. There were two key features of skill challenges that were maybe not obvious: firstly, they had to accumulate a number of successes before scoring a number of failures (normally 6 before 3, or 4 before 3, or something before 3...); and secondly that every PC had to at least try to contribute - if the brutish barbarian just hid at the back and didn't contribute to the diplomatic scene, that would count as an auto-fail.

Conceptually, I loved Skill Challenges. I thought they were absolutely great, and proceeded to make use of them in several different campaigns - SWSE, D&D 3.5e, even Serenity.

And in actual use, Skill Challenges fell flat. They were a complete and utter failure.

There were four key issues that seemed to cause problems, the first two of which I should really have forseen:

1. Characters who had an obvious skill they could contribute would do so. And then they'd use the same skill, again and again. Which got really dull, really quickly.
2. Characters who didn't have an obvious skill they could contribute would cast about helplessly, looking for something they could do that would at least negate that "auto-fail" thing.
3. Establishing the structure of the Skill Challenge was easy, but establishing the structure of the scene, and especially the changes in the scene as the challenge went on, was still just as difficult as before. Indeed...
4. Imposing the artificial game construct of the Skill Challenge on very disparate scenes (construction, mountaineering, diplomacy) tended to make the game very homogenous. Rather than scenes coming to a natural conclusion, possibly as the PCs work across several rounds* of rolling, the scene often became just a mechanical matter of throwing the dice and moving on.

* That's "round" as in "once round the table", not "round" as in "6 seconds".

I don't really have a good solution to this. In fact, I'd go further and say that I don't think there exists a good solution to this. Instead, I'm inclined to think that the Skill Challenge mechanics are a noble effort, but that they're trying to impose one solution on too many problems. Instead, I'm inclined to think that the Skill Challenge mechanics should be gutted with a knife, cut into little pieces, and then stitched back together to provide the solution to whichever particular problem the DM is dealing with at the time.

For example, for the "Repairing the Ship" Skill Challenge (spoiler!) each watch will represent 4 hours of work. There will be several roles: motivating the crew, mucking in with the work, security, using diplomacy to have the locals provide supplies, and whatever else I come up with. With each round, each PC will be able to perform one of these roles (actually, they'll be assumed to be working on any and all appropriate ones, but one will be dominant), make the appropriate roll, and then some sort of Magnitude check. For each 4 hour watch, the crew (and PCs) will suffer some sort of environmental consequence, and also run the risk of a random encounter.

What I'll need to do is to determine what amounts of progress represent which repairs (there's the elemental ring, the hull, the lightning projector, and the ballistae... plus any improvements Mondo decides to make). That done, the players will then get to decide how much work represents 'enough', at which point they can abandon the work and continue on their way.

I'll get back to you on how that works out...

Fighting Styles

Ignoring unarmed combat for the moment, there are broadly speaking four possible fighting styles a character can adopt in melee, depending on what he has in his 'off' hand:

• Single-weapon style - the character has an empty hand.
• Sword-and-shield style - the character has a one-handed weapon and a shield.
• Two-handed weapon style - the character is using a single two-handed weapon.
• Two-weapon style - the character has a weapon in each hand

Now, of these four, the first is clearly inferior. The only thing it really has to offer is versatility, in that the character can use his off hand for, well, whatever comes up. But other than a potential (minor) defensive boost gained by turning flank-on to his opponents, there's not a lot to recommend that style.

Which is fine, IMO.

However, ideally, the other three styles should ideally be roughly balanced. (Though it's worth noting - if a character invests feats/powers/whatever in a given style, then it's fair for that style to be strictly better than the alternatives.)

Now, it's pretty obvious what sword-and-shield style offers - the character gains defensive bonuses as a result of carrying that shield. And the game reflects that neatly, as the character has a higher AC and can use the "Shields Shall be Splintered" rule.

Likewise, it's pretty obvious what two-handed weapon style offers - the character gains offensive bonuses as a result of using heavy weapons. And the game also reflects that, in the higher damage offered by two-handed weapons (1d8 for a longsword vs 1d12 for a greatsword).

But two-weapon style...

My current thinking is that the benefit of two-weapon style is versatility - the player can choose whether to use those two weapons defensively or offensively, potentially switching each round on his turn. And, of course, neither approach should be quite as good as the corresponding "pure" style. So, when used defensively, the character gains a single attack at a -2 penalty, but gains a +1 bonus to AC.

Conversely, when fighting offensively, the character gets two attempts to land a single blow. That is, the character makes two attacks (at his better attack bonus, with a -2 penalty). If either or both of these rolls indicates a hit, then the character has landed a blow. At this point, he can choose which weapon actually hit, and roll damage accordingly. (But it's important to note that this is not the same as having advantage on every attack - I expect Sneak Attack to trigger on advantage, and don't want TWF to become a no-brainer choice for every Rogue!)

Of course, it's entirely likely that the game will also have a bunch of talents that apply to the different styles, or apply to the styles differently. But that's for another day...

Masterwork and Magic Items

One of the great advantages of codifying up the benefits and drawbacks of weapons is that it opens up a possibility that wasn't previously present: instead of a masterwork item giving a flat +1 bonus to hit, why not have it either give the weapon one additional benefit or remove one of the drawbacks? For example, perhaps a masterwork light crossbow could be crafted so it doesn't require a move action to reload? Or a masterwork throwing dagger could be balanced to fly further?

At the moment, that's not moved beyond the 'noodling' stage, as I'm a bit concerned that it might be more hassle than it's worth - a flat 1-step improvement in damage may be the best option for all weapons.

However, one thing that I am quite certain of - the bonuses that a character applies to his attack rolls, skill checks, and defences (and anything else I've forgotten) should come from the character and not from his equipment (armour being the one and only exception).

This means, in particular, that the long sword +1 may exist, but if so it will give a bonus to damage only, and not on attack rolls. (Even there, my inclination is for such a weapon to grant a step increase in damage, or add extra damage dice, rather than give a flat bonus.)

(The reason for this is to do with bonus escalation - it's much easier to rebalance for a weapon that does extra damage, even lots of extra damage, rather than one that hits more often. In the latter case, you quickly reach a point where characters must have such items or they can't tackle 'appropriate' monsters. And that's no fun for anyone, no matter how you slice it.)

I'm also inclined to think that the 3e DMG missed out two crucial rules, that would have made the game much more interesting:

1. Magic weapons with special properties must balance the property with the raw plus, when initially created. If desired, the plus can then be increased.
2. Magic weapons can only ever have one special property. In some cases, it's possible to upgrade from one property to a related, better version, but otherwise the weapon remains as it was when first created.

This would, of course, eliminate that dreaded +1 flaming holy longsword, bane vs evil outsiders that I've mentioned before, since it has three distinct properties. It would also constrain the upgrade path - in order to create a holy sword, you would first need to make a sword +1, then a sword +2, then a holy sword +2, and then you could apply further upgrades to the plus as desired.

The Nutshell equivalent of this would be to have various weapon qualities: Damaging (the 'raw plus'), Flaming, Frost, Keen, etc. Weapons could then have up to two of these - Damaging plus one other, and would be required to keep the two in balance as far as possible.

But to a large extent, that's still very much up in the air. Magic items are tied very tightly to Artifice (and the related Signature Items), which is an area I've thought about but not yet had any good ideas about.

Death to Magic Missile!

The Wizard is supposed to be a master of arcane and eldritch energies, the weilder of the mysteries of the unknown.

When he casts magic missile, he basically zaps his opponents. It may be an iconic spell, it certainly is a useful spell. But it really, really sucks!

And as for giving 4e Wizards an at-will magic missile...

Firstly, it's hugely unbalanced against the crossbow - now the Wizard has an at-will power that does comparable or greater damage, never runs out of ammo, and always hits? Yeah, that's a good idea! Secondly, it takes the incredible dullness of the 'regular' magic missile and turns it way, way up.

(And yeah, I had great fun with Malewrath's magic missile. But I daresay the rest of the party weren't too pleased when I stole all the kills. And Malewrath was a totally broken character, as well - both because I luckily chose all the best powers, and because I hit a lucky streak on the dice. Inconceivable, I know, but it actually happened.)

Of course, having rejected magic missile, I now have to come up with a better solution...

About Armour

Just as with weapons, D&D has a long tradition of having lovingly-detailed armour lists, and an equally long tradition of players ignoring almost all of these options in favour of a handful of "best" options. And, as with weapons, that's rather pointless - if there are a sixteen options and nobody uses more than about 4, then those other 12 are just taking up space, space that can be better used for something else.

So, what to do about armour?

Benefits and Drawbacks

The obvious thing to do would be to generate a base set of stats for each of the three levels of armour, and then create some benefits and drawbacks for different armours within those categories.

However, in my experience, players consider one (maybe two) things when selecting armour: what AC does this armour give? Any and all other considerations are irrelevant next to how well the armour will protect them from getting hit.

(The other consideration applies to specific characters. Players of rogues will seek out the best armour that doesn't impact their skills - masterwork studded leather or mithral shirts. Bards, in 3.5e, will seek out the best armour that allows them to cast their spells without risk of failure - coincidentally, that same mithral shirt. And so on. Basically, characters will seek armour that does not impact on their other abilities. But, having restricted their choices accordingly, they'll then go for the best total AC, and only the best total AC, that results.)

So, I'm inclined not to bother with benefits and drawbacks for armour. I'm inclined to think they're more hassle that they're worth.

(Now, that said, if there were benefits and drawbacks that did something other than affect AC or skill penalties...)

AC, Dex bonus, and DR

Prior to 3e, D&D armours always granted the character the full use of his Dex bonus to AC. If you were wearing full plate, it was assumed that your greater Dex resulted in you angling the plates to best deflect incoming blows. With 3e of course, limits were placed on how much of a Dex bonus could be applied to AC when wearing each armour. 4e then simplified this - Light armour granted Dex (or Int!) bonus, while Heavy armour did not. (And 5e is marginally more complex again...)

Meanwhile, other games, and optional rules in 3e, allowed for the possibility that armour would not make the character harder to hit but instead would reduce the damage - either with a damage save (the warhammer wargames), damage reduction (WFRP, Star Wars d20 1st Ed), or by adding soak dice (Vampire).

Now, in principle, armour providing damage reduction is indeed the correct solution. In fact, it's likely that armour should actually make the character both harder to hit and reduce the damage taken - full plate armour likely negates a lot of blows entirely, and probably makes a lot of others much less bad.

In practice, Armour as DR sucks. As implemented in 3e (in Unearthed Arcana) it is almost entirely worthless, as characters are now much easier to hit, Fighters use two-handed weapons and maximum Power Attack, and the extra damage just effortlessly burns through any protection from the armour.

Or there's the counter case, where a creature is still hard to hit, you finally manage to land a blow... only to see the DR negate all (or almost all) the damage. Which really sucks.

Finally, allowing Armour as DR then opens up the possibility of armour piercing weapons, which adds a new level of complexity to the game - you roll to hit, you roll damage, you then subtract AP from DR, and then subtract DR from damage...

The bottom line: Armour as DR is, in principle, the right solution... but Armour as AC is the simpler one.

I've also tentatively decided against applying Dex bonuses to AC, except for characters with the "Unarmoured Fighting" feat (which wasn't listed in my previous post on feats :) ). The major reason for this is that I want all a character's defences to be roughly on a par. If Reflex equals half level + class bonus + Dex bonus, and AC equals half level + armour bonus + Dex bonus, then the armour bonuses need to be trivially small, to the point where they're just not worth bothering with.

Proficient and Non-proficient Use

Back when I talked about feats, Captain Ric raised the very valid question of whether it was really right that non-proficient characters get no benefit from wearing armour. Which is fair enough. Coupled with my adjusted thinking on AC, I'm inclined to give all armours a nominal bonus, with higher bonuses for proficient use. To whit:
Light: Proficient +3, Non-proficient +1
Medium: Proficient +5, Non-proficient +2
Heavy: Proficient +7, Non-proficient +3
Light Shield: Proficient +1, Non-proficient +0
Heavy Shield: Proficient +2, Non-proficient +1

Shields Shall Be Splintered

A proficient character carrying a shield, who is subject to a physical attack and who is not surprised, may choose to use his shield to negate the attack. This may be done at any time - before the attack roll, after the attack roll but before the damage roll, or even after the damage roll.

If the character chooses to negate an attack in this manner, his shield is destroyed and can no longer be used.

A character who carries several shields, or who has another character carry them for him, may not use the "Shields Shall Be Splintered" rule. The gods delight in heroes, and so are willing to spare your life in this manner, but if tested they will tire of your presumption and strike you down!

So, then, the armours...

In each grade, there will be four armours, one of each of four types (Leather, Chain, Plate, Composite). In each case, the armours will have exactly the same stats - they give the same AC bonuses, the same Armour Check Penalties, have the same encumbrance. Additionally, with the exception of the composite armours, they'll cost the same. (Composite armours will cost slightly less.)

The key differentiator between the armour types comes when they are made magical - each of the types accept different magical enhancements, so you can get Fortified Plate armours, but not Fortified Chain armours, and so on. Composite armour cannot be made magical (or masterwork, for that matter).

Speaking of masterwork armours, I'm inclined to stick with the 3e model - masterwork armour reduces the ACP by one step, to a minimum of 0. One key difference with 3e, though: armour need not be masterwork before it can be made magical.

The Adventurer's Kit

With 4e, D&D introduced a standard "Adventurer's Kit" for PCs - a backpack, bedroll, flint & steel, belt pouch, two sunrods*, ten days of trail rations, 50 ft hemp rope, and a waterskin. Of course, that's not a terribly new idea - back when I was with my old group, it was standard for the players to simply write "the usual shite" on their character sheet, to denote that they were carrying... well, more or less this same stuff.

* And these are pretty terrible, too, but that's another rant.

And it's fine as far as it goes, but this also marks one of my key issues with the way equipment is handled in the modern iterations of the game.

Specifically, it should matter what equipment, specifically, the characters are carrying. And if it doesn't matter, and it's not going to matter, then the matter should just be ignored - don't even bother with an "Adventurer's Kit" or "the usual shite" - if they need it, they have it.

I think that what has happened, broadly speaking, is that a lot of people started the game with the old-school dungeon crawl as their guide, and started with the notion that they needed this stuff - yes, you might need chalk, or iron spikes, or... And so, when creating their character, they make sure to equip all that stuff. (And with the encumbrance rules becoming ever-more generous, why not?)

Meanwhile, the game has moved forward from that place. I would like to say it's progress, but I'm really not sure that the math-fest of 3e or the chain-of-combats that is 4e really qualifies. Anyway, over time the game has gradually dropped any situation where chalk or iron spikes might prove useful - and anyway, groups have grown used to just assuming all that stuff.

The net effect was that players spend a lot of time in character creation poring over a long list of equipment for their character's adventures, make sure to lovingly detail his equipment list... and then never look at it again.

Now, there are two ways that we can go with this. The first is to take the view that this is an adventure game, that the characters are Big Damn Heroes on epic quests to defeat legendary bad guys, and they just don't have time to worry about the minutae of whether they have chalk. (I mean, chalk! The very thought!) That's largely the direction that 4e has taken.

The other option is to make equipment matter. Now, this is actually an adventure-design issue. Dungeons need to be designed with challenges other than pure combat - adventures need to include mazes (hence the need for chalk, to mark where you've been), sheer drops that need to be traversed (rope), doors and pits that need to be wedged open or closed (iron spikes), and so on. And, since the key goal is actually to provoke "interesting choices", the encumbrance rules (yes, again) need to be made much tighter - if the PCs can just carry anything and everything they need, and they can afford to buy anything and everything they need (which, by the second adventure, they can), then there's no point - just handwave everything.

Now, I'm not actually sure whether it would improve the game to come back to a more old school aesthetic in this manner (and, actually, go even further than the old school). But I certainly don't find the current no man's land terribly satisfying.

About Weapons

D&D has a long history of having long, lovingly-detailed lists of weapons. It has an equally long history of players proceeding to ignore 90% of these weapons in favour of a handful of old standbys - which tend to be the best weapons in any case.

Naturally, that's rather a waste of time and energy for all concerned.

With 3e, the designers went to some considerable time and trouble to develop and use a complex set of formulae to determine weapon capabilities. Unfortunately, they appear not to have ever written these down - even as early as the very first 3e supplement, WotC introduced a bunch of new weapons that were clearly superior to the rest. (And, actually, even in the PHB there were some 'errors' - the dagger, for example, is actually more powerful than it should be.)

3e also had the problem of introducing the Exotic weapons, which caused a great deal of controversy - things like the Spiked Chain and Double-bladed Sword fell foul of purists who noted that such weapons were clearly absurd. (Although, that said, see "Kill Bill" for an example of the spiked chain in use. WotC's picture is absurd, but the weapon isn't entirely stupid.)

For Nutshell, a lot of the complexity associated with 3e weapons automatically ceases to apply. Given that critical hits only occur on a nat-20, one means of differentiating weapons is removed. Likewise, weapon damage types no longer exist. And since ranged weapons now always add the character's Dex mod, one of the key differences between the crossbow and the sling no longer applies.

And so, Nutshell will have relatively few weapons with relatively similar statistics - the difference between a swordsman and an axeman will lie in the other powers they choose to take. (That said, it is also my intent to limit certain magic item properties to specific weapon groups, so it won't be an entirely meaningless choice.)

Simple, Martial, and Custom Weapons

Simple weapons will be those which are simple in both construction and use. This category will include most converted farm implements, primitive weaponry, improvised weapons, and shield bashes. All characters can use simple weapons without penalty; conversely, you cannot apply the Weapon Focus or Specialisation feats to simple weapons, nor can they be enchanted as magic weapons. Simple weapons are also marked out by the fact that they cause damage, and nothing else - the various special effects available to other weapon types generally don't apply to simple weapons.

Martial weapons are, of course, those constructed specifically for war. Swords, spears, axes, maces and flails, lances, bows, and the multitude of polearms are all martial weapons. Basically, if you think of it as a weapon, then it's probably martial. Weapon Proficiency, Focus, and Specialisation all apply to martial weapons, martial weapons can be enchanted to become magical weapons, and martial weapons may include all manner of special effects in addition to pure damage.

Custom weapons are those that are constructed for use by a specific character, or those weird and wonderful martial arts weapons used by dedicated practitioners. Custom weapons require their own category of Proficiency, Focus, and Specialisation, and are typically constructed to make use of several of the special effects available to weapon users. Magical custom weapons are seldom found, and so the user of such a weapon should consider taking some of the Signature Item talents to enhance his chosen weapon or weapons.

(Note: Custom weapons represent an evolution in my thinking on weapon types. For now, think of them as replacing Exotic weapons in the game. However, the key feature of custom weapons over exotic weapons is that typically the player will define his own custom weapon, rather than choosing one from a list.)

Weapon Base Damage

Weapons cause base damage based on their size, as follows:
Light: 1d4
Medium: 1d6
Heavy: 1d8

Weapons are then adjusted by selecting weapon traits, which can either be benefits or drawbacks. A weapon with a drawback can have an additional benefit. Simple weapons gain no free benefits (and can select from only a very small list), Martial weapons gain 2 free benefits, and Custom weapons gain 4 free benefits.

Traits that can be applied to Simple weapons are marked "Simple" below. Traits that can only be applied to Custom weapons are marked "Custom" below.

The weapon traits are as follows:

Limited Ammo (Drawback): Weapons of this type require custom-built ammunition (arrows, bolts, etc) that can be purchased in any town (or indeed constructed by the character), but which cannot be easily scavenged. Once used, the ammunition is expended. If the character runs out of ammo, the weapon becomes useless.

Slow Reload (Drawback): Once fired, this weapon must be reloaded before it can be used again. This drawback can be applied up to three times: once for a Move action to reload, once for a Standard action to reload, and once for two Standard actions to reload.

Reduced Damage (Drawback): This weapon applies a 1-step penalty to damage rolls. It can be applied any number of times, reducing the damage to a minimum of 1d3.

Ranged (Benefit, Simple): This weapon can be used at range. This benefit can be applied up to twice: once for short-range use (a 10ft range increment, up to 5 increments), and once for long-range use (a 30ft range increment, up to 10 increments).

Hybrid (Benefit, Simple): This weapon can be used both as a melee weapon and as a thrown weapon. Weapons with this benefit must also have the ranged benefit.

Finesse (Special): Weapons with this trait may be used with the Weapon Finesse feat. This trait is neither a benefit nor a hindrance; it is freely applied to some weapons. Medium characters consider all Light weapons to have the Finesse trait. Additionally, specific Martial and Custom Medium weapons and Custom Heavy weapons may have the trait applied. For Small characters, no weapons are automatically considered Finesse weapons; however, specific Martial and Custom Light and Custom Medium weapons may have the trait applied. Applying the Finesse trait to a weapon reduces the maximum number of "Increased Damage" traits allowed by one, to a maximum of zero.

Increased Damage (Benefit): Weapons with this trait increase their damage by one step. This trait may be applied once to Martial weapons and once or twice to Custom weapons.

Tripping (Benefit): This weapon has a flexible haft, a hooked end, or is otherwise constructed for tripping. This weapon grants advantage on trip attempts.

Disarming (Benefit): On a critical hit, the weilder of this weapon can choose to forgo the additional damage and instead disarm his opponent. He may then choose whether to catch the weapon in a free hand, or send it 20ft in a random direction - see the scatter chart.

Basket Hilt (Benefit): This weapons has a basket hilt, a wrist strap, or is otherwise constructed to avoid being disarmed. This weapon imposes disadvantage on attempts to disarm the character.

Paired (Benefit): This weapon is designed for use when two-weapon fighting. When used in concert with another paired weapon, and by a character with the Two-weapon Fighting talent, attacks with this weapon do not suffer the standard penalties for two-weapon fighting.

Improved Critical (Benefit): On a critical hit, this weapon adds one die to the damage caused.

So... some example weapons

Here are just a few weapons in the game...

Knife: This represents a kitchen knife or butcher's cleaver. It is not balanced for throwing. It's a Light Simple Weapon, which does 1d4 damage.

Rock: This is a heavy stone, weighted for throwing. It is too small to use effectively in melee combat. It's a Light Simple Weapon with the Reduced Damage and Ranged (1) traits - it therefore does 1d3 damage, has a range increment of 10ft, and can be thrown up to 5 increments.

Rapier: This is a thin stabbing sword, fitted with a basket hilt, and weighted for two-weapon fighting. It is a Medium Martial Weapon with the Finesse, Paired, and Basket Hilt traits. It therefore does 1d6 damage, allows the use of the Weapon Finesse feat, imposes disadvantage on disarm attempts, and does not apply penalties to two-weapon fighting when used by a trained character along with another paired weapon.

Dagger: This is a thin blade weighted for combat. It is a Light Martial Weapon with the Hybrid and Ranged (1) traits - it therefore does 1d4 damage, has a range increment of 10 ft, and can be thrown up to 5 increments.

Sling: This is a leather strap for projecting stones over distance. Because appropriate stones are easy to scavenge, this weapon does not apply the Limited Ammo trait. Instead, it has the Ranged (2) trait, the Reduced Damage trait, and the Slow Reload (1) trait - it therefore does 1d3 damage, requires a Move action to reload, has a range increment of 50 ft, and can fire up to 10 range increments.

Spiked Chain: See "Kill Bill". Seriously. This is a Heavy Custom Weapon with the Increased Damage (1), Tripping, Disarming, Finesse, and Basket Hilt traits. As such, it does 1d12 damage, grants advantage on trip attempts, allows the weilder to disarm on a critical hit, and imposes disadvantage on attempts to disarm the weilder.