A random thought: would there really be any great harm in allowing sorcerers to choose spells from the Cleric spell-list, in addition to the Wizard one? With the caveat that a spell on both lists uses the Wizard spell level, of course.
As I see it, sorcerers get such a crappy number of spells as it is, adding to this list isn't really a great boon. (Oh, there is one benefit to it, I guess - they would then be able to use Cleric scrolls and wands - is that a problem?)
Thoughts?
Sunday, 30 May 2004
Prestige Classes in Use
On Saturday, I commented about the new campaign world I'm working on, with a view to running a game there in a while (Tollis hasn't worked out quite as I'd expected, probably due to lack of proper preparation on my part). Amongst the things I said was a return to one of my old, familiar themes - "no prestige classes".
Before you roll your eyes, think "oh no, not again", and tune out, this isn't just another rant about how prestige classes suck, why they're a blight on the game, and why no-one should ever, ever touch them. Instead, here are my thoughts on how the game went using prestige classes, and the reason why I wouldn't allow them again.
1) Although only one character so far has actually entered a prestige class, they've had a significant impact on the game. Many characters have been built aiming towards a particular class, and there has been an assumption that other characters should inevitably aim towards a prestige class at some point.
Now, the first of these I don't mind much. There's a danger that characters will be built that way because the player wants to play "A Cavalier", rather than "Marcus Antonius Marius, second son of Marcus Antonius Anius, a noble of the empire, dedicated to the protection of his twin, the paladin, and member of the Order of the Sickle". Still, that danger exists in any class-based game, and most non-class based games as well, so it's not a problem inherent to prestige classes.
The second assumption is a bad thing. Taking a prestige class or not doing so should be a choice, and should not be a choice where one option screws your character. This is, on one level, a balance thing, where it's important that prestige classes not be more powerful than base classes. On another, it's a problem where players get bored with "one more level of Fighter". I don't really know what to do about that.
2) Prestige classes are murder on my back. Not really, of course, but many weeks I've been asked if I have "book X" with me, because a given player wants to use a particular prestige class from it. My RPG books are spread across every available space back home. My d20 books take up several shelves. I cannot physically carry them all, or frankly very many, so unless I'm asked to bring a specific book with me, I won't have it.
And that's the reason that there won't be prestige classes in any future campaigns I run. Unless I'm hosting the game, which seems an unlikely possibility at this time.
3) Prestige Classes do close one of the holes in the system, specifically the multiclass spellcaster bit. At first glance, the Mystic Theurge seems massively overpowered, but in actual play it's about right. It's just really dull. And, it is a valid fix for that part of the system - it's just a crappy fix. Alas, that problem only seems to have crappy fixes.
4) Too many prestige classes are dull. I like most of the Star Wars prestige classes, as they're built specifically for the setting. I like the elven Bladesinger class, since it means something (although it's far from perfect), and I like most of the classes in Oriental Adventures. I pretty much hate all of the prestige classes in Sword & Fist, Tome & Blood, and all the rest. Too many of them are too generic (by design).
Fixing this, of course, is a matter of changing the background of the classes to fit the current setting well. But that's too much work for me - especially if I'm concerned with having a reasonable number of classes, and a reasonable number for each base class to aspire to.
5) There are some fantastic prestige classes. Dragon generally publishes a couple a month, and often they're quite tasty. This is, of course, because Dragon can afford to be a bit adventurous with their classes, in a way that the class books can't afford to be - if one month's classes suck, it's really no big deal. If the classes in "Complete Warrior" suck, Wizards is in the shit.
Conclusion
Look for prestige classes if I ever run another Star Wars d20 game, or Forgotten Realms, or Oriental Adventures. But they won't be appearing in my homebrew worlds for the foreseeable future.
Before you roll your eyes, think "oh no, not again", and tune out, this isn't just another rant about how prestige classes suck, why they're a blight on the game, and why no-one should ever, ever touch them. Instead, here are my thoughts on how the game went using prestige classes, and the reason why I wouldn't allow them again.
1) Although only one character so far has actually entered a prestige class, they've had a significant impact on the game. Many characters have been built aiming towards a particular class, and there has been an assumption that other characters should inevitably aim towards a prestige class at some point.
Now, the first of these I don't mind much. There's a danger that characters will be built that way because the player wants to play "A Cavalier", rather than "Marcus Antonius Marius, second son of Marcus Antonius Anius, a noble of the empire, dedicated to the protection of his twin, the paladin, and member of the Order of the Sickle". Still, that danger exists in any class-based game, and most non-class based games as well, so it's not a problem inherent to prestige classes.
The second assumption is a bad thing. Taking a prestige class or not doing so should be a choice, and should not be a choice where one option screws your character. This is, on one level, a balance thing, where it's important that prestige classes not be more powerful than base classes. On another, it's a problem where players get bored with "one more level of Fighter". I don't really know what to do about that.
2) Prestige classes are murder on my back. Not really, of course, but many weeks I've been asked if I have "book X" with me, because a given player wants to use a particular prestige class from it. My RPG books are spread across every available space back home. My d20 books take up several shelves. I cannot physically carry them all, or frankly very many, so unless I'm asked to bring a specific book with me, I won't have it.
And that's the reason that there won't be prestige classes in any future campaigns I run. Unless I'm hosting the game, which seems an unlikely possibility at this time.
3) Prestige Classes do close one of the holes in the system, specifically the multiclass spellcaster bit. At first glance, the Mystic Theurge seems massively overpowered, but in actual play it's about right. It's just really dull. And, it is a valid fix for that part of the system - it's just a crappy fix. Alas, that problem only seems to have crappy fixes.
4) Too many prestige classes are dull. I like most of the Star Wars prestige classes, as they're built specifically for the setting. I like the elven Bladesinger class, since it means something (although it's far from perfect), and I like most of the classes in Oriental Adventures. I pretty much hate all of the prestige classes in Sword & Fist, Tome & Blood, and all the rest. Too many of them are too generic (by design).
Fixing this, of course, is a matter of changing the background of the classes to fit the current setting well. But that's too much work for me - especially if I'm concerned with having a reasonable number of classes, and a reasonable number for each base class to aspire to.
5) There are some fantastic prestige classes. Dragon generally publishes a couple a month, and often they're quite tasty. This is, of course, because Dragon can afford to be a bit adventurous with their classes, in a way that the class books can't afford to be - if one month's classes suck, it's really no big deal. If the classes in "Complete Warrior" suck, Wizards is in the shit.
Conclusion
Look for prestige classes if I ever run another Star Wars d20 game, or Forgotten Realms, or Oriental Adventures. But they won't be appearing in my homebrew worlds for the foreseeable future.
Monday, 26 April 2004
Exalted Goodness.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)