Holiday Meta-Meta-Gaming

My apologies for not updating last week. Now that the trials of family holiday celebrations are at an end, I'm back at the grindstone, working away!

As a DM, I often recoil a bit from the term "meta-gaming." As a player, I find it less offensive despite my DM attempting to use operant conditioning to train us not to partake. But the prefix "meta-"is derived from Latin, and actually means "after, beyond, with, adjacent, self." When we have a discussion with another player about an over-powered feat, item, or combination, that is meta-gaming. When the DM puts his foot down and invokes Rule #1, that is meta-gaming. Ultimately, meta-gaming is unavoidable; and due to the nature of the game it is not even desirable to cut it out completely. But as with many things, each group must find the balance which works best for them.

There are several ways that meta-gaming can become troublesome. When one of these occurs, it can make a DM's life more difficult. The Dungeon Master's Guide already talks about how to tackle these problems as a DM, but ultimately the game relies on the participation of all for best results. Today, let's discuss when meta-gaming goes bad, and how to tackle it as a player at the table.

The first case where meta-gaming becomes problematic is when players damage the verisimilitude of the system in order to achieve optimal results. When a player rolls a Perception check to look for traps and gets a 1, the temptation is to say "Hey, meat-shield, come over here and step on this tile/open this door/open this chest!" This shatters the shared construct of imagination that the other players and DM have been creating up to that point in the game.

The second is when a player uses broad, system knowledge to motivate their actions: "Oops, that green lumpy monster is a troll, obviously, alright everyone, use fire attacks!" This use of meta-gaming also damages the verisimilitude, and additionally, makes balancing fights harder for the DM. If the DM balances the fight predicated on difficulty with a new, unknown (to the characters) monster, a player using their own extensive knowledge of the system can vastly skew that balance, and what was intended to be a significant, tense, challenging encounter can become a tedious, underpowered distraction.

The third is when a player uses system knowledge to attempt to strong-arm the DM. The rules are in place to keep the game fair, and certainly should only be broken on the rarest of occasions. However when a DM modifies the rules, or flat-out breaks them, for dramatic effect or to keep things interesting, it can be detrimental to have a player calling out what rules were violated and why the events or actions described by the DM couldn't have happened.

While it is often the DM's job to adjudicate disputes and rule on grey areas of the game, when the DM is one of the disputant parties, it can often seem like bullying or "cheating" when they try to resolve such a dispute. In addition to struggling with impartiality, the DM might overlook how the situation appears from the perspective of the players. For these reasons, it is important for players to have a few tricks up their sleeves to help out in these critical moments.

When a player is gaming the system, as in our first example, it can help not to play along. The "meat-shield" should refuse to set off the trap. Especially if they are not the person who usually opens a chest or door, or who walks down the hallway in the front position. If you aren't the player who can directly refuse, suggest that the player who is swerving into meta-game territory describe an in-game reason for the request. While it can damage the verisimilitude to simply call out for someone else to open the chest on a 1, it can reinforce it if the player who was searching changes the process to exclaiming, in-character, "I've got a bad feeling about this chest here, no trap? Not sure I buy it. Jarvis, try popping this open with that sword of yours; I'd rather not have my face right in it if I missed something!" Everyone at the table can then enjoy an additional moment of role-playing, the verisimilitude of the game remains intact, and the rogue with only two surges left does have to eat the symbol of pain trap he missed on the chest.

When a player is using their knowledge of the system to gain an advantage for their character, as in the example with the troll, a DM can often remedy this by swiftly swapping out abilities. Perhaps, with quick thinking, the troll becomes fire-resistant and only vulnerable to acid, or even cold. However, it is also possible for players to help in this situation. When a player declares "These must be trolls, hey guys, use fire and acid attacks!" you might help in two ways. If you are the "knowledge skill-monkey" in the party, ask the DM what type of skill check is required and then gently remind the player who "stole" your thunder that you would like to have the chance to use your skills when they are relevant. If you aren't the "knowledge skill-monkey" you might say something like "Garris has no way of knowing that, having never seen a troll before. He raises his ax and charges forward, shouting his battle cry!" Often, setting an example of how you would like to play is more effective than chastising another player, which can set up disagreements and tensions that will hurt the group and the game.

Finally, when a DM is called out for fudging or breaking the rules, it can be helpful for a player to perform two functions for the group. The first is to act as the "voice of reason." If the rule amendment or breakage seems to be onerous or unfair, rather than challenging it by declaring it "against the rules," try to explain why you think it would be harmful to the game. The DM probably thinks that the change is necessary, but may have overlooked some repercussions that you could bring to light. This type of meta-gaming can be quite helpful, and can often prevent hurt feelings and antagonism between the people at the table. The second role for the player in this critical situation is, if the changes seem reasonable, to remind the "rule-lawyer" that the DM has the prerogative to adjust the rules slightly if need be. Sometimes, simply voicing support of the changes can bring the opposition around. Other times, you might need to explain why you think the rule change would be good for you, the players, not just the DM. Suggest that you record the change in some form as a "house rule" for perpetuity. This can also ease the concerns of a gamer who feels strongly about the sanctity of the rules.

In these ways, players can help ease some of the tensions at the table caused by misplaced meta-gaming. Many times, meta-gaming is also the answer to the problem. When players rely solely upon the DM to keep the game running smoothly, they are bound to be disappointed. RPGs are a team game, and it takes the whole team to keep things moving on the right track. A little balance, the right people at the table, and everyone chipping in can make all the difference!

Happy Holidays, and may the New Year bring many 20s!

Paladin: In Defense of the Archetype

Last week we examined classes in 4th Edition that seem to have drawn the short stick. The last unfinished thread of that post was what to do with the Paladin. With two primary ability scores to choose between, and compromise leading to decreased effectiveness is several areas, the class felt like it needed some attention. With the options presented in Divine Power, I felt that both a Strength-based Paladin and a Charisma-based Paladin had been given sufficient power options to be fully viable. Ultimately, however, this comforted me only a little. While melee Rangers stiffing their Dexterity in favor of Strength and Wisdom struck me as a bit uncomfortable, it wasn't completely unheard of in previous editions. Yet, as I pondered the Charismatic Paladin with access to the Melee Training: Charisma feat using Strength as a "dump stat," I felt my ire rising.

I should probably admit that I've always been a bit of a sucker for Paladins. All the way back in AD&D (1st Edition), I remember sitting around rolling set after set of ability scores (3d6, assigned in order) until I managed to meet the 17 Charisma requirement so I could play a Paladin. In retrospect, my DM being "kind" enough to allow me to roll so many attribute sets was probably merely a sadistic amusement in watching the young player scrapping set after set of decent ability scores in pursuit of the most arbitrary of classes in the game. (For those who don't remember, if your DM determined that an action you took was chaotic, or evil, you lost all your paladin powers and had to find a higher level cleric of at least 7th level, confess the sins, then fulfill any penance assigned by said cleric.) Let's just say that Galin the Paladin had a brutally short, highly unsatisfying career....

And while reminiscing about those days has reminded me that since the earliest days of D&D, the paladin has valued Charisma highest, I still struggle with the notion of a valiant, charismatic warrior, clad in full plate, sword, and shield, who cannot carry s pound more, because Strength just wasn't important. So for six days I've been struggling with an alternative. Trying as I might, I just wasn't comfortable with an alternative similar to those I applied to the Warlock and Cleric (see last week's post). But what I have finally come up with may be too radical, too complicated, and ultimately too ridiculous. I suppose only play-testing and time will tell.

Here's the proposal: For Paladin attack powers, use the higher bonus between Strength and Charisma. And, if the lower ability is no more than three points lower than the higher ability, add 1 to the ability modifier. For demonstration purposes, let's say Bob the Human Paladin has chosen the array which starts him with two abilities at 16 before racial modifiers. He puts one in Strength and one in Charisma. He then applies his human ability modifier to Charisma. Now Bob has a Strength of 16 and a Charisma of 18. His modifiers are +3 and +4 respectively. So Bob would use a +4 ability modifier on his powers, instead of using +3 for Strength-related powers, and +4 for Charisma related powers. But, because Bob's Strength and Charisma are within 3 points (18-16=2) he can add 1 to that, giving him a +5 modifier. This makes Bob's ability modifier for attacks retain parity with Robbie the Rogue's, since Robbie was able to simply put an 18 in Dexterity and bump it to 20 with racial modifiers. It also retains the flavor of paladins from previous editions, where higher ability scores across several attributes were not just a good idea, but actually vital.

So perhaps not the cleanest, or even the most balanced solution, since, it starts to break down the sanctity of the ability score array system (which I'm actually a fan of, having always been one of the worst ability score rollers of all time...). In fact, when I get the chance to play-test this, I might find that it is completely unworkable and makes the Paladin completely unbalanced. And I can certainly see why such a solution was not implemented by Wizards from the start (people were rioting enough about all the changes in the new edition. This sort of thing might have caused heads to explode). But I think this just might work, and it will keep Paladins as the archetype of the strong, charismatic warrior, and out of the dichotomous position of either muscle-head or fast-talking wimp.

Two Ability Scores Better Than One?

*WARNING* This post is way too dang long!

We are closing in on 20 months from the release of 4th Edition. It's been almost two years, many source books and additions to the rules. Today, we're going to talk about a design concept that popped up in the very first book, the Player's Handbook, and which subsequently disappeared, never to return again. That design concept is something I'm going to dub the "dual-stat class." Specifically, Clerics, Paladins, Rangers, and Warlocks were given two ability scores to choose between as "primary" abilities. A player creating a character with one of these classes could select one of these ability scores to make as high as possible, reaping high attack bonuses, high damage modifiers, and at least one fairly high defense, but at the cost of being unlikely to choose some of their classes powers due to the low score in the other "primary" ability score for the class. Alternatively, a player creating one of these characters could try to split their character's focus, often making each of the primary ability scores slightly lower but allowing them to choose from all possible powers, but typically suffering in the "secondary" ability score which would often determine the effectiveness of secondary effects of powers selected. Paladins and Star Pact Warlocks were least fortunate in this regard, because prior to the release of their respective Power books, these classes (or builds, respectively) were nearly forced to split their focus, or risk choosing powers that did not fit their concept of character.

To be sure, Arcane Power, Divine Power, and Martial Power mitigated some of these problems by adding more powers from which to choose. However, they were undermined by releases of new classes in the Forgotten Realms Player's Guide, Eberron Player's Guide, and Player's Handbook 2. No other release contains a single class that has divided ability score loyalties as these four original classes did. So why did the design team go this route with these four classes?

1. Perhaps the idea was to allow these classes to have two markedly different play styles and feels. The cleric could either be a ranged character focused on powerful heals and low-damage ranged attacks and debuffs, or a melee combatant with slightly lower-powered heals, but with the added benefits of a melee combatant (higher hit chance with proficiency bonuses from weapons, higher damage depending upon weapon selection, ability to provide and benefit from flanking).
2. Perhaps the point was to make these classes play to strengths, so as to keep their power level in balance with other classes. A Ranger who could deal substantial damage with a bow and quickly change to melee with no decrease in damage potential would be a much bigger threat on the field than a Rogue who relies heavily on combat advantage to deal substantial damage, and who can rarely gain that damage with ranged attacks.
3. Perhaps it was motivated by the original intent of limiting melee effectiveness to melee classes. Fighters, Warlords, Strength-based Rangers, and Strength-based Clerics were originally the only characters who had decent chances to hit with an opportunity attack or basic melee attack granted by another class' powers or abilities.

While I can articulate these ideas, I have a hard time feeling that any of these arguments hold a lot of water. Ultimately, this smacks of a bit of an oversight, or a drastic change in design philosophy after the release of the Player's Handbook. For ease of discussion, I'll number my refutations parallel to the arguments above.

1. Wizards who focus on illusion over evocation-style attacks (to borrow some 3.5 Edition terminology) don't have to choose between maximizing Intelligence or Charisma. They max Intelligence and are done with it, and can choose nearly any powers available for their class. In short, even in the original book, there were other classes with significant flavor variations that were either reliant on the choice of "secondary ability score" or simply by the powers chosen.
2. Sure a Ranger being able to swap between melee and ranged would be rather potent in terms of sustained damage output. But a Rogue can now take the Distant Advantagefeat from Player's Handbook 2, and instead of being limited to attacking the nearest target to them which they have designated their quarry (Ranger's striker damage class feature) they can deal their hefty damage at range with the only restriction being who is granting combat advantage that round. Sure that limitation exists, but it will fluctuate so much round to round that it is unlikely that there will be no eligible targets in a given round, and the rogue can always close to melee if necessary (since their attack powers use Dexterity regardless of melee or ranged, and at the very least, their at-will powers that can be used at range are generally also usable with melee weapons). And no one would argue that warlocks are "totally over-powered!" In short, this argument seems to fall apart when parallels start being drawn under the current rules available for the game.
3. The reason this argument makes no sense anymore is the introduction of the Melee Training feat in Player's Handbook 2 which allows a character, at the cost of a feat to swap his best ability score for strength when determining the attack and damage bonus for basic melee attacks, including those granted during an opportunity attack. Granted, the Strength-based classes can skip this feat, and get something else to increase their melee effectiveness in other ways. But ultimately, the introduction of this feat ends up feeling like an admission of guilt: "Whoops, we wanted to introduce some strikers who didn't use Strength as a primary ability score and still want them to be able to make opportunity attacks or benefit from their Warlord companion granting them a basic melee attack!"

I've been wrestling with a possible solution to this issue, in the form of a house rule for my own games, to address this disparity as I see it. Unfortunately, it isn't as simple as just picking one of the two ability scores and just substituting it for the attack powers that don't use it. Actually, I think that would work fine for the Cleric and Warlock. I'll probably let clerics who want to play a melee character in future games use Wisdom instead of Strength for their attack powers. It'll still cost them a feat for the Melee Training, so I figure it's not free upgrades. For warlocks, I've never been totally keen on the "Constitution as a primary ability score" idea anyway, so I'll likely make all their powers use Charisma. Infernal Pact warlocks will still want a high Constitution since some of their utility powers still would rely upon it. And Star Pact Warlocks won't be as disadvantaged as they were.

For Paladins and Rangers, the fix isn't as simple. Making Paladin's Strength-based would make them feel too much like the fighter in a lot of ways. However, making them Charisma-based would make starting with plate armor proficiency a much greater boon. It would also mean the end of strong, sword and shield paladins, shattering the existing archetype. I've always been partial to the Paladin, and I don't want to damage the prevalent conception that badly.

For Rangers, they have many powers that work for either melee or ranged weapons, and use the appropriate ability score for that build. They have the power choices to support both builds, and while the Archer Ranger is at a disadvantage in melee, a Melee Ranger can still use heavy thrown weapons to achieve a ranged capability. I feel that an Archer Ranger taking Melee Training: Dexterity almost resolves this class' issues. I will probably leave Rangers alone, and might even hold them up as an example of what a "dual-stat class" should be.

Having finally started to experience Paragon Tier, attack bonuses being as high as possible seems even more important than ever. Any design element that punishes a player for building a character that fits their concept just doesn't work for me. If you want to make a Star Pact Warlock, I don't want you to spend more time doing nothing in combat but cursing targets because you can't hit the monsters I'm using because everyone else hits them easily. If you want to play a melee cleric, but don't want to lose your healing potential, I'm okay with that too. Ultimately, I'd rather my players were *slightly* over-effective, rather than frustrated to tears because being the best healer they can be means that when they are out of healing word and healing utility powers, they might as well go watch TV.

So, final review: I feel like Clerics and Warlocks got hosed. I'm going to fix them with the house rules above. Rangers, while in the same category, seem to have gotten decent treatment and will be left alone. And I'm still not sure what to do with Paladins. If anyone has an idea, let me know, I'd love to play-test it and see if we can present a workable solution.

Excuses

So Wednesday has come and mostly gone, and as I whisk myself off to the "day-job" I feel I should make a few excuses. I could say that the changes I am contemplating are so big, so earthshaking, so complicated that I just need more time to play-test and hone these house rules. I could say that, as with the Ranger tweak, I had bitten off more than I could chew. But the truth is that between those factors and Thanksgiving, I just didn't take the time.

Sorry ya'll, but next week: multi-ability classes shall have their day!

Martial Controller Duex

After posting my pronouncement last week, that I would be working up a controller build for the Ranger class, I went and looked over the class and immediately realized I had made a huge mistake. Unlike the Rogue, the Ranger has very few powers that impose conditions or force movement. Most of the Ranger's powers are simply more damage. So while I can't simply trade out the striker damage dice, I set about trying to figure a way to put my money where my mouth is. I think I've got it, finally, so let me know what you think!

New Class Feature

When you make your ranger, and you choose the Archer Fighting Style, you may choose this power instead of Hunter's Quarry.

Scattershot Ranger Feature

You have sacrificed the lethal focus of your ranger brethren in order to unleash a hail of arrows with every draw of your bow.

At-Will * Martial

Free Action

Effect: When you use a ranged martial attack power, you reduce the damage die of your weapon by one size (e.g. d10 becomes d8) and the attack becomes area burst 1. Any conditions or forced movement caused by the power are applied to all targets hit by the power.

Scattershot Ranger

You are a master of the multi-shot, the archer of many arrows. You scorn the idea of focusing upon one foe to the exclusion of all others, and instead direct your skills toward the thinning of herds, and controlling your enemies. Your allies know that when your bow is in hand, no swarm of savage fiends is too large, no host too great. The hum of your bowstring sings a song of evened odds and approaching victory.

Take Dexterity as your highest ability score since it dictates attack and damage for your ranged attacks. Make Wisdom your second highest since many of the extra effects of your powers will rely upon it. Strength can be tertiary in case you are forced into melee combat. Make sure you use a ranged weapon since Scattershot requires it, and focus on ranger attack powers that have the ranged weapon requirement. Whenever possible, choose powers that also impose a condition or forced movement, since your damage is lower than a normal ranger.

Suggested Feat: Far Shot (Human: Improved Initiative)

Suggested Skills: Acrobatics, Dungeoneering, Nature, Perception, Stealth

Suggested At-Will Powers: Careful Attack, Nimble Strike

Suggested Encounter Power: Evasive Strike

Suggested Daily Power: Hunter's Bear Trap

So there it is. Not thrilled with it, but I think it's workable, otherwise I wouldn't put it out there. Pouring over the Ranger powers reminded me of another pet peeve of mine. There are only four classes so far that have to choose between two primary abilities for their character and that choice will dictate power choices for the rest of the game. Most classes have a uniform primary ability, such as Wisdom for Avengers and Invokers, or Intelligence for Wizards. Ranger, Warlock, Cleric, and Paladin were split between two abilities. I'm not sure why this is, and I think next week, I'm going to spend a little time dissecting that design choice to see if I can find a reason for it, and if not, see if there is a reason the obvious fix is a bad idea. Tune in next week, same Bat time, same Bat channel!

Class Bloat, Past and Present

I was hitching a ride to a game this evening with a friend. Love my new house, hate how far away from everything I find myself. Oh well. Anyhow, we were discussing 4th Edition, our various grievances with the system, what we liked, etc. I was groaning about the pending release of Martial Power 2 in February of 2010. This led to the topic of the missing "Martial Controller" (All other Power Sources have one of each party role, only Martial has two strikers and no controller). The missing controller led to a more general discussion about class bloating. In D&D 3.5, after several years of source books, the base classes were getting unwieldy. Granted, there were still relatively few base classes, but with prestige classes, and relatively lax multi-classing, things were starting to get a bit out of control in terms of the number of classes. My friend was looking forward to the simplification of the system the new edition (4th Edition) would bring by paring down the number of classes. Now, he admitted, it was starting to feel like the old days. Invokers, Avengers, Wardens, and so on meant that while each Power Source had their requisite class fitting that certain role, you also had to have myriad source books and a solid grasp on the pros and cons of each class relative to its counterparts under other Power Sources.

On the whole, I like the flavor that each Power Source gives. I like being able to play a Shaman instead of a Cleric and have that decision mean something in how my character relates to the world. However, I understand my friend's point, and I certainly agree that the number of classes is getting somewhat extensive, perhaps even burdensome.

Fortunately, my friend did not simply complain about the state of the game, he made a suggestion. One that I thought held a lot of merit. So, with his permission (kind of) I am going to steal his idea and run with it. Instead of introducing more classes, create builds and selectable class features that alter a core class to fill a different party role. Clerics could sacrifice some healing in favor of damaging capabilities and suddenly you have a divine striker without having to bring in the Avenger. As an experiment in this vein, I've created rules for a "Martial Controller" build that doesn't add a class to the game, but instead uses on that is already there: the rogue. Here it is:

Mischief-maker Rogue

Any fool with a dagger can kill a man. It takes a true professional to sow discord amongst the ranks of his enemies. The talented don't need to kill with blades; they kill with misdirection, guile, and trickery. You have perfected the art of mischief-making, and through the mayhem you create, you bring your foes to their knees, where your allies can more easily dispatch them. You may not deliver the deep, life-ending blows so often associated with adventurers of your ilk, but your allies know your worth, and are just as happy to have you along. Your attacks use Dexterity, so make that should be your highest ability score. Charisma should be second highest because you still rely on combat advantage and using your force of personality to misdirect your foes' attentions. Strength falls third, because you rarely use brute force in a situation where speed and guile would suffice, but may find yourself in a corner and needing to fight "fair" for once.

Class Feature: Mischief-Making*

Suggested Feat: Distant Advantage** (Human: Far Shot)

Suggested Skills: Acrobatics, Bluff, Insight, Perception, Stealth, Thievery

Suggested At-Will Powers: Sly Flourish, Disheartening Strike***

Suggested Encounter Power: Impact Shot***

Suggested Daily Power: Blinding Barrage

*New option presented here.

** Presented in Arcane Power.

*** Presented in Martial Power.

Mischief-Making

If you choose this class feature instead of selecting Artful Dodger, Brutal Scoundrel, or Ruthless Ruffian, you also give up the Sneak Attack class feature. Instead, when you use a martial attack power that causes forced movement or imposes a condition on your target, you may make the attack against additional valid targets equal to the number of Sneak Attack dice you would normally have at your level. (e.g. A 3rd level Mischief-Maker rogue could choose to attack 3 targets within range with his Impact Shot power and could push all three assuming they were hit.)

There you have it, the "Martial Controller" Rogue. Turns out there are an awful lot of rogue powers that have a controller flavor to them, and if you expand the number of targets struck, the rogue suddenly fits the bill pretty well.

WARNING: DO NOT use this build if you are expecting the rogue to be the group striker. This is not a striker build, and therefore changes drastically the expectations upon a rogue.

Lastly, I got my hands on the DMG2 and Primal Power finally. I can say that I am quite happy with the attention "fluff" is getting in these newer books. In terms of straight crunch, both books are adequate, well designed, and seem to add some significant options for most classes (or campaigns in the case of DMG2.) My DM asked me what I thought of Primal Power stacked against other Power books and I'll just throw out this bit for you guys: unless you are playing a primal power source class in a campaign currently, I would wait until you are to snag Primal Power. It's great stuff, but not terribly useful outside of its direct sphere. Martial Power and Arcane Power seemed to be more broadly applicable. That said, the book is good, and well worth the cost if you can put it to use for you.

Next week: I think we'll take a look at the ranger and see if we can't make a controller build out of that class, in case your rogue player isn't interested!

Slap-Dash Bard Suggestions

I was going to have an awesome post full of deep, thought-provoking insight and intriguing suggestions. However, I recently purchased Dragon Age: Origins and therefore have not been doing much of anything except playing that game. So here's some half-baked ideas that I've tossed together as I rush off to work:



New Feats:

Cunning Recovery

Prerequisites: Bard, Virtue of Cunning class feature, 11th level

Benefit: When you miss with an arcane attack power with the healing key word and that power has no effect on a miss, you or an ally within range of your Virtue of Cunning regains hit points equal to your Intelligence modifier. This hit point gain cannot be increased by any means.



Valorous Tenacity

Prerequisites: Bard, Virtue of Valor class feature, 11th level

Benefit: When you miss with an arcane attack power with the healing keyword and that power has no effect on a miss, you or an ally within range of your Virtue of Valor gains temporary hit points equal to your Consitution modifier.



Prescient Pause

Prerequisites: Bard, Virtue of Prescience class Feature, 11th level

Benefit: When you miss with an arcane attack power with the healing keyword and that power has no effect on a miss, you or an ally within range of your Virtue of Prescience gains a bonus to all defenses equal to your Wisdom modifier until the end of your next turn.

I built these off the paragon feat created by Logan Bonner in his Class Acts article in Dragon Magazine on clerics. I felt like clerics, of all classes were the least needful in terms of needing that little bit of extra healing, and bards seemed a lot higher up on that list. Of course, then I figured I'd flavor them out for each bard build, since making it Intelligence-driven would be useless for Valor and Prescience bards. Anyhow, I am also toying with making it a touch more powerful (they are paragon feats after all) and making it a substitution for the Virtue power usually allowed (like sliding your ally when an enemy misses them). I limited the Virtue of Cunning feat because of the obvious synergy with the Summer Rhymer paragon path that would have your typical Cunning bard healing an ally for 8-12 hit points on a miss when a hit might have been less healing. Of course, if it were a substitution for the use of the Virtue power for the round, I might be a bit more inclined to allow for modifiers, but ultimately I think you run the risk of a paragon bard missing with a power that grants 10 hit points on a hit including the bonus for the Summer Rhymer paragon path granting 3-4 from the Intelligence modifier, +5-6 for the Summer Rhymer paragon path, +3-4 for a healer's brooch... suddenly that miss is more beneficial than a hit. I think I'll leave it limited, but won't make it mutually exclusive with the Virtue power.

That's all for this week. Hopefully I'll break that video game's vampiric hold on my soul and get something decent out next week. But in the meantime: if you liked Baldur's Gate and felt the original was in many ways the pinnacle of Bioware's RPG craft, you should check out Dragon Age: Origins. I avoid talking about video games on this blog, since it's a bit off topic, but since Green Ronin Publishing is making a PnP RPG of the game, I feel like I can at least mention it. Usually, I'm not a big fan of Green Ronin, but the backstory of this game is so good, I might have to check it out.

Getting a Handle on Enemies

I can't recall a time that I ran a Star Wars: Saga Edition game. I've always played in games run by a friend. And he runs pretty killer games. One thing he always grouses about, and even stumbles over as the game is running, is the stat blocks for enemies. After all the trash I was talking about 4th Edition D&D last week, I figured I'd play nice and try adapting the new monster stat block from 4th Edition for use with Saga Edition. I've also times myself at it to see roughly how much prep time it would consume to convert a few stat blocks for use at your game table. I grabbed a handy SW:SE book, so the NPCs come out of The Force Unleashed Campaign Guide. So hopefully, this is helpful to some of you besides my erstwhile GM. If it is, let me know!


Imperial Jump Trooper CL7

Force 1; Darkside 5
Init: +8; Senses: Perception +12(can reroll must take second result); Low-light vision
hp 51 bloodied 25 (threshold 20)
Defenses: Ref 24(FF 21); Fort 20; Will 16
Speed 6 (Flying: jetpack)
M: unarmed +9 (1d4+4)
M: Grapple +10
R: Blaster Rifle +12(3d8+3)
R: Rail Detonator Gun +12 (3d8+3, 1 square splash)
R: Strafing Run +10 (3d8+3) Targets a line 1 square by 4 squares (autofire) or all squares flown over while using jetpack (autofire)
S: Takes no penalties for firing into melee, or attacking a target with concealment.
S: Can move before and after an attack, provided movement does not exceed normal movement. S: +1 to attack and damage at point blank range.
Skills: Jump +11, Stealth +13
Str 13, Dex 16, Con 13, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 10
Possessions: rail detonator gun, blaster rifle, jumptrooper armor with helmet package, jetpack, comlink

Imperial Radiation Zone Trooper CL4

Force 1, Darkside 5
Init: +5; Senses: Perception +11, Low-light vision
hp 34 bloodied 17 (Threshold 19)
Defenses: Ref 19 (FF17); Fort 19 (25 vs Radiation); Will 14
Speed 6
M: unarmed +7 (1d6+2)
M: Grapple +7
R: Blaster Carbine +8 (3d8+1)
A: Autofire Blaster Carbine (Area 2 blast) +6 (3d8+1)
A: Frag Grenade (Area burst 2) +7 (4d6+1)
S: Aid Another is automatically successful when target is adjacent or at point blank range.
Skills: Endurance +10, Mechanics +9, Survival +9
Str 12, Dex 12, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 10
Possessions: Blaster carbine, 2 frag grenades, Radtrooper armor with helmet package, comlink, radiation survival kit.

So it took me about 30 minutes to throw these two together. However, I had to look up several feats to make sure I incorporated their effects into the stat block for easy reference, and I had to look up some talents as well. I think when you start familiarizing yourself with those feats and talents, it will become even faster. In fact, the second stat block took roughly half as long as the first.

In newer Saga Edition books, the stat blocks have started resembling the 4th Edition monster block a little more closely, but even so, the choice not to include the specific numbers for autofiring, talents and feats that modify attacks, etc. has made running those stat blocks a little less GM-friendly. With a few minutes of quick work, they can be "streamlined." And they're reusable once you've converted them!

Hope this helps, and let me know how it works!

The Grass and It's Green-ness

A week ago, I had yet another rough session. The entire evening, I think I hit with one attack, maybe two. If I rolled above 10 the entire evening, it was no more than twice. I was complaining to a fellow player and made some vague threat to start playing 3.5 Edition D&D again and leaving 4th Edition. My friend responded that we had just as many problems when we played 3.5, "the grass is always greener." At the time I agreed, but more for a lack of any intelligent response than because I actually agreed. When it comes to comparisons of this current edition of D&D and previous ones, it has become harder and harder to make intelligent arguments for and against the new rule set. I've started to forget many of the problems of 3.5 and view it in a very idealized haze. "Absence makes the heart grow fonder" as it were.

So I decided to sit down and think it through. I have a lot of free mental time at my day job, so I ran through what I could remember of 3.5 and matched it up with the problems I've had with 4th Edition. And the one thing that stuck out at me was that the biggest problem with 4th Edition, the issue that made me want to throw down my pencil and dice and find something else to play was the frustration of bad rolls. I quickly realized that this was very similar to 3.5, though I rarely played characters that were quite as roll-reliant in that edition. In 4th edition, you can't avoid being roll reliant.

In 3.5, a Sleep spell was very similar to the general structure of powers in 4th Edition. You cast the spell, the monster had a chance to resist (a saving throw, rather than you rolling to hit, like in 4th Edition) and if it failed, which was fairly likely in early levels, it fell unconscious. If it resisted, there was no effect, and you had essentially "wasted" your turn. 4th Edition has mitigated this in several ways. The Sleep spell power actually does something from the onset, so you don't have to worry about wasting the action. Daily powers in general have some effect even on a miss, or are at least not expended on a miss. Some powers have effects that work regardless of the success of your attack rolls, and utility powers always work, assuming they don't have a trigger that never occurs.

Yet as I laud the efforts of 4th Edition to reduce the pain of "wasted" turns, I find that in some ways that same problem is now exacerbated by the added reliance on hitting by rolling many powers into attacks. I assume that the logic went something like this:

"Most people want to be affecting enemies on their turn. Nobody really likes spending their turn healing someone else, buffing someone in the party, or otherwise 'doing nothing important.' Let's make most powers an attack so that when you heal/buff/aid your allies, you still get to do some damage and feel like you're contributing to the eventual demise of your enemies and not just standing in the back like a MMORPG 'healbot!'"

It's not a bad idea, but it does make something as simple as healing your companions a lot dicier. Sure all leaders get two free heals per encounter (well they cost a minor action, but they always hit, and they ultimately always restore at least 1/4th of the ally's hit points) but if you try to increase your healing potential, you inevitably encounter the need to select powers that heal "on hit." I know my bard has one encounter power like that. Only clerics have such a large number of utility powers that heal that they can avoid encounter powers that do so and still have plenty of healing powers to go around. And when you've used two majestic words to keep the defender up as the black dragon pounds him with savage attacks, and the striker misses his melee attack and takes damage from the dragon's immediate reaction power and becomes bloodied, it is even worse than feeling simply like you "wasted" your turn when your Theft of Life power misses, because not only did you fail to deal any damage in the round (the worst consequence in 3.5 when you missed an attack) but you didn't heal the striker, who is now one miss away from dropping.

Now it sounds like I'm picking on 4th Edition, because at least in 3.5 you didn't waste heals when you missed attacks. That's not what I'm trying to say at all. In reality, it wasn't that much better in 3.5 because if you weren't a cleric, you had to load your prepared spells with healing spells anyway to keep your allies standing, and you had to run around touching everyone because that was the range of healing spells, and so you literally did nothing but heal as a "leader" in 3.5.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that my friend was right on the money. I didn't know it at the time, but I know it now. The grass will always seem a little greener as you peek over that fence, but remember how many house rules we had for 3.5? Maybe, just maybe, it's time to start making a list for 4th Edition. We've had a year and change, we're all starting to get a grasp on what works and what doesn't for our groups. I know I've got a mental list going. I'm sure you all do as well. I think next week I'm going to float some ideas for my DM, see what he thinks. And when I get back to running my game, I'm going to issue some new house rules. I'm actually very happy with 4th Edition, though sometimes I have trouble remembering why. Now I just need to polish off the rough edges on our relationship. But like all good relationships, it takes a little work, but it's worth every minute.

And He's Down....

Apparently, all it took was a couple months for me to completely shatter the posting schedule I had created for myself. And as I suspected, once I broke the schedule it was inevitable that I would lose some inertia. So here's an off-day post that isn't really anything but an apology on the off-chance that someone out there was reading my posts and had some down time in the last two weeks that could not be filled with reading my ramblings.

Now that my wife and I are settling into our new house and I have functioning internet again, my OCD is kicking in and I am putting myself back to work on some blog posts. Hopefully, I'll start to build a stockpile so that in case another "Big Life Event" comes along, I won't drop off the grid like this time.

Sorry again, and I'll see you all Wednesday morning!

The Marvel Universe Roleplaying Game

Ever had a night where the Dice Gods are angry with you? I call them "Mondays." But seriously, I have often lamented the inherent "swingy-ness" of using a randomized number system to determine outcomes in RPGs. Sure, the night I roll four crits, I love my d20s; but when it takes me four sessions to hit with a new encounter power, I find myself struggling to not throw in the towel and go play solitaire. So what were we talking about? Oh, yes, The Marvel Universe Roleplaying Game!

I applaud the designers' intentions to keep this game streamlined and simple. The game lends itself to a minimum of accessories, which is certainly refreshing in this day and age where D&D is starting to feel a bit like Warhammer with all the mats, minis, cards, etc. The inclusion of play-ready stats for many super heroes and super villains means that a quick read-through of the rules and you're ready to hit the ground running.

I have to admit to a certain bias in favor of this game, since I've been a Marvel fan for a long time (though I'm not impartial with DC either...). Any game that gives me off-the-shelf stats to play Gambit has my vote. But setting that aside for a second, let's look at what makes this game successful.

The simplicity is great. The central mechanic of the game boils down to resource allocation. The rules generate numbers based on your character's statistics. These numbers tell you how many "stones" you have available for various actions. You then determine how many stones to assign to any given action. Assign too few, and you will not succeed, assign too many and you may find yourself short of available stones at a critical time later. This means that Spiderman never plummets to his death swinging through New York City because you rolled a one on your first "web-slinging" check of the night. This makes for an interesting, engaging method of action resolution, with a real possibility of failure (without which success becomes much less enjoyable) but without the arbitrary and often frustrating intervention of random numbers.

The other aspect of the game that I find outstanding is the leveling system. After completing a "Mission" the Gamesmaster awards 1-4 "Lines of Experience." These lines are a short sentence describing an activity you undertook at some point during the mission that lends itself to your character's improvement in a certain area. When ten lines of experience related to an "Action" (specific thing you can do in the game. e.g. Ranged Combat or Telepathy) are accumulated, you raise your action number by one, which increases the number of stones you can dedicate to undertaking that action, and raises the complexity of actions you can undertake. (If you have a Telepathy Action of 3 and "Creating a mental illusion" has a "Difficulty" or complexity rating of 4, you can't create mental illusions.) This system reminds me of computer games such as Betrayal at Krondor by Sierra, and the Elder Scrolls Series by Bethesda Softworks, where individual skills or abilities were improved through use, rather than a system such as D&D where regardless of the number of traps you have disarmed during your journey from first to second level, your rogue is now better at disarming traps.

Unfortunately, a simple game has simple innovations. I'd like to say more good things about it, but ultimately, these two features, combined with a strong encouragement toward roleplaying (lines of experience are partly awarded based on your portrayal of the character you play) make up the primary strengths of the game, and the main reasons I've found it so enjoyable. Where does it fall short? I'm glad you asked!

Lines of Experience are at once the greatest innovation and the worst implementation I've seen in quite a while. While the system encourages players to use the abilities that they want to improve, it does it hideously slowly. 1-4 lines of experience means that a hero must devote all lines of experience to a single action for two or more missions if they want to improve it as quickly as possible. And if the player is trying to keep the character well-rounded, it could take you ten or more missions to see a single point of improvement. Many people, myself included, derive a great deal of pleasure from watching their character grow and improve. Personally, I would examine giving more lines of experience, but capping the number that can be assigned to a single action per mission completed. This might allow for a faster growth curve, while keeping players from slamming all their lines into a single action to keep themselves "as powerful as everyone else." Of course, I haven't been playing the game long enough to see what kinds of balance issues this sort tweak to the leveling system might incur.

The final thing I'd like to mention is the vast player support for this game. The division of Marvel that created the game is apparently defunct, but the fan-base has kept the game alive and continued improving it. You can find general juicy tidbits, along with some miscellaneous stuff of undetermined value here. And here is a sourcebook for the Spiderman area of the Marvel Universe, created entirely by fans!

Waaa-mbulance Revisited

Now that I've got some of the gripes about Star Wars: Saga Edition out of my system, I wanted to focus a bit on a couple things about D&D 4th edition that really grind my gears. Neither of these are so bad that I want to give up and go back to 3rd edition, mind you, but they can quickly turn a fun session into a grind from hell. With some considered adjustments, we'll try to create a way to smooth these edges, and keep the fun in the game without shattering the delicate balance of power!

Gear grinder #1: Weapon Proficiency Bonus
Initially, this seemed like a great idea to me. Then I realized that not only were many of the Fortitude, Reflex, and Will defenses often as high as AC, but even when they weren't, they were only one, or possibly two lower. When +2 is the low proficiency modifier, and +3 is the high, before factoring in class abilities (the Rogue's Rogue Weapon Talent, and Ranger's Prime Shot) and flanking, and therefore +2 to hit from combat advantage, is plentiful for these strikers a disparity begins to grow. Suddenly, the rogue is looking at an attack roll modifier that is 4 higher than any implement power. And then, he can take Piercing Strike and he's attacking Reflex instead of AC. And only losing a few points of damage if his other at-will is Sly Flourish. If not, he gives up nothing.

Sure, there are plenty of creature for whom their AC and reflex are equivalent, and so the advantage of Piercing Strike and similar powers are not universal. However, most monsters have a single weak defense. Their AC, Reflex, and Will for example will all be within 1 point of each other, and their Fortitude will be low. This is a terrible way to make implement-using classes "balanced." Now, they have to try targeting several defenses to try to figure out which is the lowest and most readily hit, which is complicated by the fact that a hot streak, or cold streak on the dice could make several rounds of combat uninformative, not to mention unproductive. Additionally, even when the character has determined the most effective defense to target, that now limits the powers they can use effectively against the creature during the encounter. WIth the limited selections of powers a character can have at their disposal at any time, this further restriction makes implement-classes feel even less fun, and harder to play. And if you happen to play a bard, or another implement class that focuses heavily on a certain defense (such as Will in the case of the bard) there will often be fights where you simply feel like you can't attack certain monsters because you can't seem to hit their defenses.

The Fix:
While it's more work for a DM, I suggest making all defenses 2 lower than AC. If they already are, leave them alone. To counter the additional advantage that this gives to classes who can use weapon powers to target non-AC defenses, I would remove weapon proficiency bonuses from those attack rolls. Class features, feats (such as weapon expertise), and weapon enchantments should still apply. Alternately, attacks such as Piercing Strike could do 1[W] damage rather than 1[W] + Dexterity modifier damage. This reduced base damage would likely be a fair offset for the higher hit chance. It would be similar to the penalty imposed on the Ranger's Twin Strike power in exchange for its higher chance to do damage on any given turn.

Another idea that just came to me as I considered how complicated this all felt, was to add an implement proficiency bonus. If you are proficient with an implement that you use for an attack, gain a +1 to that attack roll. This will provide a much needed boost to the hit chances of an implement user while having no effect on other classes. Also, it would not overbalance any class against a low defense.

Gear Grinder #2: Hitting to Heal
Perhaps a large part of the reason this is getting to me is that I am playing a bard in my current campaign. Many of my encounter powers require me to hit a target to grant healing, saving throws, etc. While this has the positive effect of making me feel like I'm in the action, instead of standing back like some healbot and just keeping everyone else in the fight, it also means that until I get a utility power that heals allies, I have two reliable heals, outside Daily Powers. There is nothing more frustrating than being out of majestic word uses for the encounter, having a bloodied ally who is barely on his feet, using my Theft of Life power, and rolling a 2. Not only did I not heal the ally, deal any damage, or create any other positive effect, but I managed to squander the majority of my turn in the process unless I spend an action point. Having not yet played a class other than a leader for the long term, and therefore having a somewhat myopic view, I will go so far as to say that there is a great deal of stress on the player who is responsible for healing the party. My friends that I play with in my current campaign assure me that I'm not responsible when their character collapses into unconsciousness and starts making death saving throws, but I feel it keenly, and that stress can quickly turn even my favorite session into an Antacid-gobbling, anxiety-ridden, guilt-fest.

The Fix:
People who play leader characters, for the most part, are looking to buff and heal their allies. It's the main purpose of that class. Sure it's nice when we get to deal some damage, but most of the time, we just want to fill our role and keep everyone else humming along. So I'll propose a little fix that I don't think is terribly unbalanced: Small consolation effects for certain encounter powers. So, I would suggest the following two rules. If these two tweaks seem to powerful, they could be made into one or two feats. However, I feel that they are so necessary to leaders that they would become "must-take" feats, which is something I don't particularly care for (Slaying Action and Predatory Action being two examples) so I am presenting it here as simply a rules modification:
Leader's Assurance
When you miss with an encounter power with the healing keyword, you can choose an ally who would have been eligible for healing from that encounter power to regain hit points equal to your Charisma modifier or Wisdom modifier, this healing may not be increased in any way. [*Note* I've added this caveat to avoid the Summer Rhymer paragon path and similar PPs from making this change truly broken. This is supposed to be a small consolation heal, not something that is just as good as the healing granted by the power itself.]

Leader's Relief
When you miss with an encounter power that grants a saving throw, you grant one ally who would have received a saving throw a +2 bonus to their next saving throw.

So there we go, a couple tweaks to the game that shouldn't be too broken, but will assuage some of the frustration of certain classes. Let me know what you think, and if you try them out and you find something I didn't think of that results in a broken play or combination, let me know!

Tune in next week for a review of a game a friend lent me: The Marvel Universe Roleplaying Game!

Collaborative What?

So the DMG2 is out, and while I haven't gotten my hands on it, a friend of mine was sharing with me the inclusion of some material on how to use collaborative story-telling. It's a great idea, and a great way to get players involved in a story. As a player, I hope that my next campaign starts that way, with everyone sharing ideas and writing a story collaboratively about the party and the world. It's one thing that has started to kick into high gear in my current game that I play in. We've hit paragon tier, and we're starting to make feat and power selections that take into account the feats and powers that the others in the group are selecting. When we started, we all showed up with our freshly minted first-level 4th edition characters, we didn't even know each other. Now, we've become a team, and one that works well together. Our fighter is taking powers that allow him to draw the enemy to him, which opens up flanking possibilities for the rogue and avenger. The avenger took Power Attack, so that flanking is now highly advantageous, which promotes cooperation with the fighter and rogue. It got me thinking. What could we do to integrate the process of character building into this collaborative story-telling approach?



In D&D 3.5, there was a feat: Swarm-fighting. The feat had a bonus which increased for every character in the group who had it. But the feat was very specialized, the odds of an entire party, or even the melee members of a party all dropping a feat for this benefit were pretty low. So I thought maybe there is a way to bring this idea, synergized feats, into 4th edition. Adventurer's Vault 2 brought us item sets, which give benefits when multiple party members possess pieces of the set. Now, let's examine the idea of feat sets. Below, I've sketched out a feat set. Each feat has a small advantage on its own, with additional benefits if other characters in the party have other feats from the set. I've tried to keep them broad, because obviously, the composition of each party is going to be different. Try them out, if you get the chance, and let me know what you think. If you come up with another feat set, post it here and we'll all try to do the same for you.

Feat Set: Wolf-Pack Tactics

Protector of the Pack
Gain a +1 to Fortitude, Reflex, and Will defenses against attacks from enemies marked by you. If an enemy adjacent to you is flanked by you and an ally with a Wolf-Pack Tactics feat, that enemy does not count toward flanking for you or the ally you are flanking with.

Cull the Prey
When you designate a target using oath of enmity, hunter's quarry, warlock curse, or ardent vow, you gain +1 to damage rolls when you apply extra damage from your class feature. If the enemy you designate is adjacent to an ally with a Wolf-Pack Tactics feat, you can choose to treat that enemy as marked by that ally.

Corner the Weak
When you are applying extra damage through a class ability, you can choose to apply half the normal damage or dice, and your attack immobilizes the target. If you and another ally with a Wolf-Pack Tactics feat are adjacent to, but not flanking, the same enemy, that enemy grants you both combat advantage.

Incite the Pack
When you restore hit points to an ally, that ally gains a +1 to attack rolls until the end of your next turn. If that ally has any Wolf-Pack Tactics feat, they can also choose to receive a +2 to saving throws until the end of your next turn, or shift one square as a free action.

Disorient the Prey
When you use a power that forces an enemy to move, any enemy that you hit with that power grants you combat advantage until the end ofyour next turn. If the power already causes the target to grant combat advantage until the end of your next turn, it is instead save ends. The target also grants combat advantage to any allies who have a Wolf-Pack Tactics feat while they grant it to you.


There's the crunch, as promised. Let me know how it works if you give it a shot! See you next week.

Running Late!

Sorry, folks, but my post is running a little late this week. It should be up around noon. My apologies for the tardiness!

Call Me a Waaa-mbulance!

I'm afraid, valued readers, that today is going to be a diatribe day. The last couple of game sessions I've played in have conspired to make me a bit whiney and so today I am going to share that with you. But fear not, for I will not simply whine about what I don't like, but I will also posit some suggestions as well. Not a ton of crunch this week, but I'll see what I can whip up next week, if you're feeling the need to get rulesy!

My first axe to grind is with the Star Wars: Saga Edition rules. I love the freedom of multiclassing in the system! Love it! Want to take a couple of levels of soldier to pick up armor talents? Sure! Take a level or two of noble to get some contacts, or some money to sling around? No problem. Want to make a Jedi who specializes in healing? Well, better multiclass, or just sit tight until level 7 and take the talent to use your Use The Force skill in place of Treat Injury. Really?! Jedi don't know First Aid?! Perhaps it is just the game I play in and the characters I choose to play, but in SW:SE, I find that more and more I feel less like the multiclassing rules give me more flexibility, and more like they make me jump through a ton of hoops.

So, I'm fabricating a new house-rule for the next time I run a SW:SE game: No class skills. Nobles already have an edge in the skill department with the highest number of trained skills starting out. No need to further expand the divide by giving them access to the most skills of any one class. Sure they have crappy combat stats, but between their unique talents, awesome bonus feat selection, and very different flavor, I don't think opening up skills to all classes really hurts the Noble. People will still be jumping into Noble for all sorts of things, even if they don't need to for access to the class skill list.

Let's stick with SW:SE for Axe#2: Use The Force as a skill.

The more I think about this, the more I just hate the idea. With UTF in SW:SE, you have a unique mechanic a skill that makes attack rolls. In SW:SE, defenses scale linearly with level. As do attack bonuses for most classes. Even the worst Base Attack Bonus progressions end at +15 at level 20. The base skill bonus for level 20? 10. If you're trained, it's 15 + Atttribute modifiers. If you take Skill Focus, it's 20 + Attribute modifier. At level 20, an enemies basic defense, before attribute modifiers is 30. That means that a Force User who doesn't take Skill Focus: UTF has to roll a 15 or higher (assuming roughly equivalent attribute modifiers, give or take since defense gets a bonus from class), that's a pretty rough roll to succeed on an attack. Especially when the Jedi who spent no feats on Lightsaber combat has a 20 + Attribute modifier attack, meaning that assuming roughly equivalent attributes, the Jedi with the lightsaber is about 25% more likely to hit.... The other way that this approach suffers is in early game. If a Jedi focuses heavily on Force use, you can pick up Skill Focus: UTF as a starting bonus feat and have 10 + Attribute modifier chance to hit at level 1 (assuming you play a human). Or level 3 if you aren't a human. Most classes have 1 or 0 + Attribute modifier attack rolls. This means that the low level Force wizard can't miss while the rest of the party only hits half the time or less. In my opinion, this needs to be leveled out some, instead of skewing toward low-level play as much as it does.

To resolve this, I am going to implement a house rule separating the UTF skill from other skills. For non-attack Force powers, the UTF skill will remain as is. You will be able to roll a skill check and take Skill Focus, or other feats as desired. When you make a Force attack, however, no skill modifiers will be used. Instead, the character will use BAB + Charisma modifier. This will bring hit percentages into line with other characters, without diminishing the effectiveness of non-attack powers, which seem to be pretty well balanced currently with the DCs given.

Star Wars: Saga Edition is a pretty fun game. With these tweaks, I think my next Saga game will be even more enjoyable. Unfortunately, it took me longer to rant about than expected, so I'm going to save my D&D 4th Edition rant for another time and sign off here. Next week, more crunch, less crying... I think.

Corruption for Fun and Profit

The campaign in which I play has taken an interesting turn in the last few sessions. The avenger (a holy warrior of Sehanine for those of you who don't cotton to that new-fangled 4th edition...) has started to become corrupted by the +3 lifedrinking fullblade we liberated from an evil eladrin castle. This got me thinking about the nature of corruption, and more importantly, how to make corruption fun! We are playing a game, after all, so fun is pretty important.

Now, before my DM reads this and thinks that I'm bashing on the execution of this plot device in his game, I should clarify: Brad, your game is fun!

So we're going to start with what Brad is doing, as our jumping-off point. The base-line corruption model is to create a situation where the corruption occurs automatically as a result of something the character does as a matter of course. In Brad's game, the weapon found its way into the hands of an avenger which, for those of you who aren't playing 4th edition, is a high-damage class which tends to finish off a lot of enemies. So the +3 lifedrinking fullblade? It corrupts its user when it is used to deliver a killing blow. This sort of scenario works best in two situations: the first is with a player who revels in the corruption of their character, and therefore relishes the implications as they continue doing what their character is designed to do with reckless abandon. The second is when the player is someone who enjoys adding complexity to the play of their character. "Should I do 'X' or should I not, because the price is too high?" Even without either of these types of players, a little corruption is still fine, but these two types of players will cause a little corruption to explode into a great deal of fun for the group, either as they try to control the spiraling decent of their darkening comrade, or as they cajole their friend into occasionally paying the price of further corruption in order to overcome challenges that seem insurmountable otherwise.

I've flagged this as a player option as well as a DMing idea because I feel that players should feel free to approach their DM and say "I want to play a good guy who has to fight against some darker tendency" and have their DMs support. While our previous baseline model works just fine for this type of situation (the player-instigated corruption plot point) the next model works especially well for a situation where the player wants to explore the idea of fighting against corruption.

The next option harkens back to the days of West End Games' Star Wars Roleplaying Game. For those who have never tried WEG's Star Wars, let's talk about Force Points. If you have played any Star Wars RPG, you know that generally Force Points are a mechanic to simulate a character using that all-powerful energy field from the Star Wars universe to generally be better at whatever they are trying to do. In WEG's version, if you used a Force Point, you multiplied the dice rolled on the test (WEG was a d6 system where you had a target number you tried to hit above on as many d6 as possible). If the test resulted in "a bad thing," loosely defined as the subversion of the free-will of a sentient being, death of a living organism, or selfish personal gain, then the character who called on the Force while doing such things received a Dark Side Point. Too many of those and you became a NPC, and lost your character. The idea, modeled here by WEG's Star Wars RPG, is to offer a character something good, but charge them a price. At it's most simplistic, you can tell the character that the evil wizard's staff will allow them to double their damage dice once per session, for example, but they move one step on the corruption track whenever they do so. As a rule of thumb, the power, or enhancement should be available twice as often as it can "safely" be used. If the player starts to ignore the cost of using the power, you might have to scale down its availability to keep game balance intact, but you might also just ramp up the cost per step on the track.

A slightly more labor-intensive version (for the DM) would be to make the corrupting powers "limited time offers." This means that the DM has one more thing to keep track of, which may not really be feasible for some DMs who have lots of players, or prefer running large numbers of monsters, etc. However, in a very "RP-heavy" game, or one where there aren't a ton of monsters and/or players to keep track of, this sort of corrupting influence can create all kinds of RP opportunities. Instead of giving the player carte-blanche to do something awesome whenever they are willing to pay the price, create true moments of temptation: When the character scores a critical hit, but discovers the creature has high damage resistance, describe time freezing for a moment and the evil warpick whispering an offer into the character's mind: "I can bypass that damage resistance, all I need is a trifle, a meager portion of your energy..." Now the player not only has to choose whether they are willing to pay that price, but if the offer is truly well-timed, it could be a choice between easy success, or less-assured victory. These moments of temptation need to be timed well by the DM to provide the player with the most engaging decisions possible. Offered at the wrong times, and the choice may seem too easy to pass up, or impossible to refuse. And remember, this system of corruption should only be used with a player who is interested in playing out a fight against darker tendencies.

So we now have three different ways to handle corruption in your game:

1. Cause the character to suffer corrupting influences whenever they do something their character is designed to do anyway.
2. Offer the player an additional power, usable at least once per session, which costs the player, moving them one step closer to total corruption.
3. Create situations where a corrupting influence offers the character special powers in times of need, but at a cost.

*Special Note* All of these systems of handling corruption require some sort of "condition track" for the worsening of the corruption. Make sure that you have one in mind before attempting to implement one of these systems. Also, make sure that the corruption influences the character in some significant way. Don't make the corruption of the mighty fighter who used Charisma as his dump stat a penalty to Diplomacy checks. He just isn't going to care. Now, the glib bard? He's going to feel that sting a lot more, especially when the party relies on his Diplomacy skill to get them through most social encounters. As the DM, you know your party best, and you should spend some time making sure that the cost of corruption is high enough. If it's too cheap, it cheapens the fun as well, and can quickly unbalance your game to boot!

All of these should be used carefully, and with a special sensitivity to your player's interest and sense of fun. But with a little extra effort, and a player who is interested in playing this sort of thing out, you might just find that one of these systems will draw in everyone at the table just a little bit more, and keep them that much more interested in what is going on.

Props

I want to give some credit where it is due. My brother, Alex Renn, drew me that new banner up top. It turned out awesome! Thanks, Alex!

I Miss the Arcane Trickster

I had quite a long post planned for today, and mostly written, when I realized quite suddenly that it was totally trash. So I've decided to distract you all with something shiny!

I've been sorely disappointed so far with the decision not to bring the Arcane Trickster prestige class from 3e D&D forward into the new edition. So I've created my own Paragon Path, immediately below.

Arcane Trickster
"Now you see me! Now you..."

Prerequisites: Wizard and Rogue

Whether from a misspent youth finally channeled into a study of the arcane arts, or from a certain moral flexibility and penchant for larceny while study those arts, you have begun to merge your understanding of the shadows with your brilliant displays of arcane power. Researching new rituals is dull, tedious work, as is accumulating new spells to fill your spellbook. You prefer to reap the rewards of others' labor. A few quick spells, a picked lock, and a disabled warding spell are all the effort needed to expand your knowledge and arcane potency. If knowledge is power, you are indeed a force to be reckoned with, because knowledge, and power come easily to you.

Arcane Trickster Path Features
Arcane Celerity (11th level): When you spend an action point to take an extra action, any enemy who was not adjacent to you at the start of your turn grants combat advantage to you until the end of your next turn.
Eldritch Ambush (11th level): You may apply sneak attack to any arcane attack power that targets a single enemy and targets the Reflex defense. You must still meet the normal requirements for applying sneak attack damage.
Mage Handy (16th level): You can use the cantrip mage hand as a free action to make a theivery check against any target within the range of the cantrip. Additionally, once per encounter, when you use an attack power with the weapon keyword and a range of melee, you give that power a range of 5.

Arcane Trickster Spells
Irrascible Assailant Arcane Trickster Attack 11
You flash a blade at the face of your opponent, and then with a word of power send it whirling into his nearby allies.
Encounter*Arcane, Weapon
Standard Action Close blast 3
Target: Each enemy in blast
Attack: Intelligence vs. Reflex
Hit: 3[W] + Intelligence modifier damage, and one adjacent opponent in the blast grants combat advantage to you until the end of your next turn.

There and Gone Arcane Trickster Utility 12
You mutter an arcane phrase, make a small gesture, and appear behind your opponent.
Encounter* Arcane, Teleportation
Immediate Interrupt Personal
Trigger: An enemy enters a square adjacent to you.
Effect: You teleport to any other square adjacent to the trigggering enemy, and that enemy grants combat advantage until the end of your next turn.

Master of the Many Blades Arcane Trickster Attack 20
You raise your weapon, and suddenly one blade becomes many; they begin to dance around you in a deadly, weaving pattern.
Daily* Arcane, Weapon, Conjuration, Zone
Standard Action Close burst 3
Target: Each enemy in burst
Attack: Intelligence vs. Reflex
Hit: 4[W] + Intelligence modifier damage, and the enemies hit grant combat advantage to you until the end of your next turn.
Effect: The burst creates a zone of whirling blades which lasts until the end of your next turn. Any enemy within the zone grants combat advantage to your allies while they remain in the zone.
Sustain Minor: The zone persists. When you move, the zone moves with you, remaining centered on you.


I hope you all enjoy a little crunch, since I've been feeling like my last couple of posts have been so fluffy. Next week should be a little more... substantial.

Fantasy Craft by Crafty Games

Have you ever considered that Ikea might be the "holy grail" of RPG design? The phrase "Some Assembly Required" is really the watch-word of a solid RPG system. The boys (and girls?) over at Crafty Games have really nailed that in their new Fantasy Craft. Unfortunately, I happen to be a friend of one of the editors, Alex Flagg, so I'm going to have to really justify this positive review. Wouldn't want anyone to think I'm playing favorites! So I am going to break down what was done right, and hit a few points that probably could have been touched up.

First thing you are likely to notice as you crack the book (or scroll through the PDF) is the margin art. The top and bottom of each page has a small vignette drawn across it, adding a little ambiance to what can easily become a dry book of rules. I got a kick out of interpreting, and then reinterpreting the actions being presented on each small image. The artwork in general is highly reminiscient of the original Dungeons & Dragons and Advanced Dungeons & Dragons rulebooks, which will reassure us old hands at High Fantasy gaming, and intrigue the fresh faces who are just exploring the fun to be had with D&D 4th edition, Pathfinder, and now Fantasy Craft.

Crafty Games has done an excellent job of distancing themselves from their predecessors, with the Species options and Classes being sufficiently different from previous games of this type. As an owner of the old Council of the Wyrms boxed set, I was happy to see the inclusion of a draconic race, minus the anthropomorphism. The one thing I found a bit off-putting early in the rules was the high number of classes. Assassin, Burglar, and Explorer are three seperate basic classes in Fantasy Craft. Setting aside my general dislike of Assassin being a class (or prestige class! I'm talking to you, 3.5!), I feel like the flexibility of this approach could have been preserved without cluttering the system with so many classes. Perhaps using a system similar to the talent system from Star Wars Saga Edition or by giving a class different progression trees that can be chosen from. This would allow a new player to get their bearing in the character creation process a bit more quickly.

How about Action Points, you like those? Then you'll love Fantasy Craft. No, they don't give you action points, they give you Action Dice! And Action Dice explode! I like exploding dice. And the action dice in Fantasy Craft feel like more of a resource rather than a perk, which makes them more memorable to players, and more significant in their contribution to the flow of any given encounter. I also like the mutability of key abilities for skill checks. Did your Soldier use Charisma as a dump stat? You can still use Intimidate, just make sure that you are using it in a way that makes Strength a better key ability for it. That's the kind of flexibility that a game like this needs to be interesting.

Flexibility comes at a cost, though. Treasure is awarded and retained through a relatively arcane Reputation/Lifestyle system. The Gear section wouldn't have surprised me if I had seen an entry on one of the tables for the "Kitchen Sink." The adversaries in the game scale with the level of your players' characters (a nice touch, reminiscent of the method used by Bethesda Games in their Elder Scrolls computer games), making each encounter a small exercise in your math skills just to get your stat blocks in order. Fantasy Craft also does away with the discrete organization used by games like D&D 4th edition for encounters, splitting things by scenes, which are far more arbitrary and harder to ajudicate.

Final Word? The Sage gives Fantasy Craft the thumbs up. If you like your gaming simple, sit this one out. If you want to exert a little more effort, and try some new ways of engaging your players, pick this up. Just make sure you have some lead time, you're going to want to read through this rule system a couple of times.

Extended Adventuring

I'm currently playing in a long-running D&D campaign, and DMing a second. Both are 4th Edition games. One thing that has started to stand out to me is that the "Curse of the Wizard" has subsumed all classes in this new edition. In previous editions, the wizard, and to a lesser extent all spellcasters, had to treat their arsenal of spells like a precious commodity, only to be expended in times of great need. This led to a built-in limit on how long a party could continue adventuring without resting. Once the wizard had cast all his spells, he began whining about taking an 8-hour rest (now we call them "extended rests") and this led the party to try to find a defensible position and hope that their DM was kind enough to allow them some sleep. In 4th Edition D&D, now even the fighter and the rogue (traditionally the two classes that could keep going right up to their last hit point) are asking to take a rest every third encounter. At the lowest levels, this doesn't appear to be horribly problematic, but when your party has infiltrated the enemy's encampment and are stealthily disposing of the strongest pockets of resistance, it becomes difficult to justify huddling down in an empty tent for six or eight hours!

So, what to do? We want to keep the game exciting, and we want to make sure that there are plenty of reasons to take extended rests, but is there a way to extend the amount of time a party can continue toward their goal? For DMs, this is even a way to retain suspense and build tension, because nothing kills the tension and excitement like a group of players afraid to do anything because they are out of daily powers and surges.

The first potential solution is to create a median between Short Rests, about 5 minutes of in-game time long, and Extended Rests, which are at least 6 hours long and must be seperated by 12 hours of activity. We'll call them Moderate Rests, lasting at least 30 minutes. A moderate rest should refund one daily power, and a quarter of the character's healing surges. Moderate rests should not be allowed more than once every two milestones (four encounters) in heroic and paragon teirs. Once the characters have hit epic teir, don't allow a moderate rest until three milestones (6 encounters) have elapsed.

If you feel that the real stumbling block is simply the fact that the effectiveness of the characters drops off too steeply when all daily powers are expended, consider giving the option of recharging a daily power instead of receiving an action point. This option should be restricted in some way, because players may choose to abuse such largess on the part of the DM. First, make sure that the character does not have an item which awards action points for some circumstance. No matter how unlikely the circumstance, this could lead to all players seeking out such items, and would mean that the players are not truly giving something up to gain another use of their daily power. Second, once the character has more than one daily power, consider restricting this option to only when they have two fewer than their maximum number of daily powers. This way, you won't have a character who is able to bring themselves back to a full compliment of daily attack powers by forgoing action points.

If you are open to something a little more drastic, a more significant adjustment to the system would be to boost the number of healing surges each character has, and to recharge daily powers half as often as you award action points. Take the final number of surges for each character and multiply it by 1.5 to give the total number of surges. Every four encounters, let the characters choose one expended daily power and return it to their "unused" pile. This system will allow for more encounters within a single day of game time. It might also unbalance the characters slightly against the level progression model of the core rules. If you use this option, consider slowing down the XP gain, perhaps by awarding only three quarters of the original experience. However, you might find that no balance problems arise, and if they do not, avoid instituting any penalties for the system.

Remember, the purpose of these rule options is to increase the number of encounters a party can tackle before running out of gas and needing some sack time. It's about increasing the entertainment factor, and keeping the game running smoothly. If you aren't having any problems with that, don't try these out, as they will simply tend to unbalance the game and potentially could ruin everyone's fun. However, if you're like me, and hate having to try to take a quick 6 hour nap in the Antechamber of Death's Dwelling because the four encounters getting to the antechamber, and then the fight with the red dragon in the antechamber, have completely wiped out your attack powers and healing surges, perhaps these slight tweaks might help to alleviate some of those problems.

Welcome, One and All!

The subtitle might have misled you somewhat. I am something of an RPG aficionado, but I have very strong propensities toward the most mainstream of games. Most of this blog will revolve around Dungeons & Dragons (tm) and Star Wars: Saga Edition (tm). I will occasionally examine other games, with some favoritism shed in the direction of my good friend Alex Flagg, over at Crafty Games (look for an upcoming review of Fantasy Craft, from Alex and his cohorts).

Many topics will revolve around ideas for players, GMs, and even those of us who dabble in both. Some of these things might seem overly ambitious, or even down-right stupid. Tell me what you think, or if you give something a try, let me know how it turned out. If you'd like some thoughts from the sage on a topic, I'll even break a fundamental tennant of the blog (see: the title of said blog) and provide solicited material when asked!

Now, while you can peek over at the "About Me" on the right, let me establish some credentials before we get too far into this. I am NOT an employee of Wizards of the Coast (tm), WotC, or Crafty Games (tm). I have done some freelance work for WotC, such as writing this article with my buddy Greg Bilsland, who IS an editor at WotC. So, I've done some work, I have semi-regular conversations with industry insiders, and I play alot. That really comes out to pretty thin credentials. Fortunately, this is unsolicited sagacity, so I'll keep blathering on whether I am qualified or not.

Look for updates on Wednesdays. Hope to see you then!