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.
October 28, 2009
October 24, 2009
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!
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!
October 07, 2009
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!
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!
September 30, 2009
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!
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!
September 23, 2009
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.
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!
September 16, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)