Monumental Magic

As some of you are now aware, I'm working on a "from scratch" martial controller. Not that I didn't like the "re-built" rogue martial controller, but I thought it might be fun to create a class from the ground up and experience the process. And it doesn't hurt that this is one particular niche that seems to have been left open either by design or oversight. Unfortunately, the process began just about the time I started playing Open Beta of Star Trek Online, which has slowed my progress immeasurably. However, the Beta is over, and so I am refocusing on my efforts and should have a finished product soon. With the help of my Monday night group, I've named the new class. So, next week, I plan to give you the first installment of a multi-week unveiling of: The Phalanx!

But that is next week. This week, I have to make a confession. I'm afraid I went nearly twenty seven years without ever watching Conan the Barbarian. Fortunately, this week, I rectified that gap in my education. But as I was watching the movie, I recognized a trope of high fantasy adventure literature and cinema that generally doesn't translate well into your average tabletop game: the item of significance. Many rule sets have been laid out by many different games on how to create "heirloom items" or how to enhance an existing item so that your player doesn't have to sell off the family sword when he gets his first magic weapon. So I don't plan to rehash something so relatively old hat. Instead, this led me to consider old games that I had played. The feeling of wonder when we found a magical weapon. The suspense as the wizard crushed that 100gp pearl and cast "Identify" on the sword, and the exultation as the DM read the description of the potent magical properties of the weapon. That is something I definitely miss. Nowadays, it seems like the magic is expected, expedient, and often very un-exciting.

My Monday night game had a noteworthy discovery of a magic item which relates to this idea. Our fighter uses two-handed axes, so when we found ourselves facing off against the King of the Xane-kin (Goodman Games monster, not even sure I'm spelling it right) wielding an over-sized two-handed ax of obvious magical power, the whole party was agog with anticipation! What would it be? Could Marcus wield such an immense weapon? Would Cain the Cunning be forced to use his powers to transfer the enchantment to a more reasonable sized weapon? My DM, always the master of improvisation (I'm assuming this wasn't completely scripted, perhaps it was.) saw the excitement that this weapon generated and jumped on it. He described the ax falling to the ground with as much attention to detail and color as one usually reserves for the demise of the campaign's BBEG. The whole group was spell-bound as Marcus tried to lift it. And found that he could! This sort of flavor makes magic items memorable. It also helps keep all players engaged in what is going on a the table. That makes it something worth trying.

So, how should we go about making magic monumental? Here are a few suggestions for players and DMs:

1. As DM, solicit a wishlist of items from your players. This is pretty standard fare, but ask for more than you might usually. Ask the player to "describe" the delver's leather armor they want. Is it crafted from the hides of sentient lizards? Does it appear to be made from the skins of giant spiders? These flavor details, produced by the character's player, increase buy-in from the player, making them less likely to thoughtlessly shuck the item when it's enhancement bonus is no longer on par, and also give you material to use to weave the item into the game at a theatrically appropriate moment, increasing everyone's enjoyment of the game.
2. As a player, take some time to consider how your character feels about the various items s/he has discovered, and those which s/he hopes to discover. What characteristics make these weapons distinct? Does your character want to be known as the dagger master who leaps from the shadows, face indistinct, but serpentine blades dripping venom and cutting blinding arcs through the darkness? Or does your character wish to use a morningstar with the skull of a barbed demon as the head? Each of these ideas helps the game, and can help you and your friends enjoy it all the more. So think them up, and share them!
3. Finally, as the DM, never distribute magic items as an after-thought. It is better to have the loot for the fight ready and be fumbling through three monster manuals to keep up with the stats of the monsters, than to pull off an epic battle that your players were unsure they would survive only to kill the elation by announcing "you find a... helm of leadership on one of the monsters."

The moral of the story is that magic should be monumental. And to make it momentous, you have to give it its moment. Both players and DMs need to do their part. With a little extra attention, and some collaboration on the parts of players and DMs, no loot will ever be dull accounting ever again. Until next week, good gaming!

One of Those Days...

So, my Monday night game this week was... well, see the title. Anyone else remember that book Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No-Good, Very Bad Day? Well, after Monday night's session, I wanted to move to Australia. It wasn't just the bad rolls (although, it's never fun to spend the entire night rolling 8 or lower other than one 15 and a 13...) but rather the stark juxtaposition of my crap-tacular rolling alongside the multiple crits of our fighter and rogue. Now, D&D is a cooperative game, so I'm certainly not complaining that my team was doing well. In fact, we would likely have ended up ground into paste if they weren't doing better than average. But it got me thinking about 4e, and the frequency of "Those Days."

So, in honor of all "Those Days" we've had, here are some ideas on how to avoid the need to move to Australia.

1. Don't take only attack powers. When you get the chance to pick up a utility, make sure it's not simply something that augments attacks. Grab at least a few of them that are encounter powers that you can use when you are scared of rolling a D20. Give someone else a save, remove a condition from someone else, teleport the heck out of a tight spot. If you only have dailies to rely on not needing to hit, you're going to spend a lot of turns doing nothing when the God of Dice is laying down the smack.
2. With the support of your DM/fellow players, make it an off-day for your character. Flubbing a lot of rolls? Come up with some hilarious antics to explain why your normally savvy hero is suddenly the Chevy Chase of high adventure. Things like grabbing the wrong weapon, forgetting the words to that Inspiring Refrain, or just straight up bad luck can not only make your wasted turns sting a little less, but they can also make the fight more fun for everyone. Tap into the groups Schadenfreude, get everyone laughing at the frustration you are experiencing. It may just make you feel a little better about it.
3. Help the DM out a bit. Maybe your rolls aren't the reason you're falling all over yourself, maybe the bad guy is just THAT AWESOME! Whenever you dump a roll, describe some incredible maneuver the enemy performed that caused your well-aimed attack to miss. This is, of course, subject to DM approval but most DMs will appreciate you playing up their villians. Especially when they feel like the dread has left the game, and no one is taking that evil warlock they spent three hours designing as the B.B.E.G. seriously. This could earn you some points, make you feel like less of a failure, AND help your fellow players enjoy the fight a bit more as they all experience more satisfaction when they manage to hit the guy on whom you couldn't lay a finger.
4. Finally, look at other benefits you can contribute. Give the rogue flanking. Sure you're a wizard, but use the bloody staff and go flank that goblin! Use the often-overlooked "Aid Another" action. +2 to defenses against an opponent, or +2 on the next attack roll against that opponent? You only have to hit an AC 10 with a melee basic attack. And if you're going to roll horribly, at least you have better odds against a defense that low.

So there are four ways to make that terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad session a little less painful. And hopefully, a little more fun! And who knows, maybe you'll accrue some handy karma that will get that evil God of Dice off your back before the end of the session. You might be back to fighting fit before you know it! Or you can always use Ode of Sacrifice to take the stun condition off the rogue. Those striker-types love when you do stuff like that!

Ride the Wave

Today, I'm going to try not to wax philosophical and take up too much of your time. We're going to take a quick look at Google Wave, which is bringing a new avenue to RPGs. After talking in general, I'd like to share some ideas that have occurred to me on usage, and share some links to the gadgets and extensions that look like they will be most helpful in running a game on Google Wave.

So, Google Wave was designed as a collaborative tool. This works out wonderfully, because Wizards of the Coast has mostly spiked the plans to create a gaming table feature for D&D Insider. And for everyone who doesn't play D&D, Google Wave offers an alternative to play-by-post games and similar fare. The advantage of Google Wave lies in the melding of synchronous and asynchronous communication. Basically, with existing programs and web applications, players either had to be sitting down at computers at the same time, or they ran the risk of posting things simultaneously, leading to confusion and redundancy. With Google Wave, all participants can see, in real time, when a contributor is posting. This means that the fluidity of the game is more protected. Players can check in with one another with less chance of derailing the game. And best of all, if a session with everyone present is desired, it is absolutely possible.

The second advantage comes in the form of gadgets and extensions that I mentioned earlier. These are user generated (for the most part) little programs that can run within your Wave. There is an extension that will automatically roll dice when you enter them into the Wave, and a gadget that will show a map, battle mat, or other image withing the Wave and allow you to place markers on it. As more people start to use Google Wave, there will undoubtedly be further improvements to the breadth and application of gadgets and extensions.

Of course, the same flexibility that allows such dynamic game play does come at a price. This medium allows anyone to edit any post in the Wave. This means that there is a bit more of an element of trust than in other formats, where finalized text is immutable, or at least restricted in who can alter it. But it is a necessary price which allows the players to move their character's marker on the map, or to note an immediate interrupt on an enemy's turn. Ultimately, the system's benefits make it ideal for the purposes of the gaming community. I remember a time when several hours of prep work were wasted because my players asked me to grab sodas for them and then stole my adventure notes and read through them. (I was only 13 at the time, and far too trusting a lad!) So trust is not merely required on Google Wave. If you're like me, this is exciting as a way to supplement your table-top game, try another character, or run a campaign you've been itching to start. I still endorse sitting down at a table with friends, but when that isn't an option, I think Google Wave is providing us with an outstanding alternative.

Ideas

Use player "check-ins" during combat or other activities that could involve taking actions that aid or interrupt others. This might slow down the game slightly, but could also reduce the amount of "ret-conning" you have to do. Just have each player edit the post with each turn adding a small, agreed-upon designator at the bottom acknowledging that they have reviewed the actions of the turn and do not wish to take any actions in response. If a player does want to react, such as taking an opportunity action, have them add that instead of their designator. e.g. An orc attacks Stan the Wizard. GM Steve writes out a post detailing the attack and includes the roll, showing a successful hit and the damage dealt. When Bob checks the post later that evening, and sees that the orc his Swordmage marked attacked Stan, he opens the post and adds a line to the effect of: "A brilliant flash of light deflects the brunt of the orc's swing, Stan only receives 4 damage."

Try to set things around 3-day windows. This way, if players have a busy day, or the GM does, no one is getting upset with the lack of movement on the thread. This also gives people a mental count on when the next round is going to occur. Because everything is ultimately editable, it doesn't hurt too much to go back and change things, but from round to round consistency helps players make decisions they are happy with going forward. If a monster crits a character, dropping them to 0 hit points and the Rogue uses his turn to stabilize that character, then the defender comes along having missed the last couple days of action and interrupts the attack, negating the crit, it is understandable that the group is going to be a little miffed about having to redo that whole round and any subsequent rounds that included actions stemming from that chain of events. This is partly addressed by the suggestion above, but setting some sort of loose time table for the progression of rounds gives everyone a way to feel more secure.

Useful Extensions and Gadgets

Fighty is a map extension that allows you to make an interactive battle mat out of most anything. Find the directions on how to use it here.

For a dice simulator, try adding "randomleetwenty@appspot.com" as a "user" to your Wave. The extension will fill in the roll when you write things like "1d20+10."

Now I am off to start planning my Google Wave game. Good luck, and good gaming!

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!