DnD Next Playtest Round #1

I've been silent a while. Partially, this is due to not wanting to rant or rave about the 5e news before there's enough out there to build a solid opinion on. Partially, I have heard had very little to like, and didn't want to come across as too negative. And partly, Real Life has been kicking me around rather roughly. But now that some of that has changed, here are my initial views on what has been offered for DnD Next! If you haven't already done so, I strongly encourage everyone to head over and join the playtest. Plus, look out for other blogs about the playtest - what follows is simply my opinion, and clearly cannot cover every player's reaction! Also note that these responses were written for the WotC survey on the playtest, and are thus written specifically for WotC to read, in response to their questions, and edited to be quite brief (as there was a word limit to responses). I have not (and will most likely continue to not) re-written them, so simply present them as-is. As such, if you haven't read the playtest material, you might be left a little confused! Feel free to ask for clarifications, if you want.

General Comments

Short rests did not provide enough healing. At level 1, with only one HD available, the wizard and cleric needed to rest whilst the fighter wasn't injured; after that, the wounded ones didn't want to go back in, whilst the fighter was ready to continue.

It was hard to change information into grids. (25ft, 20ft radius, etc). People use the metric system now, and for games, squares are much more useful..

Whilst the starting HP was good, the healing was not. One short rest each, with minimal healing (wizard gets d4+2 once a day, and only if they use a kit?) makes the short rest practically useless, and greatly increases the 5-minute workday. It feels like the heroes are meant to be tough like 4e, but after that first fight, are weaker than 3e.

As a DM

Simple things such as monster initiative wasn't included in the book. The module was written with a "do whatever you want" feel, which left myself and the players very clueless as to what exactly they should be doing.

Having only one map, at the end of the book, was also hard. Constant flicking between the main map and the locations was hard, as was working out where creatures were (eg 22 + 6 goblins in one room!). The scale of the map was also overlooked by us until after the first session, so we had way too little space to play on.

Trying to find out rulings on simple things (what effect does 'shadowy light' have? can you flank? what is a coup de grace? and other things we know from previous editions) was hard, and there was always the fear of choosing something unfair / contrary to the rules. Am I not finding something, or has it not been added in yet? If characters are told they treat darkness as shadowy light, where is the information as to what shadowy light is?

I found nothing on passive skills, so are we to expect everyone is not searching unless they specifically call for it? I do not want to have to call for search checks again, that would be yet another step backwards from 4e.

The monsters were also both too simple (in the adventure book), and too complex (bestiary, when it makes you refer to other locations for spells! I already have the module open to the map, to the encounter area, then i have the bestiary open to the monster, and now also the rule book to the spell??) 4e had this right with their module format: two page spread, everything you needed (map, text, rules, monsters). This is what all modules should have. For sure, have further bits about NPCs, story, etc, but when you write an encounter, keep it all in the one spot. Everything revolving around the encounter, right there for you.

As a Player

There was little feel and no real options with my character (dwarf fighter). Having played many fighters in 4e, where they were both interesting and involved, moving to this fighter was worse than stepping back to 3e. You can make an array of fighters in 4e that have different feels to them, different and varied options available, and all can refrain from becoming boring; this guy had nothing. Move, hit, move hit, move, hit. Only healing once a day (for d12+2, so 8 HP on average) is not enough. 8 HP is not even half his total HP, so if he gets beaten down in one encounter, he is out for the rest of the day? That is not heroic at all. Sure, have the HD as a bonus to healing, but allow more healing, more often!

Our group initially mistook the rules to be "HD + Con Score", and thought that was low...when we realised it was Con Modifier, we were horrified.

Plus, our group had no healing kits, so after our first scuffle with goblins, we had to take all the spears (60+ of them) back to "civilisation", sell them, and grab ourselves a healers kit. The kits should aid in short rests, not be required for them!

Ultimately, if a short rest has not healed the characters close to full HP, there is little chance they want to go on. Sure, limit the number of rests per day, but 4e had it right - after a rest, they should be pretty much back on their toes.

I was also confused as to where his damage came from: 2d6+7. +3 str, +2 weapon focus, +2?

It was also unclear if the weapon focus applied to the reaper feature, and what use exactly their low-light vision was (only works if there's no light around? Does a torch count? Does the sun count? Does a fire count? What if any of those things only gives shadowy light (poor torch, cloud cover, embers of a fire)? If you are going to give races abilities, make sure they are easily noted and understandable.

Classes

The cleric
Healing was too little (D6??). If you rolled a 1, you might as well not helped out at all. Also - healing when the target is unconscious, does it merely reduce the negative HP, or revive them immediately?

Whilst using the 3e sorcerer style of spells was better than what was done for the wizard, it would still have been better to have some encounter powers (such as the pathetic d6 healing), so they could have more options each encounter.


The fighter
The fighter was boring. After the great, exciting things we have played in 4e, going back to a simple "move, hit, repeat" format was not enjoyable. There was not even any option in the one, single power he had.

Fighter's surge is pretty much a poor attempt at action points; they were much more enjoyable in 4e, where everyone had them. We hourse-ruled them to an encounter resource (easier book-keeping) , and never looked back.

The wizard
Not having the spells before you was a real pain. Having a character sheet that was already twice as involved as the fighter, *before* spells were added, was also not good. Again, 4e had this right, where spells / attacks were equal across classes, and one player didn't have to wade through multiple books whilst others could write everything on a business card.

Having your powers as mostly daily powers was not good, either. Vancian magic really should stay in Vancian novels. At the most, have a few, rare daily powers, but leave enough encounter powers to keep options alive, instead of the “oh well, spells spent, I’m out for the day now". Magic Missile does not help; it’s as bad as the 2e "wizard's crossbow”.

Spell descriptions had too much fluff. Once you read someone's interpretation of the burning hands spell, do you really ever want to read it again? It’s ok to have that fluff, but when it is in the body of the spells, it takes up space; the cards for 4e worked well. Everything mechanical you needed to know to cast the spell, whilst the fluff stuff was easily accessible if you wanted it. But don't have them in a separate location-it takes too much time looking up spells!
Plus, the radius/cone things really are not good. Using grids (which I have done since 2e) means that "20ft radius“ is harder to calculate, harder to adjudicate, harder to place "Burst2" is simple, there are no arguments, & it is quick.

Saving throws are also bad From the DM's side (having to look up creatures stats in yet another book, then roll them all), it adds more time to the one person who has the least time From the player's side, why not roll to hit each creature, as everyone else does? The fighter gets to roll his dice to attack, why can't the wizard roll to see how accurate his spell is?

The races

The races didn't seem interesting, and there was no easily discoverable information as to the real effect of low-light vision. Maybe, had we seen the racial mechanics, there might be more feedback on them, but as it was, they seemed simple and boring. 4e racial powers let you know different races were interesting.

Overall Comments

This game felt like a giant leap backwards. 3rd edition brought with it many improvements on 2e (classes made more even, skills and feats, options available to classes, stats made even). but 4e made many improvements to 3e (classes made more balanced in game, as well as at the meta-table level, fighter and wizard both being interesting options, rolls made by the attacker limited excess DM work, characters healed in battle and out, clerics could do things aside from heal, and still heal, saves were simple d20 rolls, distance was in squares, monsters stat blocks were elegant and simple, and didn't force the DM to look elsewhere, every player could play without referencing books, just their character sheets/cards).

This feels like a step back to 3e, with overflow into 2e. Honestly, if this was the option right now, I would have no issue sticking with 4e. And though I don't want to play 3e any more, if 4e wasn't an option I would choose Pathfinder. It's free, open, and better than the playtest we have now.

Whilst some areas are overly simplified (which we expect), the sheer number of rolls (eg d6sp+d10cp per goblin) and equipment/spells makes it feel too simulationalist. If you want a simple system, go for that - but cut out rolling silver & copper pieces in treasure!

Overall Questions

Why were spells put back into the game in such a 3e way? Getting them out from the "spell section" of the book was a great thing 4e did, and made non-spellcasters feel better (since they didn't access that chapter). Having monsters with daily spells (when they will only last an encounter) is also painful - forcing the DM to look them up, moreso. For the next playtest, it would be a great improvement if every single class had two, and only two pages of information. Print those pages out, and that is absolutely everything they are required to use for the session.

Likewise, why make so much more work for the DM? Give him the module, and that should contain everything. No flipping through the bestiary for further info before the encounter even starts (eg initiative), or flipping through a third book for spells! Help him out by having everything there for him from the get go.

Why do fighters have to be so boring, and wizards so complicated?

Why have we gone back to feet? Is DnD not a worldwide game? Use squares, and make it simpler for everyone.

How do you get advantage / disadvantage? Give a list of common causes for both, and let the DM add to it; don't make the DM decide all of them.

Heroica: First Steps towards Roleplay

I recently purchased the smaller of the Heroica sets, Draida Bay.  Whilst I do enjoy collecting LEGO (Star Wars specifically), the reason I purchased this set was to introduce Ali, my daughter, to games.  That is, actual board games, with rules and dice! (and not just snakes and ladders)

Heroica Mechanics

The Heroica game is simple enough - roll a special LEGO die, move your micro-fig that many squares, and if you land adjacent to a monster, you roll again.  The die's sides show numbers (in pips) and either a sword, skull, or both.  These refer to you defeating the monster, or taking damage yourself.  Being a kids game, there is no chance of losing - should you run out of hit points, you simply miss a few rounds, whilst rolling the die and regaining hit points until you reach the maximum amount, and continue your quest.

The monsters (goblins, in this set) do not move or act aside from the result of the hero's roll; they simply stand and wait to be confronted.  This means the game is played cooperatively against the static environment. You could play to race to the end, but so far in our gaming, my daughter seems to be just happy to defeat the goblin general.

Playing the Game

Our first play-through naturally involved building the map itself, and this was something Ali most definitely enjoyed.  Being only three, the instructions were a bit beyond her (not surprisingly, since it is recommended for ages 7+), but with my guidance and help, she managed to get most of the game set up.  She has her own blocks (Duplo, Mega Blocks, and Kid K'NEX), and is always eager to play with, or help build, other more advanced sets, so this was not her time with regular LEGO blocks.

Understanding the rules was a little more of a hindrance.  Being young, she was thrilled with rolling the die (which, with its rubber frame, bounces away all too easily!); even using the recommended lid as a rolling tray didn't stop the die escaping from the table on numerous occasions.  Counting the pips was easy enough, though Ali often struggled with translating the count to the squares moved.  More often than not, her piece was simply moved to a random square.

The "capture" of the goblin microfigs became a fun experience, and they quickly lost any fearful attitude they might have had, and were refined to another treasure to be collected.  Interestingly, the one treasure in the game (a healing potion) was not allowed to be moved.  Ali refused to take it, if she was allowed; and I was told to put it back, if I ever dared remove it.

Losing a combat was also a favourite: Ali still exclaims loudly "ow!" whenever she rolls a skull, and takes great care removing her hit point marker.  For some reason, they always have to be stored in the same location (the corner of the general's square), and if they are ever left lying around on the table, I am quickly told "no, daddy, put them here!"

Roleplaying?

Aside from the cries of mock pain as she rolls the skulls, there is little story that goes along with the game.  The die is the main draw, and the LEGO pieces a close second.  But that's not necessarily a bad thing - even a good old Mr Men story is often beyond Ali's attention span or understanding.  Still, as a starting point, I think it is valid.  Eventually, when she is learning more about addition, and can handle more game mechanics, games in DnD's "Adventure System" (Castle Ravenloft, Wrath of Ashardalon, and the like) will be adequate.  (At the moment, she enjoys the miniatures, but wouldn't follow the game or the rolls...or be able to read the d20).

Slowly, stories could be made about the adventurers.  After all, Ali already makes stories with her dolls (which include pirates invading the princess' dollhouse); stretching them to the adventuring Barbarian and Wizard shouldn't be too much of a stretch. So, I see potential for stories to develop and be able to be played out, and will be testing the water as Ali grows.

Aftermath

The game is a success - Ali often wants to play "the dice game", and is eager to proceed if I suggest a second run.  She still does not understand the finer points of the game - each character has a 'special attack', but as they are still referred to as "the yellow one" and "the red one", those finer points can wait.  Exactly what happens to the goblins when they are captured is not clear - they seem to be more trophies to be won, as opposed to any actual killing being done (and I am ok with that! She already likes shooting with non-gun things too much).  And, the counting of positions is still a little rough.  Counting dots is one thing - they are there, and have a definite number.  Counting out how many places she is to move proves to be a little more difficult - often she will find herself ahead one or two squares.  The miscounting doesn't matter in our games, but continued play could help her develop her counting skills...at least, to four.

Since the sets are relatively cheap, and are clearly fun and enjoyable, I will look into getting further ones over time, and add them to the current set as she grows in understanding and ability.  I still don't know if they will be as fun when Ali is seven, but for now they are a quite worthwhile hobby.

My Roleplaying Game Journey (An Overview)

Today, I am looking back (briefly) at the various games and groups I have enjoyed over the years.  This article serves to give a little more background as to where I come from (in relation to RPGs), and what my experiences have been.  I'm not going to dwell on anything too much, just paint a general picture, so feel free to browse over it, and if you really want to know more, ask!


The Primary School Era

I have been playing RPGs since early in primary school.  At a guess, that was around ten years of age, and I cannot remember what the game we played actually was.  It could have been some old edition of DnD, as I recall there was a map at one stage; but it most likely wasn't.  We played at lunch times, and I definitely recall some of the game being out of a novel-like book.  It could even have been some from of Choose-Your_Own-Adventure book, if such things have been made to allow for parties to participate?  Or maybe, the boy that DMed those games had combined elements from multiple sources?  All I can remember is that we enjoyed it, and had much fun hiding in the library, or in the shade of the buildings, whilst other kids ran around in the sun for some strange reason.

Some time in my 12th year (of life, not school), I was introduced to the first RPG that actually used miniatures.  Hero Quest. That was a whole new world of fun, and I was drawn in immediately...and then school ended, my family relocated 800km away, and I started high-school.  Naturally, I convinced my parents of the importance of acquiring this game, and played it with my younger brother, but the "gaming group" was gone, and had to be rebuilt, or found.  Plus, with the predetermined board, there was less design allowed, and whilst running the monsters was enjoyable, it was not truly "DMing".


The High School Era

As I started High School, my interest with painting miniatures also started.  I still have those awkwardly-painted first batch of creatures from Hero Quest.  Gradually, my taste in games grew, as a hunger for more complexity and more options was developed.  I discovered Games Workshop, and through them, lost much time and money to many different pursuits.  Warhammer Fantasy (Skaven); Warhamemr 40,000 (Eldar), and Necromunda (Orlocks, then Spyre Hunters) all captured my attention at various times.  A common theme was had with these 'teams' I chose: fast, strong offensive, weak defensive.  (Well, the Spyres might not have been that weak, but they were few in number, and that is a form of weakness, right?)  The painting habit improved over time, and continued well into the "So On" era (complete with GW's Lord of the Rings line), up until my role as a father started taking over my free time.

Whilst these skirmish-style games were great, and we all had a whole lot of fun with them, it was Warhammer Quest that truly awoke my inner DM.  Through the latter part of my high school years, we formed a proper gaming group - which was pretty much just the same circle of friends I hung out with elsewhere - and adventured through many stories, and with many different characters.  We even dressed up...once.  Only once.

When we split up and headed for University, we always imagined coming back and continuing the games we had once again, but it never happened.  Now, fifteen years later, the closest we have come is a few games of Castle Ravenloft one Christmas.  And that's not to say it was a bad experience - but trying to organise much more than that has proven to be impossible.

The University Era


When I left home to head to University, money became a lot more scarce (strangely!), and the groups I could have joined, through various clubs, were a significant travelling time away from my home.  Oh, and I was an engineer student, so I did not have much free time!

Eventually, I did meet some people who had a long-running DnD group, and was invited to join.  The full history of that group would be better told on another blog, but it, with a few changes, is still continuing this day, about 12 or so years later.

Meanwhile, I also discovered online forums, Play-by-Post games (which I will talk about more later), and RPGs on the computer (the Baldur's Gate series, and then Neverwinter Nights).  These filled in that need to game, without having to actaully find a time that would work with everyone.  Yes, each of them lacked aspects that a good, regular gaming group had, but they had benefits, too.  A computer game clearly only needs you to be free; likewise, you can write up a post in your own time, and not have to wait on others arriving.  But still, these things were only ever a fill-in, for when the actual group wasn't meeting.

And So On...

My current, long-term group has played through the end of second edition; excitedly entered third (then reluctantly purchased 3.5); took a detour through Star Wars; returned to see out a heavily house-ruled 3.5e campaign whilst trying out 4e on the side; and now are sailing on with some dusty adventures with a full-fledged 4e game (more on which can be seen on the aforementioned blog).

Whilst that has happened, the side group was formed.  It was made up from a few eager players wanting to play more than once a month, and a few other interested folk who had not played for a while, or at all.  This group started out as an attempt to move through the levels, sampling what 4e had to offer, before making a decision as to if we would join it or not.  Of course, being a monthly game, it took a year to get through the heroic tier.  Then we slowed down, and took nearly two more years to get through the paragon tier.

New babies, extra commitments, and one individual looking at returning to England meant that as we planned to start the epic tier, the group was a whole lot smaller.  In fact, it was getting hard to have enough people for a game, so we planned on merely sampling a few levels over the expanse of the epic tier, and then seeing where we were (and who was left) before deciding on our path ahead.

A third group was formed at work - what started off as various board games (Settlers of Catan being an early favourite) turned into a DnD 4e game.  Playing almost every day at lunch, we were able to get through games a lot faster, even managing to complete an encounter a day in the epic tier!  Sure, there were a few special battles that had us run over to a second lunchtime, but those were few and far between. 

It is interesting to note the different levels of roleplaying that happen in each game.  Lunchtimes at work are very focused and encounter driven; the monthly games are more relaxed and have room for more social encounters; and the continuing Play-by-Post games allow for in-depth discussion and mid-round flashbacks.  They are all enjoyable in their own way, and I will hopefully be able to continue on with each of them for some time yet!

Are we Losing Good Ideas?

I would have liked to be present for the recent DnD XP playtest and seminars, but alas, it is too far to travel from way over here in Australia!  So I waited the time out, and have since been busy reading over everything that comes out on various blogs, looking through EN World's fantastic news summary page, and listening to different podcasts discussing the small skerricks of information that have been released.  It's taken me a while to process much of this, and, to be honest, calm down from some of the more (as I see them) crazy statements or suggestions that have been made.


In my last #DnDNext article, I talked about my feelings during the previous two edition changes.  What I plan on doing today is talking in more detail about some of the changes that have happened in the rules.  Ultimately, Monte Cook has said:

...this isn't another salvo in the so-called edition wars. This isn't an attempt to get you to play Dungeons & Dragons in a new way. This is the game you've already been playing, no matter what edition or version you prefer. The goal here is to embrace all forms of the D&D experience and to not exclude anyone.

I, personally, doubt this.  And I know I am not alone.  There are aspects about 3e that some people prefer to all editions, and because of these aspects, they still play 3e (or PF).  There are aspects of 4e that people prefer over the other editions.  And any amalgamation of these editions cannot keep all those people happy.  Jeff Greiner has said that if he saw Thac0 in the core system, he would be done.  What sort of thing would be 'non-negotiable' for you?  And how many people do you think would have the opposite idea to you?  I cannot help but think that setting out to create a "new, improved, overarching system" would have been more feasible than an "all-encompassing, everyone is happy" system.  Though, then we run into this problem...

Healing

Second edition had a lot of wasted time, waiting in town for your party to heal back up.  Even if it was one person, without a real good reason, the rest of the team would wait patiently by for them to be back up and running before continuing on.  Third edition helped fix this - a bit - but with it, brought its own problems.  Clerics were still doing nothing but repairs in combat (or were forgoing the healing to become a better fighter than the fighter), and gold was the new band-aid, in the form of the terribly cheap and not-well-thought-out "Cure Light Wounds" wands.  Buy a few of them, spend a few minutes as you monotonously rolled a bunch of d8's, and almost all the parties ills were seen to.  Fourth edition brought in surges, which helped both limit the amount of easy healing allowed, and expanded what the healing did.  Instead of spending 37 charges form a want, you can trigger 1 to 4 surges, and be at full health.  And, instead of the cleric's healing only doing 1d8+5, it now does a quarter of your HP and then some!  Finally, 4e also allowed the cleric to take part in the battle without having to run around solely devoting time to patching up the others - and it doesn't even have to be just a cleric any more!

Of course, I am mixing everything together here.  The Angry DM does a good job discussing the two different forms of healing (go read it!).  The noises coming from DnDXP seem to sound like a step back as far as healing.  In-combat, clerics are meant to be back to Vancian (more on that later), and healing sounds more complex.  On out-of-combat healing, Dave Chalker mentioned that a Paladin needed "a several week recovery time" after a run-in with stirges.  Now, I will agree that 4e lets players reset too quickly after a day of adventuring...but weeks?  That stretches things out to dangerous levels.  Either the party is in no rush, and waits around (and thus the penalty is meaningless), or they are in a rush, and leave the paladin behind (so we have to break immersion to quickly bring in paladin2, so the paladin's player has something to do).  Neither of these scenarios sounds like fun to me!  If WotC want DnD to be "more gritty" than 4e, I am sure there are other ways to do it than forcing characters to take long stints of bed rest.

Are WotC stepping backwards?  Are they leaving the 4e simplified (and more fun) healing, and retaking the "one cleric per party" minimum?  Will clerics once again have to choose between keeping their allies alive, and actually partaking in the game? I hope that when further rules are revealed, this will not be the case.

Class Complexity

From the Class Design seminar, we received some general tidbits of information.  But first, a review.

In second edition, the classes were quite separate.  Most had their own XP charts, and thus levelled up at different XP values.  There was a clear divide between the power levels of certain classes - the fighter was superior to the wizard at low levels, and could not stand against them at high levels.  Some were very complex to play; others were simple and easy.  Third edition changed some of this - a singular table was now present for all classes, and they all levelled at the same rate.  There was an effort to balance the power level of each class, so that wizards didn't quite outshine others to the same extent; but largely, they still were the be-all and end-all as you approached epic levels.  Magic users still had a lot of complexity, especially as numerous splat books brought the spellbooks out to triple or quadruple the size of a fighter's sheet. (and that was keeping spells in summary!)  So it was a relief, personally, when 4e brought both the class-to-class power level, and the complexity, to a much closer balance.  With the introduction of at-will, encounter, and daily powers for every class, a fighter was no longer "hit with sword", and a wizard no longer had to wade through 100+ spells to find that right one.  In addition, wizards could use everything they had, and still be quite effective in the next encounter; whilst fighters could have those moments of performing spectacular (and sometimes super-human) deeds.  Each class was both exciting and fun to play, and yet it was simple enough to use any of them.

The options brought in with Essentials for some classes (another rant for another time - but to summarise: just because it is an "Essential" class does not mean it is simplified...the Essentials wizard and cleric, for example, are no easier to play!) meant that players were able to take on a fighter without the complexity of so many powers.  If the player didn't mind that every round was going to be practically the same, they could sacrifice options and unique powers for constant hitting and less choice.  I was disappointed that they only did this for some classes - ranger, rogue, and fighter in particular.  Having similar options for clerics and wizards would have been great: as it is, players who wish for an 'easier' character have their choices radically limited.

So the announcement that fifth edition is going to return to different classes having different complexity levels is another disappointment.  It would be ideal if all classes had options to play a simple version or a complex version (or ones in between), and if the simple versions of each were on par, as well as the complex.

The announcement that "Vancian magic is core" comes into this, too.  It was a great relief to see 4e do away with most of the Vancian system which, whilst may make for good novel writing, does not work well in games!  Having each class based around the same at-will / encounter / daily routine meant that balancing encounters and adventuring days for the party was much easier.  Having a character that, should he use a few powers, is done for the day, grows tired pretty quickly.  Put alongside the character who can continue doing that one (boring?) action over and over again all day long, and you have a break-down in party dynamics.

Again, we don't know a lot about how these work - but all the information we have so far seems to be a giant step backwards in playability, and a loss for anyone whose "way of playing" was 4e.

One final thing on classes - they have said that there will be "3e style multiclassing".   I admit that 4e did not do a great job of multiclassing, but I still think that it was better than 3e's "dip into anything, take the best of five classes" style.  Not only was it not strict enough with the players, it was trouble to guide as a DM.  And when it came down to dipping into Prestige Classes as well... It is not a surprise that they were some very houseruled items.

Saving Throws

Second edition had a multitude of saving throws for different effects.  You had a save vs paralysis, a save vs breath weapons, and a save vs spells in general.  Third edition brought these together, and gave three: Fortitude, Reflex, and Will.  Fourth edition simplified it further, and gave you a single save (at 55%) to end effects; the Fort, Ref and Will scores were changed instead to defences, and attacks rolled against them.  In this way, someone who cast a fireball rolled to hit each target's reflex score, instead of (in 3e) someone casting fireball, and each target rolling a Reflex save to get out of the road.  Mechanically, it is the same thing, with the rolling just happening on the other end of the attack.  It makes sense, too - we don't have "armour class" saves!  And, it helps with time.  It is much easier for the wizard to roll his attacks than it is for the DM to roll the saves - sure, maybe not if that's the only thing that happens, but once a few characters are doing these area effects, the rolls are split up amongst the players, instead of all being on the DM.

And so WotC is bringing back saving throws.  Not only are they stepping back from the nice, simple, singular save, they are going past the idea of having three saves, and instead, tying a save to every single stat.  Which reminds me: in 3e, Fort was based on Constitution, Reflex was based on Dexterity, and Will based on Wisdom.  Of course, that meant that if you specialised in other stats, your saves were rather rubbish.  4e helped counter this by allowing the best of a pair of stats work towards a defence.  And now, we go back again - not only do you have more saves, not only does it look like the target is rolling them again, but since each is tied to a single stat, everyone is going to have good saves, and rather bad saves.  We are headed back again to that point where a fireball doesn't affect half the group (as they always save), and will devastate the other half (as they can never save).

Plus, what does your force of personality (Charisma) have to do with how well you can resist being scared, or be immune to another person's charms?

Ability Scores

These, too, have had some change over the years.  3e allowed us to easily calculate the bonus of a stat, with a simple and standard formula used across all six abilities.  4e thankfully didn't really change this, but did change how the stats increased, giving +1 to all each tier, and allowing additional bonuses twice per tier. In doing this, they moved away from the need of "+X Dexterity" items, which was a good thing.  Stat-boosting items were a necessity in earlier editions, and became the go-to item of choice.  Not only that, but when they were applied or removed, it caused a whole lot of recalculation to be needed.  So why they are reintroducing stat-boosting items, I do not know.

They are focusing more on stats as important, which sounds good.  Instead of skills, it seems that they will be referring players back to stats, which will make things simpler (as opposed to their choice with saves).  And allowing stats to have more influence than, say, an inherent bonus will make that "strong fighter" feel more strong.

However, WotC have mentioned races only giving a +1 bonus to a stat.  Unless they are planning on changing how bonuses are calculated (for example, "stat - 10" instead of "(stat - 10)/2", so that 17 Strength is +7), then having a +1 racial modifier seems poor.  Ineffective.  Boring.

Fourth edition did a lot to make races more important, but there was still more they could do.  I would hate to see this as another step backwards.


Magic and Mundane Items

There was some great news about magic items: they are no longer part of mathematical progression!  Whereas 3e still had the +X sword as part of the calculation to defeat monsters (both in hitting, and in bypassing DR), and 4e needed that bonus to stay on the good side of the 55% hit rate, there was a great rule in 4e that allowed for inherent bonuses.  Using this meant that the characters no longer needed to find a +X weapon to be able to maintain the desired hitting rate, and thus items could have more story elements to them.  So on this, I am most definitely happy.

I'm almost happy enough to look over the reintroduction of stat boosting items.  Almost.

Another bizarre comment that has arisen is the idea of moving from gold pieces to silver as standard.  I am not sure what the purpose of this is, nor if it will mean that everything suddenly drops / jumps in price, or if it is just a push for everyone to say "silver" instead of "gold".  The reintroduction of 3e's damage types (slashing, bludgeoning, piercing) could be good, as I missed those enemies that were vulnerable to certain weapons.

My Current Conclusion

In closing: I am concerned that WotC's stance may be a little backwards.  That is, in wanting to encompass every crowd, and cover every game, they have forgotten that many changes from edition to edition have been improvements.  Though some people still enjoy THAC0, it is easier (and more sensible) to have positive values of defences, and add things together.  My hope is that they build on what has been learnt from previous editions - and the current one - and create something better for DnD, not step backwards to mechanics gone past and left behind.

The Gruffalo, or How Children Stories Effect My Game

Having a three year old daughter does things to your TV habits.  You end up watching a whole lot less of what you want, and a whole lot more of what she wants.  That's ok, in general, but when it is the same thing - over and over - it threatens to be a little dangerous to one's sanity.  Unless you find a way to cope.

Enter the Gruffalo
The Gruffalo (by Julia Donaldson) has become a favourite.  First, it was the picture book, but after her lovely grandparents gave her the DVD for her birthday, my little one wants to watch it - over, and over, and over.  And being only 30 minutes in length, that can get recycled pretty quickly.

The story is simple enough - an interesting take on the "boy who cried wolf" (but, you know, with a mouse crying gruffalo!).  Of course, it is set to rhyme, so that it becomes quite easy to get stuck into your head.  And, as it happens, the mouse is quite descriptive as to just what ferocious attributes his "made up" monster has.  But the real question is - how would they work?  I've been thinking of the Gruffalo as a DnD monster (4e, as that's what I play), and below are my ideas as to how I would play it...if the situation ever arose for it to be needed.  At the moment, it's just something for me to think on whilst my daughter watches it one more time.


Mechanically Speaking
Though the story-character never really fought, this one is clearly set up to do as much - it is Dungeons and Dragons, after all!  I have tried to tie one ability / trait / power for each of the descriptive lines in the poem, and left the rest of it as generic as possible.  Seeing as (**spoiler**!!) he is ultimately defeated by a mouse, I didn't want him to be too high a level; but if it weren't for what could be some fantastic bluff rolls, he would have been a mean fight indeed.  I finally pegged him as a level 5 solo brute.  Level 5 gives him a good range, and leaves him in the 'mythical, but not too magical' category.  Solo is necessary, as who else should there be to back up the Gruffalo?  (Level 5 should mean that the solo aspect still would be a challenge). And Brute goes without asking!

Terrible Tusks

These are the first thing described, and for that, I think they would make a great basic attack.  Tusks can work well with charges, and if this thing was ever to fight, I think that charging is the point to start.  Naturally, if a creature is charging as its base attack, it needs a way to negate the usual penalties of charging: instead of actually charging (with the minimum movement, opportunity attacks, and all), I made it a shift attack.  Yes, that is a long shift, but he has nothing ranged, so this may let him reach some of those pesky ranged PCs!  Solos often do not get enough attacks a round, so he can attack three targets with this!

The problem, though, was that the created power was a little too powerful.  For an encounter power, it could work - maybe better for a recharge power.  But an at-will basic attack?  No.  I changed it to a recharge (4+), and set just claws as a melee basic attack.

Terrible Claws
The basic claw attack can grab the target (specifically useful with the next ability!); for a truly terrible attack, the Gruffalo can make two claws against the same target!  Where the tusk attack spreads damage around the party, the claw attacks really focus on one PC, and (along with the Jaws) tries to provide much hurt.  naturally, the DM should be letting the target character know that he is now the Gruffalo's favourite food!

Terrible Teeth in Terrible Jaws
A nice old bite attack, as the Gruffalo finally get to have a snack.  The recharge (5+), and requirement for the target to be grabbed means that the Gruffalo probably won't be having a large meal, and so will be remaining hungry for a while.

Knobbly Knees
I am at a loss for this one.  It could just be a little bit extra AC, but I don't think that's terribly interesting, thematically.  I don't think an extra power would be good, as the Gruffalo already has enough.  Does anyone have any ideas?

Turned-out Toes
The toes / feet claws seemed best to be linked to a solid grip on the ground.  A large, slow brute would most likely be hard to push around - so he can resist up to two squares of all forced movement.

Poisonous Wart at the end of his Nose
A poisonous wart probably won't do anything... until it is disturbed.  That, to me, sounds like a great triggered action upon getting bloodied!  Ongoing poisonous damage to any adjacent enemies is a simple effect - I  thought about more complex ideas, such as an aura, or his first melee attack each round deals poison damage, or the first melee attack against him takes poison damage, but ultimately, I went with a simple idea.  He has enough powers anyway - a common theme with my monsters, it seems!

Eyes are Orange
Darkvision!  This seemed quite easy, and simple.  It can be written down, and doesn't add complexity to the monster.. 

Tongue is Black
Again, I didn't have anything obvious to put up for this one.  After all...what does a black tongue really give you?

Purple Prickles all over his Back
This could have been another triggered action, spiking those who dare to try to flank him, but I thought a trait would be easier.  Anyone who attacks whilst flanking takes some damage - clearly, the Gruffalo turns to face the first attacker, and thus always has his back to whoever attacks next!

Adding a Little Flavour
Reducing the character of the Gruffalo to a simple stat block would not be entirely fitting.  There are still a few pieces it needs to be entirely effective.

Surprising Appearance
The idea here is that the Gruffalo always acts first.  But not to screw over the party; rather, the Gruffalo acts to be intimidating; he moves to cast his shadow over the party, and give them a chance to back down, run away, or plead for their lives.  But that is not expected to occur (with most DnD groups, anyway).

Vulnerable to Verse
To get players really into the feel of the encounter, you should encourage them to structure their speech in rhymes. (Naturally, the DM should have enough rhymes prepared for his side of the encounter, too!).  Rewards are a great motivator, and so a +2 bonus is added for players who can fit each round into rhyme Note: player, not PC.  It shouldn't just be a character sprouting a few lines of rhyme, as Gybrush Threepwood might do (not that that is bad!  It is just not the Gruffalo's way!). Players should be rewarded for having anything they say rhyme, be they talking about their characters, describing their actions, or the speech they choose.  Naturally, if the DM can get Robbie Coltrane to voice the Gruffalo, all PCs should instantly admit defeat :)

Once bloodied, it would be quite reasonable for a player to chase the Gruffalo off with enough rhymes, and some good social skill work.  The Gruffalo already has a handy penalty to his insight check, so it is definitely possible.  His will is also relatively low, for this reason.  But I will leave the ultimate decisions for the DM to work out!

 
So there you have it - my take on the Gruffalo! Hopefully some of you might get some enjoyment out of this familiar creature; and those of you with kids who haven't heard of him - go check the book out!  And either way, let me know just how your players or kids react to the Gruffalo!

An Elite Boss (part 2)

This is part two in my series on the "Boss Monster" concept, created by The Angry DM.  Part 1 can be found here.  In it, I will talk about my experiences in adapting the concept to an elite monster.

The Premise
Since the introduction of "Solo" and "Elite" monsters, I have thought about the relative toughness of monsters at different levels, but the same XP.  What would it be like to fight a solo monster at a low level, then fight them again when you had grown stronger (represented by them now being elite), and then finally beating them when you had become stronger yet (and they were now standard).  It just so happened that I had a recurring villain (undead, of course), that could be a good example of this, so I set about working on Nemeia, my Tiefling Empress.

The History
At level 5, the party were first introduced to the ancient and powerful undead tiefling, when they foiled someone's plan to raise an undead army.  As luck would have it, the paladin of the group (A dragonborn by the name of Torinn) accidentally set in motion her animation and escape, and so has, for many levels, had the extra weight of guilt upon his scaled shoulders.

It was five levels later, and ten months had passed in the 'real world', before the heroes would stumble upon Nemeia's new plot.  She had opened pathways for both the dead and demons to come to her side, and was vowing to take over the Nentir Vale, making it the base of her ever-expanding undead nation.  When they came face to face with her, she was a level 12 solo, adapted via Quinn Murphy's Worldbreaker concept.  She threw some nasty effects around, encompassing the room in shadows and fire, and summoning help to her side.  The shifter cleric, Edgewood, was particularly scared, and spent most of the encounter cowering in the doorway.

The Challenge
Taking a look at her current XP, and consulted the charts to see what was an equivalent Elite monster, I decided that a level 17 elite was a rough fit.  So I planned to reintroduce her late in the paragon tier, with further plans and another attempt at restarting her lost empire.  But a simple Elite monster would not do as a follow-up of a Worldreaker solo!  And so I set about working out how a creature could be both Elite, and a Boss.

I used the same rules as ADM did initially: I split her HP into thirds, and created three identical copies of her.  Where the Solo Boss had three APs, I gave her two (+1 each time).  I made sure she had explosive 'end of stage' reactions, to really kick it into the next scene.  I split her powers up over the stages, making each stage a little different thematically. In particular, her aura grew as she was beaten down, and her powers changed to show a more angry, dangerous creature.  But how did it work?


The Result
Overall, Nemeia was a successfully dangerous foe.  However, that is not to say that what I built was a complete success!  On the night, I adapted and changed things, as needed to keep the game interesting, and keep her reasonably fair.  Interestingly, the first stage felt too easy, and her last stage could have been too hard.

Stage 1 had Nemeia with a large aura that did little damage; indeed, some of the party happily ignored all of it, and thus it was rather ineffective.  Being an elite creature, she had allies - at this point, it was two NPC giants that were helping the party, but that the empress dominated (this action started the combat).  As we were still missing a few of our players, I had one of the giants waver between helping and hindering, to try to keep the battle around the right level for them.  As it turned out, Nemeia's 110 HP were taken away very quickly, and even her regeneration didn't help as the cleric dished out a decent amount of radiant damage (as expected!).

The two other problems with her in this stage were purely of my design.  Firstly, she had too many powers.  Five active plus two triggered powers was a lot to recall and be fresh with, especially as many of them were to change shortly!  When next I create a boss monster (and *especially* for an elite boss), I will try to keep it to three or four powers at most.  Hopefully, focusing on fewer powers will also accent the changing nature of their opponent to the party.

Along this line, too many of the powers relied on each other.  In general, I like that - having powers that say "If the target is X, then Y" allows for more devious attacks that have to be set up well; having them all on one creature, however, means that the party will usually save vs most of the effects before the monster can get a second hit in (especially with paladins giving +6 to saves!).  It also limits the DM's options each round, but in a bad way.  I was finding that I had to study the powers carefully, to ensure I didn't play power B before power A was out there. 

Her domination in particular was hard to trigger - though, when it hit, it worked well.  Alkameer (an elven beastmaster ranger) turned and fled on his griffon mount, removing him from the encounter for a round or two, and leaving him without a weapon (he dropped his bow before his departure).

I ended up adding some more HP to Nemeia during the encounter, and let them have a proper short rest at the end of it.  A few players arrived towards the end, or after the end of the encounter, which would have left their encounter resources at quite different levels of depletion, so the rest was an evening of the PCs before the big final battle.

Story-wise, she hid, recovered herself, then attacked once she had recovered, but by then, she was into Stage 2. She had returned, and this time, she had a friendly Eye of Frost Beholder with her! (Frost because of story reasons: the party were tracking her through a snowy mountain range, where she had hidden *because* it was unlike her normal habitat).
Her regeneration was less, and her aura was shorter, but more fierce.   Fire now flavoured many of her attacks, and she set about summoning allies (though they never seemed to hang around for long!).  Again, there were too many powers for me to properly use them in the encounter, and a few subtle changes to certain powers were completely missed by me (I should have spent more time preparing and memorising her!  Or perhaps, simplifying her?).

Note also her role change: from controller to skirmisher.  This was something I tried to do to really emphasise the various stages, though it was lost a little as the stages rolled by so quickly.  There *was* some control in the first stage, but there was still damage, too.  Perhaps, with fewer powers, these roles could be more focused?

Stage 3 started with the arrival of her personal Rime Hound / Winter Wolf amalgamation.  Here, her aura was only against those adjacent to her, but it was four times as strong as it had started, and covered two damage types.  No one was resisting it now!

Instead of regeneration, Nemeia now has a whole lot better defences, and is invisible to those too far away.  Sadly (or fortunately), I totally forgot this bonus until part way through this stage, and decided to leave it out.  It was clear that she was enough of a threat by then!  The overlapping auras of two chillborn zombies she raised to help really hit the PCs hard. Mid-battle, Escharra (the drow scout), who had danced around death a few times already, finally burnt away.

As mentioned, this was most definitely the harder stage - the aura and the PCs dwindling resources made it a challenging battle.  The assassin (Isis, a Deva) spoke openly about fleeing the battlefield and leaving the others behind, but to the benefit of the group, stayed behind and battled their foe. 

As well as ignoring the "Mist of Shadows" invisible feature, I also toned down the "Shifting Shadows" reaction, only using it one or twice.  I'm not sure why I thought that using it at-will would have been fun...for anyone other than the DM, that is. 


The Conclusion
Most clearly, when compared to a Solo Boss Monster, an Elite Boss is quite fragile.  But that does not make it impossible to use!  With proper planning and support, it can work; however, I would suggest asking yourself: "Why does this have to be Elite, and not a Solo?"  Clearly, in the case of Nemeia, I had a good story reason for this; I will probably stick with Solo Bosses from here on, though.

Next time (be it an elite or solo), I would drop the number of  powers per stage.  Four powers (basic melee, ranged, some recharge ability, and a reaction) are probably enough, with the slight chance of a fifth *if* that fifth is the "end of a stage" power, and the others are relatively simple.  So, 3+1 or 4+1 is about where I would have it (not the 6+1 I had for each stage!).  It could be interesting increasing or lowering the powers per stage, too.  Starting out simple and building, or possibly losing powers as the enemy was whittled away.

I thought the increasing aura was good, as it allowed for some heavy damage at the end, whilst not scaring the PCs into fleeing at the start.  Likewise, removing the regeneration from the final stage ensured that the battle wouldn't drag out at the end.  However, to suit this better, I think that front-loading more defensive powers (such as the hiding) might have been better.  Some ways of mitigating an attack or two at the start could have provided reason for a little fear (the good "how are we going to kill her" kind; not the bad "where did my arm just go?" kind), whilst keeping her appearance threatening but not impossible.


Oh, and yes, I have realised that her XP is wrong.  It's just a typo, not sure how it made it through ;)

Dungeons and Dragons is Dead! Long Live Dungeons and Dragons!

So.  5th Edition is upon the horizon.  And, most of us have known (or feared) that for some time now, but at last it has been announced.  What does this mean, and how will it effect us all?


Previous Edition Changes
Well, I don't know that!  Not yet, anyhow.  Some feel excited, and seeing they are either involved in its design, or have tested out the early game, that is reassuring.  But all I know is that I'm still feeling a little annoyed.

I've been around for two edition changes now, and they were quite different experiences.  2e had slowed down, TSR had passed it on, and everyone knew that 3e was coming.  It promised new and exciting things, such as more mingling with classes, feats, and skills; as well as the removal of THAC0.  It was looked forward to, and we eagerly awaited our DM's approval to switch the campaign over to the new system.

The end of 3e, however, was different.  It didn't feel tired, it didn't feel that it needed a change.  And I personally was awaiting my order of six books to arrive when I heard the announcement.  That hurt.

I was DMing a long-term campaign in 3e, and we played it out (with a few quickening steps, to tie things up a little faster).  Still, we entered 4e about two years into it, and yet continued to feel that there was more to be done with 3e.  Now - don't get me wrong: I love 4e, and I don't want to go back to 3e (or Pathfinder).  The changes made were for the better, in my opinion, and I am all for playing what you like: I like 4e.  But there were still books I had purchased that I hadn't used...and that looks to be the case here, too.

I received a few new books for my birthday, and though I have read through *some* of them over the last few months, I have yet to use them.  I know that another couple of books (Heroes of the Feywild, for example) that I was thinking about purchasing have now been crossed off my list.  Why should I purchase any more books for 4e, if they are about to end it all?

Sure, I could go on playing...but unlike with 3e, 4e's online presence is strictly governed by WotC.  The Compendium is great, but what will WotC do when 5e is released?  The split in fans to 4e and Pathfinder resolves around the fact that the d20 system was free to use; if WotC leave the Compendium up, won't that encourage or allow folk to continue to play 4e and not move over?  Will the continued sale of DnDi make up for lost sales of 5e?  Would they even understand what a reasonable price for DnDi would be, if it comes without the current magazines?  Ending support for what we currently play is rough enough, without being forced into the next edition.  Yes, forced: they have done well with the Compendium, it is now like a drug - I can't play DnD without it! :)

But it's not only the removal of support, but the gaps where they haven't done things.  The DMG3 that never was: help for the epic tier.  The "Class Compendium" write-ups for the PHB1 classes (a finalised Wizard (Arcanist)?). So much of the new things they have introduced, but have not yet been properly used.  Those races that never received the love they should have.  Or classes (poor artificer! forgotten runepriest! ) that never gained ample care.  There is still so much left that could be done for 4e before we left it behind.

My Wishes for what's "Next"
Since this is my thoughts, what are my wishes for DnD's future?  Ultimately, I can sum it up by saying: please let us continue to use the Compendium; and please take your time!

Time is not just a delaying tactic.  Paizo spent time developing Pathfinder, and with that, things were smoothed before its release.  With extra time, the earlier books in 4e could have been a lot smoother, and less errata.  I definitely have to agree with Rolling20s, in that there has been way too much errata.  Ultimately, the problem isn't the errata, but that the system was needing such changes in the first place.  Sure, patches to computer games may happen more frequently, but until WotC either moves totally to electronic media, or hands out free pdf's (which they update with the changes) of books along with purchased hard copies, the errata needs to be less.

Books shouldn't be delegated to the shelf, and forgotten, after five rounds of changes and updates have made them more wrong than right!  The first books should be the core, and they should be great - able to stand for the rest of the life of the edition, not replaced with 'essentials' as a new start!  Even if they released things in tiers (PHB1 being Heroic, for example), this would allow for the released game to be balanced and not needing updates; future PHBs could then bring in higher level games, which have had more time to balance / playtest. 


The second point ties in to Rolling20s first point.  The Compendium is great, but it doesn't cover everything.  It makes a DM's life so much easier, and I am scared as to what finishing my 4e games would be like, if I didn't have access to it.  So I definitely want to have that!  (Maybe a final year's payment for a downloadable version of the compendium / character builder?  It won't need any more updates, so it shouldn't take any further work?)  [update] WotC has tweeted about the tools remaining online.  (note "plan to", not "will")  I wonder what the cost is... they cannot expect full price for tools that will no longer gain new content (through books released or Dragon / Dungeon magazines).

From my time DMing on DnD Online Games, I have found the ease and speed of looking up any power, any feat, any item in seconds to be such an amazing tool.  The same task in 3e would take forever, as I had to reference different physical books, search for where I thought a spell or feat was, and often give up looking and wait for someone to point me there (which, when you are playing by post, can be a while!). I'd definitely want the same online tools for 5e, but moreso, there needs to be more openness with it.

The tight, strict levels of copyright really hurt when playing 4e online, whilst the 3e folks join games without paying anything, and test the water out.  WotC: if you want the curious to give your game a go, allow low level things to be free!  The initial character builder, which allowed anyone to build a character up to level 3, was a great idea (and the current one should do something similar).  Freely accessing some rules (stripped down is fine, as long as it gets people into the game) is necessary to keep bringing in new players, and keep the hobby alive.


Now, they are my two main thoughts, my overall wishes for "what is next".  As things come more sharply into focus, I will hopefully able to work out just where things stand, and how roughly WotC is planning on treating us...