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!
Monday, 20 February 2012
Friday, 3 February 2012
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:
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.
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.
Saturday, 28 January 2012
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!
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!
Friday, 20 January 2012
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 ;)
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.
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.
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?
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 ;)
Tuesday, 10 January 2012
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...
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...
Saturday, 7 January 2012
Boss Monsters (part 1)
Early last year, I read The Angry DM's series on Boss Monsters (part 1, part 2, part 3 and part 4). I really liked the idea, and started playing around with it soon after. I had tried out Gamefiend / Quinn Murphy's "Worldbreaker" concept before, and was impressed to find another viable option to the long, grinding battle with a solo problem.
I used one of his examples in a low-level Dark Sun campaign I was running, and though it worked well, I wanted to actually create something of my own...or at least adapt it well beyond what it was initially.
My first boss monster ended up being in an epic tier game (in a campaign adapted from Stephen Radney-MacFarland's adventure, "Winter of the Witch", found in Dungeon Magazine 162) wherein my players faced off against a rather large and angry white dragon (which I recently purchased just the miniature for!), I wanted to make it a more thrilling encounter than what I expected it to be: Wizard and Psion trap; Fighter holds; Warlock burns. Repeat until cooked through.
ADM's suggestion, where the monster is completely replaced at each stage, and large changes happen to the playing field, fit my ideas nicely, and so I built my own boss!
I'll go through some of the important changes. First, I loved the idea ADM gave with his dragon, in letting them roll initiative twice, and having an extra chance of saving each round. The only solo I have played that I felt lived up to the title was built similarly: but had three turns every round (Bel Shalor, the Shadow in the Flame; and I still think the only reason he defeated the party in my play-by-post game was that too many of the players weren't posting).
Second, I lessened his immediate powers, so that they could build over time. An aura of 5, with 30 damage a round is pretty severe, so I limited the damage to the "bloodied" stage, and limited the flight-slowing to the second and third stages. His triple attack also turned into a double attack; and in stage three, was changed from a "kill one player good" to a "try to attack many players". Spreading out the hurt is always more fun; and lessens that whole "stop picking on me!" feeling.
I also changed his encounter fear aura (standard action, burst 10) to a minor action (one creature). As written, it is effectively a game-lengthener: Dragon uses a standard action so that everyone else doesn't act. Now, for a third of his life (most likely, not long enough to attack each PC with it) he can use an otherwise not-used action to give a vicious glare at troublesome folk.
He didn't have any triggered actions, so I added in an alternate to the tail-slap; tailored to my party. They like teleporting, and since that would get around so much of his slowing-nastiness, I thought a little knock when they popped in could work nicely. Plus, the whole first stage is about the dragon really looking down his nose at the party. He gazes at them, he holds back as if they are not worth his time, and generally puts up with their attacks...until they anger him!
Stage two starts (or stage one ends?) with a power adapted from the scenario the dragon was designed for. In it, it's a standard action he can do once per encounter; but I felt that it would be better if he realises that the party are dangerous, and takes to the air, tearing out a chunk of the mountainside as he goes. From there, he goes into artillery mode, breathing and strafing the party, with attacks pulled from his recharge power (5 or 6; so using it at will for roughly a third of the fight sounds about right) and ADM's sample dragon.
This will be tough for a certain fighter, but with the group's ability to send him flying, I doubt it will cause him to sit out for long. The rest of the party is ranged, so even with his new trigger, he will soon be bloodied...and crashing back to the ground!
Now, in stage three, he is ferocious and wanting to be done with the group. His aura is now what it would have been all along, he finally has access to his frost breath (but I have limited it further to just once...but with some miss effects), and he has a "thunderwave / shoulder-slam" like power to show off his new-found brutality.
Instead of slapping those who teleport, he now only catches those who are slow enough to be caught. His Fury power has a benefit if he attacks multiple targets - at this stage, it could all be over quickly if one PC had three attacks; and the bloodied dragon is clearly not thinking that straight. He just wants to lash out at everyone!
Finally, when the party deliver their last blow, he screams once more, and the mountain answers him - an avalanche of snow washes down over the party, either sweeping them away, or burying them (and stopping teleporting, just for fun). After the flying-dragon aspect of part two, and the possible-falling of part 1, I would assume that everyone has taken magical precautions against falling off the mountainside, but if they haven't, they are only getting what they deserve, right?
I played the Boss Monster dragon against a party of four 23rd level characters (fresh from a long rest), and I think it worked well. No one was caught by the initial scene-changing attack, and barely anyone was hurt, so I only gave them a recharge of one encounter power (no surge).
The second stage was hard, with the wizard being entombed for a while, and the fighter not having much reach (on a flying dragon!).
Still, the 2nd=>3rd change-over power worked well, and once he took on his bloody form, he really started cutting through the PCs. His aura was also quite devastating, as well as the fact that for this stage, both his initiative turns were together. That meant that there was little time for the PCs to recover from his double attacks - especially when he action pointed! Two of the team (psion and fighter) went down round after round towards the end. Some high death-save bonuses and daily items allowed them to continue to regain their feet, but they didn't get their actions, and remained within the aura!
Ultimately, the wizard missed on a crucial daily power, and rolled poorly for the miss damage, leaving it on 1 HP. Then the psion's turn came up, and he went out backwards due to the cold aura. The warlock finished it off, and the resulting death cry was also quite lethal - fortunately, cold resistances kept the revenant from also going out backwards!
In all, a dangerous and engaging monster that is much more fitting than the original dragon (who would have died in about half the time, I expect). The breaking of effects upon it, the extra saves, and the two initiative rolls really helped make it a solo that could actually fight solo - so well done, AngryDM, for your "Boss Monster" idea, it worked well! :)
Has anyone else tried this idea? If so, how did it go? I have another one that will be fully revealed to my players over the next week, so stay tuned to hear how that goes!
I used one of his examples in a low-level Dark Sun campaign I was running, and though it worked well, I wanted to actually create something of my own...or at least adapt it well beyond what it was initially.
ADM's suggestion, where the monster is completely replaced at each stage, and large changes happen to the playing field, fit my ideas nicely, and so I built my own boss!
I'll go through some of the important changes. First, I loved the idea ADM gave with his dragon, in letting them roll initiative twice, and having an extra chance of saving each round. The only solo I have played that I felt lived up to the title was built similarly: but had three turns every round (Bel Shalor, the Shadow in the Flame; and I still think the only reason he defeated the party in my play-by-post game was that too many of the players weren't posting).
Second, I lessened his immediate powers, so that they could build over time. An aura of 5, with 30 damage a round is pretty severe, so I limited the damage to the "bloodied" stage, and limited the flight-slowing to the second and third stages. His triple attack also turned into a double attack; and in stage three, was changed from a "kill one player good" to a "try to attack many players". Spreading out the hurt is always more fun; and lessens that whole "stop picking on me!" feeling.
I also changed his encounter fear aura (standard action, burst 10) to a minor action (one creature). As written, it is effectively a game-lengthener: Dragon uses a standard action so that everyone else doesn't act. Now, for a third of his life (most likely, not long enough to attack each PC with it) he can use an otherwise not-used action to give a vicious glare at troublesome folk.
He didn't have any triggered actions, so I added in an alternate to the tail-slap; tailored to my party. They like teleporting, and since that would get around so much of his slowing-nastiness, I thought a little knock when they popped in could work nicely. Plus, the whole first stage is about the dragon really looking down his nose at the party. He gazes at them, he holds back as if they are not worth his time, and generally puts up with their attacks...until they anger him!
This will be tough for a certain fighter, but with the group's ability to send him flying, I doubt it will cause him to sit out for long. The rest of the party is ranged, so even with his new trigger, he will soon be bloodied...and crashing back to the ground!
Instead of slapping those who teleport, he now only catches those who are slow enough to be caught. His Fury power has a benefit if he attacks multiple targets - at this stage, it could all be over quickly if one PC had three attacks; and the bloodied dragon is clearly not thinking that straight. He just wants to lash out at everyone!
Finally, when the party deliver their last blow, he screams once more, and the mountain answers him - an avalanche of snow washes down over the party, either sweeping them away, or burying them (and stopping teleporting, just for fun). After the flying-dragon aspect of part two, and the possible-falling of part 1, I would assume that everyone has taken magical precautions against falling off the mountainside, but if they haven't, they are only getting what they deserve, right?
I played the Boss Monster dragon against a party of four 23rd level characters (fresh from a long rest), and I think it worked well. No one was caught by the initial scene-changing attack, and barely anyone was hurt, so I only gave them a recharge of one encounter power (no surge).
The second stage was hard, with the wizard being entombed for a while, and the fighter not having much reach (on a flying dragon!).
Still, the 2nd=>3rd change-over power worked well, and once he took on his bloody form, he really started cutting through the PCs. His aura was also quite devastating, as well as the fact that for this stage, both his initiative turns were together. That meant that there was little time for the PCs to recover from his double attacks - especially when he action pointed! Two of the team (psion and fighter) went down round after round towards the end. Some high death-save bonuses and daily items allowed them to continue to regain their feet, but they didn't get their actions, and remained within the aura!
Ultimately, the wizard missed on a crucial daily power, and rolled poorly for the miss damage, leaving it on 1 HP. Then the psion's turn came up, and he went out backwards due to the cold aura. The warlock finished it off, and the resulting death cry was also quite lethal - fortunately, cold resistances kept the revenant from also going out backwards!
In all, a dangerous and engaging monster that is much more fitting than the original dragon (who would have died in about half the time, I expect). The breaking of effects upon it, the extra saves, and the two initiative rolls really helped make it a solo that could actually fight solo - so well done, AngryDM, for your "Boss Monster" idea, it worked well! :)
Has anyone else tried this idea? If so, how did it go? I have another one that will be fully revealed to my players over the next week, so stay tuned to hear how that goes!
Wednesday, 2 November 2011
Heroes of Neverwinter (Beta!)
I've been playing this DnD Facebook game for some time now, and I'm quite impressed with what it represents, even if I am not overly impressed with the game itself.
Straight up - it is a Facebook game, so we shouldn't expect much from it. After all - it is free...if you don't count all the items they want to sell you via "Astral Diamonds" which (as you can probably guess) cost Facebook credits, which in turn cost real money. The graphics are pretty simple, the story lines are not terribly involved, and the only real choices are what mission to do next. Each adventure is linear, with the occasional "bonus room" (bring a rogue to unlock the door!) thrown in to give the illusion of choice. You can replay missions, and try them on three difficulty settings, but you will find yourself returning to certain lower level missions many times over, as certain levels require certain items to attempt. Even if you fail, the item is typically removed from your inventory, and thus you will have to redo an earlier level.
The worst of these is the "Heroes Commendation", which you need a backpack full to complete every mission, but you can only find in a few levels. Here, having other friends helps, as they can 'gift' them to you, but you will need a lot of friends, and to be quick, to get enough!
So - why has this game taken so much of my time? Once you have finished the levels, there is very little replay value, and even changing characters doesn't offer a lot of difference. You need a cleric to heal, a wizard to do mass damage, and a rogue to unlock all those locks, and to get past those traps. (A fighter is good, but I found doubling up on the cleric was more useful.) Replaying with different characters gives you a little customisation (choice between two options at most levels only), but your party make-up will generally look the same, and thus the play-through will be very similar. It's usually not even an option to turn the AI on for these replays (either team mates or everyone), as the AI is universally poor! They charge throguh traps instead of going around, even if they have the ability to disable them; they never focus fire; they use area attacks on single targets (even when with positioning, it could hit multiple ones); they waste healing on mere scratches; and they automatically assume a higher power is better...all the time, in every situation.
No, what has caught my attention with this game (apart from a desire to encourage the makers to continue with what they are doing) is two-fold. First, it's 4e, on the computer. There was a lot of talk about how 4e couldn't be represented properly in a computer game, and whilst I admit that this is not a 100% copy of the ruleset, it is a pretty good job (especially considering that pricetag!). Clearly, for a proper, marketable game, you'd want to have feats, many more powers, and other core rules (healing surges, OAs, double moving, and the proper implementation of effects) implemented. But given what they have so far, none of this should be very difficult. Even such things as forced movement and triggered actions wouldn't need much more work. There could even be an option for AI-guided actions for them, to speed up combat. (At the moment, the few powers that push do so automatically, but it wouldn't be hard to offer the option of moving an effected enemy.) All this gives hope for an eventual, larger, 4e game to arise. Hopefully, long enough before 5e...
Secondly, like most Facebook games - it's dangerously addictive. Even when I reached level 10 (the maximum you can get to) with my first character, there was still more to do. I could play through those adventures I had completed again, and gain three stars in each. I could work at completing all the various awards offered. My almost obsessive need to complete things has kept me coming back time and time again, which must say that, despite the apparent grievances I have above, the game still has a lot right! I've stuck with it long enough to slowly earn enough diamonds (through awards - I'm not buying credits!) to unlock a further three character slots, and I am still struggling to complete everything with that first character. I don't think I will be that diligent with my other four, but Rivet, my halfling rogue, will continue on to grab every one of those stars!
Ultimately, the game is fun for what it is - a free, flash-based game, that requires little thought or time...well, time at any one point. I look forward to seeing just what will change by the time they get out of beta, and where they go with it next. What will it inspire? What interpretation of 4e DnD will we be offered as a result of what was learnt through designing this game?
Straight up - it is a Facebook game, so we shouldn't expect much from it. After all - it is free...if you don't count all the items they want to sell you via "Astral Diamonds" which (as you can probably guess) cost Facebook credits, which in turn cost real money. The graphics are pretty simple, the story lines are not terribly involved, and the only real choices are what mission to do next. Each adventure is linear, with the occasional "bonus room" (bring a rogue to unlock the door!) thrown in to give the illusion of choice. You can replay missions, and try them on three difficulty settings, but you will find yourself returning to certain lower level missions many times over, as certain levels require certain items to attempt. Even if you fail, the item is typically removed from your inventory, and thus you will have to redo an earlier level.
The worst of these is the "Heroes Commendation", which you need a backpack full to complete every mission, but you can only find in a few levels. Here, having other friends helps, as they can 'gift' them to you, but you will need a lot of friends, and to be quick, to get enough!
So - why has this game taken so much of my time? Once you have finished the levels, there is very little replay value, and even changing characters doesn't offer a lot of difference. You need a cleric to heal, a wizard to do mass damage, and a rogue to unlock all those locks, and to get past those traps. (A fighter is good, but I found doubling up on the cleric was more useful.) Replaying with different characters gives you a little customisation (choice between two options at most levels only), but your party make-up will generally look the same, and thus the play-through will be very similar. It's usually not even an option to turn the AI on for these replays (either team mates or everyone), as the AI is universally poor! They charge throguh traps instead of going around, even if they have the ability to disable them; they never focus fire; they use area attacks on single targets (even when with positioning, it could hit multiple ones); they waste healing on mere scratches; and they automatically assume a higher power is better...all the time, in every situation.
No, what has caught my attention with this game (apart from a desire to encourage the makers to continue with what they are doing) is two-fold. First, it's 4e, on the computer. There was a lot of talk about how 4e couldn't be represented properly in a computer game, and whilst I admit that this is not a 100% copy of the ruleset, it is a pretty good job (especially considering that pricetag!). Clearly, for a proper, marketable game, you'd want to have feats, many more powers, and other core rules (healing surges, OAs, double moving, and the proper implementation of effects) implemented. But given what they have so far, none of this should be very difficult. Even such things as forced movement and triggered actions wouldn't need much more work. There could even be an option for AI-guided actions for them, to speed up combat. (At the moment, the few powers that push do so automatically, but it wouldn't be hard to offer the option of moving an effected enemy.) All this gives hope for an eventual, larger, 4e game to arise. Hopefully, long enough before 5e...
Secondly, like most Facebook games - it's dangerously addictive. Even when I reached level 10 (the maximum you can get to) with my first character, there was still more to do. I could play through those adventures I had completed again, and gain three stars in each. I could work at completing all the various awards offered. My almost obsessive need to complete things has kept me coming back time and time again, which must say that, despite the apparent grievances I have above, the game still has a lot right! I've stuck with it long enough to slowly earn enough diamonds (through awards - I'm not buying credits!) to unlock a further three character slots, and I am still struggling to complete everything with that first character. I don't think I will be that diligent with my other four, but Rivet, my halfling rogue, will continue on to grab every one of those stars!
Ultimately, the game is fun for what it is - a free, flash-based game, that requires little thought or time...well, time at any one point. I look forward to seeing just what will change by the time they get out of beta, and where they go with it next. What will it inspire? What interpretation of 4e DnD will we be offered as a result of what was learnt through designing this game?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)