I've been browsing the net to try and find some more interesting ways to arrange classes and levels. I have a flu or cold or something, so I am allowed to waste time on this.
The E6 System
It's pretty neat. The gist of it is that D&D 3.0/3.5 is much better if you stop at level six. After that you just get feats.
I agree with the creator in that un-altered d20 d&d gets a little complicated after around sixth or seventh level. The makers of 4e agreed, too. One of them called it the "sweet spot" and tried to spread that out over the entire 1-30 level stretch. I don't think they succeeded, because 4e kind of collapses under its own weight of extra attacks and immediate power gewgaws after a certain point, especially if you have more than four players in a party. The more people there are, the less interesting characters can be, strategically, or combat slows to a crawl and never recovers.
Some of the simplest fixes to 3.5 is to change all the durations away from rounds or minutes, to eliminate pre-casting, and to have a hard limit on the number of spells any spellcaster memorizes each day (down to like, maybe ten spells that can be cast twice each, perhaps). Those alone fix a huge number of problems with 3.0.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Friday, October 8, 2010
Man, Oh Man
I have this grognardy nostalgia for dual-classing and multi-classing (double or even triple) the way it was in second edition. Or some similar method. Split my XP evenly between both of my classes? Okay! Have one class that stinks (thief) but only takes half the XP of the other class (wizard or paladin) so it's still keeping pace with some of the other party members? Great! Not balanced per se? Relying on delayed gratification for a superior power level payoff? Fine with me!
Sunday, September 26, 2010
All I Want Is Some Fucking Clockwork
In second edition D&D, there is a little known class called the Sha'ir, which was a sort of wizard from Al'Qadim that had a sort of alternative model for obtaining spells. Instead of memorizing them, the wizard would send his gen, or little genie, off to fetch the spell, and the genie would return with the spell a round or two later. The benefit here being that the sha'ir was not constrained so much by spell level. The gen would take longer to fetch a spell, the more above the wizard's grade it was, though.
Eventually, there was a Complete Sha'ir Handbook, which was part of the first class-based splatbooks to be published for d&d. For all I know, it was the first rpg-related splatbook series ever. Anyway, it was amazing. Back in 2e there were these things called kits, that were basically a way of customizing a generic class into something more specific and interesting. Like, a thief would take a jackal kit and start stealing peoples' spells, but at great cost to his other abilities. Not that 2e thieves really had abilities, but you get the idea.
In the Complate Sha'ir Handbook, there were probably fifteen or twenty crazy, zany, downright whackadoo kits for sha'irs. Whoever wrote it must have figured "hey, it's not like the sha'ir has any semblance of balance or functionality to begin with, let's just see how much crazy crap we can come up with." And boy, did he ever succeed.
Sticking out in my head are the mathemagician, the astrologer (who would hang spells on different constellations), the spell slayer (holy wizard-assassins), and the clockwork mage. Especially the clockwork mage. That fucker basically assembled clockpunk robots from scratch, with a list of parts and power sources. You basically spent all your time (and gold) on building crazy robots. It was almost freeform in a lot of ways. And if it died you were out hundreds or thousands of GP. But get a player with a lot of artistic talent or zest for creativity in that class, and you'd end up with half-deer half-lobster mechanical beasties that fired lightning bolts out of their horns.
Sad to say, but in the 2.5 editions since then, nothing has really topped this class for cool factor, and no splatbook has topped the Complete Sha'ir for really creative shit. A lot of the splatbooks have just been updating older, popular options, I guess. But that's no excuse. It's possible that you just can't do as much fun stuff when balance is so paramount, as it has nominally been in 3e and 4e. But where's my fucking clockwork class? Where's my inventor? Where is my balanced system where someone actually builds something? How about a golem construction pet class? Or a wizard biologist that designs his own homunculi? This shit should be easier now that wealth is actually handed out at a more or less set pace. There's homebrew crap on the internet, but my choice of the term "crap" is non-accidental in this case.
All I want is some fucking clockwork.
Eventually, there was a Complete Sha'ir Handbook, which was part of the first class-based splatbooks to be published for d&d. For all I know, it was the first rpg-related splatbook series ever. Anyway, it was amazing. Back in 2e there were these things called kits, that were basically a way of customizing a generic class into something more specific and interesting. Like, a thief would take a jackal kit and start stealing peoples' spells, but at great cost to his other abilities. Not that 2e thieves really had abilities, but you get the idea.
In the Complate Sha'ir Handbook, there were probably fifteen or twenty crazy, zany, downright whackadoo kits for sha'irs. Whoever wrote it must have figured "hey, it's not like the sha'ir has any semblance of balance or functionality to begin with, let's just see how much crazy crap we can come up with." And boy, did he ever succeed.
Sticking out in my head are the mathemagician, the astrologer (who would hang spells on different constellations), the spell slayer (holy wizard-assassins), and the clockwork mage. Especially the clockwork mage. That fucker basically assembled clockpunk robots from scratch, with a list of parts and power sources. You basically spent all your time (and gold) on building crazy robots. It was almost freeform in a lot of ways. And if it died you were out hundreds or thousands of GP. But get a player with a lot of artistic talent or zest for creativity in that class, and you'd end up with half-deer half-lobster mechanical beasties that fired lightning bolts out of their horns.
Sad to say, but in the 2.5 editions since then, nothing has really topped this class for cool factor, and no splatbook has topped the Complete Sha'ir for really creative shit. A lot of the splatbooks have just been updating older, popular options, I guess. But that's no excuse. It's possible that you just can't do as much fun stuff when balance is so paramount, as it has nominally been in 3e and 4e. But where's my fucking clockwork class? Where's my inventor? Where is my balanced system where someone actually builds something? How about a golem construction pet class? Or a wizard biologist that designs his own homunculi? This shit should be easier now that wealth is actually handed out at a more or less set pace. There's homebrew crap on the internet, but my choice of the term "crap" is non-accidental in this case.
All I want is some fucking clockwork.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Crafting Potions
As part of my continuing futile quest to incorporate some element of crafting into a pen and paper rpg, I present some alternative potion brewing rules.
Potions
Potions may be purchased in a town. Their basic purpose is to give players a way to expend long term resources in order to sustain themselves better in a dungeon, and also to allow players to better leverage gold spent into success in the field. Potions may be quaffed as a move action that does not draw attacks of opportunity. They may also be fed to an adjacent unconscious character as a standard action that does not draw an attack of opportunity.
Basic Potions
Cure Light 100gp
This potion cures 10 hp of damage.
Ferocity 150gp
This potion imparts a +1 alchemical bonus to critical threat range for 1d6 rounds.
Courage 200gp
This potion imparts a +2 alchemical bonus to AC and saves for the rest of an encounter.
Experimental Recipes
Any player may spend 300gp to attempt to discover a new potion recipe. In doing so, he picks a basic potion to attempt to modify, spends his gp, and rolls on the following table, with the result being an effect that occurs in addition to that potion's usual effects. That character may then brew that custom potion any time he is in town and has the gp to burn. The recipe is finicky, however, and may not be transmitted to another character. You cannot add additional effects to custom recipes.
Recipe Results (1d20)
(All results are in addition to the basic potion's normal effects)
1-3: Failed recipe.
4: Vim: This potion cures an additional +5 hp. No price change.
5: Vigor: This potion cures an additional +10 hp. +50gp.
6: Regeneration: This potion cures an additional +15 hp on the quaffer's next turn.
7: Fire Protection: The quaffer enjoys +10 fire resist for the rest of the encounter. +50gp.
8: Antitoxin: The quaffer enjoys +10 poison resist for the rest of the encounter. +25gp.
9: Aromatics: The quaffer has any disease or weak conditions cured. +25gp.
10: Strength: The quaffer enjoys a +2 alchemical bonus to damage for the rest of the encounter. +50gp.
11: Fearlessness: Removes fear, and adds +1 alchemical bonus to AC for rest of encounter (stacks with courage). +100gp
12: Haste: Drinker enjoys +2 initiative bonus for rest of the day. +25gp.
13: Survival: Drinker enjoys +10 cold and electric resist for the rest of the encounter. +100gp.
14: Berserk Strength: Drinker enjoys extra +1 critical threat range for rest of encounter. +150gp.
15: Growth: Drinker occupies two spaces, suffers -2 penalty to AC, and enjoys +1 reach for rest of encounter. +200gp.
16: Heavy Curing: This potion cures an additional +20hp. +200gp.
17: Restoration: This potion cures an additional +10hp, and removes any weakness, stun, or blindness. +100gp.
18: Vibrancy: Pemanent +1 bonus to initiative. Only works once per drinker. +100gp.
19: Life: Permanent +1d6 max hp. Only works once per drinker. +300gp.
20: Improvement: Permanent +1 alchemical bonus to a saving throw of drinkers' choice. Only works once per drinker. +300gp.
Option: Limited Recipe Results
If you're into this sort of thing, you could cross off each new potion effect once it has been used, and have players re-roll that result if it comes up again. I don't know what this would add to a game, but it seems pretty hardcore to me!
Potions
Potions may be purchased in a town. Their basic purpose is to give players a way to expend long term resources in order to sustain themselves better in a dungeon, and also to allow players to better leverage gold spent into success in the field. Potions may be quaffed as a move action that does not draw attacks of opportunity. They may also be fed to an adjacent unconscious character as a standard action that does not draw an attack of opportunity.
Basic Potions
Cure Light 100gp
This potion cures 10 hp of damage.
Ferocity 150gp
This potion imparts a +1 alchemical bonus to critical threat range for 1d6 rounds.
Courage 200gp
This potion imparts a +2 alchemical bonus to AC and saves for the rest of an encounter.
Experimental Recipes
Any player may spend 300gp to attempt to discover a new potion recipe. In doing so, he picks a basic potion to attempt to modify, spends his gp, and rolls on the following table, with the result being an effect that occurs in addition to that potion's usual effects. That character may then brew that custom potion any time he is in town and has the gp to burn. The recipe is finicky, however, and may not be transmitted to another character. You cannot add additional effects to custom recipes.
Recipe Results (1d20)
(All results are in addition to the basic potion's normal effects)
1-3: Failed recipe.
4: Vim: This potion cures an additional +5 hp. No price change.
5: Vigor: This potion cures an additional +10 hp. +50gp.
6: Regeneration: This potion cures an additional +15 hp on the quaffer's next turn.
7: Fire Protection: The quaffer enjoys +10 fire resist for the rest of the encounter. +50gp.
8: Antitoxin: The quaffer enjoys +10 poison resist for the rest of the encounter. +25gp.
9: Aromatics: The quaffer has any disease or weak conditions cured. +25gp.
10: Strength: The quaffer enjoys a +2 alchemical bonus to damage for the rest of the encounter. +50gp.
11: Fearlessness: Removes fear, and adds +1 alchemical bonus to AC for rest of encounter (stacks with courage). +100gp
12: Haste: Drinker enjoys +2 initiative bonus for rest of the day. +25gp.
13: Survival: Drinker enjoys +10 cold and electric resist for the rest of the encounter. +100gp.
14: Berserk Strength: Drinker enjoys extra +1 critical threat range for rest of encounter. +150gp.
15: Growth: Drinker occupies two spaces, suffers -2 penalty to AC, and enjoys +1 reach for rest of encounter. +200gp.
16: Heavy Curing: This potion cures an additional +20hp. +200gp.
17: Restoration: This potion cures an additional +10hp, and removes any weakness, stun, or blindness. +100gp.
18: Vibrancy: Pemanent +1 bonus to initiative. Only works once per drinker. +100gp.
19: Life: Permanent +1d6 max hp. Only works once per drinker. +300gp.
20: Improvement: Permanent +1 alchemical bonus to a saving throw of drinkers' choice. Only works once per drinker. +300gp.
Option: Limited Recipe Results
If you're into this sort of thing, you could cross off each new potion effect once it has been used, and have players re-roll that result if it comes up again. I don't know what this would add to a game, but it seems pretty hardcore to me!
Monday, June 7, 2010
Fuck d20 Modern
I hate the d20 Modern rules, and who knows how long it will be before a (likely kind of crappy) 4e d20 Modern old-hat settings/rules/whatever is published. But whenever I run a modern game I get frustrated with shoddy weapon rules. This is a simple yet distinctive system for firearms and modern armor that I have used for modern campaigns in the past.
Ranged Weapons
Under this system, attacks have a -3 penalty at long range, and can't aim at a target beyond that. Heavier weapons carry a speed penalty.
Light Firearms
Each light firearm weapon can accept one modification, and each medium firearm can accept two. Redundant modifications are not allowed. I would encourage anybody using a version of these rules to devise more mods. Each "mod" changes the weapon or armor statistics, sometimes with an accompanying drawback.
Firearm Mods
Ranged Weapons
Under this system, attacks have a -3 penalty at long range, and can't aim at a target beyond that. Heavier weapons carry a speed penalty.
Light Firearms
- Pistol: 1d12, range 5/15, +2 to attack rolls within short range.
- Revolver: 2d6, range 5/14, on hit target medium or smaller creature is pushed 1 space.
- SMG: 1d6, range 4/12, may make extra attack with -3 penalty as move action.
- Rifle: 1d20, 9/22, +2 to attack rolls within long range. Speed -1.
- Shotgun: 2d8, range 5/10, on hit target medium or smaller creature is pushed 2 spaces, and large creature is pushed 1 space. Speed -1.
- Assault Rifle: 1d10, range 6/16, may make extra attack with -3 penalty as move action. Speed -1.
Each light firearm weapon can accept one modification, and each medium firearm can accept two. Redundant modifications are not allowed. I would encourage anybody using a version of these rules to devise more mods. Each "mod" changes the weapon or armor statistics, sometimes with an accompanying drawback.
Firearm Mods
- Scope: +1 to attack rolls at long range, +2 to long range.
- Bayonet - Medium weapons only. You threaten adjacent squares with a dagger attached to your weapon. -1 Short and long range.
- Extra Clip Capacity: You enjoy a +2 bonus to extra attacks or attacks of opportunity.
- Laser Sight: +1 to attacks
- Stock: +2 to short and long range.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Bosses
Boss fights are basically the best. They're the climax of the rising action, where the players really show their stuff, or suffer for it. They're also time for you to crack out earth-shaking badniks, with incredibly deadly abilities.
They're usually something that's fucking cool, too. A lich or a dragon, a god or an Old One. A tarrasque. Whatever. Something that kicks ass and players associate with corpses and tear-stained character sheets.
The best bosses are the bookends of campaigns, showing their faces early on in the campaign, intermittently pulling some strings, and then taking part in a major throw-down during the last or nearly last session.
During the Final Battle, PC deaths are possible or even unavoidable, depending on how difficult your campaign is. Total party wipeouts become a possibility that is more or less acceptable to your players, who wouldn't want the climax to be an easy fight. Heck, the harder it is, the happier the players will be, when they win (or almost win, which can be just as good).
Buzz-Kills
-Watch out for the fight being too easy, even if the players have an amazing plan. But similarly, it shouldn't be too hard in a way that isn't fun. Bosses should sizzle on your players' taste buds, one way or another, rather than be 1,000 hp wastes of time.
-The boss shouldn't be a one-trick pony. Ideally it should have two stages, where the boss alters or steps up its mode of combat, usually after it is reduced to half life.
-Watch out for save or die effects, or their cousins, domination/charm effects. A good rule of thumb is to give a boss the ability to automatically have an effect like these cause the boss to lose his next turn, rather than die. Or to have the effect wear off at the end of a round, in the case of dominate effects. This avoids you simply having a monster be immune to an ability, and gives the players their druthers.
Tips!
-Broadcast how difficult it's going to be to kill the boss, in-game rather than out of game. Out of game gloating can backfire way too easy. But in-game foreknowledge can impress your players into performing better, and possibly give them some tips about how to win.
-Outline what's at stake to the players if they fail to defeat the boss. It doesn't need to be a "save the world" scenario. There can be very clear, unpleasant consequences, without it being an earth-shaking scenario.
-The final session of the game can be the most important of the entire campaign. It's the one players will remember best, for chronological reasons. The boss should be memorable, and the fight should encapsulate and exemplify all the good things from the entire campaign.
They're usually something that's fucking cool, too. A lich or a dragon, a god or an Old One. A tarrasque. Whatever. Something that kicks ass and players associate with corpses and tear-stained character sheets.
The best bosses are the bookends of campaigns, showing their faces early on in the campaign, intermittently pulling some strings, and then taking part in a major throw-down during the last or nearly last session.
During the Final Battle, PC deaths are possible or even unavoidable, depending on how difficult your campaign is. Total party wipeouts become a possibility that is more or less acceptable to your players, who wouldn't want the climax to be an easy fight. Heck, the harder it is, the happier the players will be, when they win (or almost win, which can be just as good).
Buzz-Kills
-Watch out for the fight being too easy, even if the players have an amazing plan. But similarly, it shouldn't be too hard in a way that isn't fun. Bosses should sizzle on your players' taste buds, one way or another, rather than be 1,000 hp wastes of time.
-The boss shouldn't be a one-trick pony. Ideally it should have two stages, where the boss alters or steps up its mode of combat, usually after it is reduced to half life.
-Watch out for save or die effects, or their cousins, domination/charm effects. A good rule of thumb is to give a boss the ability to automatically have an effect like these cause the boss to lose his next turn, rather than die. Or to have the effect wear off at the end of a round, in the case of dominate effects. This avoids you simply having a monster be immune to an ability, and gives the players their druthers.
Tips!
-Broadcast how difficult it's going to be to kill the boss, in-game rather than out of game. Out of game gloating can backfire way too easy. But in-game foreknowledge can impress your players into performing better, and possibly give them some tips about how to win.
-Outline what's at stake to the players if they fail to defeat the boss. It doesn't need to be a "save the world" scenario. There can be very clear, unpleasant consequences, without it being an earth-shaking scenario.
-The final session of the game can be the most important of the entire campaign. It's the one players will remember best, for chronological reasons. The boss should be memorable, and the fight should encapsulate and exemplify all the good things from the entire campaign.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Player Power Level
There are two kinds of game balance with regard to power level. First, the party's power level versus everything else, usually a dungeon or series of antagonists. Second, the party members' power levels versus each other --not necessarily in a PvP sense, but in the sense that they are consistently able to out-perform the rest of the party.
Temporary Superiority
Sometimes a party member is more suited to a particular situation, which is fine as long as it isn't a deliberate choice on the DM's part. If you feel like using undead, and the cleric is better at fighting undead, it's all right for that character to exhibit a superior ability to deal with his area of specialty.
Other times, a character is better at a particular level, but this is temporary. Fighters are (much) better than wizards at first level, in vanilla 3e D&D. This goes away as the characters increase in level, and is in many ways fun -- the wizard "pays" for his later superiority by being weaker early on. Indeed, he "earns" his later power merely by surviving.
The danger here is if there is a major trend in superior level. Even if it's just that the player is better than optimizing his build, it's a problem. Indeed, it's probably a bad thing that a character design system can be so well gamed, that players who are not as interested can be left so far behind in balance.
Lowering Top-Tier Effectiveness
In Team Fortress 2, a first-person shooter game that came out a few years ago, the game designers made the conscious choice to limit how much more effective a skilled player could be. Shooting someone in the head doesn't always inflict more damage, for example. Nor does having played longer give you access to weapons that are per se better, though it does give you more (sometimes more newbie-friendly) options.
The result is that, even though a skilled player is still obviously better during gameplayer, it isn't an automatic shut out. New players with quick reflexes can still compete with the pros, or at least contribute to the performance of the team. There is a narrower band within which player skill can improve that player's performance.
D&D should be the same way. More proficient (or interested) players should have an advantage for seeing rules possibilities that other players don't, but not a huge one. Playing D&D should be more about tactical decisions than character design. This doesn't sell rules manuals that are essentially catalogues that players can peruse through to "shop" for bonuses, but it does make for a more rewarding play experience. The player should be most rewarded for decisions made on the fly, not what happens when he's picking feats before the game begins.
When It Goes Right
Ideally, the adventuring party should be a smooth functioning machine, with each party member performing his equally important role under pressure, in dangerous situations with outcomes that are only partially predictable.
When things are working appropriately, there is a rising arc of action, with smaller encounters in a dungeon sapping some of the party's reserves and testing their ability to allocate resources, with mild possibility of things backfiring horribly.
Then you fight the boss (or whatever), and the boss truly tests the party's mettle. It's the apex of the rising action, making a player death or even a wipeout more likely than in the normal course of things. Great stuff.
When It Goes Wrong
Nullifying a particular player's advantages is a mistake. If you start deliberately crafting encounters that are resistant to an above-average power level player-character's abilities, or that hit on all his weaknesses, he will usually feel like you're picking on him. Using any form of negative reinforcement will just make that player unhappy.
The way to fix things is to increase the power level of all the party members, through means that bring them specifically into line with the other player. For my game, I introduce new spells for the underpowered casters' spell lists, extra class-specific feat options for under-powered rogues and fighters, and magical items that are more likely to help the under-powered players than the over-powered fella.
Does this make the entire party too powerful? Absolutely. But monsters and traps can always have their difficulty ramped up. Have them do more damage, have a higher armor class and saves, and generally amp things up. It might be a little faster than you expected, but that's fine, it's all in the game. And it's certainly better than having an incredibly over-powered player making everybody else feel like schlubs.
Temporary Superiority
Sometimes a party member is more suited to a particular situation, which is fine as long as it isn't a deliberate choice on the DM's part. If you feel like using undead, and the cleric is better at fighting undead, it's all right for that character to exhibit a superior ability to deal with his area of specialty.
Other times, a character is better at a particular level, but this is temporary. Fighters are (much) better than wizards at first level, in vanilla 3e D&D. This goes away as the characters increase in level, and is in many ways fun -- the wizard "pays" for his later superiority by being weaker early on. Indeed, he "earns" his later power merely by surviving.
The danger here is if there is a major trend in superior level. Even if it's just that the player is better than optimizing his build, it's a problem. Indeed, it's probably a bad thing that a character design system can be so well gamed, that players who are not as interested can be left so far behind in balance.
Lowering Top-Tier Effectiveness
In Team Fortress 2, a first-person shooter game that came out a few years ago, the game designers made the conscious choice to limit how much more effective a skilled player could be. Shooting someone in the head doesn't always inflict more damage, for example. Nor does having played longer give you access to weapons that are per se better, though it does give you more (sometimes more newbie-friendly) options.
The result is that, even though a skilled player is still obviously better during gameplayer, it isn't an automatic shut out. New players with quick reflexes can still compete with the pros, or at least contribute to the performance of the team. There is a narrower band within which player skill can improve that player's performance.
D&D should be the same way. More proficient (or interested) players should have an advantage for seeing rules possibilities that other players don't, but not a huge one. Playing D&D should be more about tactical decisions than character design. This doesn't sell rules manuals that are essentially catalogues that players can peruse through to "shop" for bonuses, but it does make for a more rewarding play experience. The player should be most rewarded for decisions made on the fly, not what happens when he's picking feats before the game begins.
When It Goes Right
Ideally, the adventuring party should be a smooth functioning machine, with each party member performing his equally important role under pressure, in dangerous situations with outcomes that are only partially predictable.
When things are working appropriately, there is a rising arc of action, with smaller encounters in a dungeon sapping some of the party's reserves and testing their ability to allocate resources, with mild possibility of things backfiring horribly.
Then you fight the boss (or whatever), and the boss truly tests the party's mettle. It's the apex of the rising action, making a player death or even a wipeout more likely than in the normal course of things. Great stuff.
When It Goes Wrong
Nullifying a particular player's advantages is a mistake. If you start deliberately crafting encounters that are resistant to an above-average power level player-character's abilities, or that hit on all his weaknesses, he will usually feel like you're picking on him. Using any form of negative reinforcement will just make that player unhappy.
The way to fix things is to increase the power level of all the party members, through means that bring them specifically into line with the other player. For my game, I introduce new spells for the underpowered casters' spell lists, extra class-specific feat options for under-powered rogues and fighters, and magical items that are more likely to help the under-powered players than the over-powered fella.
Does this make the entire party too powerful? Absolutely. But monsters and traps can always have their difficulty ramped up. Have them do more damage, have a higher armor class and saves, and generally amp things up. It might be a little faster than you expected, but that's fine, it's all in the game. And it's certainly better than having an incredibly over-powered player making everybody else feel like schlubs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)