The Grumpy Dwarf Remarks on Mike Mearls' Attempt to Balance the Wizard in 5e

 Mike's doing it again.  Fixing problems that don't exists, or maybe do exist, but not to the extent that he believes.  Still, game designers must tilt windmills at times, and Mike is good at such.  Let's look at his latest, shall we?

You can read the original here.

Over the past few weeks, I've talked about the design goals for the core classes in D&D (yep, and each article has moved away from the initial design goals that were stated for D&D Doppleganger, the game that is all editions, all the time). This week, it's the wizard's turn. I'm going to do something a little different, though. The wizard's design goals are different from the other three classes (so, was it a useless poll that made the wizard the last to be looked at, or the fact that he's being treated different than the other three core classes?). The issue we see with this class isn't that it needs clarity on what it does. After all, it's fairly obvious that wizards cast arcane spells. The challenge lies in making sure that wizards don't grow too powerful as they level (this seems like an argument on par with that of Lazer Clerics.  Is it a problem with the class, or a problem with the game, or not a  problem at all?) In many campaigns, a caster can use the right combination of spells and magic items to become more powerful than the rest of the group combined. Needless to say, that's not a situation that most DMs or players enjoy (I think they doth protest too much, but we shall see.)

First of all, the concept of caster dominance is something that we must approach carefully. Many gaming groups simply don't see the problem (wow!  i'll give Mike credit for this statement). For instance, I've played in groups where the wizard took some of the most popular spells—fireball, lightning bolt, magic missile—and the character never stood out as overly powerful. Sure the wizard could blast a bunch of monsters, but he or she needed the rest of the party to keep him around. (yes, because the wizzie is all offense and little or no defense.  he goes "squish!" really easy)

Second, caster dominance shows up at high levels. In my experience, it comes to the fore when a caster has enough spells to unleash powerful combinations. For instance, I remember turning what was supposed to be a deadly fight in 3E against an iron golem into a cakewalk simply by throwing grease and glitterdust (okay, this is a bizarre pair of spells to use as an example - grease is a level 1 spell, glitterdust is a level 2 spell - so a 3rd level Wizard is high level?  Can you blind a Golem?  It has to fail 2 saves for this uber effect to take effect to happen.  Two rounds of casting.  This is over powered how?) at the thing. I've seen similar things happen in 4E. The first spell creates a zone that creatures can't escape, the second one creates another zone that damages or shuts down creatures trapped within the zone. (again, two saves need to be failed for this to happen.  each creature gets two saves.  this is not automatic.  Mike, enjoying the windmill yet?)

Any approach we take to reducing caster dominance must first start by making sure that gaming groups that don't see it as an issue aren't burdened by complex new rules, arbitrary restrictions, or seemingly pointless new systems (but hey, lets change a core concept of the game - allowing wizard's players, like other classes, to think of new uses of their powers). We don't want addressing caster dominance to have the reverse effect, with groups that didn't see it left unhappy by a host of new or changed mechanics. (and how will you accomplish this Master Mike?)

So, what are we doing? Like many things in game design, it involves both a give and take. This topic in particular will be an important focus in the playtest. The system must not only work on paper, but also it must work well at the gaming table. (well, yeah, if it doesn't work at the gaming table, it doesn't work)

Cantrips as At-Will Magic: We're hoping to keep the concept of cantrips for wizards, and expand it to include some nifty attack and utility spells (can a "nifty" at will attack be all that effective?). Wizards would be able to cast spells at will, much as they do in 4E. We think that making cantrips a bit more powerful, while also making them at-will, will go a long way toward making restrictions on prepared spells more palatable for groups that don't see caster dominance as an issue. (o-kay?  and this allows for "old school play" how exactly?  this doesn't seem to be one of the famous "modules" they've been hyping since the start, talking about modular play.  this is changing the core concept of wizards / mages / magic-users.  well, at least as far as 3x and earlier is concerned.  can't speak knowledgeably for 4e, so i won't)

We also look at at-will magic as a key tool in keeping the adventure moving forward. You can still unleash all your prepared spells in rapid succession, but that doesn't leave you powerless.  (just leaves you much less useful.  unless the prepared spells as the useless ones.  now wouldn't THAT be an interesting twist?)

Keep Spells Under Control: This is an obvious first step, but we need to make sure that spells are of the appropriate power level and that they don't abuse the system in some way. For instance, the 3E grease spell required a DC 10 Balance check to avoid some of its effects. That seems reasonable, until you realize that grease was a 1st-level spell and that a 15th-level NPC cleric might have a total Balance check modifier of –8. We need to make sure that spells don't create an effect that is too powerful or include loopholes that make them overwhelmingly powerful for their level.  (you will not close every loophole, but it is a nice thought.  the grease issues should have been caught in playtesting, but i assume their playest sample was small in the creating of 3e)

Reducing Total Spell Slots: Since wizards now have at-will magic, they need fewer spell slots. The current design places a cap on the total number of spells you can prepare, and it caps the maximum number of spells you can prepare of each level. The reduction of spell slots pushes more reliance on cantrips, and it makes combinations harder to repeat.  (so, the chance for wizard characters to shine, to do something different from the next wizard is going to shrink drastically, as cantrips are now going to be the wizard's core power base?  wow - color me not impressed.)

Spells Don't Automatically Scale: We're thinking that wizard spells scale only if they are prepared with higher-level slots. That would mean that a wizard's spells don't all become more powerful as he or she levels up. The wizard would gain some new, more powerful spells. The wizard would not gain those spells while also making the rest of the spell list more powerful.  (this means we can remove a crapload of spells from the initial list for wizards, as they won't be needed.  which also allows us to keep a tight rein on the wizards power level.  and allow us to playtest the game with less of a chance of innovative players finding a combination that may break the system.  cantrips for the win.  sigh.  this is very far from being anything like any of the previous editions of wizards.  i don't think you can play this wizard as an older edition styled magic-user.   at least we now know they are throwing out much of the idea of modularity, which was an albatross around the neck of the New Edition with it's conflicting goals.  not saying I like the changes, but if this is a sign they are moving away from the One Game To Rule Them All concept, there might be something salvageable)

Spellcasting Is Dangerous: This point ventures into the theoretical, since we still aren't 100% certain how we want to pursue it (so it's just the kind of thing that we want to gather feedback on in the playtest). The current proposal is that a wizard who takes damage has a chance to miscast his or her next spell. (wait?  so, we are removing a bunch of spell slots from the wizards casting ability AND we are thinking about bringing back the idea of spell failure when taking damage.  so, are we going to do the same now for the other classes?  if they take damage, their abilities might fail?  because the other classes - except for the neutered cleric, seem to have been empowered.  shit, i thought the cleric was fucked with until I read today's article) A wizard can always instead choose to do something else or use a cantrip without risk of failure. In addition, a miscast spell is never lost. The wizard can try again next round.

The idea here is to capture the feel of earlier editions, where wizards needed some amount of protection to unleash their most powerful abilities. In play, it means that a wizard has to be careful in a fight, lean on defensive magic, or otherwise stay out of harm's way. (since we removed much of your spell casting ability, just stick with the cantrips we are giving you.  it should be exciting, no?)

Keep Magic Items Under Control: There's a good chance that magic item creation will be a rules module that DMs can opt into. At the very least, items such as scrolls and wands will likely change in the following ways.

Scrolls would require a caster to expend a prepared spell to use them. Thus, scrolls would make wizards more versatile but they do not increase the number of spells they can cast each day. (Yes!  lets remove even more power from the casters!)

Wands would no longer accept just any spell. Instead, we would provide a specific list of spells that can be added to wands. (this makes sense.)  The idea here is to keep things under control so that casting fly on everyone in the party is a real investment by a wizard.  (this makes no sense when paired to the previous sentence - something is missing from the explanation)

Keep Buff Spells Under Control: We want to make sure that spells such as haste and invisibility are useful without making other classes' key abilities redundant. An invisible creature that makes noise or otherwise gives away its location might not get much of a defensive benefit. Instead, an invisible creature is best off if it has a rogue's excellent bonuses to stealth. In this case, invisibility works as a spell that makes a scout or sneaky character much harder to find. It does not become a huge defensive buff. (see, we've cut back on your available spell slots, we won't allow spells to scale and now we are going to remove much of the usefulness of the buff spells.)

Haste might grant extra attacks, but at a penalty that makes the fighter's ability to attack multiple times come out ahead. The cleric in the group fights much better with haste, but she still can't match the fighter's martial skill.  On the other hand, casting haste on a fighter is a great idea. It augments the fighter's already deadly weapon skill.  (keep on neutering those spells)

Spells such as stoneskin, shield, and blur are great for wizards because they make casting less hazardous and help counter the class's low AC and hit points. A wizard might throw such spells on the rest of the party, giving up some of his or her own defensive options to help the rest of the party thrive.  (he might as well, as he has little left to offer the bprty that isnt a cantrip)

Creativity, Not Dominance: Finally, on a personal level, I'd love it if creative use of a spell focused more on improvisation rather than number crunching. A web spell entangles the bandit chief's horse, cutting off his best chance to escape. Grease allows a rogue caught in a giant crab's claw to wriggle free with ease. If we build good, clear descriptions into the spells that bring them to life and combine these descriptions with a robust set of DM tools for improvisation, spells become tools that characters can use in creative ways rather than strictly defined special abilities. Hopefully, reining in some of the mechanical challenges that D&D has faced in the past makes it easier to encourage creative use of spells in a compelling, immersive way  (wait!  this requires DM Fiat to work.  and all the number crunching has already removed much of the spell casting ability of the wizard.  i'm really fucking confused by the current goals for D&D Next.  Is it still modular?  Because all I see here is a dumbing down of the wizard class.  Not simplifying but damn near neutering.)

I think we are seeing the balance of 4e returning in 5e, under a whole set of new tweaks to a 3e base.  I'm more confused now then at any point in the past about the direction that 5e is going in. 

Level Advancement - Trying to Find the Right Pace

Well, the new ACKS campaign seems to be off to a strong start. Two sessions down, and I think the PCs have a chance to hit level 2 upon completion of the third session.

Assuming they level every third session (we skip one Saturday a month) and assuming the campaign remains vibrant, we could be looking at a game that covers all levels of play in about 12 months.

I have no idea if the leveling will stay at the same rate. As it is, I'n addition to the usual expo for overcoming adversaries and treasure looted, I'm also awarding expo for completing adventures, minor expo for successful proficiency use and a 10% bonus for completing weekly adventure logs at the Obsidian Portal site. All that, and the third session should allow them to hit level 2. It isn't guaranteed.

A level a month of mostly weekly gaming sounds about right to me, I just hope it fits with my players' expectations too.

When it comes to OSR style gaming, what is the rate of advancement in your campaigns?

(I'm avoiding 3x and 4e, as they are their own beasts, especially with the rate of advancement)

The Official Adventurer Conqueror King OR DIE! Obsidian Portal Page is Up

Yep, our little Obsidian Portal page is up and running.  Adventurer Conqueror King or Die! is just 2 sessions old, but I'm blessed with highly skilled, entertaining and funny as all hell role-players in my group.  To say I'm blessed is an understatement, as their game play brings out the best in me as a GM.  If this is how the game is going after 2 sessions, I can only imagine the delightful insanity we will be experiencing after 20 ;)

So come, look at the psychotic lizard man gladiator, he who would box his own shadow if it would give him a fight.  See the mage that seems so unlike a mage, yet has knowledge like a sage (and a goblin servant too).  Observe the shadow blade as he single handedly disables a slavers cart (as disabling a slaver would be too easy a maneuver).  Watch as the warrior manages to impale a goblin through the neck in an upright position.  Wait with the rest of us as two others join the ranks (as those following along from home can probably tell, the party lacks any kind of healing... hint).

Yes, join us.  Well, read the exploits.  You can't really join us, as I think my capacity for effective GMing is around 6 players in total.  No worries though, as the wife has given me the blessing to run a second game in a month or so.  Probably not ACKS, but at least you'll have an idea if my table is one you might want to sit at.  In a virtual manner.  As this is via G+ at the moment.  My kitchen table is damn small and only fits 4, but the wife and I like it that way ;)

An OSR Styled Abstract Combat Map For Your Review

Ian Dimitri was kind enough to take me up on my challenge in regards to an OSR styled Abstract Combat Map.  I really do like the resulting "map" Ian came up with, and I may start experimenting with this in my Google+ Hangout (using Tabletop Forge for the VTT) ACKS Campaign.

Shane Magnus also pointed me to one that he had created that was inspired by  3:16 Carnage Amongst the Stars, but I think Ian is closer to what I need in an OSR style game.  Thanks for the peek Shane, I appreciate it.  I think yours works better with other system, and I may experiment with it when I run an Savage Worlds or Hollow Earth Expedition game.

Ian explains his suggested use as follows:

In this version you could represent folks sneaking into a position by putting them all the way to the left and those in position to deliver a backstab by putting them in the "Behind" row and to the left of the enemy's position in their area. The enemy area is also arranged from closest to farthest. I would use simple tokens placed next to the characters or enemies to represent things such as "high ground", "in cover", "prone" etc. Very simple. Very usable.

So, thoughts?  Feedback?  Suggestions?  Other Abstract Combat Maps to add to the equation?

ACKS Session 2 Recap - Playing With Tortured Fire

Remember a few months back when I remarked that just about every D&D session has either fire or torture i it, almost invariably introduced by the PCs themselves?  Last night my party managed to introduce both, and in the same scene yet!

Investigating the reports that goblins were accessing the basement under the church in town, the PCs discovered a hole in the wall adjacent to the twins sewer.  They waited in am bust for the return of said goblins, and when they made their entrance the party's mage threw a flask of oil, striking the wall just above the hole the gob's were entering from.  As the gob's lost their footing, he followed it with a well placed lob of a lit torch.  Four gobs were crispy excrement covered corpses, and the fifth (the first through the whole) was alive and captured by the PCs.  Amazingly enough, they did not set the church on fire, but I'm not sure if that was from lack of trying.

After asking (1), one, uno, ein question and not liking the answer, the night blade cut off one of the gob's pinkies.  Literally within minutes, we able to mark both "fire" and "torture" of the list of things for the PCs to do ;)

Ah, the things that PCs do.  Afterwards, they were summoned to meet the mayor, who asked them to travel to the Goblin Halls and do away with the goblins that were reestablishing themselves there as well as poisoning the town's water supply.  After a sizable upfront payment, they agreed, and set forth for the Goblin Halls.

They encountered goblin slavers on the way to the Halls.  The night blade made an amazing surprise attack on the slavers' cart, impaling an arrow into the cart's wooden wheel and causing it to abruptly stop. The fact that he was aiming at a goblin guard and not the wheel is inconsequential to this story, as between the lizard man gladiator with a death wish and the mage with a sleep spell, there were no living goblins left to be concerned about the cart.  The capture red miner within the cage of the cart was released and sent back to town.  We was, needless to say, extremely grateful.

Shorty thereafter the party arrived at the Goblin Halls.  After discussing possibly alternative access points other than the one that had been obviously recently reopened, the party decided to enter within.  In the first room they discovered a bullying incident, with nearly a half dozen goblins beating upon a much smaller than usual goblin.  Before the bully's knew what was happening, bits and pieces of goblin were everywhere.  The mage made an offer to the goblin runt, which equated to "serve me or die".  The offer was quickly accepted.  The runt is as smart as he is small, and he was alb to sketch out a quick map of the Halls for the party, giving them an advantage they lacked prior.

Next they entered the "practice room", where goblin recruits practiced on living (or recently deceased) "dummies", otherwise known as captives.  On captive was still living, and after giving him a healing potion, the warden (who had attempted to investigate these halls a few days earlier) was now an extra sword arm for the party.  Things were certainly looking up.

The temple area was uneventful, except for the the robed figure that instructed the party to sit (in goblin) when they entered.  In the end, the robed figured was an animated skeleton that made no attempt to defend itself against the party's attack, and it was quickly destroyed.  It's destruction did leave them with a message "tell my daughter i love her".  See, now the players get to be messenger men too ;)

Well, maybe not totally uneventful, as they did discover a secret treasure room.  Most of the items inside had rotted over the years, but the gold and river were still in fine shape and ripe for the taking.  Which brought to life to smallish wooden dogs, which were dispatch fairly quickly, but not before giving the gladiator a nice splinter (and the first wound suffered by the party)

Next up were two barracks rooms.  The first held a half dozen sleeping goblins that stood no chance when the gladiator tore through them.  He also tore through most of their belongings.  I guess we will never know if that was a potion or poison.

The party then moved on to a sort of burial room.  While moving coffins in search of goodies, a goblin patrol came across the party.  As the leader put a horn to his lips, the gladiator proceeded to push the horn down said leader's throat.  The survivors tried to flee, but were struck down by the PCs, or in the case of one, pinned through his neck to the floor by a javelin thrown by the party's warrior.

Yep, things are certainly getting a bit more exciting for the party compared to the first session.  We started at 930 pm and ended shortly after 130 am - and i had totally lost track of time.

Some Further Thoughts on The Abstract Battle Map

I'm not so sure if the Ancient Odysseys Conflict Action Map works perfectly as is for D&D and all of it's offspring, but it does plant the seed for a compromise between the Battle Grid and the Theatre of the Mind world views on running combat encounters.

My feeling is that the CAM as presented doesn't offer the GM enough options for adversary placement.  This could be addressed by moving the enemies in combat to the lower edge of The Enemy section, leaving those not engaged or using missile / spells in the middle of The Enemy section and moving any engaged in a backstab styled attack on the right side of the section.  I'd reserve the top of The Enemy section for enemies that are engage with PCs attacking from advantage.

Still, I think there is an OSR styled CAM residing in the mind of one of the readers of this post that would address the needs of a D&D styled game and still maintain the simplicity of the Ancient Odysseys Conflict Action Map.

Any up for the challenge?  ;)

Delving Into Ancient Odysseys For an Abstract Battle Map

I'm beginning to wonder if an abstract "Battle Map" works best for a D&D type game.  To the left is the Conflict Action Map from the Ancient Odysseys RPG.

AO is a fairly simple game, which can be played with a GM, w/o a GM or even solo, although I expect it would shine fairly well with a GM, especially as a pick up game or a con game (or even a pick up game via G+ Hangout).  It isn't deep enough for me to want to run it as a long term campaign, but it's got more than enough meat for a couple of game sessions.

What I really like about Ancient Odysseys is the Combat Action Map.  It breaks things down into "zones".

Closest are the front line, they engage the enemy in melee.

Farthest are those using missile weapons, spells or having a desire to be in the back and avoid things.

Sneaking is for "sneaking".  This is for the characters looking to put themselves behind their adversaries.  You move from Sneaking to Behind.

Behind is for characters positioned for backstabbing or whatever your system calls it.

This should work both in a face to face game session and a virtual (online) game session.  It gives characters an idea where they are in relation to their enemies.  It would still really more on Theatre of the Mind than a true battle map, but I don't see anything wrong with that.

Abstract, yet defined.

I may try this out on my ACKS group in the coming weeks.

The Grumpy Dwarf Looks at Bruce Cordel's Goblins

Goblins Care Only About Your Axe (original article here)

I’ve played a lot of D&D lately (as Bruce works at WotC, i expect he plays a lot of D&D all of the time). But even when using rules prone to design iteration (in other words, different D&D Next versions), one thing has remained constant throughout: When I swing my axe at a goblin neck, the goblin’s going down if I hit. (goblins used to have 1d6+1 hd - they should survive an axe swing just about half the time - unless they are 1HP minions like in 4e - now thats a thought)
That’s true whether the fight occurs in the theater of the mind (TotM), in TotM with the aid of scratch paper to show general position (my preferred method, also know as a Whiteboard when using a VTT), in a hybrid TotM-minis system, or with minis on a grid.

As was pointed out by my previous blog about the grid vs. imagination and the discussions it engendered, the system surrounding my goblin combat can dramatically change many other elements of the fight. The foremost difference is the amount of table time the fight takes to resolve overall, and the amount of tactical decision-making the environment provides my axe-wielding goblin killer. (more detail  = more time needed)
The tension between these two elements is real, and it can’t be swept under the rug. Narratively speaking, sometimes it’s simply too much effort to break out the minis and gridded terrain map to deal with two goblin guards at a cave mouth (maybe, but I suspect there are some 4e players that will call "foul!" if the DM refuses to do just that). The “story” of the situation isn’t really about tactics, unless the DM specifically changes the encounter to make it so (again, 4e is all about tactics - does this mean that 5e is going to put less of an emphasis on tactics?). Indeed, two guards at a doorway (and other “low power” encounters) are precisely the sort of encounters that grid-only combat tends to weed out of the game. (interesting observation.  i didn't realize 4e did away with smaller encounters.  damn shame.  i weep for my 4e brothers and sisters) Because the DM and adventure designer know it’s not worth the effort to break out minis for a simple interaction with two goblin guards (or even five goblin guards), the encounter either goes away entirely, or it faces pressure to become part of some other, larger encounter. (because more is always better?) This means that players, when they see minis on the table, always know it’s going to be some kind of fight, regardless of anything else. (you know, this is an extremely valid point, more so that anything else that has been said thus far.  miniatures being set on a battle-grid really do take away the suspense)

Other times, the story is about tactics. I do want to exactly know where the vampire lord is in relation to the acid pit, the windows through which afternoon sunlight slashes, the vampire’s dominated spell-casting thralls, and her various spawn slinking through an advancing line of rolling mist. Pushing or being pushed 5 feet (does anyone realize how far 5' is in real life?  that's one heck of a push)  can make the difference between winning and losing this fight, depending on whether I’ve been pushed into the acid, or if I can push the vampire into the sunlight.  (here's the big bull shit fallacy about battle grids.  if this was a real life fight to the finish, all you would see is your immediate surroundings - you wouldn't have the time to figure out complicated moves to push the vamp into a sliver of sunlight.  You don't see a whole 60'x40' room, 360 degrees around you and make your choices.  in TotM, you could tell the DM what you want to accomplish, he tells you what you need to roll to accomplishsuch (if it can be accomplished)and it's done.  Yep, it's that evil DM Fiat.  But hey, whatever floats your stone boat down the Halls of the Latest D&D)

Based on the poll we conducted on my last grid-focused blog (holy fucking shit!  hey, is there anything they won't do a poll on at WotC?  how about a poll on picking corn kernels from shit?  wait, that might have been done already), a majority of you agrees that different encounters have different needs when it comes to encounter rules. That’s cool, because we feel the same way. (i bet everyone feels like their concerns are validated now) Assuming we move forward with this line of thinking, we’ll end up with a core conflict resolution system that can encompass both TotM and the grid. Imagine a combat system not too different from previous editions that relied almost solely on the use of the grid, but tweaked so that it works seamlessly (this word carries a hell of a lot of weight) for those fights where minis are not used or expected.

This means, to answer one line of questions raised in the grid discussions, that switching between TotM and the grid must be easy and seamless, both for groups that prefer to switch between modes, and for groups who want to primarily stick to one or the other conflict resolution system. It’s not our job to pick a winner or loser in any sort of false “grid vs. TotM” contest, and thereby create a sub-group of D&D players who don’t have the rules support they deserve. Instead, it’s our job to create a straightforward environment where both styles of play prosper and can be used.  (good luck... remember, the grid plays havoc with the "one hour game session" goal.  see, that's part of the problem with D&D Doppleganger - each added goal conflicts with a previously stated goal)

For instance, if a fighter uses an ability that seems to make sense on the grid, we should design that same ability to also be useful in the TotM. (notice Bruce doesn't say "have the same effect, or just as effective", just that it be useful)  In a fight that takes place next to a curtain of green slime (can you actually HAVE a curtain of green slime?  i'm very curious.  how about a table cloth of green slime, or maybe even coasters?), even in TotM, it’s not as important how far I can push a foe with an ability as it is important that I can push a foe at all (kinda goes with my "do you have any idea how far a 5' push is in real life?"). If my “hack and shove maneuver” results in the goblin stumbling backward, then, regardless of distance in feet or whether this happens on the grid or in the players’ imaginations, the goblin has just discovered that green slime is not its friend. (i thought the whole point of this article was about axes? ;)

A Town By Any Other Name...

Greg Christopher has a thread on G+ asking for folks to throw out ideas for a the name of a town that sits on a hill over a dungeon. It got me thinking, Google has a perfect tool for naming places in your fantasy world - It's the Google Translate Tool at translate.google.com

Personally, I think German makes for some decent sounding location names (this coming from my perspective as a German-American Mutt - YMMV).

Hill Dungeon becomes - Hugel Verlies or shortened to Ver Hugel.

Crag Stone Dungeon becomes - Felsen Stein Verlies, which I can shorten to Felstein Verlies or maybe Ver Felstein.

Sounds much better than a bunch of made up crap ;)

Thanks Greg for kickstarting my brain!

Interesting Post By Monte Cook at His Blog

Yes, I've been accused of reading between the lines and reading into stuff things that might no bethere.  I (or rather, Grumpy) have been told I always assume the worst when looking at WotC's latest postings about D&D Next.

So, I'm not going to read between the lines of this one.  Or rather, even if I am, I'll keep the thoughts to myself for now.

You can read Monte's full post here.

I'm just going to quote two parts that stick out to me.  I'll leave the commenting to others.

But overinflated egos can be a real problem in creative industries. Not only does it make one insufferable to be around, it's detrimental to one's interaction with the people one is actually creating for. It turns people away.

and

I find it difficult to navigate in a world surrounded by massive egos. I and my peers--whether it be in game design or fiction writing--are  at best big fish in ridiculously small ponds. In the past, I have tried to remind them of that, but it hardly wins me friends, let me tell you. So now I keep it to myself. Ego and who is "deserving" of it, ultimately, is all a matter of perspective. Unless you've saved a billion lives, maybe, keep some humility. 

How Do I Determine If I'm Running a Successful Campaign?

How do I know I kicked off a fairly successful ACKS Campaign last Saturday night?

It wasn't just the bouts of laughter the players got from me during game play.

I wasn't just the great role playing I witnessed.

It isn't just the the numerous G+ threads we have about the game.

It isn't just the awesome character write-ups and recaps my players have posted on the Obsidian Portal site.

No, last night was the kicker, as my players asked - no, more precisely demanded, that I log into a G+ Hangout so the mage in the party could roll against his Magical Engineering proficiency to determine the nature of the magical ring they found. My protest that i was shirtless and in my underwear as I was getting ready for bed fell on deaf ears.

Successful roll by the mage. +1 Ring of Protection, 5' Radius was revealed to the party.

Yeah, I'd judge the new campaign a success ;)

The Grumpy Dwarf Looks at The Rule of Three - What's Next, What Happened, What Are You Doing?

The Grump Dwarf here.  Time to look at the latest Rule of Three from WotC.  Remember, I'm not just a Dwarf, I'm Grumpy too ;)  Original link here.

Will any products for D&D Next release this year (2012)?

 

No. We have no products planned in 2012 for the next iteration of the game. (I'm sure this surprises some folks.  This is actually very good news.  Hopefully they don't put out some lame "non-edition intro books" as a quick cash grab as they've done in the past) First of all, that would make it completely impossible for us to integrate feedback gathered from the playtesting process, something I want to reiterate is a significant priority for us. (open play test starts on may 24th folks.  don't bitch about the game when it's finally released if you don't bother at least reading the play test material and giving your feedback) Second, we want to make sure that the game doesn't release until it's ready to release, (okay, while they might actually mean this, they have a date already set "somewhere" and it will ship on that date, ready or not, here it comes!) and that means that we want to give ourselves plenty of time when working on everything from the game's design to art to layout and beyond before releasing the product.(again, I expect they believe this, but I don't believe it will ship one day later than they have already told the Hasbro Overlords)

As an aside, I'd like to note that we won't be able to talk about products related to D&D Next (in Rule-of-Three, or elsewhere) until the game is ready, so it may be a while before we start dealing with product specifics.  (Lets makes some guesses - Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide and a Monster Manual for the opening trilogy.  Do I win a prize?)

 

Whatever happened to the idea of the priest, or a cleric who doesn't wear armor and smites enemies with holy power from a distance (aka laser cleric)?  (who ever thought up the term "laser cleric" deserves a kick in the nether regions)

 

Right now, we're looking at ways to let players make that decision within a class. Choices made during character building and play should allow you to choose one type of cleric or another. An easy way to handle this is spell choice; do I choose spells that make my melee attacks better, or spells that let me zap from a distance? (I know they are trying to keep this stuff simple to describe, but "zap from a distance?")  Beyond that, we'll want some class mechanics to speak to one type of cleric or another. For example, we're tinkering with the idea that a cleric's domain choice might steer play style slightly. Take the healing domain, be the best healer. Take the war domain, be a great melee cleric. (why be a melee cleric?  isn't melee reserved for fighters to be the uber class?) Take the sun domain, be a great laser cleric. (i'm going to guess that wizards make better "lazers") It's still in process, but that's one line of thought.

What are you doing to make sure that the cleric and other magic users don't step on the toes of the other classes? If a cleric can be sneaky and use a bow, what place does the ranger or rogue have?

 

It's important to remember when talking about competence in particular areas that there is a distinction between being good at something and being the best at something. We want to make sure that each character class shines in certain arenas, and as a result while you might build a cleric who can sneak and use a bow (to use your example), and your cleric might be very good at those things, the ranger or rogue will probably still be better (wait, the ranger and the rogue are going to share skills at the same level?  i thought based upon all of these articles that D&D Doppleganger is going to be all about "niche protection", at least at the highest levels of the skill) . We want to give plenty of flexibility for people to be able to build the characters they want to build, that are good at the things they want them to be good at, while still providing ways for all the classes to have certain realms in which they are the best.

I'm Not Going to Roll, I'll Just Choose to Succeed!

So, I did some further thinking on Mike Mearls' latest post, which also led to me thinking about one of Monte's earlier posts, right before the announcement of D&D Doppleganger, which changes form to suit the designer / DM / players / etc. Why this desire to auto-adjudicate success?

As a side note, if we are going the auto-adjudicate success route, does it matter that thieves are better at skills than others? No one is rolling 95% of the time anyway.

(BTW, 95% is a number I pulled out of the Grumpy Dwarf's Ass - it may be 90%, it may be 99%, we won't know until the 24th)

I understand the desire to improve upon the starting thief's ability success chance at low levels. I'd even go so far as to double the starting success chance, and half the advancement rate. WotC won't do that, as it would require switching skills to a percentile roll as opposed to a D20 role. Still, I think it would go far to solve the problem (i may consider such in my ACKS campaign, but this houserule is not a priority at the moment.

Auto success arguably speeds up gameplay. But it does so at the expense of the game. What thrill, what edge of the seat excitement, is gained when the thief (rogue, whatever) can pick every lock, disarm every trap?

D&D is not an Endless Quest books. It more more than just a series of choices and decisions, it is also a game where some things are left to fate.

Unless Mike plans to auto-adjudicate combat too. Now that would certainly speed up gameplay, and that is the goal of D&D D, correct? Remove the dice rolling and that one hour game session is certainly more than doable. Assuming you can find players to sit down for the one hour game session.

The Grumpy Dwarf Looks At Mike Mearls' Latest - Rogue Design Goals

Holy Shit, but this posting certainly got my Grumpy Up!


You can read the original here, without all my "grumpy-isms".

This week, the rogue takes center stage. Why the rogue? Well, I conducted a quick poll on Twitter to determine if I should tackle the wizard or the rogue next (enough with the polls!  alright,this poll really had no meaning in the long run, but the WotC polls are pretty much BS in general). I tallied the tweets, and the rogue won out! (Woot!  Not!)If you want to add your voice to the Twitter crew when I conduct these polls of mine, or if you want to get a sense of what the team is working on each day, you can hop on Twitter and follow @mikemearls and @Wizards_DnD. Just don't forget to add #dndnext whenever you join the conversation there or ask questions! Now I can't promise that I can get to everything, since my availability is determined by my work schedule and my wife's willingness to let me keep my nose in my laptop at night (alright, this I can relate to), but it's probably the best way to communicate with me.

So, what's up with the rogue in D&D?

1. The rogue doesn't fight fair.

Fighters, clerics, and wizards take it straight to their enemies in a fight. A fighter charges in with a sword or maybe unleashes a volley of arrows (yeah, I've never played a fighter that has snuck up on the enemy). A cleric wields a mace and throws a support spell (or Command, or Hold Person, or Rock to Mud), while a wizard blasts you with a lightning bolt (or casts Fly, or Mass Suggestion, or Mirror Image on the fighter) . The rogue prefers an indirect approach to a fight. A rogue thrives on tricks and misdirection. If a rogue can't attack from behind or with some other key advantage, he or she might be better off withdrawing or remaining out of sight until the opportunity for a surprise attack presents itself (if the rogue hides for the length of the combat the player is an asshole.  if you're that afraid, engage the weaker opponenets).

If a rogue can surprise an opponent with an attack, that attack might be overwhelmingly powerful (it might). If a rogue is cornered and forced to fight fair, he or she is at a huge disadvantage. In such a situation, most rogues would choose to run away rather than fight (run away and expose yourself to a free attack?  that makes sense how?  when did rogues / thieves become cowards?) .

Rogues are tricky opponents, because determining what they might do next is almost impossible. A smart rogue always keeps a few tricks in his or her back pocket, ready to spring them when the time is right. Whether it's throwing a handful of caltrops under a bugbear's feet as it tries to charge, leaping from an ambush to drive a blade into an ogre's back, or dodging beneath a dragon's claws and tumbling into the shadows to hide, a rogue always has a trick in mind (all good ideas, but why must he run away if he can't do a trick?).

2. Rogues are skilled.

Rogues have many different tricks up their sleeves, and no two rogues are identical. They can hide in shadows, squeeze out of manacles, scamper up walls, and adopt a disguise. You can never be fully certain of what a rogue might be able to do. If a rogue decides to master a mundane skill, he or she can reach a higher level of expertise than other characters. (i'm a bit confused, because earlier statements made it seem that even the usual rogue like specialties skills were open to all classes)

In many ways, a thief is simply a rogue who specializes in handling traps, opening locks, and getting past the opposition to reach a goal, such as the loot at the end of the adventure (isn't this the main use of a thief / rogue in a dungeon anyway?). Just as fighters might distinguish themselves by their choice of weapons, armor, and tactics, rogues are separated by the tricks and skills they have developed.

3. The rogue exists in a world of myth, fantasy, and legend.

This one showed up in the fighter goals, but it also applies to the rogue. The rogue can trick others, slip through shadows, and talk his or her way out of anything. Although these abilities are not magical in nature, a high-level rogue can transcend the limits of a mundane skill to achieve legendary heights of myth and legend. A wizard might use a spell to charm the king, but a dispel magic can free that king. The same king tricked into an alliance by a rogue is much harder to sway. A simple spell is not enough to counter the web of lies, half-truths, and fears that a cunning rogue might use to manipulate a way into the royal treasury. (isn't this what "role-playing" is supposed to be about?  shouldn't any class be able to pull this off with the right role-playing?  This whole paragraph confuses this dwarf)

4. The rogue makes the routine look trivial.

Rogue are in a class by themselves when it comes to attempting ability checks and using skills. Not only is a rogue more skilled than other classes, but he or she can achieve many difficult tasks without much exertion. To the rogue, luck and chance play no role in determining success. The rogue's talent and training make such concerns negligible.  (wait a second?  WTF does this mean?  rogues get auto-success with their skills?  how the fucking hell is that fun?  "hey, look at me!  that lock?  I picked it!  that deadly trap?  i gave it my scarey face and it just closed up and died!")

Traditionally, the mechanics of D&D have reflected better training by increasing the chance of success. That doesn't quite capture the rogue's level of talent. The rogue isn't just more likely to succeed. Instead, he or she takes success for granted in most cases. It's only when facing a real challenge that the rogue must worry about the outcome.  (wonderful.  so, basically a rogue is absolutely necessary in te party, cause he auto-successes 95% of the locks and traps, and sneaks 95% of the time, etc, etc, etc.  Sounds like a system I'd have to house rule the shit out of or just stay the fuck away from.  Riddle me this Batman?  How in the Nine Planes of Hairy Hell is this resembling "Old School" play in the least?)

A Little More on the Playtest

One thing to keep in mind about these design goals is that they are flexible and open to discussion. A big part of the playtest process tackles having us all make sure that the game feels like D&D (well, this write up certainly doesn't sound like any D&D I know of). If you've played rogues for ten years, ask yourself if the new rogue feels like the class you've played and loved (lets see - auto-success at 1st level?  nope). In addition to testing the core of the game, the early rounds of testing are geared toward making sure that the game is hitting the correct notes for all the classes. On May 24th, you'll get to see how we tried to hit these goals, whether we're on the mark at this early stage, and if the target we've aimed for is the correct one. (and if you are way off the fuckin' target, will you listen to feedback that tells you how to adjust your sight and aim better?)

Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG in Hand!

I had read on the Goodman Games Forums from those that already got their copy of the DCC RPG that is was a solid book, but I had no idea how solid, how big, until mine arrived today.  So of course I hard to take picture of both it and it's accompanying free module.  As the rulebook also includes a 1st level adventure and a 5th level adventure, they start you off pretty well.

I really can't see myself running this on a regular basis, but it might be a lot of fun for a one-shot or a short story arc.

Still, I expect there are some things I can steal for my ACKS campaign.  Let my players beware ;)

Technology and Index Cards - Perfect Together

When I used to DM regularly, back in the Way Back (1980-1997) I took quickly to using index cards to keep PC (and significant NPC) information handy.

Most of the time, the index cards were paper clipped to my DM Screen, as I had already memorized most of the charts in question, and the screen was mostly there to keep certain dice rolls and dungeon maps out of the player's views.

Running an RPG via G+ Hangout (or really any VTT) pretty much does away with the need to hide rolls. If the interface allows for online dice rolling, and you need to keep the roll secret, just roll real dice off screen. Can't get more secret than that.

The need to view PC info or charts does take up valuable screen space if you are using your computer to run the game. Even with a 27" screen, I'd rather refer to my deadtree copy of ACKS, or print out the material I need for the session, than pull it up on the screen. I need the screen real estate to run the game, not read the material (obviously, if you are gaming in person, a laptop can be THE awesome game master aid).

So, time for me to go to the dollar store and get some index cards. Look at me be all organized and shit ;)

Holy Crap But The Trolls Fit a Lot in My C&C Classic Monsters Box!

I participated in the Castles & Crusades Classic Monsters Kickstarter and I just didn't realize how much I was getting for my $100 until the box arrived.  Shipping was $13.27 for this sucker.  I can only imagine what it's going to cost SJG to ship the OGRE boxes.

Classic Monsters is going to be the poor man's Tome of Horror's Complete in the OSR corner of out hobby, and I mean that in the nicest way possible.  For 25 bucks (or $15 in PDF).  Both books have the Flailsnail and the Flumph.  So if you are looking for some of the otherwise neglected monsters from some of TSR's later Monster Manuals and the Fiend Folio, this has got them... or at least, some of them.  Enough to fill my needs, and I may just leave the Tome of Horrors Complete on the bookshelf for now, as I think Classic Monsters will fill the roll and not take up too much space.  Did I mention that my copy is the limited run with the 6 color plates of artwork?

The Castle Keepers Guide I still feel is overpriced for a PDF, but a quick flipping through of the hardback  has me interested in a number of tools that I can use in my current ACKS campaign.  Monster Ecology and the Worlds of Adventure: Dungeons  and WoA: City sections seem ripe for yoking into my ACKS campaign.  I have a very complete C&C collection, and it's the main game I've played over the past few years, so I'm sure I'll get use out of the CKG.  I'm not so sure how much value non -C&C players will get from it (its $40 in hardcover and $32 in PDF).

I also got a HCs of the current C&C Players Handbook and Monsters & Treasure Books.  All 4 books were signed by the author.  Which I have to admit is pretty cool.

Additionally, I received a copy of the adventure DA1, Dark Journey.  That wasn't signed by the author but who cares.  Oh, and a bunch of Troll Lord coins.  I have no idea what they are to be used for, but their kinda cute. They remind me of the tokens I used to get at the arcade to cash in for a prize.

Did I mention I also got a snazzy t-shirt?  I didn't take a picture of if it.  I'll have to do it as a follow up.

So, $127 dollars worth of gaming books, signed, plus the t-shirt and coins free shipping, no tax here in NYS.  Not too bad.  Wait, forgot I get electronic copies in the format of my choice of the 4 rulebooks.  Not too shabby.  Not too shabby at all.

Digging Deeper and Adjusting My Focus - A Re-Read of the ACKS Rules

There's a handful of things that stick out to me, especially as I go through the spell and magic item sections.

There really is a dearth healing spells in ACKS.  No Cure Critical Wounds, no Heal - it does make a deadly game system even more deadly, especially at the higher levels.  The best you get is the 4th level Cure Serious Wounds spell, which heals 2d6 +1 point per caster level.  Admittedly, that isn't all that bad.  Still, I see no reason why Cure Light Wounds couldn't heal 1d6 +1 half the caster's level.  This wouldn't even change the result of the roll until 4th level (as the base CLW spell heals 1d6+1).  Consider this a possible pending house rule.

The Sleep spell as per the AD&D 1e Player's Handbook gives is an area of effect of 3" diameter (15' radius).  "All creatures to be affect by the sleep spell must be within the 3" diameter circle).  I always assumed (possibly wrong but who knows) that the caster didn't have direct control over who the spell affected.  If PCs were present in the AOE, we determined randomly if they were dropped by the spell.  ACKS clears things up quite a big, by allowing the caster to affect one target or target a group of creature.  A group by this definition would usually exclude the other PCs.  This was something I had to read twice in game to make sure I was reading it right, and to doubly make sure I didn't default to my AD&D baseline.

Continual Light is not forever in ACKS, it's more like indefinite.  The caster can maintain one continual light spell per level of experience indefinitely without need for concentration.  No "every corner is lit by a conical light spell" in the cities in ACKS.  Guess I won't be playing an Eberron Campaign with these rules (not that I planned to).

The monster section is.  Yep, it simply is.  It's boring.  Alright, maybe not boring, but certainly uninspiring.  Then again, I have so many OSR games, and most of them have pretty uninspiring monster sections too.  However, I do have my Tome of Horrors Complete for Swords & Wizardry.  Much nicer selection to draw upon, complete with possible hooks and encounters.

The magic item section is cribbed fairly straight from the OGL.  How do I know?  It talks about Arcane Spell Scrolls holding spells of up to 9th level and Divine Spell Scrolls holding spells of up to 7th level.  In ACKS, Arcane Casters top of at 6th level spells, and Divine Casters top off with 5th level spells.

A similar dropping of the ball occurs during the mention of racial languages.  They include halflings in the mix, but there are no halfling PCs in the game.  They are there as NPCs, as a sort of human / dwarves mongrel racial hybrid, but you can't play them.  I actually thought they weren't even going to be in the monster section, so this bit caught me by surprise.

Swords and Armor don't go above a +3 bonus, which is quite in balance with a game that tops off at 14th level.  I very much like the Scavenging Treasures tables, as it puts some nice flavor to the non-magical stuff the players like to loot to make a few coins off of later.

Alright, all for now.  I need to add some more updates to the campaign's Obsidian Portal site.

Playing With Proficiencies in ACKS

Generic Adventuring Party
Our Party Has No Women or Hobbits
(That I Know Of ;)

I like to house rule.  That really isn't a secret.  The only difference is that 15 years away from the DM's chair has taught me to be organized right from the start of the campaign.  Notice I didn't use the phrase "more organized"?  Trust me, it wouldn't have applied back in the days of my gaming past.

It's kind funny, but when I read the Adventurer Conquerer Kings System rules the first couple of times, or at least did my usual chaotic flipping back and forth through the rule book style of reading, I never realized that proficiencies in the ACKS system do not get modified by a relevant ability score bonus (or penalty).  It wasn't until my players started making their characters that I realized this was not part of the rules.

Now, it could be that it isn't part of the rules because the assumption is you'll be rolling 3d6 for ability scores, and you'll be limiting the success of PCs that take proficiencies linked to abilities that give that particular character a penalty.  It could be the writers didn't want to stress the importance of ability score (which I don't see, as they certainly are an important bonus or penalty in combat).  If I'm going to run a campaign that is going to rely as much on "the role" as "the roll", this was something ripe for house ruling.

I didn't go through the list of proficiencies and assign relevant abilities to them.  Instead, as the use of the skill came up in game play, I suggested the ability that I felt was relevant and instructed the player to add their appropriate bonus or penalty to their roll.  If they thought another ability was just as relevant or more so, I would have been receptive to their line of thought if they could support it.  Of course, now that proficiencies such as Alchemy (Int) and Tracking (Int) have come into play, I'll need to make note of the decisions made.

As for the proficiencies themselves, I found the use of them strictly by the book was limiting.  I had no idea I would feel this way until the situations game up, but encouraging use of player skills and abilities outside the struck and limiting box of the written rules has always been an important part of play to me as a GM.

When the Elven Nightblade made his tracking roll, he wanted more than just direction of the tracks (direction was pretty useless in the limited mine they were investigating).  He was looking for relevant facts.  He rolled a decent success, and I explained the tracks were from a creature that apparently was reptilian, bipedal, with bare feet (clawed at that) with possible a slightly stooped gait when it moved.  I didn't spell out "troglodyte", but they were getting close.

When the Mage asked if he could use his Alchemy skill to inspect the especially stinky dung, as it might be component for a potion or such, that was exactly the types of skill use I want from my players.  I doubt that troglodyte dung is a common alchemical substance, but I am fairly sure it is a rare one, if not maybe even uncommon.  So I allowed the roll.  If he had just made it, I would have given him a vague answer, that coupled with other (previous) clues, may have allowed the party to reach the right conclusion.  But Greg aced his roll, and I told him exactly what it was.

So there we have it, a house rule we started the campaign with, and a house rule that came into play because it made sense for the type of game I like to run.

Games From the Basement - Warhammer Fantasy Battle (2nd Edition)

Somewhere , yet to be resdicovered, is a boxed set of the Warhammer 1st edition rules.  The ones that claimed to be an RPG but were barely functional as a war-game.  Still, I loved it.  Not for playing, just for the aura it gave off.

I remember buying the 2nd edition Warhammer rules, expecting it would have fixed the nearly nonexistent role play rules from the 1st edition.  The fixed it alright, by removing them completely.

I really wanted this to be the edition of Warhammer that worked for me.  It might have been a fine war-game, but my group didn't do war-games.

Yes, the Whole Box is in
Mint Condition
Curse Those Non-Wargamers
I Gamed With!

When Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay was released, I finally had the game I (and my group) were looking for.  We played the crap out of the WFRP until we burned ourselves out on the system, and returned to our old standby, AD&D.