In reconsidering a skill system, I'd come across the fact that I don't have a lot tied to the Cunning stat, and so was considering whether it should be kept. It plays a part in Psionics, and I had previously set it to determine how many fighting skills a Fighter would get per level. After some review, and re-reading the dictionary definition, I'm not sure the latter use is appropriate.
Cunning is this strange conglomeration, made up of aspects of the other mental attributes: Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. Bluffing or conning someone, or feinting in combat are good examples of using Cunning. Seducing someone could be Cunning mixed with Charisma, as would (potentially) disguising yourself or acting out a role. A master tactician would be intelligent (having learned about tactics and studied them in history), wise (know your enemy, know yourself), and also cunning (applying strategies in unpredictable ways, developing new techniques). Cunning seems to be concerned with the application of these other abilities (Int, Wis, Cha) in base, predatory ways, while preventing others from knowing what you're up to.
Despite the closely-tied nature of these stats, though, it's obvious that a highly developed Cunning can exist even without Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma. Goblins and Bugbears are frequently considered cunning, despite not being the brightest or most beautiful. Captain Jack Sparrow showed a great deal of cunning, and had some Charisma to back it up, but was not portrayed as the most wise or intelligent individual.
As a character stat, it's difficult to pin down what exactly Cunning should (or should not) affect. I considered the option of having Cunning directly affect the amount of extra damage dealt by a Sneak Attack, but one of my players expressed the opinion that the ability to strike vulnerable areas is a learned skill and should therefore be improvable. I could make another Combat Proficiency which would allow for that.
My wife mentioned the possibility of Cunning as a skill, rather than a stat, making the argument that one's shrewdness and guile could be practiced and improved. The question there would be, though, what would Cunning, as a skill, do? Most of what we came up with would cause it to affect other skills, rather than do something on its own like the other skills.
Still exploring possibilities with this.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Skills in 3rd Edition
While the skills system (intended as an improvement over the non-weapon proficiencies and non-combat class skills from earlier versions) can be handy, it can also be cumbersome. Feat and skill selection are the two most time-consuming aspects of character creation in 3rd edition, especially for a new player who isn't familiar with what feats are available, or doesn't know what certain skills do or their importance.
The biggest bonus of having a skill system, rather than basing all skill checks off of stat checks, is that it allows the character to improve based upon what they want to train. The system, as presented in 3rd Ed., reflects the idea that training, rather than natural talent, is the key to success when it comes to any given ability. Climbing, for example, is based on Strength. A strong character will have a minor advantage over an average-strength character, given equal ranks in the Climb skill. If the strong character hasn't put any skill points into Climb, though, and the average one has maxed his ranks, then the average character will probably climb better starting at level one, and will continue getting better each level.
This system doesn't make as much sense for some skills, and at some point it becomes rather difficult to suspend disbelief since there is no cap to how high a skill can be improved. My biggest issue, though, is that skill points are not based directly off of Intelligence. A high Int helps, but your base skill points are determined by your class. This was another way WotC tried to establish a "balance" between the classes, or just perpetuate stereotypes. Rogues get the most skill points, with bards coming in next. Wizards and Clerics hardly get any, though the high Intelligence most Wizards have helps to off-set this.
Different classes have their access to certain skills restricted, by means of making certain skills class related ("class skills") or non-class related ("cross-class skills"). Of course, these are based on your class, with Rogues, again, having most skills as class skills, and clerics and wizards receiving very few class skills. Cross-class skills require double the skill points to improve, so despite the boost to points that a high Int gives wizards, they still don't manage to go very far. I suppose the idea is that all the time studying spells or worshiping a deity doesn't allow for much in the way of hobbies, but again it seems arbitrary in a non-logical way.
Distributing skill points is a pain. But the other option is making skills based off of a stat check. Want to climb something? Roll the dice, and hope the total is less than your Strength. Simple, but it leaves little room for improvement. It might not be as important to improve things like Climbing, but you want your rogue to be able to pick any lock or disarm any trap the party comes across. As things progress, harder and harder challenges will come along, but if a thief is no better at doing thief-y things by 5th level than he was at 1st, what was the point of being a thief?
I like the concept that any given character, regardless of class, might be good at a particular skill: a fighter who is an expert in sleight of hand, a cleric who knows how to pick a lock, a wizard who is also an accomplished songwriter. The class at risk of losing the most, in such a system, is the thief or rogue: If anyone can pick a lock or disarm a trap, why even have a thief class?
So there needs to be a way of improving things. Do I mandate which skills improve, or do I find a way to allot points to be distributed by the player? If it's player distributed, you might still end up with a wizard who's as good or better than a thief at the iconic tasks. The main difference, I suppose, would be the combat training. A thief gets to backstab/sneak attack, and has some other minor combat abilities, while the mage has spells to sling.
The biggest bonus of having a skill system, rather than basing all skill checks off of stat checks, is that it allows the character to improve based upon what they want to train. The system, as presented in 3rd Ed., reflects the idea that training, rather than natural talent, is the key to success when it comes to any given ability. Climbing, for example, is based on Strength. A strong character will have a minor advantage over an average-strength character, given equal ranks in the Climb skill. If the strong character hasn't put any skill points into Climb, though, and the average one has maxed his ranks, then the average character will probably climb better starting at level one, and will continue getting better each level.
This system doesn't make as much sense for some skills, and at some point it becomes rather difficult to suspend disbelief since there is no cap to how high a skill can be improved. My biggest issue, though, is that skill points are not based directly off of Intelligence. A high Int helps, but your base skill points are determined by your class. This was another way WotC tried to establish a "balance" between the classes, or just perpetuate stereotypes. Rogues get the most skill points, with bards coming in next. Wizards and Clerics hardly get any, though the high Intelligence most Wizards have helps to off-set this.
Different classes have their access to certain skills restricted, by means of making certain skills class related ("class skills") or non-class related ("cross-class skills"). Of course, these are based on your class, with Rogues, again, having most skills as class skills, and clerics and wizards receiving very few class skills. Cross-class skills require double the skill points to improve, so despite the boost to points that a high Int gives wizards, they still don't manage to go very far. I suppose the idea is that all the time studying spells or worshiping a deity doesn't allow for much in the way of hobbies, but again it seems arbitrary in a non-logical way.
Distributing skill points is a pain. But the other option is making skills based off of a stat check. Want to climb something? Roll the dice, and hope the total is less than your Strength. Simple, but it leaves little room for improvement. It might not be as important to improve things like Climbing, but you want your rogue to be able to pick any lock or disarm any trap the party comes across. As things progress, harder and harder challenges will come along, but if a thief is no better at doing thief-y things by 5th level than he was at 1st, what was the point of being a thief?
I like the concept that any given character, regardless of class, might be good at a particular skill: a fighter who is an expert in sleight of hand, a cleric who knows how to pick a lock, a wizard who is also an accomplished songwriter. The class at risk of losing the most, in such a system, is the thief or rogue: If anyone can pick a lock or disarm a trap, why even have a thief class?
So there needs to be a way of improving things. Do I mandate which skills improve, or do I find a way to allot points to be distributed by the player? If it's player distributed, you might still end up with a wizard who's as good or better than a thief at the iconic tasks. The main difference, I suppose, would be the combat training. A thief gets to backstab/sneak attack, and has some other minor combat abilities, while the mage has spells to sling.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
DDO: Monks and Bards
I discovered something the other night, logging in to DDO. Despite my love for bards and monks, I've actually found they're two of the most stressful/difficult classes to play. I think I've managed to narrow down why.
In DDO, monks get a lot of nifty, customized abilities that weren't part of 3rd edition. It adds some flavor and flash, and there's some talk about them being overpowered, which of course makes them desired by anyone who wants to be unbeatable. I have to admit that they can be very lethal in dealing out massive amounts of damage, and pretty quickly. In that regard, they're on par with a dual-wielding rogue with sneak attack. Yet fighters and rogues both have ways of dealing with the aggro that comes from dealing massive damage: fighters have more HP, and can wear shields to increase damage reduction, while rogues have an enhancement ability that decreases the aggro (or "hate" as it's called in-game) that their sneak attacks produce. Perhaps a Constitution-heavy monk would be better at taking the hits, but they'd also be less adept at giving them. Some of the monk abilities can reproduce a few beneficial (but at low to mid-level relatively unused) clerical spells, like removing blindness or curing diseases, but overall I end up feeling like I should multiclass into rogue or cleric so I can be more useful.
Bards are another issue, one that extends beyond just DDO. Jack-of-all-trades, master of none, yes, I get it. They're supposed to be able to make up for an existing lack in party balance, tossing in whatever low to mid-level magic is necessary that the cleric and wizard are too busy to cast. Plus they get the bard songs. But the bonus the party gets from the songs is minimal, and in many cases is easily replaced by spells from other classes, and you'd be hard pressed to find a party that wouldn't rather have a second cleric than a bard. Because the bard's role is so varied, you either end up wasting time trying to figure out what your role in this party needs to be, or you end up being told what you should be doing which may or may not correlate with the skills and spells you've taken as a bard. Regardless, more often than not you end up feeling superfluous or just plain weak.
More than clerics, I think bards have a significant in-game and balance reason for needing the ability to switch spells on a daily (or in DDO, per-rest) basis. It wouldn't really help their survivability, but it would let them tailor their abilities to each party a bit better, much like a wizard or cleric can. As it is, in DDO they can change one spell every 3 real-life days, and pay in-game currency for the privilege.
The rules for bard and sorcerer spells were based on a system in which the character would be played with (generally speaking) a single group. It didn't account for having five different parties in a single day, and having to re-figure your character's role in each of them.
In DDO, monks get a lot of nifty, customized abilities that weren't part of 3rd edition. It adds some flavor and flash, and there's some talk about them being overpowered, which of course makes them desired by anyone who wants to be unbeatable. I have to admit that they can be very lethal in dealing out massive amounts of damage, and pretty quickly. In that regard, they're on par with a dual-wielding rogue with sneak attack. Yet fighters and rogues both have ways of dealing with the aggro that comes from dealing massive damage: fighters have more HP, and can wear shields to increase damage reduction, while rogues have an enhancement ability that decreases the aggro (or "hate" as it's called in-game) that their sneak attacks produce. Perhaps a Constitution-heavy monk would be better at taking the hits, but they'd also be less adept at giving them. Some of the monk abilities can reproduce a few beneficial (but at low to mid-level relatively unused) clerical spells, like removing blindness or curing diseases, but overall I end up feeling like I should multiclass into rogue or cleric so I can be more useful.
Bards are another issue, one that extends beyond just DDO. Jack-of-all-trades, master of none, yes, I get it. They're supposed to be able to make up for an existing lack in party balance, tossing in whatever low to mid-level magic is necessary that the cleric and wizard are too busy to cast. Plus they get the bard songs. But the bonus the party gets from the songs is minimal, and in many cases is easily replaced by spells from other classes, and you'd be hard pressed to find a party that wouldn't rather have a second cleric than a bard. Because the bard's role is so varied, you either end up wasting time trying to figure out what your role in this party needs to be, or you end up being told what you should be doing which may or may not correlate with the skills and spells you've taken as a bard. Regardless, more often than not you end up feeling superfluous or just plain weak.
More than clerics, I think bards have a significant in-game and balance reason for needing the ability to switch spells on a daily (or in DDO, per-rest) basis. It wouldn't really help their survivability, but it would let them tailor their abilities to each party a bit better, much like a wizard or cleric can. As it is, in DDO they can change one spell every 3 real-life days, and pay in-game currency for the privilege.
The rules for bard and sorcerer spells were based on a system in which the character would be played with (generally speaking) a single group. It didn't account for having five different parties in a single day, and having to re-figure your character's role in each of them.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
New Source Material
My friend Jonathan just recently visited again (yay!) and brought with him some books he picked up really cheap from his local gaming store. Three were from the same setting, called Arcanis, which is apparently now out-of-print but had been a 3rd Edition compatible campaign world. Not nearly as publicized as Forgotten Realms or Eberron, Arcanis has actually struck me as more interesting, and definitely more varied in its magic.
I've been reading through the material as I can, between doing reading and other assignments for college. Though online, they are accelerated courses, so it can still be a struggle to keep on top of things. I've pondered the option of cross-posting my written assignments here, so others can see what I'm working on, but I'd hate to have a professor do an internet search and believe I had plagiarized. It would be easy enough to prove that I hadn't, I guess, but I'm not sure I want to take the chance even so.
I've been reading through the material as I can, between doing reading and other assignments for college. Though online, they are accelerated courses, so it can still be a struggle to keep on top of things. I've pondered the option of cross-posting my written assignments here, so others can see what I'm working on, but I'd hate to have a professor do an internet search and believe I had plagiarized. It would be easy enough to prove that I hadn't, I guess, but I'm not sure I want to take the chance even so.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Experience Points and Level Ranks
In the MMORPG Dungeons and Dragons Online, the experience points required to level were altered (increased) from the 3rd edition rules that the game is based on. This was a good move for them, because an online game isn't limited to how often a group of people can gather around a single table, and the internet has already seen how singularly dedicated people can be to level-grind in games. If it used the original table, either the rewards given for quests would need to be seriously reduced, or people would face no real challenge in getting to the current maximum level of 20.
To give an idea of the difference between the two experience tables, the original 3rd Edition requires 190,000 experience to get to 20th level. DDO requires 1.9 million, ten times as much.
Even in an online setting, however, this amount of experience between levels can be daunting, so DDO breaks each level up into five ranks. Each rank you achieve (that isn't a level-up) gives you one enhancement point, to be used to purchase minor abilities and provide a way to further customize your character's skillset. I think that some of these abilities are pretty neat, and will probably be looking for a way to incorporate some of this into my game.
I don't think adopting their experience chart is the right path for me to go, however, since live games are few and far enough between already. I'm all for making each level gained feel like an epic accomplishment, but I think I'd end up discouraging people. So if I want to add this, I'd need to figure out some other way of distributing ranks or enhancement points.
To give an idea of the difference between the two experience tables, the original 3rd Edition requires 190,000 experience to get to 20th level. DDO requires 1.9 million, ten times as much.
Even in an online setting, however, this amount of experience between levels can be daunting, so DDO breaks each level up into five ranks. Each rank you achieve (that isn't a level-up) gives you one enhancement point, to be used to purchase minor abilities and provide a way to further customize your character's skillset. I think that some of these abilities are pretty neat, and will probably be looking for a way to incorporate some of this into my game.
I don't think adopting their experience chart is the right path for me to go, however, since live games are few and far enough between already. I'm all for making each level gained feel like an epic accomplishment, but I think I'd end up discouraging people. So if I want to add this, I'd need to figure out some other way of distributing ranks or enhancement points.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Inspiration Gathering
My wife and I took our son to the library last week, and while we were there I did a bit of hunting through their shelves, trying to find some inspiration for settings and such. I discovered a few books by Margaret Weis of Dragonlance fame, though not a full set of anything. They didn't have any of Salvatore's work, either, which surprised me a bit considering his popularity.
We had arrived late, and the library was closing soon, so I didn't get a lot of time to look through things. I more or less picked this up at random:
It looked to be a blend of science fiction and fantasy, incorporating both magic and space travel. It seems to be the second in a set, possibly a trilogy, so I was a little disappointed that I hadn't been able to borrow the first, but it was easy enough to follow regardless.
Having read it, I've now settled on using Perception for Mage mana. I also have a rather nifty reason for why someone can't just take a firearm from Earth and go on a planet-hopping rampage with it. Essentially, the universe is separated into different zones, each with a different reality. Each reality has its own rules regarding physics and magic. Spaceships are built with the ability to reconfigure the way they work, in order to align themselves with the laws of each reality they pass through. If they didn't reconfigure, they would be incapable of moving past the boundary.
In the book, the closer you get to the center of the universe, the less distance there is between realities. Ships that travel near the center have to be extremely flexible to change their configurations quickly. Their crews carry swords, rather than energy weapons, guns, etc., because a sharp blade is always a sharp blade, regardless of reality.
Those who use magic must learn to manipulate the mana according to the rules of the reality they are in. They need to be able to sense the flow of mana, so that they can figure out how it is used in their current location.
While I may not be ready for an interplanetary campaign, I at least have some ideas for how I might do it, as well as some additional things to keep in mind when I come up with new worlds to explore.
We had arrived late, and the library was closing soon, so I didn't get a lot of time to look through things. I more or less picked this up at random:
It looked to be a blend of science fiction and fantasy, incorporating both magic and space travel. It seems to be the second in a set, possibly a trilogy, so I was a little disappointed that I hadn't been able to borrow the first, but it was easy enough to follow regardless.
Having read it, I've now settled on using Perception for Mage mana. I also have a rather nifty reason for why someone can't just take a firearm from Earth and go on a planet-hopping rampage with it. Essentially, the universe is separated into different zones, each with a different reality. Each reality has its own rules regarding physics and magic. Spaceships are built with the ability to reconfigure the way they work, in order to align themselves with the laws of each reality they pass through. If they didn't reconfigure, they would be incapable of moving past the boundary.
In the book, the closer you get to the center of the universe, the less distance there is between realities. Ships that travel near the center have to be extremely flexible to change their configurations quickly. Their crews carry swords, rather than energy weapons, guns, etc., because a sharp blade is always a sharp blade, regardless of reality.
Those who use magic must learn to manipulate the mana according to the rules of the reality they are in. They need to be able to sense the flow of mana, so that they can figure out how it is used in their current location.
While I may not be ready for an interplanetary campaign, I at least have some ideas for how I might do it, as well as some additional things to keep in mind when I come up with new worlds to explore.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Settings and Genres
Though I've been focused mostly on mechanics, I've also been keeping my eyes open for campaign settings and other tidbits that I hope would make the game more interesting for everyone. My friend Jonathan does his best to keep me supplied with new material to sift through, and loaned me a book based in a setting called the Iron Kingdoms.
As you can tell from the cover art on the character guide, it attempts to be a blend of medieval fantasy and steampunk, and from what I can tell seems to pull it off fairly well. The concept, or at least the concept art, really appeals to me.
So I went through and pulled the weaponry from it to add to my master list of weapons, including the magical/alchemical firearms. The blasting powder and ammunition for these firearms is enclosed in a silk pouch divided into two compartments. The pin pierces the packet, letting the two magical powders mix, and the resulting explosion follows the path of least resistance down the barrel.
This is all very interesting, and very cool to introduce into a world without firearms. But it occurred to me that if interplanetary travel is possible in one's game, then there would no doubt be access to non-magical firearms, as well as much more advanced weaponry. That opens up a terribly large can of worms, since modern firearms would be (I imagine) much more powerful than even the guns in Iron Kingdoms. Bows and crossbows would fall by the wayside, or be relegated to the poorest of adventurers. The game would no longer be medieval, but instead modern fantasy or even science fiction.
I'm not opposed to those settings, mind you. I grew up with medieval fantasy, so I'm more comfortable there, but I've also played in Cyberpunk. My main concern, here, is what my players are interested in. I don't want to end up adding in more advanced technology, whether it's science or magic based (Any technology sufficiently advanced etc., etc.), and especially if it's to the detriment of the existing weaponry available, if my players would be happier retaining a medieval feel rather than a renaissance, Victorian-era, modern, post-modern apocalyptic, or space cowboy genre.
Since Jonathan provided me with the Iron Kingdoms source material, I can fairly safely assume he's comfortable with a certain level of steampunkery creeping into the game (as well as a necropolis teeming with undead, but that's another story). Knowing my wife, I'm sure she'd be comfortable with a touch of steampunk as well. So I feel mostly safe in adding in the IK weaponry. The full setting, however, doesn't mesh well with the rest of what I've set up. And I really don't want to mess with the clockwork warmachines at this juncture. So I'm still trying to dig for campaign and setting ideas, at least to start off with.
I'd like to be able to roll with any punches the group would throw at me, switch from one world/setting to another, one quest-line to another in midstream without flinching. I remember my mother telling me how she used to set up elaborate campaigns, just to have the party decide, "Nah, let's go that way instead." So now she drops groups in an established safe zone, and lets them choose where to go. Her home-brewed campaign setting, though, encompasses not just worlds, but alternate dimensions. It's large enough that it is still mostly unexplored territory. I end up feeling rather intimidated when trying to choose where to start adventuring.
So I know I need to start off small. Limit my focus to one area, with a handful of low-level campaigns, and build outwards and/or upwards from there. But I want to make sure that, despite it being a small area/low-level, it will grab the interest of my players. To that end...
Anyone have a favorite setting, genre, or concept they'd love to have a chance to play in?
As you can tell from the cover art on the character guide, it attempts to be a blend of medieval fantasy and steampunk, and from what I can tell seems to pull it off fairly well. The concept, or at least the concept art, really appeals to me.
So I went through and pulled the weaponry from it to add to my master list of weapons, including the magical/alchemical firearms. The blasting powder and ammunition for these firearms is enclosed in a silk pouch divided into two compartments. The pin pierces the packet, letting the two magical powders mix, and the resulting explosion follows the path of least resistance down the barrel.
This is all very interesting, and very cool to introduce into a world without firearms. But it occurred to me that if interplanetary travel is possible in one's game, then there would no doubt be access to non-magical firearms, as well as much more advanced weaponry. That opens up a terribly large can of worms, since modern firearms would be (I imagine) much more powerful than even the guns in Iron Kingdoms. Bows and crossbows would fall by the wayside, or be relegated to the poorest of adventurers. The game would no longer be medieval, but instead modern fantasy or even science fiction.
I'm not opposed to those settings, mind you. I grew up with medieval fantasy, so I'm more comfortable there, but I've also played in Cyberpunk. My main concern, here, is what my players are interested in. I don't want to end up adding in more advanced technology, whether it's science or magic based (Any technology sufficiently advanced etc., etc.), and especially if it's to the detriment of the existing weaponry available, if my players would be happier retaining a medieval feel rather than a renaissance, Victorian-era, modern, post-modern apocalyptic, or space cowboy genre.
Since Jonathan provided me with the Iron Kingdoms source material, I can fairly safely assume he's comfortable with a certain level of steampunkery creeping into the game (as well as a necropolis teeming with undead, but that's another story). Knowing my wife, I'm sure she'd be comfortable with a touch of steampunk as well. So I feel mostly safe in adding in the IK weaponry. The full setting, however, doesn't mesh well with the rest of what I've set up. And I really don't want to mess with the clockwork warmachines at this juncture. So I'm still trying to dig for campaign and setting ideas, at least to start off with.
I'd like to be able to roll with any punches the group would throw at me, switch from one world/setting to another, one quest-line to another in midstream without flinching. I remember my mother telling me how she used to set up elaborate campaigns, just to have the party decide, "Nah, let's go that way instead." So now she drops groups in an established safe zone, and lets them choose where to go. Her home-brewed campaign setting, though, encompasses not just worlds, but alternate dimensions. It's large enough that it is still mostly unexplored territory. I end up feeling rather intimidated when trying to choose where to start adventuring.
So I know I need to start off small. Limit my focus to one area, with a handful of low-level campaigns, and build outwards and/or upwards from there. But I want to make sure that, despite it being a small area/low-level, it will grab the interest of my players. To that end...
Anyone have a favorite setting, genre, or concept they'd love to have a chance to play in?
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Intelligence, Classes, and Experience
Multiclassing has faced as well as posed a number of difficulties in D&D. Back in AD&D, the Player's Handbook gave very specific multiclassing options, based upon race. 3rd Edition removed both racial level caps as well as race-based multiclassing, but limited multiclassing through Alignment requirements, as well as arbitrary limitations (Monk and Paladin, I'm looking at you).
After reading through my previous postings, I'm certain most can figure out my thoughts regarding Alignment restrictions on classes. And trying to convince me that you can never gain another level in a certain class because you took one level of something else? No thanks.
The system I grew up on, which had been based out of AD&D, had no multiclassing or alignment restrictions. This worked out just fine for many years, until we ended up with players who started taking four or more classes in order to gain various 1st level benefits and abilities.
Yeah, like that. Only not 1/11th of a class each level, but 11 first level classes all at once.
Our DM decided this was just silly, and so it was ruled that the total number of classes you could have was limited by your character's intelligence. This made sense. Certain classes were considered to be "worth more" than others, like Paladin (because it combined both Fighter and Cleric) and Ranger (Fighter, Druid, and Mage - AD&D, remember). Overall, the system seemed logical and also helped prevent any more Multiclassing Minmaxing. The biggest problem I had with it was the feeling of obligation to "fill up" with the maximum number of classes that the character's Intelligence could support, so as not to waste it.
So over the past few days, I've put together a ruleset on multiclassing for my own system. In this system, your total number of "effective classes" is what determines your experience needed per level. No more taking a class just for one level.
Taking more classes than your Intelligence would allow can be done. Doing so, however, increases the experience needed for each level based upon how many beyond the "maximum" you took, even above what would normally be required just by having the additional classes. As any college student knows, it's much harder to remember everything when you're taking too many classes.
On the other side of the coin, if you take fewer classes than your Intelligence can support, you gain a discount on the experience needed each level, based upon the difference between the number you were allowed and how many you took. You can learn faster, because you're capable of learning more than what is being presented.
On a previous topic, I asked my wife how she viewed magic users in D&D - whether the power was coming from within, being channeled, or simply using ambient energy, or even something completely different. She reminded me of how Steven Brust has things set up in his Jhereg series: Dragaeran sorcery is more or less grabbing available energy and tossing it, while Eastern witchcraft is mentally and physically taxing on the practitioner. And then there's Pre-Empire sorcery. Let's not get into that.
Taking that into consideration, I see a correlation between Brust's witchcraft and Druids, so I would most likely leave Constitution as the power source for them. Equating Dragaeran sorcerers with Mages, however, still doesn't give me a well-defined source of power. The Dragaerans pull energy through their link with an artifact-level magic item, which basically gives them an inexhaustible supply of mana. I can't really have that.
I've tinkered with a number of options: Base mana off of Cunning, to represent craftiness through the handling and redistribution of ambient mana. Base it off of Perception, to represent the ability to see or notice the surrounding power in order to use it. Base it off of Luck, to represent the idea that ambient power levels can vary from location to location. I've even considered the option of reworking Shadowrun's system of magic, where spells don't take mana, but instead have a chance of draining you when you cast one. Fail too many "Drain" checks, and you're unconscious. Trying to balance that in a d20 system, though, would take a great deal more work than I'm willing to expend on just this one aspect right now, and still leaves Mages with a potentially inexhaustible supply of power.
I briefly considered making each Mage subclass (Illusionist, Transmuter, Evoker, etc.) have a different stat that it uses for power, but I think that would just make things far too complicated and confusing. And it still wouldn't answer what stat to have Mages use. At this point, I'm tempted to either stick with Constitution, or assign it to Perception, the latter mainly because I don't have a lot tied to that stat yet.
Suggestions?
After reading through my previous postings, I'm certain most can figure out my thoughts regarding Alignment restrictions on classes. And trying to convince me that you can never gain another level in a certain class because you took one level of something else? No thanks.
The system I grew up on, which had been based out of AD&D, had no multiclassing or alignment restrictions. This worked out just fine for many years, until we ended up with players who started taking four or more classes in order to gain various 1st level benefits and abilities.
Yeah, like that. Only not 1/11th of a class each level, but 11 first level classes all at once.
Our DM decided this was just silly, and so it was ruled that the total number of classes you could have was limited by your character's intelligence. This made sense. Certain classes were considered to be "worth more" than others, like Paladin (because it combined both Fighter and Cleric) and Ranger (Fighter, Druid, and Mage - AD&D, remember). Overall, the system seemed logical and also helped prevent any more Multiclassing Minmaxing. The biggest problem I had with it was the feeling of obligation to "fill up" with the maximum number of classes that the character's Intelligence could support, so as not to waste it.
So over the past few days, I've put together a ruleset on multiclassing for my own system. In this system, your total number of "effective classes" is what determines your experience needed per level. No more taking a class just for one level.
Taking more classes than your Intelligence would allow can be done. Doing so, however, increases the experience needed for each level based upon how many beyond the "maximum" you took, even above what would normally be required just by having the additional classes. As any college student knows, it's much harder to remember everything when you're taking too many classes.
On the other side of the coin, if you take fewer classes than your Intelligence can support, you gain a discount on the experience needed each level, based upon the difference between the number you were allowed and how many you took. You can learn faster, because you're capable of learning more than what is being presented.
On a previous topic, I asked my wife how she viewed magic users in D&D - whether the power was coming from within, being channeled, or simply using ambient energy, or even something completely different. She reminded me of how Steven Brust has things set up in his Jhereg series: Dragaeran sorcery is more or less grabbing available energy and tossing it, while Eastern witchcraft is mentally and physically taxing on the practitioner. And then there's Pre-Empire sorcery. Let's not get into that.
Taking that into consideration, I see a correlation between Brust's witchcraft and Druids, so I would most likely leave Constitution as the power source for them. Equating Dragaeran sorcerers with Mages, however, still doesn't give me a well-defined source of power. The Dragaerans pull energy through their link with an artifact-level magic item, which basically gives them an inexhaustible supply of mana. I can't really have that.
I've tinkered with a number of options: Base mana off of Cunning, to represent craftiness through the handling and redistribution of ambient mana. Base it off of Perception, to represent the ability to see or notice the surrounding power in order to use it. Base it off of Luck, to represent the idea that ambient power levels can vary from location to location. I've even considered the option of reworking Shadowrun's system of magic, where spells don't take mana, but instead have a chance of draining you when you cast one. Fail too many "Drain" checks, and you're unconscious. Trying to balance that in a d20 system, though, would take a great deal more work than I'm willing to expend on just this one aspect right now, and still leaves Mages with a potentially inexhaustible supply of power.
I briefly considered making each Mage subclass (Illusionist, Transmuter, Evoker, etc.) have a different stat that it uses for power, but I think that would just make things far too complicated and confusing. And it still wouldn't answer what stat to have Mages use. At this point, I'm tempted to either stick with Constitution, or assign it to Perception, the latter mainly because I don't have a lot tied to that stat yet.
Suggestions?
Monday, July 12, 2010
Ability Scores and Casting - Multiclassing
Reviewing everything I've posted so far on spellcasting mechanics, it came to my attention that basing some classes' mana off of Constitution also would alter the dynamics of multiclassing. AD&D and 3rd Edition both use a spells/day system, so multiclassed spellcasters, even if both classes used the same stat for spells, don't have to worry about sharing a mana pool. In the system I grew up on, however, each casting stat has its own mana pool (ie: Intelligence gave Arcane mana, Wisdom gave Divine). This meant that while you could play a Mage/Illusionist, or a Cleric/Druid, you wouldn't gain any additional casting power, just another spell list to choose from.
By making Constitution the casting stat for Mages, Druids, and Rangers, I've now reduced the effectiveness of a Mage/Druid or Mage/Ranger multiclass combination.
I also have a system I've developed to give Fighters and other melee-based classes more versatility and variety than AD&D without making them quite as powerful as 3rd Edition's tireless killing machines. This system uses Endurance points, also based on Constitution. They aren't magical abilities, but I can still see arguments for a Mage/Fighter using a single pool for both casting and the fighting abilities. After all, if you've drained your body by channeling arcane or nature-based force, why would you still have just as much Endurance?
Effectively, though, this would mean that hardly any melee-based class would want to multiclass with Mage or Druid, while Rangers would end up being almost at a disadvantage since they come prepackaged with both spells and the fighting abilities. Power-wise, anyway. The benefit, still, would be increased versatility despite the lack of additional power. Whether this would be worth the increased Experience cost to level, I'm not sure. I guess that would vary, depending on the person.
On the other hand, it would open up Cleric/Druid as a more potent multiclass option, since Clerics draw power from Faith. Paladin/Druid would still have the problem of splitting Constitution between Endurance and Mana. Mage/Cleric would still be just as effective as before. The Thief class gets a few Endurance based abilities, but not as many, which means multiclassing into Mage or Druid might be a slightly more attractive option than it is for the more combat-focused melee classes.
By making Constitution the casting stat for Mages, Druids, and Rangers, I've now reduced the effectiveness of a Mage/Druid or Mage/Ranger multiclass combination.
I also have a system I've developed to give Fighters and other melee-based classes more versatility and variety than AD&D without making them quite as powerful as 3rd Edition's tireless killing machines. This system uses Endurance points, also based on Constitution. They aren't magical abilities, but I can still see arguments for a Mage/Fighter using a single pool for both casting and the fighting abilities. After all, if you've drained your body by channeling arcane or nature-based force, why would you still have just as much Endurance?
Effectively, though, this would mean that hardly any melee-based class would want to multiclass with Mage or Druid, while Rangers would end up being almost at a disadvantage since they come prepackaged with both spells and the fighting abilities. Power-wise, anyway. The benefit, still, would be increased versatility despite the lack of additional power. Whether this would be worth the increased Experience cost to level, I'm not sure. I guess that would vary, depending on the person.
On the other hand, it would open up Cleric/Druid as a more potent multiclass option, since Clerics draw power from Faith. Paladin/Druid would still have the problem of splitting Constitution between Endurance and Mana. Mage/Cleric would still be just as effective as before. The Thief class gets a few Endurance based abilities, but not as many, which means multiclassing into Mage or Druid might be a slightly more attractive option than it is for the more combat-focused melee classes.
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Confessions of a Gamer Parent
I love my son. He is intelligent, curious, creative, and adorable. He is frequently well-behaved, despite being in the "Terrible Twos" range. As much as he may frustrate me at times, I am deeply proud of him and am, daily, glad of the fact that he is in my life. I would not give him up for anything...
But I would appreciate the option of paying someone to watch him for a few hours, maybe twice a month.
At present, that's just not an option for financial reasons. Even when I do have some spare cash, though, I simply do not know any babysitters in our area. The nearest relatives are an hour away, and have enough physical difficulties that it would be, at best, hard on them to keep up with a toddler.
This comes about because: for the past couple of months I have been making the 1.5-2 hour drive, every other week, to play Shadowrun with the old Tuesday Group(tm). But as much as I enjoy seeing the guys, and getting out for a game, this is just not a sustainable situation for a few reasons.
1) Again, money: Gasoline is not cheap. Purchasing nothing else, a round trip costs about $13. That may not sound like much, but seeing as how my current job is giving me no work, has not given any work for about two weeks, and doesn't expect to have any additional work until the middle of the month, I'm counting every penny.
2) Time: The game goes from 7pm to 10pm - three hours. Often, I'll end up spending another hour just talking with my friends, reviewing the game, making plans for the next one, etc. But the game itself is three hours, which means I'm spending at least as much time on the road as I am at the table. This also means I'm leaving home at around 5pm and not returning until midnight or later.
3) Fairness to my wife: She's been wonderful and sweet, and was the one who insisted I start going to the games, but there is no equal and opposite reaction here. I go off and have fun in tabletop gaming, leaving her to watch our son. She does not have a group of friends to go hang out and game with for hours at a time, and so I have no way to reciprocate the favor.
Ideally, we'd love to find a local gaming group that both of us can participate in together. I actually do know of a couple of people in the area who are gamers, and would most likely welcome us to the table.
But our son, as bright and talented as he is, is still a toddler. He is not going to sit still on a lap for several hours while Mommy and Daddy are bashing goblins. While he is getting close to the point where he might enjoy similar pursuits, he most likely will not have the attention span to maintain that interest for an extended period of time. For the moment, then, unless we game in our own home (and oftentimes even then) we will expend more time and energy trying to wrangle with him than with monsters.
The experience has given me a new appreciation for what my parents must have gone through while raising me, and adds a new perspective to the memories I have of their tabletop games during my early years. I could argue that they had an advantage in the fact that my mother was frequently the DM, since I imagine a lot of players would be more willing to put up with having a kid around (alternately wanting to play, seeking attention, making noise, and then running off when focus is lost only to return five minutes later wanting to play the game again) if it meant that they didn't have to run a game themselves, and the DM is generally more forgiving of having the game they've put together interrupted when the disturbance is caused by their own child. Still, I imagine they may have lost some players, or simply had fewer of them, due to my presence. And I'm certain I kept them from playing as often as they may have liked.
Maybe I'll see about trying to run a local game myself. I've been working on a system, and looking for opportunities to playtest it, but I've currently got absolutely zilch as far as campaign ideas go. I'd also have to overcome my anxiety of inviting strangers into my house, since there really isn't any local gathering place I'm aware of that would look too kindly on playing D&D, no matter what version or variant. And, of course, there's the cleaning to do.
*glances around*
Maybe we could try the local Hardees instead. They ARE open 24 hours...
But I would appreciate the option of paying someone to watch him for a few hours, maybe twice a month.
At present, that's just not an option for financial reasons. Even when I do have some spare cash, though, I simply do not know any babysitters in our area. The nearest relatives are an hour away, and have enough physical difficulties that it would be, at best, hard on them to keep up with a toddler.
This comes about because: for the past couple of months I have been making the 1.5-2 hour drive, every other week, to play Shadowrun with the old Tuesday Group(tm). But as much as I enjoy seeing the guys, and getting out for a game, this is just not a sustainable situation for a few reasons.
1) Again, money: Gasoline is not cheap. Purchasing nothing else, a round trip costs about $13. That may not sound like much, but seeing as how my current job is giving me no work, has not given any work for about two weeks, and doesn't expect to have any additional work until the middle of the month, I'm counting every penny.
2) Time: The game goes from 7pm to 10pm - three hours. Often, I'll end up spending another hour just talking with my friends, reviewing the game, making plans for the next one, etc. But the game itself is three hours, which means I'm spending at least as much time on the road as I am at the table. This also means I'm leaving home at around 5pm and not returning until midnight or later.
3) Fairness to my wife: She's been wonderful and sweet, and was the one who insisted I start going to the games, but there is no equal and opposite reaction here. I go off and have fun in tabletop gaming, leaving her to watch our son. She does not have a group of friends to go hang out and game with for hours at a time, and so I have no way to reciprocate the favor.
Ideally, we'd love to find a local gaming group that both of us can participate in together. I actually do know of a couple of people in the area who are gamers, and would most likely welcome us to the table.
But our son, as bright and talented as he is, is still a toddler. He is not going to sit still on a lap for several hours while Mommy and Daddy are bashing goblins. While he is getting close to the point where he might enjoy similar pursuits, he most likely will not have the attention span to maintain that interest for an extended period of time. For the moment, then, unless we game in our own home (and oftentimes even then) we will expend more time and energy trying to wrangle with him than with monsters.
The experience has given me a new appreciation for what my parents must have gone through while raising me, and adds a new perspective to the memories I have of their tabletop games during my early years. I could argue that they had an advantage in the fact that my mother was frequently the DM, since I imagine a lot of players would be more willing to put up with having a kid around (alternately wanting to play, seeking attention, making noise, and then running off when focus is lost only to return five minutes later wanting to play the game again) if it meant that they didn't have to run a game themselves, and the DM is generally more forgiving of having the game they've put together interrupted when the disturbance is caused by their own child. Still, I imagine they may have lost some players, or simply had fewer of them, due to my presence. And I'm certain I kept them from playing as often as they may have liked.
Maybe I'll see about trying to run a local game myself. I've been working on a system, and looking for opportunities to playtest it, but I've currently got absolutely zilch as far as campaign ideas go. I'd also have to overcome my anxiety of inviting strangers into my house, since there really isn't any local gathering place I'm aware of that would look too kindly on playing D&D, no matter what version or variant. And, of course, there's the cleaning to do.
*glances around*
Maybe we could try the local Hardees instead. They ARE open 24 hours...
Friday, July 2, 2010
Responsibility and Me
The past couple of years, I've noticed a trend in my behavior with games. It is not a new behavior for me, but is one that I'd suppressed for several years and now has a new reason behind it.
My first forays into online gaming were with MUDs. I searched through hundreds of them, trying to find one that seemed worthwhile, and eventually settled in a Roleplay-required place that wasn't too different from what I had become accustomed to, gameplay-wise. I created a vast number of characters but could never seem to stick to one for long. I kept coming up with concepts for characters, creating them, and then letting them falter and languish when my concept or idea failed to come to fruition quickly enough, or when I got too bored with level-grinding. After all, it's a game. Why should I spend too much time devoting actual work-like energy into it? Finally, I decided I was tired of the cycle, and made up my mind to create a "throw-away" character, one that I wouldn't care one way or another what happened with. No predestined goals, no background, no real concept, but I promised myself I'd make it to the maximum level. I even used a random name generator, so I wouldn't assign the character any hidden meaning or goals that way.
This "throw-away" still exists. I have been playing him for over eight years now. For over three of those years, he was a key governmental figure in one of the game's kingdoms. I gave my all to that game, that faux-government, to make the in-game environment feel as real as I could, to give the people who worked with me a real sense of connection and achievement. I held the position for longer than any other character, and even when real life took precedence with moving, finding and maintaining a job, and marriage, I did my best to remain accessible to those who depended on me in the game, albeit by messages rather than direct contact. Three days after my forced retirement, due to my "increased absence", everything I worked on was tossed out.
It's taken me years, but I'm finally coming to terms with some of my disappointment and bitterness (this site, which I came across recently, has helped). I've sought solace in other games, but I never seem to stay satisfied with one for very long. None have the depth I'd felt in the MUD, despite the beauty of graphics and the potential for RP, the latter of which I find to be severely lacking in most cases. And in all cases, I've intentionally avoided any duty or responsibility that anyone has tried to assign to me. After all, it's a game. Why should I bother putting too much energy into something that will, ultimately, have no effect on real life? Especially since any work I do will likely end up being undone once I'm no longer there to sustain it.
My first forays into online gaming were with MUDs. I searched through hundreds of them, trying to find one that seemed worthwhile, and eventually settled in a Roleplay-required place that wasn't too different from what I had become accustomed to, gameplay-wise. I created a vast number of characters but could never seem to stick to one for long. I kept coming up with concepts for characters, creating them, and then letting them falter and languish when my concept or idea failed to come to fruition quickly enough, or when I got too bored with level-grinding. After all, it's a game. Why should I spend too much time devoting actual work-like energy into it? Finally, I decided I was tired of the cycle, and made up my mind to create a "throw-away" character, one that I wouldn't care one way or another what happened with. No predestined goals, no background, no real concept, but I promised myself I'd make it to the maximum level. I even used a random name generator, so I wouldn't assign the character any hidden meaning or goals that way.
This "throw-away" still exists. I have been playing him for over eight years now. For over three of those years, he was a key governmental figure in one of the game's kingdoms. I gave my all to that game, that faux-government, to make the in-game environment feel as real as I could, to give the people who worked with me a real sense of connection and achievement. I held the position for longer than any other character, and even when real life took precedence with moving, finding and maintaining a job, and marriage, I did my best to remain accessible to those who depended on me in the game, albeit by messages rather than direct contact. Three days after my forced retirement, due to my "increased absence", everything I worked on was tossed out.
It's taken me years, but I'm finally coming to terms with some of my disappointment and bitterness (this site, which I came across recently, has helped). I've sought solace in other games, but I never seem to stay satisfied with one for very long. None have the depth I'd felt in the MUD, despite the beauty of graphics and the potential for RP, the latter of which I find to be severely lacking in most cases. And in all cases, I've intentionally avoided any duty or responsibility that anyone has tried to assign to me. After all, it's a game. Why should I bother putting too much energy into something that will, ultimately, have no effect on real life? Especially since any work I do will likely end up being undone once I'm no longer there to sustain it.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Fantasy Earth Zero
For a while now I've been getting extremely dissatisfied with the online games I'd been playing. Mabinogi just doesn't hold my attention at all, anymore. I'm tired of spamming instrument playing to try and master rank 1, and I swear my guild only does dungeon runs when I'm away from the keyboard. Dungeons & Dragons Online (DDO) is occasionally diverting, but for some reason (and I'm not even certain I can pin it down) it just isn't holding my interest either.
I was just about ready to try going back to City of Heroes, since they had a Free Play weekend coming up, when a friend of mine told me about a game that someone else had mentioned to them. It was made by Square Enix, he'd said, and had the feel of Final Fantasy Tactics. He wasn't able to play, or even look at much of it (he's having some computer issues involving Port 80, which I'm heading out to help with in a couple days), and wanted me to check it out.
So I do a search for this game, called Fantasy Earth Zero, and the first thing I find is a Wikipedia entry saying that it's not even released in the US. Well that can't be right, I'm thinking, and continue on until I find the download page. Turns out that I downloaded the client on the day that the first Open Beta was due to release. I'd never beta-tested an online game before, so this was pretty cool for me.
When the server for Open Beta finally went up (several hours past the original launch time), I went in and started playing with the character creation stuff while my wife was finishing up installing it on her computer. We made characters, tried to enter the game with them, and hit the first major roadbump: Gamepot or whoever was in charge of FEZ's Open Beta release wasn't expecting the flood of players it got. They'd only opened up 2 of the 5 kingdoms for people to join and play in, just to get a feel for how things worked in the US version, had only one server, and only 800 slots for characters in each of those kingdoms. They quickly set up a second world/server, but they still only had a capacity of 800 for each of the kingdoms. It was very, very late in the day before they got the population limit raised (my wife had already gone to bed).
Day 2, we went in and started going through the tutorial quests. The controls were very foreign to me at first. The only way to turn around is to change your camera angle, since your directional buttons only allow for forward, back, and strafing. The mouse, by default, changes your camera angle as you move it, which was very disorienting at first. Over time, however, I got used to it (and by the time Open Beta was over, I had trouble going back to other games!).
The Party system seemed a bit glitchy - it would kick my wife and I out of a party when transitioning, so we would need to reform the party when going to a different area. Aside from that, it didn't really feel like we could do much to help each other, aside from just whack at the same monster. The game lacks any sort of ability to heal other people, with your own toon's healing dependent solely upon potions or food items, or sitting at one of the mana crystals when in a war (which will get you yelled at, since healing your character by camping the crystal takes HP away from the crystal).
Overall, it seemed cute and mildly distracting, but seemed to lack any real substance. I had already told my wife that the female character model was complete with "bounce effect", something which was lacking from most other games (even Mabinogi, whose signature character Nao is notorious for it). A closer look, however, revealed something even more revealing: the outfit female characters start with, an exceedingly low-cut peasant-style blouse, actually seems to show the top curve of the areolae. Looking around at other outfits available, it seemed like the newbie outfit was the only one which did this, despite the fact that other tops seemed to cover even less. When it came to clothing below the waistline, the starting outfit was tame, with a knee-length skirt (despite the slit up the back). Other female armors had skirts ranging from mini-length to practically non-existent, with various styles of undergarment. But it was the peasant-blouse starting gear that really disturbed us, and we were just about ready to uninstall.
Then we tried our first war. The game's major selling point, in most of what I'd read, seemed to be the massive combat capability: 50vs50 PvP. I have never been a fan of player-vs.-player gaming, whether in the MUD, on MMOs, or even on Facebook apps. So I was exceedingly surprised to find myself enjoying this. After talking about it with my wife, we think it's because of the scale of it. Most PvP is one-on-one, or maybe a small group. It ends up feeling very personal. But on this scale, it doesn't feel that way. It's like Capture the Flag with more rules.
The system isn't perfect. Of the three classes available to us in the Beta (Warrior, Scout, and Sorcerer) it seemed like the side with the most Warriors would consistently win, despite the game's internal balancing that said otherwise. I'd started off making a Sorcerer, focusing on the lightning spells, only to find out that was one of the worst choices to make. In theory, lightning spells are faster to cast than fire or ice, whereas fire does Damage over Time and ice slows or halts the enemy. Due to lag issues, the lack of auto-targeting, and the differences between fighting AI-run monsters and actual people, it seemed I could never get a spell to hit another PC. Occasionally, if I targeted ahead of them (so they would run into it) I could manage a hit. Even that seemed to work better with the bow-based scout abilities, though.
Warriors, however, have at least 2 high-damage Area of Effect abilities that are centered on the warrior character itself, which is a much safer bet for a PC than trying to aim an AoE (spell or arrow-based) at a distance. For one, since it surrounds the PC, the warrior is going to hit anything close-by, preventing attacks on the warrior. And two, the warrior is built to go wading into battle like that.
I did enjoy playing a Bow-Scout, though, for the ability to stand at the top of a cliff and rain arrows down at enemies at the bottom. If you did it right, you could even stand at the bottom and hit enemies at the top. I also enjoyed playing a Dagger-Scout, to a lesser degree. Being able to potentially one-shot sneak-attack was nice, and the ability to disarm was a wonderful piece of chaos, but most of the time it seemed I was little more than a suicide bomber. Warriors can do about as much damage with one of their abilities, and they don't have to be hidden to do it. I guess the one class I didn't enjoy as much was Sorcerer, but I also didn't try out the fire or ice magic as much. I'd also like to have tried out some of the sword-and-shield warrior abilities, but I was having too much fun smashing everyone to bits with a two-handed weapon.
One of the biggest concerns about the game, though, ended up being saboteurs: people loyal to the other kingdom making characters in ours, and intentionally wasting resources in battle to give the other side an advantage. There was no way to prevent it from happening, and the only countermeasure would be to do the same thing to them. If there was a way to report possible saboteurs, that would at least help the issue.
First Open Beta ended on the 10th, with 2nd Open Beta scheduled to start on the 17th (2 days!). We're told there will not be a character wipe after 2nd Open Beta, and anyone who was involved in a GM-run war during the first OB will get a code in their email to receive a nifty weapon once OB2 opens up. Despite the issues, I'm looking forward to it, as is my wife. I've actually been having trouble playing other games since it went down.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Magic Systems
I've recently been considering a possibility which would basically nullify a lot of work I'd already done. I spent a good amount of time compiling a list of all the 3rd Edition spells and cleric domains, to have a "Master List" of all the available magic in the game. It is a huge list, yet for all that's available it still seems very restrictive in some ways, and there are still only a handful of spells that are regarded as being essential.
So, I've been thinking about pulling out the entire magic system currently in place, and replacing it with a modified version of the (Revised Second Edition) BESM system. I very much like and appreciate the potential for customization in the BESM magic system, which gives every caster the ability to be unique, even if the technical aspects of the spell are the same. It means, in my case, figuring out how to interpret the rules of the Tri-Stat system for a modified d20 system with 10 stats using mana-based casting.
It makes magic potentially much more powerful. This is especially noticeable with direct-damage spells, since the minimum amount (other than 0) that an ability can deal is 15 points. Even using the damage reduction rules for armor found in the 3rd Ed. Unearthed, that leaves a lot of damage for a low-cost spell. The only way to effectively block magic, then, is with magic. This makes a certain amount of poetic sense, following the whole "fire with fire" mentality.
However, magic is also effective against physical attacks, which means that unless the NPCs/monsters have magic, the party will quickly be unassailable if they have a mid-level caster in the party with a Force Field effect. There are ways around this, but not by swarming the party with low-level critters.
On further consideration, this apparent boost to magical power might be what is needed to balance out the static energy level idea that I was considering.
Using the BESM system for magic means that each caster is going to be more unique, but it will also take more time to create a magic-using character. In this regard, I think the positive benefits outweigh that aspect, at least so long as there are only a limited number of people rolling casters at the same time.
I also like the aspect of being able to improve existing abilities and spells as you progress. The idea of a Mage gaining a level, and choosing to improve, for example, a Fireball-esque spell in order to deal higher damage or have a bigger blast radius sounds really nifty.
Chances are I'll end up trying it.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Namaste
If, a year ago, someone brought up 3D movies in conversation, the first image to pop into my head would have been the cliche 1950's crowd with the two-tone red and blue cardboard glasses. 3D was a gimmick, used to hype sub-standard movies in order to bring in audiences.
No more.
James Cameron has taken 3D technology and used it for what it should always have been: to provide a fully immersive experience within a fully detailed environment. He took a film that was fully capable of standing on its own, and enhanced it, rather than making 3D the sole selling point. 3D technology, while it may not become the standard viewing method for some time, now has a benchmark. All 3D films, probably for at least the next decade, will be compared to Avatar to gauge their opulence and detail.
Now to the film itself. Spoilers will likely abound. You have been warned.
Where to begin?
The flora and fauna of Pandora is perfectly balanced between alien and familiar. You may not know what something is called, but it looks (and acts) familiar enough that you know what it's Earth-based counterpart is, or could be, with some few exceptions.
Just by looking at the ocular anatomy, you can tell that this world is much more dangerous than Earth. Practically every creature on the planet has two sets of eyes, one facing forward and one more to the sides. If you remember your Biology, forward facing eyes are the mark of a predator, whereas side-facing eyes are a typical prey's defensive mechanism. Everything on that planet, then, is both a predator and prey. Even the Na'vi, though they lack the second set of eyes, because that lack is made up for by their unusually large, sensitive, swiveling ears.
The wildlife isn't all that's familiar. Plot elements are similar to things seen elsewhere, and although this has been used as a criticism to harp on the plotline's predictability, I believe Mr. Cameron did it right. He gave us familiar elements to associate with, first off so that we wouldn't be overwhelmed by what was unfamiliar, and second so that we would not miss too much if our eyes were overwhelmed with the details put into this fantastic world.
Still, here's what I was reminded of: Linking to the animals? Matrix, jacking in, which was further reinforced by the explanation of how everything was linked in an electric network. The flying creatures, who only bond to one rider? Dragonriders of Pern. The term "I see you" is very closely related to the one-word title up above. And the general storyline and message in general? Fern Gully for grown-ups.
This doesn't belittle the film, in my eyes. Yes, I've seen elements of it elsewhere, but not blended in this manner. And quite frankly it's about time we adults were reminded of the direction our world is going. I don't even necessarily mean what we're doing to destroy the planet. I'll leave that sermon to Al Gore. What I'm talking about is our direction as a society: our might-makes-right attitude, using violence as a default means to the end we desire. We can't even get along with other humans, so what possible hope do we have of peaceful relations with non-human sentient life?
Fern Gully started from the position that the Earth, that Nature, was salvageable, if we humans could do right by it. Mr. Cameron doesn't even give us that much credit, and I can't say I disagree. Avatar starts with Earth being devoid of Nature, perhaps completely sapped of all life, and only gives us the message that, despite our overwhelming majority of asshats, humanity can still be redeemed by the actions of those few who are willing to do right by Life in general, rather than being sheep led to the slaughter by those who had enough greed and ambition to gain apparent leadership.
I saw an article, the day before I saw the movie, that told of a trend among those who saw Avatar. Apparently, there are a number of people who have, since viewing it, become depressed or even suicidal: depressed because they could not live on Pandora, suicidal in the hope that they might be reborn as a Na'vi. It's nothing new that people who come to associate with and love a world they experience through fiction have a desire to live there, or be the people they've read about or seen in the movie. I know I spent a good amount of time in my teen years wishing I actually had a Pernese dragon to ride, so I understand the wish that Pandora were real.
And maybe it is, or a place much like it. We can't, at this point, prove its lack of existence any more than we can prove it does exist. But for the sake of that place, should it be real, I hope we never find it.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Zingers of Mass Destruction
In the hopeful eventuality that someone other than myself reads this blog, I suppose it might be a point of interest to know where the name comes from. It arose out of a night around the table playing Shadowrun, back when I went to a regular Tuesday game.
The atmosphere at those games was very relaxed, and there was the usual banter and friendly barbing common to a group of guys. The GM would often give out an extra character point to a player who managed to amuse him with out-of-game antics. I'm generally more of an observer type, and didn't really get into the banter as much. When I would get an extra point, it was usually due to some otherwise witty remark or music reference.
My best friend and his brother were also regular players at the Tuesday Game(tm), and because they were brothers and lived with each other, they seemed to relish the ability to go at each other's throat, verbally. They also were able to go a bit further with each other, comfort-level wise, because they were brothers.
I can no longer remember the words which were said that night, nor can anyone else who attended. The two brothers were going back and forth at each other with insults, rapid-fire style, and the rest of the players were watching the show as each tried to "zing" the other. It came as a surprise to everyone (myself included) when I stepped in and tossed down a line that managed to insult and top both of them at once, stopping the crossfire. Everyone broke up laughing, and a good time and memory was had by all.
It was because of this that later on, whenever something potentially worthy was said, it would get written down, Top Ten List style, on the whiteboard by the table. And after I'd stopped being a regular player, due to moving away, I came back to visit to find that one of the players had printed up business cards for everyone who had a permanent spot at the table, reflecting what they were known for, a nickname or tagline that best represented them. Mine stated:
The Bard
Zingers of Mass Destruction
They're standing in line
And now you know the rest of the story.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Dynamic vs Static power levels for casters
To my knowledge, pretty much all fantasy games which include magic users have a system where the amount of power a mage has is based primarily on the character's level, or at least is able to be increased by gaining levels/experience. D&D uses spells per day, DDO uses spell points, and the system I grew up on used a mana system, where the mana available was dependent upon your casting stat and level.
I've recently been considering the possibility of a static power level, mana that is directly based off of the casting stat and does not increase unless that stat increases. So far it seems like this would be very beneficial for low-level casters, but at around 10th level (for my present system) would end up starting to be less preferable than a mana per level situation.
At 1st level, a mage would have more mana than they could likely use in a day, but would still be limited by how many spells they know and what level of spells they can cast. Even so, this would be a godsend to most mages, as it would practically ensure their survivability at low levels, or at least their ability to contribute. One of the major things that gets argued is the fact that mages get the short end of the stick, at least at low levels. A fighter doesn't have to spend points to swing a sword, so why should a mage's primary weapon be limited to four "swings" in a day?
At about 10th level, the mage is about on-par with how they would have been in my present system of mana per level. But past 10th level, as the mage is running into higher- and higher-powered monsters, and gaining access to more high-level, high-cost magic, their mana pool is becoming more and more restrictive. I've come up with a way for mages to learn how to conserve mana, spending the equivalent of a Feat in order to gain a discount on mana costs, so they could eventually end up with, effectively, double their power (not really, they're just spending half as much per spell). I haven't been able to playtest it yet, but looking at the numbers it seems that this would allow high-level casters some leniency back, without being as nigh-invulnerable as the current system of mana per level. At present, it looks like a 20th level caster with this new idea/system would have about 2/3rds the power of a mana/level caster, if the mana conservation feats were taken.
On the one hand, it seems this could be a real balance issue, making mages even more weak than they are in D&D, at higher levels. On the other, it seems to reflect all of the fantasy literature on the subject of magic: the more you know and understand it, the less you want to use it.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Ability Scores and Casting - Intelligence
Intelligence as a casting stat is a much better fit than Wisdom, based on the idea that a Mage or Wizard needs to be able to understand and remember the arcane formulae used in their version of magic. My main complaint here is that Intelligence is used solely for both the number of spells an arcanist may know as well as how many can be cast. In most literature on the subject, it seems that using magic, channeling the power either through or from your body, seems to have a physical impact on the magic user. Raistlin, for example, though he's hardly the only one. Even Miyazaki's Howl had physical difficulties when performing more powerful spells.
My solution to this is rather simplistic: keep Intelligence for the number of spells known or learnable, but make Constitution govern the number of spells that can be cast. In retrospect, perhaps a similar thing could be done for divine magics, keeping Wisdom for the number of spells known, and Faith for the number that can be cast, to correlate with the idea that the power comes from the deity, while the cleric is responsible for applying the power through the proper use of the spells/prayers/whatever gained from reading their sacred texts.
On second thought, however, this works well for Clerics but not necessarily so aptly for Druids. Druids, as a part of Nature, seem to draw their energy from it or from within, so they seem more closely related to Mages in that manner. Perhaps Wisdom (knowledge of the cycle of life and nature) to determine spells known, and Constitution to determine spells per day.
3rd Edition Sorcerers are a strange creature. Per the way 3rd edition spellcasting seems to work, Sorcerers should, even moreso than Wizards, have their Constitution determine the power available since it is stated that their power comes directly from within, rather than channeling latent power through the use of mystic formulae. WotC explains this as being due (possibly) to dragon blood somewhere in the lineage of the Sorcerer, citing some Force of Personality as being the power behind the spells. Yet none of this really seems to indicate how or why Charisma should determine the number of spells known. It seems that Sorcerers learn through trial and error what they can and cannot do, mostly learning Wizard spells since those have a known effect that they can try to reproduce. Sorcerer as a class really doesn't have anything going for it in 3rd edition. A specialized Wizard could cast the same number of spells, have more powerful ones available, and even get some free metamagic feats, whereas a Sorcerer actually sacrifices effectiveness with the feats, and only gets a piddling amount of extra weapons to choose from, none of which are necessary or even desirable to most people. I think I'd just as soon drop the class entirely.
Bards are odd, as well. They actually have enough difference to stand as their own class, rather than being a variation of something else, but again they're Charisma based casters, and again there's nothing that explains why Charisma, whether it's Personality, Leadership, Beauty, or whatever, should have an effect on the number of spells known. At least Bardic Tradition, whether it's passed on from one generation to the next or learned at a Bardic College, can explain how those spells are learned, but I would almost think that Intelligence, serving in its capacity as Memory, would govern what a Bard could remember and cast.
Well, I've gone beyond Intelligence here. Let's sum up.
Clerics: Gain spells from Wisdom, gain power from Faith
Druids: Gain spells from Wisdom, gain power from Constitution
Wizards: Gain spells from Intelligence, gain power from Constitution
Sorcerers: Are silly
Bards: Gain spells from Intelligence, gain power from Charisma
As always, comments are welcome, and constructive criticism encouraged.
My solution to this is rather simplistic: keep Intelligence for the number of spells known or learnable, but make Constitution govern the number of spells that can be cast. In retrospect, perhaps a similar thing could be done for divine magics, keeping Wisdom for the number of spells known, and Faith for the number that can be cast, to correlate with the idea that the power comes from the deity, while the cleric is responsible for applying the power through the proper use of the spells/prayers/whatever gained from reading their sacred texts.
On second thought, however, this works well for Clerics but not necessarily so aptly for Druids. Druids, as a part of Nature, seem to draw their energy from it or from within, so they seem more closely related to Mages in that manner. Perhaps Wisdom (knowledge of the cycle of life and nature) to determine spells known, and Constitution to determine spells per day.
3rd Edition Sorcerers are a strange creature. Per the way 3rd edition spellcasting seems to work, Sorcerers should, even moreso than Wizards, have their Constitution determine the power available since it is stated that their power comes directly from within, rather than channeling latent power through the use of mystic formulae. WotC explains this as being due (possibly) to dragon blood somewhere in the lineage of the Sorcerer, citing some Force of Personality as being the power behind the spells. Yet none of this really seems to indicate how or why Charisma should determine the number of spells known. It seems that Sorcerers learn through trial and error what they can and cannot do, mostly learning Wizard spells since those have a known effect that they can try to reproduce. Sorcerer as a class really doesn't have anything going for it in 3rd edition. A specialized Wizard could cast the same number of spells, have more powerful ones available, and even get some free metamagic feats, whereas a Sorcerer actually sacrifices effectiveness with the feats, and only gets a piddling amount of extra weapons to choose from, none of which are necessary or even desirable to most people. I think I'd just as soon drop the class entirely.
Bards are odd, as well. They actually have enough difference to stand as their own class, rather than being a variation of something else, but again they're Charisma based casters, and again there's nothing that explains why Charisma, whether it's Personality, Leadership, Beauty, or whatever, should have an effect on the number of spells known. At least Bardic Tradition, whether it's passed on from one generation to the next or learned at a Bardic College, can explain how those spells are learned, but I would almost think that Intelligence, serving in its capacity as Memory, would govern what a Bard could remember and cast.
Well, I've gone beyond Intelligence here. Let's sum up.
Clerics: Gain spells from Wisdom, gain power from Faith
Druids: Gain spells from Wisdom, gain power from Constitution
Wizards: Gain spells from Intelligence, gain power from Constitution
Sorcerers: Are silly
Bards: Gain spells from Intelligence, gain power from Charisma
As always, comments are welcome, and constructive criticism encouraged.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Ability Scores and Casting - Wisdom
Continuing from my last topic, it's quite apparent that Wisdom within the confines of the D&D system is inappropriately termed. While great wisdom would certainly be appreciated and desired in someone entering a faith-based profession, it seems to make little actual sense to base spellcasting ability on the Wisdom stat rather than, say, a stat called Faith. After all, what about all those evil clerics worshiping their dark gods? Are we supposed to gloss over the fact that they, too, have a high wisdom? And if wisdom is used to make good choices, why are they serving Bob the Unholy Terror instead of Bill the Nice Guy? Seems to me that as soon as it was pointed out they were on the Evil side of the fence, they'd immediately jump over to the hero's team.
Let's not forget, either, the typical image of Men of Faith. On the Good team, we have meek, pious men and women, selfless to a fault, who may or may not be the most beautiful, strong, intelligent, or even wise people, but who are devoted fully to worship and serving their god or ideal of choice. On the Evil team, we have something of a dichotomy, as there are two "typical" images that come to mind. One is the haughty, domineering priest who is as likely to gain converts by a show of power as through subtlety, trying to gain further power from the deity du jour by cajoling or even outright threats. The other is the sly, conniving sort, hiding in the background or posing as a member of a more reputable faith to slowly guide new souls to the Truth of Bob the Terror.
None of the above people are necessarily wise, but generally speaking they are all faithful, pious, or at least diligent in their servitude even if they do secretly plot to take over the deity's domain someday. Faith or pious diligence, then, makes more sense to base casting off of, rather than Wisdom. Even the ability to Turn or Rebuke would make sense to be related to Faith, as it is the belief in the symbol and the deity it represents which provides the power. Yet 3rd Edition has this ascribed to Charisma, I suppose to represent one's self-confidence and ability to strike fear into the unbeating hearts of the undead. Again, however, that seems to make very little sense, as it is faith in the god, not faith in oneself, which is the catalyst. Remember, practically every deity-based religion is about extolling the virtues of the god, and abasing your unworthy self to its perfect divine grace.
To be fair, most religious texts contain a great deal of wisdom, from day-to-day living to more profound concepts. Someone who is pious and diligent in reading their scriptures is likely to have something rub off, but it's no secret that memorizing directions doesn't make you able to follow them. Even if they retain the words, understanding them is different, knowing when to appropriately say them to sound wise is yet another matter, and actually living by them is something else entirely. Yet again, it is the diligently pious person who is most likely to achieve all of this, so that they may serve better, rather than the person who is naturally wise but faithless.
Another problem I have with Wisdom in D&D is 3rd Edition's use of it for the Spot and Listen skills. I understand that a wise person may be more intuitive, and have a greater perception of people's motives, understanding the nature of mortals. Yet I do not understand how this suddenly makes them more likely to see a trap, or hear a cat padding through a nearby room. Once again, it seems like a separate ability score is needed to measure a person's external perceptiveness, rather than the internal.
I don't have a problem with keeping Wisdom as a determination of the character's wisdom, as it can be a useful thing to know when trying to properly roleplay a character. And I'm certainly not trying to bash D&D - it was a wonderful game, and it's come a long way in its efforts to allow infinite customization and provide more realism in the gameplay. Since I'm actually working on a home-brewed system, however, it behooves me to figure out what it is I do and don't like about what is hands-down the most successful game of its type.
Next up - Intelligence
Let's not forget, either, the typical image of Men of Faith. On the Good team, we have meek, pious men and women, selfless to a fault, who may or may not be the most beautiful, strong, intelligent, or even wise people, but who are devoted fully to worship and serving their god or ideal of choice. On the Evil team, we have something of a dichotomy, as there are two "typical" images that come to mind. One is the haughty, domineering priest who is as likely to gain converts by a show of power as through subtlety, trying to gain further power from the deity du jour by cajoling or even outright threats. The other is the sly, conniving sort, hiding in the background or posing as a member of a more reputable faith to slowly guide new souls to the Truth of Bob the Terror.
None of the above people are necessarily wise, but generally speaking they are all faithful, pious, or at least diligent in their servitude even if they do secretly plot to take over the deity's domain someday. Faith or pious diligence, then, makes more sense to base casting off of, rather than Wisdom. Even the ability to Turn or Rebuke would make sense to be related to Faith, as it is the belief in the symbol and the deity it represents which provides the power. Yet 3rd Edition has this ascribed to Charisma, I suppose to represent one's self-confidence and ability to strike fear into the unbeating hearts of the undead. Again, however, that seems to make very little sense, as it is faith in the god, not faith in oneself, which is the catalyst. Remember, practically every deity-based religion is about extolling the virtues of the god, and abasing your unworthy self to its perfect divine grace.
To be fair, most religious texts contain a great deal of wisdom, from day-to-day living to more profound concepts. Someone who is pious and diligent in reading their scriptures is likely to have something rub off, but it's no secret that memorizing directions doesn't make you able to follow them. Even if they retain the words, understanding them is different, knowing when to appropriately say them to sound wise is yet another matter, and actually living by them is something else entirely. Yet again, it is the diligently pious person who is most likely to achieve all of this, so that they may serve better, rather than the person who is naturally wise but faithless.
Another problem I have with Wisdom in D&D is 3rd Edition's use of it for the Spot and Listen skills. I understand that a wise person may be more intuitive, and have a greater perception of people's motives, understanding the nature of mortals. Yet I do not understand how this suddenly makes them more likely to see a trap, or hear a cat padding through a nearby room. Once again, it seems like a separate ability score is needed to measure a person's external perceptiveness, rather than the internal.
I don't have a problem with keeping Wisdom as a determination of the character's wisdom, as it can be a useful thing to know when trying to properly roleplay a character. And I'm certainly not trying to bash D&D - it was a wonderful game, and it's come a long way in its efforts to allow infinite customization and provide more realism in the gameplay. Since I'm actually working on a home-brewed system, however, it behooves me to figure out what it is I do and don't like about what is hands-down the most successful game of its type.
Next up - Intelligence
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)