Friday, December 28, 2012

Edge of the Empire Beginner Box!

Today I picked up the Edge of the Empire Beginner Box from my FLGS.  I thought a great deal about whether or not I would actually purchase this since between the Beta version that I already bought and the Beta updates that Fantasy Flight Games provides on their website for free, I essentially have the full game already.  This won't be a review, namely because I haven't really had enough time to go over everything in the box, and because I've already reviewed the Beta.  I will simply attempt to answer the question "what was I thinking?"  No, I'm not trying to rationalize the purchase, I'm just summarizing what the game offers.

First off, the dice.  Fans of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying Game (WFRP) have mentioned online that the custom dice for that game are pretty pricey.  Like, we might expect $15 a pop for a set of these Star Wars dice once they come out.  That's almost as much as the whole box set on Amazon, and half what I paid at my FLGS.  Can't remember the source, but in any case it's the only way to get the physical dice at the moment.  I put the stickers from the Beta on some dice but something about them just feels off.  Which I'm sure is mostly psychological, but still.  Having 2 sets of dice will be nice in play.

Next is the novelty of it.  I've actually never bought one of these "box sets" for an RPG before, so I was pretty curious exactly how a somewhat crunchy game could be distilled down for beginners.  The included adventure does a really good job of it, and even for the experienced roleplayers who are new to the custom dice thing that might be really helpful.  Besides, I've actually taught people brand-new to RPing how to play using various systems, so it's cool to finally see a product designed to do exactly that. 

Another motivating factor is my preference for more rules-light systems.  Not that Edge of the Empire is particularly crunch-heavy, but it's not quite as "clean" as it could be.  There are some subsystems that are a little more complicated than they need to be, and it can be tough to sift through everything to expose the bare essentials of the system.  That Beta book is 222 pages of almost all crunch, after all.  I really like having a bare bones, streamlined version of the system.  The "lowest common denominator" as determined by the designers themselves.  I can add in the more complicated bits as necessary, or simply use them to fuel my own improvisation from the "base." 

New and improved character sheets and stat blocks.  Ok, so the stat blocks in the Rulebook are still the crappy space-saving pieces of trash that were in the Beta book, but the adventure includes stat blocks that are easy to reference in combat.  They're organized and laid out in a much more user-friendly way, and most importantly include graphical representations of relevant dice pools!  Same with the character folios; there's a column in the skill lists that shows the dice pools (2 green diamonds and a yellow hexagon for Pash's Charm skill, for example).  Anything that helps players (and GMs!) quickly grab the exact handful of dice that they need to roll is great in my book!  When I ran a quick solo playtest combat I didn't like having to look at two different numbers (the characteristic and the skill rank), then the difficulty, etc. every time I made my dice pool.  Those numbers just don't jump out at you when you quickly glance at the stat block or character sheet.  These graphical dice pools do, and I'll be using stat blocks and character sheets that make use of them exclusively when I play.  By the way, here you can find revised stat blocks for the adversaries from the Beta book (much thanks to the author who spent so much time putting those together!).  I'm working on my own custom character sheet with hollow green diamonds and yellow "o"s in a column on the skills list.  These can then be filled in to represent the dice pool.  Perhaps not as visually striking as the character folios, but much more practical for character advancement.

Finally, tokens and maps.  I started using tokens instead of minis when D&D 4E launched its Essentials line (thank you Monster Vaults I and II!).  They take up less space and they're WAY cheaper, making it much easier to accumulate (and carry!) enough to have multiple representations of whatever creature you're likely to need.  Plus cats don't find them as enticing as minis (too bad the dice still aren't safe...).  Now I have some Star Wars tokens, which will be a big help for such a little thing.  The maps, while just a simple 4-folded sheet of heavy paper, have more value than just the included adventure.  The cantina is generic enough to be used over and over again, perhaps making note of any differences without having to draw out a separate map.  The Mos Shuuta street map will be useful for groups that return to the city.  Most importantly, however, is the large map of the Krayt Fang, the YT-1300 Freighter that the party acquires at the end of the included adventure.  Heck, even if you don't use the included adventure most groups will probably have a YT-1300 anyways.

Sunday, December 23, 2012

Second Game of 13th Age

A few days ago I played 13th Age for the first time, and everyone liked it so much that they asked me to run it again the next day.  I decided not to rely so fully on improvisation this time, because I think that was really throwing me off in the first session.  That said, I didn't do nearly as much prep as I would have for D&D.  I brainstormed a bit, thinking of a half dozen or so features or events that I wanted to include in the session, and I weaved them in as I deemed appropriate.

Narrative Summary
The first session started out with character creation, and then based on the icon rolls I determined that the party's mission was to travel north to the edge of the Dragon Wood to close a hellhole that was opening there.  They would first need to secure passage through the Undermarch, because they were sort of racing the clock; agents of the Crusader were also looking for this infant hellhole.  By the end of the first session they were in the general vicinity, finding large patches of charred forest.

At the start of this session (I should note that Whisp, the melee Ranger, was absent) the party stumbled upon a Gnome hermit named Nilku.  He asked what they were doing in his home, and when they told him they were informed that the hellhole has moved.  He showed them to its current location, where they battled some knights and a mage.  I had Lan roll his relationship dice with the Crusader (got a 6); he knew that these guys were called the Knights of Night (corny, eh?), and are an extremist branch of the Crusader's forces.  They're the guys he sends on suicide missions, and they gladly take them due to the strength of their convictions.  Always a dangerous mindset.  Anyways, the party killed the "guards" and descended down (though the opening wasn't hot, and didn't quite look like one would imagine a hellhole would).

This dungeon was geologically odd, the floor covered in fresh dirt and the walls an odd mixture of rocks.  Some of the passages "breathed," and some even rotated.  One room had a throne beside a worked stone wall, one of the arm rests containing a "handprint" pattern of gems with the gem for the center "palm" missing.  A room nearby had a row of pillars on either long end, and a solid black wall on the far side that was inscribed with runes.  When the Barbarian tried to approach the far wall he was hit by an "attack" and took a bunch of psychic damage and found it impossible to approach the rune wall.  Later on they found a village of Derro in a large, phosphorescent fungi-lined chamber, and they learned that the Derro monks go to the wall to have visions.  Upon visiting them the party saw that the monks had dried scabs coming from their ears and were so insane that they were unintelligible.  Such is the long term effect of the wall, apparently.

The party battled another group of knights, this time with a mage and a dark cleric for support (THAT was a tough fight!), and later on fought two knights (and an indiscriminately attacking ochre jelly) in a rotating passage.  Just before this fight I had the Drow Ranger roll his relationship dice with the Prince of Shadows, and he rolled a 5 and a 6.  I had his Unique activate (if you remember from the last post, he has been in the middle of enemy encampments without being caught).  He became engulfed in black, misty shadow, and then turned invisible.  He didn't look invisible to himself.  Helped him ambush the knights, though.  It was after this fight that I called it quits since it had gotten pretty late.

Note on Planning
Prepping for this session was a breeze.  I reskinned some monsters and created a few from scratch.  Even creating spellcasters from scratch (using the Wizard and Cleric spell lists) took just a few minutes.  Then I took a 4x6 index card and made a bullet-point list of things I wanted to include.  Some examples from this list:  "insane Derro live there," and "mushroom-choked passage that spins; ochre jelly, duel with knights."  Some of the more detailed areas had a couple of sub-points.  The key here is that I had a clear picture of what I was envisioning in my head, and 13th Age being gridless I simply had to describe it in-game from memory (making some embellishments on the fly) instead of mapping everything out.  For example, the whole Derro monk thing wasn't planned at all; I simply got the idea from what flowed naturally in-play and went with it.  It was very satisfying to see the players becoming just as immersed in this dungeon, if not moreso, than dungeons that I'd created for D&D and actually mapped out.  This just affirmed my growing preference for more rules-light systems.

The Barbarian
The other significant observation was that the Barbarian is a very underwhelming class.  His AC, even while using a shield, is lower than the Ranger's.  His damage output was also significantly lower.  The player was always very reluctant to use Whirlwind Attack, and no wonder!  The defensive penalty involved is too severe a drawback.  Every time he engaged with 2 opponents to attack them both he ended up on the ground shortly thereafter.

Rage doesn't compare favorably to Double Melee (or Ranged) attack, either.  It needs looser restrictions.  Critting roughly 25% of the time sounds nice on paper, sure, but a crit is simply double damage; a Ranger gets the same damage output by landing 2 attacks, and on top of that each of those attacks have their own chance at critting (given the crit-enhancing Ranger talents this will happen pretty frequently).  Yeah, even without a crit Barbarians have a better chance at hitting than a Ranger, but seeing as a natural even roll gives that Ranger an extra swing anyways it might be close to a wash.  The mechanics are close enough, anyways, that I don't think it would be all that unbalanced for a Barbarian to have constant access to Rage.  As it stands they're squishy, deal mediocre damage, and don't offer any tactical utility to make up for those shortcomings.

Yeah, their defenses look better than a Rogue's on paper, but the Rogue gets all kinds of defensive powers and can disengage really easily.  The Rogue has tricks up his sleeve to compensate for numerical disadvantages.  The Barbarian is just disadvantaged, and it doesn't seem like there's much he can do about it.

Anyone else finding this to be the case?  As it stand I simply cannot recommend a Barbarian.

Friday, December 21, 2012

First Game of 13th Age!!!!

Yep, you heard right, after MONTHS of being excited about this game I've finally gotten a chance to play it!  Character creation took around 2 hours with everyone sharing the screen with the PDF and with a lot of the story elements needing to be explained.  It was longer that I'd expected, but there was a lot of side conversation and people waiting around so I guess it wasn't totally unexpected.  We ended up with 2 Rangers (melee and ranged), a Barbarian, and a Cleric.  A Fighter joined the party about halfway through.  In hindsight I probably should have made some pregens, and just had players fill in Backgrounds, Icon Relationships, and One Unique Thing.  Oh well, hopefully they understand the game better now.

I guess the first thing I'll say is that everyone LOVED the system.  So much, in fact, that they asked me to run another session later today (we played yesterday evening).  Which is cool.  I actually felt like my GMing was pretty sub-par last night, through a combination of not having done it for several months and being kind of new to the whole improvisational plot points thing.  I didn't plan a single thing, I just went off of the characters' backstories and icon rolls.  Speaking of icon rolls, the start of session rolls resulted in FIVE icons getting a result of at least 5 or 6 (Crusader got both).  Note to self; when that happens, don't worry too much about fitting everything in.  I feel like my High Druid, Dwarf King, and Orc Lord stuff was just filler.  So yeah, gotta work on improvisation.  I imagine that'll just take a whole lot of practice.

Combats are short and sweet.  Well, I think I under-challenged the players (though the melee Ranger might disagree with that!).  I used all level 1 enemies and built "fair" fights.  I'll definitely up the stakes a bit next session, since everyone has a better sense of the rules now.  Twenty minutes for a balanced fight with 5 players and a healthy dose of side conversation is awesome, though.  Combat isn't as dynamic as 4th Edition D&D but moreso than 3rd, and much shorter than either.  We used minis but not a grid, and I think that's key.  When I've run Theater of the Mind without minis (for The One Ring), sometimes describing the surroundings and positioning can take time that is saved by simply plopping a mini down.  I like this middle ground.

Here's an overview of the characters we ended up with (note that I gave everyone 8 background points):

Lan (can't remember his own last name) - Human Cleric
-2 Relationship with Crusader, -1 with Diabolist
OUT:  Sent to hell because his family broke an oath with the Crusader, and he managed to escape (minus his memories from before hell).
Backgrounds:  Abyssal survivor +4, Ex-priest +4.

Gorthar - Drow Ranger (ranged)
+2 Relationship with Prince of Shadows, +1 with High Druid
OUT:  Has been in enemy encampments without being seen or caught, and he can't necessarily explain why.
Backgrounds:  Tracker (via Talent) +5, Assassin +4, Linguist +4

Mertle McTurtle - Dwarf Barbarian
1 (Conflicted) Relationship with Dwarf King, -2 with Orc Lord
OUT:  Can make beer out of ANYTHING.  Exiled from his clan for accidentally poisoning them with turtle beer (he doesn't always know how it'll turn out!)
Backgrounds:  Chef +4, Miner +2, Cartographer +2

Whisp - Human Ranger (melee)
+3 relationship with Prince of Shadows
OUT:  Has a perfectly round wooden ball that his father told him was from an ancient treasure horde (he doesn't know what it is or does).
Backgrounds:  Orphan +2, Treasure Hunter +2, Member of The Silence (a secret society) +4

McKeff - Human Fighter
No icons since he joined mid-session and had zero interest in them (whatever).
OUT:  Has a talking dog.
Backgrounds: a list of 4 overlapping ones, I remember two were Street Thug +2 and Gladiator +2.

Not bad, especially considering none of these players really have any story-game experience, mostly having played D&D (4E and 3E).

Monday, December 17, 2012

Hirelings in 13th Age

Here I present some optional homebrew rules for using hirelings in 13th Age.  This could certainly use some refinement, as it hasn't been playtested yet.  Comments and criticisms are welcome, especially from those who use hirelings in their own games!

A hireling's wages are paid in gold pieces per full heal up (or adventuring day), and is based on the hireling's level and adventuring role.  Use adventuring day to calculate wages during long periods without encounters, such as when traveling long distances.  While the specific price (as well as hireling availability) will vary based on location, local economy, and how dangerous the job is, GMs should consider using the following baselines.  Alternatively, some hirelings might demand a share of any profits (up to an equal share, in the case of Burglars and Warriors), possibly in addition to an initial fee paid up front.  Occasionally, the party may gain the benefit of free hirelings for successful Icon Relationship rolls.

Level     gp/FHU
1              5
2              6
3              8

Level     gp/FHU
1              20
2              24
3              34
4              42

Level     gp/FHU
1              50
2              62
3              85
4              105

Mercenary Warriors:
Level     gp/FHU
1              80
2              100
3              140
4              165

On the Subject of Pricing
Porters cost roughly 5% of the recommended maximum gp per character per full heal up.  Guides cost 20%, Burglars 50%, and Mercenary Warriors 80%.  The simple fact is, having another body in the party can be extremely useful, especially in the case of warriors (who can handle themselves relatively well in a fight) and burglars (who can increase the party's profits and reduce the dangers from traps).  In order to balance their presence, the PCs should be giving up a significant amount of potions, oils, and runes that they would otherwise spend their money on. 

While hirelings can be extremely useful, the party should take care to treat them well.  If word gets out that those hired by the PCs usually don't return, it's unlikely that they'll be able to find anyone willing to adventure with them, even for massively inflated prices.  On the other hand, if hirelings return to their home towns the wealthier for it, the party will probably enjoy the good will of the locals (and they'll likely be regarded as heroes if they actively protect their hirelings from danger).

Rumor has it that more competent hirelings can be found in Drakkenhall, but most civilized folk elsewhere in the Empire view those who hire them with some suspicion.

Hirelings can access recoveries in much the same way that PCs can, except that they are limited to only 1 Rally per combat.

Level 0 Mook, Initiative +1
Improvised or Basic Weapon +4 - 3 damage
HP 5, AC 14, PD 13, MD 12
Recoveries none

Level 2 Mook, Initiative +4
Improvised or Basic Weapon +6 - 5 damage
HP 9, AC 17, PD 15, MD 13
Recoveries none

Level 1 Troop, Initiative +4
One-Handed Sword (or similar) +6 - 5 damage
Show Them The Way! - Engaged Allies ignore Disengage penalties for multiple enemies.
HP 27, AC 16, PD 15, MD 13
Recoveries 4 - d6
Local Knowledge - Once per session the party can invoke the Guide's knowledge to learn something useful about the surroundings (location of an important feature, a correct path, peculiar local customs, etc.).  Roll 1d6.  1 - the Guide is misinformed, to the party's detriment.  2-4 the party learns something useful, but it costs them a setback or resources.  5-6 the party gains information without much (if any) cost.

Level 3 Troop, Initiative +6
One-Handed Sword (or similar) +8 - 10 damage
Show Them The Way! - Engaged Allies ignore Disengage penalties for multiple enemies.
HP 45, AC 18, PD 17, MD 15
Recoveries 4 - d6
Local Knowledge - Once per session the party can invoke the Guide's knowledge to learn something useful about the surroundings (location of an important feature, a correct path, peculiar local customs, etc.).  Roll 1d6.  1 - the Guide is misinformed, to the party's detriment.  2-4 the party learns something useful, but it costs them a setback or resources.  5-6 the party gains information without much (if any) cost.

Level 1 Troop, Initiative +7
Dagger or Short Sword +6 - 5 damage
Backstab - Burglars have a crit range of 18+ if they're ganging up or if the target is unaware of them.
HP 27, AC 16, PD 15, MD 13
Recoveries 4 - d6
Trap Sense:  If a trap's attack that targets the burglar is a natural odd roll, the burglar can force the trap to reroll the attack once.
Burglar Background:  The burglar can roll burglary-related skill checks (1d20+8)

Level 2 Troop, Initiative +8
Dagger or Short Sword +7 - 7 damage
Backstab - Burglars have a crit range of 18+ if they're ganging up or if the target is unaware of them.
HP 36, AC 17, PD 16, MD 14
Recoveries 4 - d6
Trap Sense:  If a trap's attack that targets the burglar is a natural odd roll, the burglar can force the trap to reroll the attack once.
Burglar Background:  The burglar can roll burglary-related skill checks (1d20+9)

Mercenary Warriors
Level 1 Troop, Initiative +4
One-Handed Martial Weapon +6 - 6 damage
Miss - 1 damage
Javelin +6 - 5 damage
HP 27, AC 17, PD 15, MD 11
Recoveries 6 - d8

Level 3 Troop, Initiative +6
One-Handed Martial Weapon +8 - 11 damage
Miss - 3 damage
Javelin +8 - 9 damage
HP 45, AC 19, PD 17, MD 13
Recoveries 6 - d8

Cross-posted at 13th Age Homebrew.   It's a collection of fan-created content; check it out!

Monster Ability Checks in 13th Age

One of the first things I noticed about monsters in 13th Age (which is still available for preorder as far as I know, but there are something like less than 20 Escalation Edition orders left) is that the monster stat blocks, while wonderfully simple (a GM's dream come true!) lacks any reference to a monster's attribute scores.  What happens when it makes sense in the fiction for a character to make an opposed Dex, Str, etc. check against a monster?

Rolling against the DC for your environment is perhaps the simplest solution, but there's something about opposed rolls that really captures the feel of "this guy vs. that guy."  Besides, what about opposing the Int of a really dumb ogre, or the Str of a tiny kobold?  The normal DCs might be a bit too high for that (though opposing the ogre's Str or the kobold's Dex could easily work by boosting the DC to the hard value for the environment).  Perhaps it's an aesthetic thing, but I'd really prefer that the numbers come from the monster than the environment.  And it's not that complicated to derive these scores.

For Str, Dex, Con checks, roll 1d20+(PD-10)
For Int, Wis, Cha checks, roll 1d20+(MD-10)

Optional Modifiers
Depending on which attribute your modified defense is standing in for, feel free to apply a +4 or -4 bonus/penalty (if it's worth adjusting the effect should be big enough to be noticeable, so just stick with +/- 4).  For example, a kobold is agile but small and fragile, so a Dex check modifier might be [PD-10+4], whereas a Str check modifier might be [PD-10-4], or you might simply not apply the penalty.  The goal here is simplicity, since attribute checks probably won't come up too often for monsters.

Why This Works
Think about how a player's MD/PD are determined.  You use the base value for your class (10-12, which once the 10 is subtracted out will correspond to a 0 to +2 "background" point value).  Then you add the median of your 3 relevant ability scores, and of course your level gets added as well.  Monster PD/MD is quite a bit simpler to determine (one only has to look at the chart), but the numbers are fairly consistent with what you might expect compared with the method used for PCs.

So in summary, PD/MD is essentially 10+[better/lesser bonus]+[attribute]+[level]

Similarly, a skill checks boils down to 1d20+[background]+[attribute]+[level]

All you really have to do is substitute a d20 roll for 10 (which itself is a substitute for an assumed average d20 roll; think of it as turning an opposed attack vs defense roll into a single roll (attack) compared against a target number).  The better/lesser bonus baked into the defense numbers is roughly comparable to the bonus a PC might get from a background (even if not exactly, it's not worth further complicating matters since this proposed system has the benefit of simplicity).  Attribute modifier and level are already both accounted for.  Finally, the optional modifier allows a GM to very easily tweak the numbers on-the-fly when the final results don't quite match up with expectations.

Now let's apply this to a monster from EE6 - the Kobold Hero.  His bonus for opposed Str/Con/Dex would be +6, while Int/Wis/Cha would be +2.

So what kind of challenge is this little kobold supposed to present to a party of heroes?  The agility of kobolds is pretty well-established, so he should be pretty comparable to a 2nd level Rogue.  The Rogue would get a +6 (assuming an 18 Dex) even without any backgrounds, which he would probably have if a Dex check is involved.  Depending on the reason for the roll, that +4 optional bonus might be worth applying.  After all, Kobolds are already Evasive and good with traps, so they deserve a boost when it comes to tasks that require quick reflexes or when dealing with traps.

On the other hand, kobolds are known to be pretty weak, relying on overwhelming numbers and craftiness instead of physical strength.  Plus they're small, probably even smaller than Halfling PCs.  A +6 for opposed Str checks doesn't seem quite right, so we'll apply that -4 penalty without much hesitation.

The mental attributes probably aren't worth messing around with too much, but I'd definitely apply the +4 bonus if the roll involved traps or dirty tricks of some kind, and I might apply a +4 bonus to Cha rolls when dealing with kobolds (since the kobold hero is a leader), but a -4 bonus when dealing with almost everyone else (since few folk like kobolds).

This system has the advantages of using the monster's own existing statistics for opposed rolls without crowding up the stat block with ability scores, as well as being extremely simple to apply.  As a GM you're doing 2 things:  subtracting 10 from either PD or MD, and then tweaking that result with a +/- 4 to ensure the end result is consistent with expectations.

How I love transparent math.

Cross-posted to 13th Age Homebrews, an awesome resource still in its infancy that seeks to collect a lot of fan-created material in one place.  Check it out for more ideas!

Saturday, December 8, 2012

Unification of Fiction and Mechanics in Combat

A couple weeks back I picked up the PDF for Dungeon World.  There's been quite a lot of buzz about this game ever since the Kickstarter, and now I know why.  This is not a review article, however (perhaps I'll write one later, but this is one game I'd like to actually play first).  The game's most salient feature is that it not only emphasizes the fiction of the game world over mechanics, but defines the mechanics through the game's fiction.  There is a very simplified list of "moves," and these can only be triggered by events described by the player (namely what a character does, and often the intent of that action as well).  My curiosity is certainly piqued; it seems like play boils down to a conversation between GM and Players, with the rules helping to move that conversation along (giving the GM plenty of tools to do the same).  It really got me thinking.

Well, actually Dungeon World caused thoughts that I was already having to snowball, thoughts inspired by the 4E D&D supplement Combat In Motion (reviewed by me here).  Combat In Motion seeks to solve certain issues in 4E combat where the mechanics don't accurately represent the fiction, or needlessly break up the narrative.  I'll simply quote the book's author here regarding 2 of the new off-turn actions (he was kind enough to provide a lengthy email commentary after reading my review):


This rule was initially developed to address what I call the "Sir Lancelot" problem. 

If you have never seen the comedy film, "Monty Python's Holy Grail" -- see it! There's a strange sequence in the movie where Sir Lancelot can be seen running toward the camera from a great distance. Two sentries at a castle gate watch his approach. He is miles away yet the sentries do nothing. Lancelot keeps running yet never seems to get closer. Still the sentries are unmoved. Suddenly Lancelot is there and decapitates them both. 

How did he do it? 

Lancelot must have been a player of 4E!

As you note, in D&D 4E, a creature can cross a vast distance and the targets of its charge can do absolutely nothing about it. In Enhanced 4E, it's different; a humanoid creature of speed 6 can sprint a maximum of 17 paces before his enemies may flee or move to engage him.

Of course, Outpace can also be used by a group of allies to advance together: An option that is now especially valuable when advancing against an enemy force with ranged weapons. 


This action too was an outgrowth of the Sir Lancelot problem. Now when Lancelot charges the castle, the defenders can riddle him with ranged shots while he remains on open ground. 

In standard 4E, defenders could do this only if they were prescient enough to "ready" a ranged shot---and once they took this shot it was gone. So to hold off a would-be charge, the ranged defenders would have to keep their standard action readied and never actually use it. Moreover, because of the hit point system, the one shot they did get wasn't terribly dangerous to most player characters---so it failed to discourage crazy charges. By making a hit from an interdict slow the progress of a moving creature, it gives ranged defenders the potential to hit multiple times a creature that foolishly allows itself to get caught in open ground."

While I'd already supported the introduction of these 2 actions after reading the book, the author's rationale really made them "click."  These weren't simply rules that were "kinda neat" from the perspective of tactical play.  These were rules that support the fiction of the game!  Ultimately, the draw of a Tabletop RPG is that your character can attempt anything, as opposed to a video game where characters can't interact with certain objects or can't enter certain areas because the designers never coded those possibilities.  A lot of times RPG rules act more like computer code, restricting player options, unless the GM is skilled enough to put the rules aside in certain cases.  Many times players won't even think about it, though (I know I never thought about how absurd it was that 4E creatures could cover such vast distances without fear of a reaction just because combat is designed to be turn-based).  

Admittedly there's no "one true solution" for making game mechanics that fit as seamlessly as possible into the game's fiction.  Dungeon World takes it to a bit of an extreme, and some players will prefer more structure than that system offers.  For example, there are no combat rounds, you simply continue your conversation, triggering "moves" where applicable, and your fellow players are expected to jump in and react to the unfolding story.  Combat In Motion seeks to patch 4E, eliminating the most egregious offenders in terms of rules that contradict the common sense of the fiction.  

To put forward another example from a game that I've been talking and reading a lot about lately, 13th Age uses a turn-based structure for combat but introduces rules for a lot of free-form elements.  One of my favorite new rules from the Escalation Edition ver. 6 is Situational Weapon Use; basically, if the narrative suggests that a dagger would be more useful than a big greataxe (for example, fighting while grabbed or in a confined space) then the damage dice get reversed (daggers would gain a higher die and bigger weapons would deal d4s).  Many classes also gain free-form resources allowing them to improvise elements of the fiction for mechanical gain.  

Obviously game mechanics are necessary to arbitrate outcomes and to somewhat represent the physics of the game world.  Otherwise it's less a game, and more the players simply making up a story as they go along.  But adhering to the rules even when they don't make sense is undesirable, and some rules can do a better job than others at providing the flexibility needed to work around these conflicts.  

Ultimately, humans have an intuitive sense of how the world works by virtue of the fact that we live in it and interact with it every day.  Rigid, complex simulationist rules might seem like a fair way model the game world, but not all corner cases can be covered.  Sometimes simple mechanics that play off of the fiction and appeal to common sense can be more realistic.  As a player and especially as a GM, it pays to scrutinize rules and ask "why does this rule work the way it does?"  "Is this rule doing what I need it to do?"  "What alternative rules might work better?"  Knowing how to answer these questions will go a long way in deciding what system is "right" for your group.

Wednesday, December 5, 2012

On the 13th Age Fighter's Flexible Attacks

There was a recent discussion on the Pelgrane Press forums about whether or not Flexible Attacks are a desirable mechanic for 13th Age.  The main concern is that the Fighter, the ultimate warrior archetype, "doesn't get to choose how to attack" (HomegrownHydra on Dec 1st).  Or, put another way, "it's hard to feel narratively empowered when a random dice roll determines the very thing you attempted to do rather than its mere success or failure" (lessthanpleased on Nov 25th). 

Here's my take on the issue.  Sometimes all it takes for a mechanic to be viewed favorably is for it to be explained well.  I think the Player Sidebar under Flexible Attacks does a poor job of this, implying that flexible attacks are limiting:  "you can be certain the attack you're describing plays out the way you're telling it because you'll already know if you hit or missed."  I can easily see this leading to the perception that flexible attacks mean "roll to determine what you can attempt."  And yes, saying "you can't do that" runs counter to the design philosophy of 13th Age.  Rather than saying your options (in the fictional game world) are restricted by your die roll (a model in the real world), consider the following example.

A Ranger (with the Double Melee or Double Ranged Attack talents) defaults to attempting a double attack with their action.  It's not that they're not swinging both weapons when they roll odd, but rather the second attack simply didn't hit, or the opponent never presented an opening, etc.  The die rolls for the player are not contradicting the fiction of the multi-attacking Ranger.  Or at least I haven't heard of any player complaints to the contrary. 

Think of a Fighter's flexible attacks in the same way, but with an added twist.  The attack roll resolves TWO actions, the first being the attack (determined by comparing the die roll with the target's AC) and the second being the intended secondary effect that the Fighter is attempting (based on the natural result of the d20).  Say that a Fighter says "I'm going to Shield Bash this fool" but rolls a 17.  Odd number indicates that the shield bash part of the attack failed (analogous to an attack that simply rolls too low to hit AC).  But wait, the Fighter is SO GOOD at fighting that at the last minute he can decide to do something ELSE with his action.  "Roll of natural 16+, I'll use Precision Attack instead!"  One way to narrate it would be that the shield bash, while not strong enough to pop the opponent off of you, did cause it to momentarily lower its defenses allowing for a quick jab.  Point being, just because you don't HAVE to telegraph intent by choosing a flexible attack beforehand (unlike, say, the Rogue, who does choose a specific power) doesn't mean that you HAVE to wait until after the die roll to decide the fiction. 

In short, rather than saying that your Fighter just attempts whatever the flow of battle allows him to react to, think of the Fighter as failing in his initial attempt but getting a second chance at doing something else (assuming he triggers a different maneuver).  Or, alternatively, you can simply say that your Fighter will rush in and then attempt whatever he sees an opening for.  Different perspectives on the same mechanic, neither of which limit the fiction of what your character attempts. 

Friday, November 30, 2012

13th Age Delayed

This month's Through the Scrying Glass is up, and it confirms that 13th Age is now due for a February 2013 release (at least).  I can't say that I'm surprised, but if it ensures a quality final product I'm all for it.  Of course it helps that I have what are pretty much the finalized rules in Escalation Edition 6; it's pretty much just the layout that's left.

I'll admit that with previous Escalation Editions I merely glanced at the PDFs, not really combing through them to note all of the changes.  No real reason to, since I'm not currently running or playing a 13th Age game.  This time I skimmed through most of the PDF, and while I'm sure I didn't catch everything a few things did jump out at me.

Situational Weapon Use
This is a narrative-based rule that says if the situation seems to indicate that a smaller weapon would be an advantage while a large weapon might be a hindrance (say, if you're grabbed or fighting in cramped spaces), then the die values should be switched.  For example, Fighters normally use a d4 for daggers and a d8 or d10 for heavier weapons (1 and 2 handed, respectively).  This rule means that if you don't have room to swing that honkin' Greataxe, its damage die could go down from a d10 to a d6, while the dagger's damage would be upgraded from a d4 to a d8.  I'm all for introducing a mechanical incentive to use a different weapon when common sense dictates it would be more useful.

Conditions Update
Helpless is now an official condition, and the desperately-needed Stuck condition was also added!  Stuck is basically the equivalent of Immobilized, and prior to EE6 a mobility-denial status effect wasn't standard in the game.  Specific effects (like the Hold Person spell) specified that an affected target couldn't move, but standardizing the Stuck condition improves ease-of-reference (and makes homebrewing monsters and houserules a bit easier).  The Coup-de-Grace action has also been changed to essentially require a full turn (standard, move, and quick action), which protects fallen PCs (monsters can't run up to a downed player just to finish him off; though if he was already engaged....).

Class Changes
I haven't gone through all of the classes in much detail, but I did notice a few things.  The Fighter now gets 2 class features (Extra Tough and Threatening).  He's sticky and more durable; nice! 

The Ranger and Rogue have had their extra damage features toned down a bit.  Multi-attacking drops a Ranger's weapon damage dice down a notch (from D8s to D6s, for example) even if you don't get the second attack.  In other words, you choose before you roll whether you want to go for the multi-attack (actually, that's the default option with those talents and you have to specify if you want only 1 attack), and if you get the natural even roll then great, but if it's odd then you're out of luck.  The Rogue's Sneak Attack has had its dice demoted as well.  From what I've gleaned from messing around with character creation, these changes were probably for the best; it seemed like Rangers and Rogues easily put everyone else to shame in the damage department.  They're still really deadly (it's kinda the schtick of those classes, after all) but it feels more balanced (says the guy who hasn't playtested the changes, lol).

Rangers can choose the standard animal companion (which takes up 2 talents), or they can opt for a pet that takes only 1 talent and basically uses the Wizard's Familiar rules.  The Tracker talent also comes with a Terrain Stunt power, which lets Ranger players take control of the narrative by specifying some environmental effect that they can use to their advantage as a quick action.  I noticed in the last EE that Rogues got the Swashbuckle talent which lets the player improv some daring stunt.  I gotta say, I like that 13th Age has striven to give the martial classes options for free-form narrative control, because in the early EEs it seemed like that was more of a spellcaster thing.

The Wizard's Echo Spells were changed to Cyclic spells which key off of the Escalation Die (rewarding players who wait before casting).  This makes them a more consistent resource than being usable only after Daily spells, and it allows for more tactical flexibility, but there was just something really cool about accessing specific spells by harnessing the leftover energy of your most powerful magics.  Either way it's an interesting take on limited-use resources. 

Cool to see the finalized Wizard spells.  I like what was done with Color Spray and Ray of Frost.  Shocking Grasp seems kind of cool as well, though a little on the weak side.  Perhaps I'm underestimating how dangerous it is for a Wizard to be locked down in melee, though.  The damage just seems very negligible.

As I said, I didn't go through the final Escalation Edition with a fine-toothed comb, but these are the coolest things I discovered while skimming through it.  I'll bet there are loads of goodies in the monster section, too.  Looking forward to getting my hard copy, even if I have to wait!

Saturday, November 24, 2012

Square Fireballs Playtest

There have been a series of game design articles on the blog Square Fireballs recently, specifically offering some houserules for D&D 4E.  Most recent was a compilation "playtest package" summarizing the first round of changes.  They're definitely worth a look if you play 4E, as they address some issues with the system and offer solutions based on sound logic and play experience. 

They're not perfect (not surprising this being the first draft and all), but they definitely have me intrigued.  I particularly like the idea behind Action Point checks, and the new Dying and Healing Surge rules.  I'd encourage anyone interested in making some "tweaks" to their game try some of these rules out; you can always not use them if you don't like them, and your experience might even help them get refined.

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

13th Age Conversion of Combat In Motion

I recently posted a review for Combat In Motion, a 3rd party supplement for D&D 4E that layers some new "houserules" onto the game which attempt to better model the game world and/or dramatic structure, in addition to providing some interesting tactical considerations.  Though the rules in the book are specific to a grid-based game with a high tactical combat component, many of the principles are of general interest from a perspective of game design.  For example, how can the weaknesses of turn-based systems be addressed while still retaining a playable structure?  Several new mechanics strive to address this goal, some of which are fairly novel to the realm of tabletop gaming. 

I'll briefly get to the heart of many of the new concepts.  Continuous motion is addressed by allowing previous moves to affect future moves, rather than allowing movement to be broken into "stop and go" segments defined by arbitrary "turns" which exist only for the sake of playability, and not in the imagined game world.  New off-turn actions allow players to react to continuous motion in more believable ways; no longer can vast distances be covered without giving opponents the opportunity to respond.  Off-turn actions are designed to not break the action economy, but rather switch things up a bit by allowing players to attack outside of their turns ("borrowing" actions from future turns).  This keeps players engaged throughout combat, since the opportunity for tactically significant action can come up at any time.  Some of these actions also grant players more freedom to manage their own offense vs defense in tactically interesting ways.  Finally, strict adherence to a randomly generated initiative order is discarded; rather, the order in which combatants take their turns depends on the dramatic context and ever-changing momentum of the battle.  Quite simply, it's a more effective way to tell a story. 

While the specific rules that address these concepts will not be applicable to systems other than 4E, it's not too much of a stretch to adapt the content using the framework of a different system.  In this case, 13th Age (which you can pre-order here).  In addition to being a game that I have a lot of personal interest in currently, it makes a good first attempt for several other reasons.  It's similar enough in that it's a d20 game with a lot of 4E inspiration, but other than that it has very different priorities.  It boasts simplified, sometimes free-form rules, prioritizes story elements, and is gridless.  Clearly a direct port with minor tweaks isn't going to happen!  Some rules will best be left ignored, while others will be simplified to some extent.  Instead of trying to make the existing 4E mechanics work within a different system, I'll instead try to write rules and make changes with the "spirit" of the concepts in mind. 

Note that the following conversions are a work in progress, and may be subject to change as the ideas are refined.  I haven't playtested any of this yet, but hopefully that will change in the near future.  Some of these things can possible stand to diverge from the original 4E rules a little more, but I feel that it's a good starting point.


Not applicable for the default TotM play style.  Ignore this chapter.


Most of this chapter is possibly too "crunchy" for 13th Age.  For players who want to sacrifice a little simplicity for the advantages of modeling continuous movement, my conversion of the rules is as follows.

For alternative solutions and deleted rules blocks, see footnotes 1, 2, and 3.

Extended Moves
The conceptual value of the Extended Move mostly lies with the interaction with Outpace and Interdict (Chapter 3).  The biggest issue that the authors were trying to solve were combatants covering a lot of ground without giving their opponents an opportunity to react.  The best solution would be to preserve that intent while honoring the system's tendency toward simplicity. 

To that end, perhaps the Extended Move rule can be distilled down to the following:  whenever you move toward a far away target (such as by using a double move) you are considered to be in-motion and your movement may trigger the Outpace and/or Interdict action

  • -While in-motion your vision is limited; treat the entire battlefield except your forward-facing direction as if you were Dazed (apply the penalty to any Perception-type rolls as well as attacks).  Your forward-facing direction includes the object, creature, or space that you're moving toward and anything directly in-between (replaces "your vision is limited" rules of the 4E version).
  • -Gain +2 to melee attacks against engaged enemies in your forward-facing direction (replaces "gain combat advantage" rules). 
  • -If you are subject to an area attack targeting a number of creatures in a group (or all creatures engaged), make a normal save (11+) to avoid all effects of the attack (replaces "retreating target" rules). 
  • -You may pop free from any engaged enemy directly in front of you if you make a move starting in-motion (no disengagement check necessary) (replaces "move with momentum" rules). 
  • -You cannot reverse direction from the previous move that you ended in-motion (replaces "can't reverse" rules).

Can be used as-is; the concept is inherently simple and intuitive.


This chapter introduces the concept of off-turn actions, as well as follows up with the consequences for last chapter's Extended Move (Outpace and Interdict).  All five rules blocks for this chapter are retained (in an altered form).

Sapped and Tapped
Remove references to flanking, otherwise these remain unchanged.  Very easy to remember, and the conditions are basically "placeholders" reminding you that you've borrowed an action from your upcoming turn.

Off-Turn Actions
Technically the first 2 bullet points just explain how individual off-turn actions will be described in their own rules blocks.  Worth keeping in mind, though it does "clutter up" this rules block a bit, making it look more complex than it is.  Delete reference to charging.  Change "must not be dazed, stunned, surprised, or unconscious" to "Must not be Confused, Stunned, or unconscious."  Change "immediate and opportunity actions" to "interrupt actions and opportunity attacks."  While this rules block is necessary background information, for general reference you'll be referring to the individual actions.

Use the rules block as-is, with the following changes.  The last sentence of the second bullet point should read "you can't engage with motionless enemies."  The third bullet point should simply read "you cannot outpace if you're engaged or otherwise unable to move." 

Use the rules block as-is, with these changes.  The second bullet point should read  "Effect:  make a single ranged weapon attack (basic attack with no frills) or cast a single-target ranged at-will spell.  On a hit the target must roll a normal save (11+) for its next move action; on a failure it doesn't reach its destination (your attack slowed it down)."  The third bullet point can be edited thus:  "you can only interdict if you are able to make a ranged attack (i.e. not stunned or unconscious), and only if you're unengaged."


The Sprint action is the most important point in this chapter for the purposes of this conversion.  Unfortunately, as-written in contains a lot of references to both grid-based movement and 4E mechanics not present in 13th Age.  It's also a little complex.  Therefore, I've completely re-written the rules block.  Also, see footnote 4 regarding Soar/Cruise.

  • -You must complete a sprint action in-motion.
  • -Your turn radius is limited to a generally straight path (as a guideline, you cannot round corners with a 90 degree turn, but you can get around them if approaching from a diagonal.  GM has final say on what constitutes too sharp a turn).
  • -While sprinting your vision is limited; as with the In-Motion state, treat the entire battlefield except your forward-facing direction as if you were Dazed (apply the penalty to any Perception-type rolls as well as attacks).  Your forward-facing direction includes the object, creature, or space that you're moving toward and anything directly in-between. 
  • -You are considered Vulnerable to any melee attacks (including opportunity attacks), and to ranged attacks made generally parallel to your line of motion (shooting at you from ahead or behind). 
  • -Ranged attacks against you made perpendicular to your line of motion are penalized as if the attacker were Dazed.  The GM has final say over whether an attack is made from parallel or perpendicular (there is no in-between), but as a general rule should favor ruling perpendicular.

The tactical consideration to keep in mind with Sprint is that it affords the opportunity to make a quick dash to present yourself as a moving target that is harder for ranged enemies to hit.  If you don't think that such tactics add to your game, feel free to ignore it.  It's recommended if you use Chapter 5, though, since the defense it provides against ranged attacks balances well with the primarily melee-centric active defenses and counter-offensives.


This chapter might be too complicated for a game run using Theater of the Mind.  13th Age is already very liberal in how you describe combatants moving around the battlefield, and there aren't really grid-based mechanics that restrict that dynamic duel feeling.  But there are also no mechanics (outside of the Rogue class) that specifically encourage it, either.  Adaptations of this chapter are worth experimenting with, and if they're too crunchy ignore them.  These are my recommendations for each of this chapter's mechanics.

Hit Point Healthy
Use a simple 3/4 HP adjustment instead.  You're really just trying to avoid prolonging battles by offsetting the increase in durability that active defenses afford both the PCs and monsters.

Re-write the rules block as follows.  Off-turn Move action.  Trigger:  Your AC is targeted with a melee or close-quarters attack.  Effect:  if you're engaged with only 1 enemy, pop off and take a move (you're sapped until the start of your next turn).  You cannot use this move to engage with any foe.  Reduce the damage taken by the triggering attack in half.

Re-write the rules block as follows.  Move Action on your turn.  Follow an Evading enemy.  If you succeed at a Hard save (16+) then the evading enemy is tapped instead of sapped.

In the first bullet point, replace "Fortitude or Will defense" with "Physical or Mental Defense."  Delete the third bullet point.

Delete this action altogether.  There's no prone or forced movement in 13th Age.

In the second bullet point remove references to prone and forced movement.  Remove the 3rd bullet, and in the last bullet change "you're tapped..." to "you're tapped and vulnerable...".

I decided to add this back in because there are specific corner cases (Hold Person spell, grabs) where an Evade couldn't be used, so it actually is useful as a last resort.

Remove references to prone and bloodied.  I'm not sure if this action is needed, as I'm not sure if auto-damage is quite the problem in 13th Age as it is in 4E.

Re-write the rules block as follows.  Off-turn Move action.  Trigger:  An attack misses you.  Effect:  Make an unmodified basic melee attack against the creature that missed you.  You can't ripost if you can't otherwise make attacks.  You are sapped until the start of your next turn. 

Note that Evade, Press, and Ripost work together quite well to model dynamic, 1-on-1 duels and provide significant tactical choices without necessarily requiring teamwork.


This chapter breaks the "don't sweat the modifiers" advice in the 13th Age rulebook, but for those who like situational modifiers the option should be there.  Everything can pretty much be used as-is, though for the Support option "Fortitude and Will" should be replaced by "Physical and Mental Defense."

Higher Ground
Change to the following:  If the target has higher ground you take a -2 penalty to attacks that target AC or Physical Defense.  GMs should use this bonus sparingly, and only in dramatically appropriate situations where terrain advantage would be significant (i.e. fighting on a staircase).

Lower Ground
Change to the following:  If the target has lower ground you gain a +2 bonus to ranged attacks.  GMs should use this bonus sparingly, and only in dramatically appropriate situations where terrain advantage would be significant (i.e. firing from a rooftop).

Precarious Position
Change to the following:  If the target is near a hazard (like a cliff) or occupies challenging terrain (i.e. waist-deep water) and you are not, you gain a +2 bonus to melee and close quarters attacks.  GMs should use this bonus sparingly, and only in dramatically appropriate situations where terrain advantage would be significant.

Optional - Circumstantial Advantage
If you want to stay true to the "don't sweat the modifiers" clause, you can substitute these bonuses/penalties for the Advantage/Disadvantage system from D&D Next. 


Dramatic Direction is arguably the most universal concept in Combat In Motion.  I also think it has the most stylistic importance.  Given that 13th Age has an inclination toward story game elements, why not employ a concept designed to structure action in a way that preserves narrative flow? 

Called to Action
This is the simplest dramatic direction both conceptually and mechanically.  I'm a huge supporter of this one, as it breaks combat up into dramatically relevant "scenes" instead of resolving actions as a randomly-determined jumble.  Causal relationships aren't always clear when you interrupt the action with someone else's turn.  No reason not to use this for any RPG with a numerical initiative system.  The rules block works fine as-is for 13th Age.

Keep Rolling
This only matters if you're using Motion States.  Basically, characters who are already committed to an action (by virtue of their being in the middle of it) should go first.  Their momentum would give them a temporal advantage, and it makes narrative sense to resolve their actions as soon as possible.  The rules block is fine as-written.

Held in Suspense
Change the trigger to the following:  You're Held in Suspense if subject to the Stunned condition, if you're prevented from moving (such as by a spell or power), or if you've suffered a physical setback (such as falling off of a horse) before you've taken your turn this round. 


1:   Crunchier Alternative to Extended Moves:  One solution is to use the rules block for "Change Your Motion State" and "Extended Move" as is.  These rules aren't too crunchy, and mostly set the stage for the real meat of this chapter -- the In-Motion state and its bonuses and penalties.  They're intuitive enough that once you get the general idea, you can apply them without thinking too much about it. 

Though the Extended Move rules block contains 5 bullet points, for the purposes of 13th Age you can pretty much distill it down to the following summary:  whenever you take a double move on your turn (such as when attempting to reach a far away target), you must end your first move and begin the second in-motion (important for triggering off-turn actions).  Rogues need to pay closer attention, as they have standard actions that sometimes include movement components (personally I'd give them the option to change motion state or not; note that the class would get an initiative advantage via the Keep Rolling dramatic direction, which is at least thematically appropriate).  Also remember that teleportation and triggered actions can ignore motion state requirements, and you may or may not want to keep the readied action restrictions (though as a situational rule, and an extra thing to remember at that, it's safe to ignore it without impacting the intent of the mechanic too much).

2:  The "Complete an Action In-Motion" rules block is largely redundant for the purposes of this conversion.  It provides clarifications for grid-based play that 13th Age simply doesn't employ.  With a much simpler "facing" system described in the rules for In-Motion (and the system's encouragement for rulings over rules), this stuff need not be spelled out so exactly.

3:  The final concepts in this chapter are too overly-specific and situational to really worry about for 13th Age.  Forced Movement doesn't often occur with this system, and when it does squares aren't counted because play is gridless.  Likewise the effects of Stumble and Crash are mostly irrelevant.  The fact that Teleportation works a little differently as its movement isn't directly dependent on motion-state might be worth remembering, but the specifics (placement of the Trail and such) are irrelevant to this conversion.

4:  I'm not even going to bother with conversions for Soar or Cruise.  Not only will flight and vehicles/mounts possibly be covered in 13 True Ways, but these rules are very situational and quite crunchy.  Not the best combination for inclusion into 13th Age.  The gist of Soar is that when GMs are describing creatures in flight, do so in a way that makes sense.  Don't exaggerate their maneuverability, and make them actually keep moving (unless they can specifically hover).  Likewise, describe vehicle movement in a way that makes logical sense.  The existing range band system doesn't model acceleration very well, so don't worry about it.  Use cinematic narration and existing mechanics (skill checks) for things like chase scenes.

Monday, November 12, 2012

Review: Combat in Motion

Combat In Motion is a new 3rd party supplement for Dungeons and Dragons 4E.  You can learn more about it (or order a copy) from the Enhanced 4E website.  It's essentially a set of house rules that aim to provide more tactical depth to an already tactically-rich game.  Most of these new rules are fairly intuitive, resulting in an increase in simulationism, a more accurate representation of the game-world, or an increase in cinematic structure.  One might call many of these new rules "patches" for the weak spots in the core 4E rules, sometimes adding layers to the existing mechanics and other times replacing them outright. 

As might be expected, the new rules are largely modular so that individual GMs can pick and choose what they want to use.  After all, some of the new rules offer more complexity for the increased realism and not all GMs will want that much more complexity in their game.  I have a feeling that few people will prefer to adopt every single new rule for their game, but few people would also pass up on every single new rule; after giving the book a read-through, most GMs (or players) would likely occupy a middle-ground, wanting to incorporate some but not all of the new material. 

One of the highlights of this book is that whereas specific tactics utilized would often depend on your choice of class in core 4E, all of these new rules are universal.  The one caveat is that characters without a strong basic attack are penalized by making some of the more attractive options virtually non-existent, so I would highly recommend giving out Melee Training for free, and possibly creating a similar house-rule that opens more classes up to Ranged Basic Attacks as well.  By using this book you're already houseruling:  you might as well ensure that you're being egalitarian about it. 

As a final note I'd like to point out that while these new rules were designed to work with D&D 4E, and like the base system rely heavily on a battle grid, many of the new concepts can be applicable to other systems (even those employing a theater-of-the-mind combat style).  Indeed, there are a few concepts that I found myself eagerly trying to mentally squeeze into the rules for drastically different systems, and it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to tweak your favorites to apply to your system of choice.  Some of the new concepts are different from anything I've yet seen in tabletop RPGs, which is pretty exciting!

The New Battle Grid
This chapter is obviously dependent on grid-based play, and is arguably the most "independent" of the new concepts that the book introduces.  What this chapter does is make the representation of the game world on a battle grid more closely resemble 3rd Edition than 4th Edition D&D.  Instead of square fireballs and diagonal movement being equivalent to horizontal movement, these new rules seek to make the grid geometry fit more mathematically smoothly with the imagined world.

Unlike 3rd Edition D&D, which accomplishes this in purely numerical terminology, the Enhanced 4E system references the in-world metric of "paces."  While this is pretty easy to wrap your head around, it does require some mental conversion, especially since it will sometimes be more convenient to measure things in-game using squares, and other times using paces.  How it works is that there's a square-to-paces conversion, with movement across a square's diagonal costing more paces than horizontal movement.  Likewise, even if a burst or blast still technically takes up a square area, a creature must still be specifically within range of the origin in paces.  A creature within the square area but standing in one of the corners is thus not affected. 

Personally, the spatial distortion of standard 4E never bothered me much.  After all, we're all used to the phenomenon in real life even if we aren't aware of it -- a map is a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional object (the earth).  All maps display distortion of some kind, with different map projections minimizing distortion of some variables while sacrificing others (variables include distance, area, shape, and direction).  Think of a world map; the land near the poles appears proportionately larger than the land near the equator than it actually is (compare it to a globe to see for yourself).  Anyways, if you think about standard 4E's simplified grid in the same way it seems a lot more tolerable.  The tradeoff, of course, is for ease and speed of use.  A square is a lot easier to mentally project onto a grid than a more complicated shape like 3E's area effect templates, and likewise counting squares is more quickly resolved than keeping track of how many diagonals you trace on your path and remembering to subtract additional paces. 

Personally, this isn't a chapter I would use because the distortions of standard 4E's simplified measurements don't bother me, and their effect on the speed of play is something that I find extremely valuable.  That said, for those who prefer the 3rd Edition system and/or those whose sense of immersion is strained by 4E's more simplified approach, this chapter is as good a solution as any.  Indeed, the in-world "paces" terminology might be more intuitive than the default 3rd Edition system for some; at the very least there are now 3 options to choose from.  Ultimately, this chapter caters to more simulationist gamers, but that's definitely not a bad thing.  4E already provides the default option for the gamists, and providing an alternative for those who prefer it can only be classified as a good thing. 

Motion States
I personally find the concepts of this chapter to be a little jarring, but I haven't playtested anything in this book, so for all I know they work more fluidly in-play.  Of course the reason why this chapter exists is because the authors found the stop-start movement of the default turn-based paradigm to be jarring, so your mileage may vary.  In a nutshell, the new rules presented here provide the option for creatures to end standard and move actions in which they moved either "in-motion" or "motionless."  In other words, over the course of multiple turns is the character whacking an enemy with his sword as he runs past, or is he running up, taking a few swings while standing toe-to-toe, and then running away? 

The key here is that when in-motion, actions taken by a character will be mechanically influenced by actions previously taken.  Some of the new action types presented later will trigger off of motion state, and creatures in-motion gain facing properties (spatially-based bonuses and penalties) and a "trail" (which influences facing, as well as where you can move later).  Facing squares are an attempt to model the fact that you can't focus your attention on certain areas around you as you're zipping by, and creatively uses the existing rules for concealment and combat advantage for simplicity's sake.  You can also take advantage of your momentum in new ways; you don't provoke OAs for moving into your forward-facing space, you gain a movement bonus, and you can move into your forward-facing square at no cost to make a melee basic attack as a standard action.

Like many of the new rules in this book, what makes motion states interesting is that they're not always the exact right answer.  In standard 4E, for example, it was always a good idea to charge if possible (and especially if you had the "charge package" of feat, item, and power-based buffs to charging).  Because there are no drawbacks, there's really no tactical choice; if you can do it, you should do it.  Your choices really came into play during character-building, which is less interesting.  Being in-motion can give you an advantage over some enemies, but cause you to be vulnerable to others.  And this isn't just because of the flat bonuses and penalties it provides; it may also trigger off-turn actions for both your allies and enemies, to your advantage or inconvenience. 

Off-turn Actions
I've heard the argument many times; the abundance of opportunity actions and immediate actions in 4E bogs down combat.  Does that mean that the addition of a new type of off-turn action will bog down combat even more?  Again, I've not playtested this yet, but I'm going to have to go with "not necessarily."  The key to this is the concept of actions "borrowed" from future turns, tracked by the new "sapped" and "tapped" conditions.  Sapped means you've already used your move action off-turn, and Tapped means you've already used your standard action (they are therefore not available when your real turn comes up).  Effectively you're not gaining any more actions, but rather gaining flexibility in when you can use them.  Again keeping things tactically interesting, both of these conditions also prevent you from flanking (otherwise using an action now would usually be the obvious choice). 

The arguments for this concept are compelling.  You add tactical depth with the question: "is my action more valuable right now, in response to something that someone else did, or later on, on my turn?"  Players pay more attention to the game during other turns because there's always the possibility of having an action being triggered.  Combat flows more realistically and cinematically if creatures can act in response to what you do.  Why should a creature be able to move across the entire battlefield without anyone reacting to it just because it's that creature's "turn?"  Sure, all turns are supposed to happen simultaneously, but it creates some serious suspension of disbelief when the tactical landscape changes because of those actions.  Why should a creature be able to move and then charge, covering 60 feet across open space toward a ranged enemy without risk of being hit by a volley during that movement?  Furthermore, why should such a crazy move actually be advantageous, possibly leading to the ranged enemy being locked down?  Would you run toward someone pointing a bow (or gun) at you? 

The first new action presented in this chapter is Outpace.  Triggered by a creature (ally or enemy) ending a move action in-motion and costing a move action (aka resulting in the Sapped condition), you can move yourself (albeit with some restrictions).  This allows creatures to flee from enemies coming toward them, or to rush out to meet approaching enemies (perhaps to ensure the melee occurs in a more advantageous or less vulnerable position).  The second new action is Interdict, which lets you make a Ranged Basic Attack as a standard action when an enemy completes a move in-motion, and if hit the triggering enemy is slowed, to boot.  A powerful option, and one that speaks to the advantage that ranged attacks would logically have, but was previously absent from the game.

Special Movement
The "Run" action is another one that is tactically boring in 4E; not because using it is obvious, but because it's actually almost never a good idea to use at all.  A heap of penalties for a measly speed bonus that, more often than not, isn't even needed.  The rule has been outright replaced in Enhanced 4E, and to avoid confusion the new action is called Sprint.  It carries similar penalties to being in-motion (and requires that you end in-motion), though it's a bit harsher.  You open yourself up to attack from adjacent enemies (grant CA), suffer concealment penalties even with close and area attacks (though you have no net disadvantage attacking targets in your forward facing square), and have a limited turn radius.  In exchange, you get the speed bonus like the old Run action, you won't provoke OAs from entering and exiting your forward-facing square (if you began the sprint in-motion), and most interestingly you enjoy total concealment against non-adjacent ranged attacks firing perpendicular to your line of movement.  It's tough to hit a moving target! 

Other refinements in this chapter are the Soar and Cruise movement types.  These are basically just updates to the rules for flight speed and vehicles, respectively.  Instead of simply allowing flying creatures to move just like terrestrial creatures - but in 3D! - the Soar rules more realistically model how a flying creature would move, mostly by imposing new restrictions on such movement.  Plus the Hover trait means a whole lot more, now, since flying creatures need to move forward every turn and have a limited turning radius.  If you care for such realism then these rules do a good job, but there's no denying that they add more crunchy complexity for something that usually doesn't come up that often in-play (thus they're not likely to be memorized by anyone).  I've never had a problem with just "winging it" as a GM (pun intended), and having my flying creatures behave in realistic ways similar to these new restrictions.  Much easier to do that in my book, but these new rules are great for simulationists, and they will even provide a good baseline for GMs who would rather improvise to do so in a more consistent manner.  A useful addition even if you won't follow the exact rules to a T.

The new vehicle rules, including the Cruise movement type, utilize the new motion states (moving vehicles are not surprisingly always in-motion).  They also outline various restrictions for turning radius and forced movement.  Perhaps most importantly, a tiered system for acceleration (both positive and negative) is introduced.  Most vehicles can't just start up at top speed from a dead stop (especially something like a horse pulling a carriage!), and Enhanced 4E offers fairly simple mechanics for it.  There are also special in-motion rules for the vehicle's driver, and separate rules for any passengers.  The example figures show a chase scene where a red dragon is pursuing a horse and cart with ranged PCs pelting the dragon from inside the cart.  Some guidelines on using theater-of-the-mind for chase scenes would have been helpful here, as the double move requirement of Cruise along with typically high vehicle speeds would make tracking a course on a battle mat pretty complicated. 

Active Defense and Counter-Offensives
In most games with active defenses a creature simply rolls opposed to the attack instead of having the attack compared with a static number.  This increases variability, but not tactical depth, and many argue that the increased number of rolls slows play down.  That's not how Enhanced 4E does active defense, and it's a good thing, too, with 4E combat already being comparatively slow.

The first concept introduced in this chapter is the "hit point healthy" value.  Basically it's a complicated way of saying that everyone gets 3/4 HP if you want to retain standard combat length while employing the other rules in this chapter.  These other rules tend to allow creatures to reduce incoming damage, or at least give them to option to do so.  You can use HP healthy without the other rules to speed combat up, and you can ignore HP healthy while employing the other rules to draw combat out.  Personally I think HP healthy is filled with a lot of pointless caveats and crunch because they also retain the max HP value and the two relate to each other in odd ways.  As an example, a character who boosts surge value (through feats, items, etc.) would actually reduce his HP healthy value with the standard rules.  Also, characters spend comparatively more time bloodied (which is still half of max HP).  Fortunately, the simple houserule to this houserule is to call 3/4 HP your maximum, and perhaps provide a small boost to surge value (otherwise healing might get too low relative to the game's higher intrinsic damage). 

In order to model a swashbuckling melee with constant movement creatures can make use of the Evade and Press actions.  Evade is an off-turn move action (so you're Sapped) that a creature can make when targeted by an attack that targets AC or Reflex.  You can move half your speed (the first square won't provoke OAs), and you can reduce some of the damage that was taken.  Press, on the other hand, is a minor action taken on your turn.  You can use it to follow an Evading enemy (even if you're not the one whom it's evading from), and it allows you to move half your speed minus one square (along the path that the enemy took).  This is tactically critical, because if you end your press adjacent to the evading enemy you replace its Sapped condition with Tapped.  Hello action denial!  The speed differential ensures that an evading enemy can always move farther than a pressing creature of equal speed, and this has two consequences.  The first is that allies will have to work together to set up Press opportunities for each other (and enemies that don't "take the bait" will give up their Evade, so you're denying actions either way).  The example figures in the book made this look really cool, as it showed the turn-by-turn duel between a Fighter (set up by a Warlord) vs a Hobgoblin on a rope bridge.  The second consequence of relative speeds of Press vs Evade is that faster creatures have a distinct advantage, which is something that is not usually apparent in combat (unless the extra speed is needed to cross some distance).  The example that immediately springs to mind (because I tend to play them a lot) is an Elven Predator Druid.  That speed 8 will allow the Druid to consistently catch up to evading enemies (of speed 7 or less) with the Press action, leading to more independently-generated action denial.  Speed matters more overall, and faster monsters at higher levels will shift the dynamic in interesting ways. 

Much simpler (and seemingly less tactically interesting) is the Brace action.  It's an off-turn standard action that's triggered off of being attacked vs Fort or Will.  A standard action is pretty costly just to reduce some of your incoming damage, and so this action will likely see much less use.  Of course one consequence of this is that Fort and Will attacks become slightly more valuable because the active method of defending against them is more costly.  Similar to the Brace action is Cower, the differences being it's triggered off of taking damage (as opposed to being targeted by an attack).  You can also resist a square of forced movement.  Situational, but good to have in your back pocket I suppose. 

Collapse is a "no action" active defense that you can take if ongoing or automatic damage would drop you.  You're instead left with 1 HP, prone, sapped, and tapped.  The advantages are in not making death saves and potentially goading an enemy into wasting an attack to deal 1 effective point of damage (presumably before an ally heals you up afterwards).  More interesting, however, is that Collapse can be employed by minions, which are often wiped out by auto-damage zones and auras in-play.  Collapse means that they'll be locked down, but they can resume the fight as soon as the source of auto-damage is gone.

Finally, there's Ripost.  Oh, what fun can be had with this action!  It's triggered off of an attack that misses you, and for the price of an off-turn MOVE action you can make a Melee Basic Attack against your attacker.  One interesting interaction is that multi-attacks like Twin Strike are taken down a peg; a Ripost can be taken if ANY individual attack in a power misses.  Twin Strike always gave you double the chance of hitting at least once, but now you double your chances of triggering a Ripost too (and if you miss twice against two different targets you may trigger two!).  This action is the main reason why a "free Melee Training" houserule is a very good idea.  It's also worth noting that the ripost can trigger an Evade action, and the example figures show a dynamic sequence where the Fighter and Hobgoblin are constantly evading, pressing, and riposting each other, to different tactical effect depending on starting position and whether they or their opponent is already sapped or tapped.  It all comes together into a set of organic options that don't boil down to "I use this power."  Not that there's anything wrong with the power system, but it does tend to limit your viable options to what cards you're holding, and in Enhanced 4E that's no longer true.  Besides, if these actions are hacked into a different system without specific powers, the increase in the amount of options might be even more significant. 

Terrain Dimensions
The new rules in this chapter seek to expand the role of terrain in combat, and do so in a very simple way by providing mechanics for adjudicating modifiers.  If the target of an attack has the high ground, your attacks vs Reflex and AC suffer a penalty.  Likewise area and ranged attacks gain a bonus if the target is on low ground or significantly lower ground.  If adjacent to a wall or other type of blocking obstacle a creature has support from it, and enjoys an effective bonus to Fort and Will depending on the size of the supporting object.  Finally, the rules for Precarious Position mean that cliffs and pits aren't always dangerous when you take a fall, but also when you're adjacent to them.  Some of your attention is always focused on not being subject to the adjacent terrain.  Close and melee attacks against such creatures gain a bonus.  Interestingly, occupying difficult terrain counts as being in a Precarious Position.  That's cool, since powers that generate difficult terrain tend to be on the weak side (though there are some notable exceptions), and this is a nice buff.

Dramatic Direction
Before I got to this chapter I thought that I had a pretty good sense of what this book offered, but boy was I surprised!  Dramatic direction is more or less a new system for adjudicating initiative, and it's one that places fluidity and narrative flow at the forefront.  It opens by describing two fight sequences from a hypothetical movie, scene by scene.  Warrior swings sword, cut to opponent blocking, cut to warrior getting knocked onto the ground, etc.  While there are exceptions to the pattern in most movies (usually used to create suspense), the general idea is that related scenes should follow one-another to preserve the causal relationships between them.  Which doesn't happen in most turn-based RPGs where initiative is either determined by a die roll, or with all PCs going together and then all NPCs going together.  To illustrate how such a structure would look if applied to a movie the individual scenes from the two different fight sequences were then mish-mashed together.  While chronologically accurate perhaps, one can imagine getting a headache trying to make sense of everything if actually watching it.

Ok, so movies and RPGs are different, but it's not so crazy to strive for similar presentation between the two mediums.  The Enhanced 4E argument is that dramatic tension is lost when an enemy responds to an attack on his randomly-determined turn, in which 10 minutes of real-time may have passed.  Even more off-putting are the effects that initiative order can sometimes have that strain suspension of disbelief.  The example used (and a very good one at that) is a knight getting knocked off of his mount, and then because his turn arrives before the mount's he stands up from prone, remounts, and continues on as if nothing major happened.  But the model fails to depict the game world here; that horse should be dozens of feet away before the knight can even get to his feet, and he's going to have to deal with the consequences of being dismounted, even if the horse turns back for him.

To solve these problems, mechanics for assigning priority in the initiative are provided.  Initiative is still rolled and is still important for determining who will act first in the encounter, but the exact order will frequently be altered in order to preserve the narrative flow. 

The first "cue" is Called to Action.  If you're targeted by a close, melee, or grab attack and you haven't acted yet, your turn will occur immediately after your attacker's.  This will tend to clump the action into spatially (and narratively) relevant groups.  Fighter rushes up to the goblin shaman, you immediately see how that shaman responds.  Cause and effect.  That section of the battlefield is resolved, move onto another set of opponents.  It certainly makes sense to me.  As a GM I don't enjoy taking the unrelated turns of a group of enemies in rapid-fire succession (goblins 1 and 2 are attacking the warlord, goblin 3 is heading over toward the wizard, and goblin 4 is going to continue to attack the fighter, etc.).  I'm not picturing the action very well when I do this (and the same probably goes for my players); rather I'm just trying to get all of these turns over with as fast as possible to keep the PCs engaged.  Why break the action up into fragments of scenes if you don't have to?  You're trying to tell a story here!

Keep Rolling is a dramatic direction that places creatures that are in-motion at the top of the initiative order.  Such creatures haven't completed their full, in-game action; their scene isn't "finished."  It makes most dramatic sense to resolve that scene (which is implicitly action-charged) as soon as possible.  It also makes sense to establish what's going on with a vehicle during the current round before having its passengers take their turns.  You could also argue that their momentum gives them a physical, in-world "edge," putting them where they want to be slightly faster than those who are motionless.

Finally, creatures that are immobilized or knocked prone are Held in Suspense.  This neatly solves the "knight falls off his mount" conundrum.  If you haven't taken your turn yet, you move to the top of the initiative for the next round.  Why not the bottom of the current round?  Because the Keep Rolling rule allows creatures in-motion to take priority, moving to the top of the initiative AFTER you've been placed there.  Prioritizing the initiative this way models the fact that if you've been knocked to the ground while others continue to move, they're going to gain some distance on you.  Initiative order shouldn't serve as a loophole to get around that.

So is the book worth picking up?  I'd say definitely, yes.  While it would seem to target an extremely niche market (players of D&D 4E, an edition soon-to-be-replaced, who want more tactical complexity from an already tactically-complex game), it does hold a wider appeal to more than just that niche.  While the book is explicitly a set of house rules for 4E specifically, what I found most interesting were the game-design implications of its more novel concepts.  Dramatic directions make so much sense I'm surprised I haven't encountered them before.  They show that you can make this small tweak to a fairly minor mechanic (initiative) in order to create a specific style of play (more cinematic and consistent action sequences).  Add to this the freedom that the new off-turn actions allow and you're no longer constrained by the restrictions of turns and initiative order, despite the fact that you're not abandoning those systems (which exist to give the game structure and actually make it playable).  The additional rules complexity seems to be minimal, and the way in which combatants organically respond to each other is a huge reward, providing access to a whole new style of play.  The chapter on active defenses illustrates new ways in which both PCs and monsters can gain control over their defensive stability vs offensive output, and the discussion of these options relative to HP healthy values provides a good starting point for GMs to start thinking about how they can alter the speed of combat and lethality in their games.

With D&D Next (5th Edition) on the horizon, it's also nice to know that third-party publishers can still breathe life into 4th Edition, perhaps even after WotC stops supporting the system.  Indeed, I'd argue that the fresh and drastically different perspective offered in this book is a much better addition to the game than a lot of the official WotC stuff (how many "X Power" or "Adventurer's Vault" style books do we really need?). 

As I was going through the book, I kept the possibility of system conversions ever-present in my mind.  Lately I've been drawn more and more toward 13th Age and somewhat away from D&D, and so it was often the consequences of using these rules with that system that occupied my thoughts.  Despite it being theater-of-the-mind by default, many of the concepts of Enhanced 4E can be distilled down, tweaked, and applied to 13th Age.  In theory, at least (the caveat is that I haven't playtested these rules, nor have I even played 13th Age yet for temporary lack of a gaming group!).  Still, it illustrates an important point because 13th Age is rules-light, somewhat freeform, fast-paced, and gridless (all things that 4E is not).  Indeed, new tactical modules might be even more attractive for such a system since its burden of complexity is already low enough that new options would be unlikely to push it over the edge. 

Ultimately, the biggest strength of tabletop RPGs is that they can greatly facilitate the ability to match the game and its rules to the group.  In other words, they let you play the game that you want to play.  A book packed with so many novel concepts can therefore be a great font for new ideas.  Combat In Motion offers a new perspective, and one that will get you thinking about how to best run the game you want to play.