On Improvisational Stunt Systems

I've been thinking a lot about improvisational actions in tabletop RPG combat lately.  I suppose it was initially triggered by arguments during the early D&D Next playtest process, specifically over the issue of simple vs complex mechanics.  Some favored a minimalist, "old school" rule set because you're forced to get narratively creative to do things in the game world since you can't fall back on "I use X skill," or "I use my ____ power."  Furthermore, complex and tactical rule sets can actively discourage this type of thinking because the existence of a feat/power/whatever that says you can do X means that characters without that thing CAN'T do the action.  In other words, it has "No" built into the system, which runs counter to the "Yes, and..." philosophy of many modern RPGs.  Kind of ironic, since old school D&D came out on the side of the modern "Yes, and...".

The thing is, though, that I like tactical games too.  I'm also not convinced that the two philosophies are mutually exclusive, and playing 13th Age has taught me that.  And so I will examine the influence that several game systems have had on my thoughts on the matter, and hopefully will arrive at some generic principles that can be applied to most any system to allow a more improvisational style of play.

Savage Worlds

I'll admit that I've never actually played the system, but I have the Deluxe Explorer's Edition and I've read enough forum threads to have a good idea for how the system plays.  Granted I don't like everything about the system, but I can't help but appreciate the elegance of the Combat Survival Guide.  There are just so many ways that so many different types of characters (including non-combat types) can contribute toward taking down a foe, and everything's on one very simple reference page.

It should be noted that the system is very streamlined, and small modifiers make a big difference because of how the core dice mechanic works.  Turns also go really fast, and there isn't any HP so stunting an enemy to make him easier to hit later will be much more effective than attacking for a non-so-solid hit.

Ultimately, the system works well because it's simple and generic.  "Agility Trick" covers everything from throwing sand in someone's face, to a wild flurry of sword strikes that tire the foe or leave him open without any intent of hitting him, to running toward a wall while being pursued and then jumping off of it, flipping over the foe's back at the last minute to leave him off balance and facing the wall.  The sky is the limit in terms of the narrative.

Pathfinder/D&D 3.x

Now, for a completely diametrically opposed rules set.  This is an important system to cover because of its sheer popularity, and the fact that many gamers cut their teeth on it (myself included).  Thanks to the SRD, it's extremely easy to get into it, and there are a lot of other games that use the basic d20 system (all the same arguments apply).

In Pathfinder/3.x, you have a HUGE list of feats (a prolific amount of splatbooks doesn't help here), and so there's effectively a HUGE list of "you can't do that unless you have this feat" restrictions.  It's also a very rules-heavy, fiddly system that strives toward simulationism (though it often falls short, especially compared with the "common sense" approach of a more narrative system).  There are very specific and complicated rules for grappling, tripping, sundering, etc.  In other words, the basis for stunts.  The problem is that the baseline options for these stunts are extremely poor choices.  You give up your attack to do them, the roll is heavily penalized, and there's often a risk of taking opportunity attacks on top of that.  The designers might as well have just saved the page space and just wrote "don't do any of this."

Except, of course, for the feats.  There are feat chains that modify these options, but with feats being such a limited resource (and a grab bag of EVERYTHING, from attack/damage bonuses to new options to knowing new languages) it's a pretty big deal to specialize in these "stunts."  A melee character can be a grappling master, or a tripping master, sure, but then it becomes a non-choice essentially.  Since he's spent so many character resources into that thing he'd damn well better press his "trip" or "grapple" button as much as possible, as opposed to thinking creatively in terms of what's going on in the game world.  If he does think creatively and tries something off-the-wall (that he hasn't invested feat support in) he's less likely to succeed.

That is a fundamental failure of any stunt system.  The whole point is to make meaningful decisions in the moment, based on the fiction.  For example: Oh, this guy's wearing really heavy armor with a big visor on his helm, so that means if I dart around, keep moving, and try to stay out of his field of vision I should gain some kind of advantage.  Maybe he'll tire himself trying to chase me, or simply be less able to hit me, or maybe I'll try to maneuver him into a position so that I can take advantage of the environment.  This kind of stuff would happen all the time in Savage Worlds, but it just never comes up in a PF/3.x game.  Rather, you're reduced to your "auto-choices" of flank to better hit him, and then use whatever toys you've specialized in to wear him down.  Creativity is actively discouraged by default, but that's not to say that it has to be that way.  The precedent set by other d20 games may provide insight into house rules that can be adapted to the system.

D&D 4E

In some ways the system fails just as much as PF/3.5 in terms of providing an improvisational stunt system.  While a unified power structure did wonders for ensuring that all classes were balanced and everyone had interested options, the game still usually devolved into "button mashing" in the same way that PF/3.5 did.  Fights mostly involved choosing whichever power would work best in any given round.  Now, the good news is that choosing powers wasn't a resource sink that could have been spent on something else; it was its own little resource pool, and everyone got a good number of interesting, tactically meaningful choices.

Furthermore, the flavor of a given power was often extremely mutable.  4E was written in a very clear "technical writing" style that defined the game mechanics that were being used.  Those mechanics were intentionally more streamlined than PF/3.x so that the focus would be on the narrative rather than the fiddly rules.  Instead of 5 flavors of "sickened," "dazed," or "afraid" 4E would me inclined to lump everything like that under "Dazed."  Seriously, whereas PF has 3 pages of extremely tiny (8 point font?) text in "wall" format of conditions, 4E has a single page of larger-font, stat-block-style conditions with bullet points.  Having very specific conditions is limiting, whereas having a broad mechanic that can be interpreted multiple ways opens the door for narrative "stunting."

Unfortunately, the devil's in the details.  You're still just picking from a list even if you're doing something different in the game world each time you use the power, but worse is the fact that the long combats, the large amount of powers available, and the tactical complexity means that there's often not time to think about combat in terms of the narrative.  Most of the time players just say "I use X power" and call it a day (and fights still take forever).  Granted there's also a table in the DMG (the infamous "Page 42") that provides a baseline for improvisational actions, but a) the effects are inferior to most powers (though not to the extent that the baseline PF/3.x maneuvers were), and b) at mid to high levels most players can get overwhelmed with the sheer number of options their character has, let alone trying to think "outside the box," as it were.


13th Age

Ah, 13th Age.  The beauty of this system (which is technically a d20 system but uses a lot of narrative indie-game mechanics) is that it's streamlined even further than 4E, and less tactically complex.  On top of that, it also has extremely transparent math, sidebars discussing the designer's intents and/or disagreements, and encourages improvisation and house-ruling.

But for all that there's no codified stunt system.

Individual classes do have options that grant them improvisational carte-blanche.  We'll examine the Rogue's, which is the Swashbuckle talent, because it hints at unwritten general stunt rules.  Swashbuckle basically boils down to "do a fun stunt, and you'll probably want to make an attack as part of it."  Like 4E (and unlike PF/3.x) you're not given up your attack, but rather adding a "rider" on top of it.  Unlike 4E the rider is whatever makes sense given your description.  Interestingly, the last paragraph reads "Of course, 13th Age is a game where everyone might attempt stunts like this at some point.  But you're the swashbuckler who is prone to automatically succeeding, often, instead of needing a difficult skill check to pull the stunt off."

Unfortunately, the core book has no guidelines on how to implement such a skill-based stunt system in combat.

I eventually settled on houseruling it like this:

1. Make a skill check as a quick action.  DC could be for the environment, or the foe's PD/MD.
2. If you succeed, you can tack on an improvisational effect on your next attack appropriate to the stunt's narrative description.
3. If you fail, the opponent gets an opportunity attack.
4. If you're feeling really cautious, you can roll the skill check as a standard action instead of a quick action, giving up your attack but avoiding the risk for an opportunity attack.

Then I stumbled on the Gamble! system on the Thought Crime blog.  It's similar to how I've been doing 13th Age stunts, but it's presented a little differently and I think the "Gamble!" title is really catchy.  It also hearkens back to the "Mephistophelean style of GMing" that designer Rob Heinsoo is noted for.  I'll probably end up tweaking the basics of Gamble!, keeping it generic but perhaps adding a few more Risks and merging it with my own stunt system that uses Quick actions to tack riders onto attacks (reserving standard actions for more powerful effects, like the Massive Attack and Increase Momentum).  Hopefully look for that in a future post!

Edge of the Empire

I'll end how I started, by discussing a non-d20 system to illustrate how different core mechanics can be more or less improvisational friendly out of the gate.

EotE is a huge divergence from your classic d20 experience because not only does it use a dice pool system, but it employs narrative dice.  The faces have no numbers, but rather different combinations of success and failure symbols (which cancel each other out), advantage and threat (which cancel each other out and add additional effects, positive or negative, independent of success), and Triumph and Despair (rare symbols that don't cancel, an indicate something REALLY good or REALLY bad).

Like Savage Worlds, combat rounds tend to move quickly so it's less of a big deal to give up your attack in order to do something else.  It's also really easy to represent different effects and circumstances by simply adding, upgrading, or removing dice from the dice pool.

Each roll results in improvisation and interpretation of the results because there are so many possible combinations and variations of outcomes (which can be generally grouped as success, failure, success with complications, success with additional benefits, failure with complications, and failure with benefits).  In some ways, an improvisational stunt system is inexorably entwined into the core mechanic.

Conclusions

Obviously something like Edge of the Empire's core mechanics are pretty impossible to introduce into other systems without a massive re-write of the rules.  But the effects on gameplay are certainly valuable to keep in mind, as they can probably be achieved in other ways.  I'll certainly be keeping this in mind as I play more EotE.

Savage Worlds is a good model to use in 13th Age, as both are narrative-centric (add whatever "trappings" onto the mechanics) games with intentionally streamlined systems designed for ease-of-use.  They're very different systems, of course, but they do have those common themes.  Even though I've never run or played Savage Worlds, its rules have certainly influenced by own stunt system, and I can see the influence in the Gamble! system as well.

By adopting some principles from Savage Worlds into 13th Age, 13th Age may serve as a "bridge" for incorporating some of these mechanics into a more traditional d20 game like D&D 4E or Pathfinder.  I'm going to be playing in a Pathfinder game soon, after having sworn off 3.x and its ilk in favor of less fiddly systems.  Mostly because the group still wants to play Pathfinder (I'll never DM it, though), and because the DM is looking to incorporate some 13th Age mechanics into the game (definitely One Unique Thing, and ED and Icons are likely as well).  It intrigues me, and I'm curious whether those additions will make Pathfinder more palatable to me.  Perhaps once I re-familiarize myself with its rules I can begin to adapt some form of improvised stunts rules to the system.

Making Sense of the Argument: "It's Like an MMO!"

Yes, this is a common subject in the infamous Edition Wars.  No, I'm not trying to throw flames in that fire.  I'm merely going to examine the argument, hopefully in a logical, organized, and objective fashion, because to be honest I've never been able to wrap my head around this criticism (of 4E).  Hopefully writing it all out will help.

What Makes an MMO an MMO?
The first thing that needs defining is MMORPG (Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game).  Next, we need to ask:  What is the core of the MMO experience?  This one's tough for me, because I've never been able to get into MMOs.  I love The Guild to death, and I did try a free trial of WoW a few years back so I'm not flying totally blind here.  The experience of actually playing just leaves me dry, though.  While that may be a subjective point, the "why" of it is not.  Here's a list of MMO "characteristics" (subject to refinement), with the reasoning for my subjective opinion at the top.

1. Your actions, and the plot, are inherently restricted.  There isn't a GM at the helm to adjudicate the crazy "off-rails" stuff you attempt.  All of your options are coded in.
2. Character-building is a mini-game.  It's all about your character's stats and what spells/powers/whatever you choose.  It has to be, because there's no incentive to create backstories, motivations, etc.
3. The goal of the game is advancement.  Why do you fight things?  To get to the next level.  To get better stats.
4. A subset of the previous point, there's an equipment treadmill.  You need to keep getting better and better treasure.  Accumulating this treasure is part of point 3 above.
5. Zooming from the individual scale, we reach the "multiplayer" component.  Party building is a big deal.  Everyone has a job, and the group is designed by recruiting characters of a certain role.  They are expected to perform that role on raids.  Generally speaking, you've got DPS (damage per round, the heavy hitters), tanks (the guys who can take hits), healers, crowd control, and potentially buffers/debuffers (arguably a sub-set of crowd control and/or a side job for the healer).

That sounds good for now.

Remember Your History!
So this is a point that bears mentioning early on, and deserves its own subheading, and should be kept in mind throughout this whole exercise.  MMOs are a derivative of fantasy tabletop RPGs.  D&D came first.  An argument can be made, therefore, that the whole topic of this post is moot.  It is MMOs that are like D&D, not the other way around!

While I personally find a lot of truth in that statement, I'll add in some grey area for good measure.  MMOs are an offshoot of D&D.  The very existence of editions means that the game is constantly evolving, and MMOs are one of the forms that it's taken.  Many of the advancements made in MMOs naturally serve to tailor the experience to the electronic medium.  Therefore, iterations of a tabletop game like D&D can certainly incorporate elements from MMOs.  Tabletop games borrow ideas from each other all the time, and this is no different.

4E = MMO!
This is where the arguments started, as far as I know.  Others have covered this better than I plan to.  For my purposes, I'll simply refer back to my initial list of MMO characteristics.

1. Your actions, and the plot, are inherently restricted.  There isn't a GM at the helm to adjudicate the crazy "off-rails" stuff you attempt.  All of your options are coded in.  There is no edition of any tabletop RPG that this will be largely true for.  But there will always be a little truth here, because a game has rules.  Rules define and restrict to a degree.  This isn't free-form storytelling.  For 4E in particular, players often instinctively turn to the options presented on their cards (or power stat blocks).  I've heard of this "picking powers from a list" being likened to "pressing buttons," but if that's true then the same can be said for any game with a list of options.  Perhaps it plays more true in 4E when players stick to the cards, which are very efficient at mechanically defining exactly what happens.  Still, the option for improvising is inherently present, and advice from the DMG (including the infamous page 42) combined with VERY transparent math allows DMs to adjudicate fairly.  The key is to make things equivalent to an option from a power.  I get the sense that many 4E DMs don't do this well enough.  Work on it.  The game's already pretty low-prep from the DM side of things.
2. Character-building is a mini-game.  It's all about your character's stats and what spells/powers/whatever you choose.  It has to be, because there's no incentive to create backstories, motivations, etc.  Characters will exist in the DM's world, and if the players want a roleplaying experience then characters will certainly be more than just stats.  That said, the tactical nature of 4E combat does encourage playing around with different combinations of options and making sure you have the proper tools.  Conversely, the dynamic nature of 4E's tactical combat means that the specifics of the decisions you make matter.  You can get creative with whatever tools you have, especially working with fellow PCs, to make any combination interesting.  There's a lot of room for creativity here, MUCH more so than an MMO or even previous editions of D&D.
3. The goal of the game is advancement.  Why do you fight things?  To get to the next level.  To get better stats.  This is going to vary by group, just as it always has.  With 4E specifically, the power gap between poorly built and optimized characters is smaller than it has been in the past.  Classes are designed with parity in mind, so your choices in-game matter more than your raw numbers.  The fact that you have access to the core abilities of the class starting at level 1 also suggests that advancement isn't the focus.
4. A subset of the previous point, there's an equipment treadmill.  You need to keep getting better and better treasure.  Accumulating this treasure is part of point 3 above.  The equipment treadmill is one of my biggest criticisms of 4E.  Magic items are expected for advancement, and I find that restrictive as a DM and a player.  Fortunately, the DMG2 offers Inherent Bonuses, so this "problem" could be patched for groups that prefer a different style. 
5. Zooming from the individual scale, we reach the "multiplayer" component.  Party building is a big deal.  Everyone has a job, and the group is designed by recruiting characters of a certain role.  They are expected to perform that role on raids.  Generally speaking, you've got DPS (damage per round, the heavy hitters), tanks (the guys who can take hits), healers, crowd control, and potentially buffers/debuffers (arguably a sub-set of crowd control and/or a side job for the healer).  Here's where 4E gets the most flak, and it's primarily because the roles are very well-defined.  But the thing is, all classes have 1-3 secondary roles so gaps can be filled, making party composition LESS important.  Everyone is fairly sturdy (no Wizards with d4 HP!) and have access to defensive options so the tank isn't "needed."  Everyone can deal damage, even while doing other things such as healing, so DPR isn't "required."  The tactical nature of combat gives everyone access to status effects so you can get by without a controller.  Finally, not only do you not need a Cleric because there are other classes in the leader role, but you don't even really need a healer thanks to the healing surge mechanic, second wind, and fairly common access to self-healing or off-healing abilities.  Different group compositions will definitely play differently (a group of strikers will favor fast, swingy, guerrilla type combats whereas a group of defenders might win through attrition, and a group with a lot of control ability might shut down the enemy to near-uselessness).  You don't really have to consciously build the party; you can make it work regardless of what everyone brings to the table.  That said, it's always nice to know what your party will lack so that you can plan to shore up those shortcomings with your own character.

3.0/3.5/3.75 (Pathfinder) = MMO?
This might come out of left field for some, but hear me out.  It began when I was wrapping up my last 13th Age session.  The group (minus me), which normally plays Pathfinder almost exclusively, all agreed that a party should ALWAYS have a Cleric.  One of the players is especially put off by Recoveries (Healing Surges) because he doesn't want everyone to self-heal; he wants the Cleric to do the healing.  So I'll go over the MMO list with 3.x to see what similarities the two exhibit.

Yeah, I know I said I didn't buy into the "[insert TTRPG] = MMO" argument, and that I didn't want to throw flames into the edition war fire, but I figure if I'm examining 4E for similarities to MMOs I should give 3.x the same treatment (it being the edition that 4E is most commonly compared with, at least in my moderately extensive exposure to the subject on the internet). 

1. Your actions, and the plot, are inherently restricted.  There isn't a GM at the helm to adjudicate the crazy "off-rails" stuff you attempt.  All of your options are coded in.  Again, players will have a substantial amount of freedom since a DM is at the helm.  But how do the rules of 3.x differ from the rules of 4E with regard to restricting options?  Well, for one improvisation itself is restricted more harshly thanks to a greater leaning toward the "rules as physics" approach.  While playing, I was often told (in very different words, of course) "you don't have a button for that."  Sure, I could attempt to trip, bull rush, whatever untrained, but it was so tactically inferior that the options might not even have existed.  By contrast, 4E powers give you a million ways to trip people, most of which involve attack + prone.  Transparent mechanics allow DMs to make fair rulings (with the possibility of "rulings over rules" being the biggest strength of tabletop RPGs, after all).  In 3.x the rules are written in a way that basically says "you can't unless x" (x being the improved trip line of feats).  Now, you may be saying that a good DM will create a good experience regardless.  This is true.  But with the tools as presented (there's not even an equivalent of a page 42), 3.x makes it more difficult for players to be creative outside of what is already written on their character sheet, and it makes it much more difficult for GMs to adjudicate it when they try.  Restrictions are more MMO-like, even if the system has less of a "push these buttons" feel.  That was by no means the full picture, but merely an alternative point of view that I haven't seen expressed before.
   
2. Character-building is a mini-game.  It's all about your character's stats and what spells/powers/whatever you choose.  It has to be, because there's no incentive to create backstories, motivations, etc.  With 90% of a martial character's choices being "I full attack," the numbers, feats, etc. used to build the character mean that numbers take just as much precedence as in MMOs.  Unless the DM has made some tweaks, and is really good at making rulings that are roughly equivalent to existing options (tough with the system as presented, but possible).  Again though, a story-driven experience is certainly supported as with any TTRPG.  For spellcasters, the emphasis is placed on having the right tools prepared moreso than making the right choices with what you've chosen.  A difference of style, and notably spell selection is NOT necessarily tied to character creation or leveling (i.e. divine casters have access to the whole list, arcane characters can find new spellbooks/scrolls).  So, uneven resemblance to an MMO?
   
3. The goal of the game is advancement.  Why do you fight things?  To get to the next level.  To get better stats.  Again, depends on the group.  There's no question that 3.x rewards system mastery though, so even if "advancing" isn't a primary goal the characters numbers/feats/skill ranks likely weigh more heavily on the player's mind.  Combined with more "crunchy" rules, 3.x encourages mechanical thinking more than narrative thinking.  I would argue that this is similar to the thinking of an MMO player, but not having extensively played MMOs I can't say for certain.  The biggest similarity between 3.x and an MMO on this front, however, is the tendency for many classes in 3.x to get core abilities at higher levels (thus making advancement a very important thing in the minds of the players).  Wild Shape at 5th level, feats representing distinct new "powers," spellcasting for Paladins and Rangers, etc.  
   
4. A subset of the previous point, there's an equipment treadmill.  You need to keep getting better and better treasure.  Accumulating this treasure is part of point 3 above.  Both 3.x and 4E are bad about requiring equipment for advancement.  With less clear guidelines for encounter building (the CR system is a mess that doesn't always work) it's theoretically tougher for DMs to predictably scale down encounters to account for low magic, but this won't be a problem for experienced DMs.  Newbies might find it problematic, though.  Also, while it's easy enough to implement 4E's system for Inherent Bonuses, as far as I know the option isn't presented in any of the 3.x rulebooks.  Which doesn't mean it's not there, since it's been a while since I've played and I've read very little of the Pathfinder books. 
   
5. Zooming from the individual scale, we reach the "multiplayer" component.  Party building is a big deal.  Everyone has a job, and the group is designed by recruiting characters of a certain role.  They are expected to perform that role on raids.  Generally speaking, you've got DPS (damage per round, the heavy hitters), tanks (the guys who can take hits), healers, crowd control, and potentially buffers/debuffers (arguably a sub-set of crowd control and/or a side job for the healer).  Now we come back to the point that I made at the opening of this section.  Everyone needs a Cleric is the argument that my group made, and if you're playing with the rules as intended that's possibly somewhat accurate.  In practice, a wand of [insert level-appropriate Cure spell here] is really all you need.  Bad game design?  I'd argue yes.  But like an MMO?  It depends on how your group handles the Cleric vs Wand issue.  Regarding other roles, the biggest point that separates 3.x from 4E (and presumably MMOs, though again my experience is very low) is the absence of a true "tank."  3.x characters can be built to take hits, but it's very difficult for them to encourage enemies to attack themselves instead of their squishier allies.  You can play the mobility denial with threatening reach (and enough feats), but there's no marks/defender auras/etc. that punish enemies for attacking the squishies once the distance is closed.  "Tanks" are not sticky or retributive, and are only rarely capable of mobility denial (with the right build).

Conclusions - What All of This Means
Well, I'm honestly back to the "it's a silly argument" stance.  Maybe writing this all out solidified that, though.  The more pertinent argument is good game design vs bad game design, and catering to X style as opposed to Y style.  MMOs are designed to function within an electronic environment, and their design reflects that.  The most important differentiating aspects of TTRPGs are present regardless simply because the DM says so.  I'd argue that 4E gives DMs better tools to adjudicate rulings on the fly, but my experience has been that 3.x DMs and players tend to be very loyal to that system, and are more than content to operate within its confines, viewing its rules as an implied "reality."  In other words, it tends to make rules lawyers happy (though admittedly I've seen 4E be rules-lawyered to death, notably on the Character Optimization threads of the WotC forums).  Which honestly, while it usually goes hand-in-hand with a mechanically-minded thought process like an MMO, is simultaneously nothing like an MMO, which cannot apply its rules to unconventional circumstances (or any circumstances out of combat, at least in my experience). 

The fact that people equate 4E with MMOs is a real phenomenon so it can't be discounted, but I think the more important question to ask is "why?"  To say it "feels" like an MMO isn't enough, because what an MMO feels like to me is sitting in front of a computer by myself, being constrained by the game's programming, which isn't the case for TTRPGs.  Parallels to MMOs can certainly be drawn regardless of edition, but it requires a certain mindset.  An expectation that the experience will be MMO-like. 

It would be much more prudent and constructive to examine the intent behind a specific rule or style that happens to be shared between a given MMO and TTRPG, and to ask what that rule or style accomplishes in those very different media.  Which is beyond the scope of this (already long) post.

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):

"OUT-PACE

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. 

INTERDICT

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.

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.

The Flaws of 4E

I just read some posts from another blog on Why 4E Died and an addendum to the previous post.  More interesting than why the edition had so short a life (which I could care less about; I already have my books and can play 4E in perpetuity) were some of its fundamental flaws.  With many of the recent announcements about 5E being less than hopeful, I've been thinking about tweaking 4E on my own.  Namely, providing universal house rules that fix math issues, paring down the rules into an optional simplified version of the game, reducing option glut and re-balancing certain elements, and completely revamping the Magic Items system.  Some of Kris Hansen's (the author of the above posts) thoughts are relevant.

Powers:  I agree that there is a lot of untapped potential here.  Lately I've wondered if fewer powers with more flexibility might be a good idea (this has already been done with the Hunter (Essentials subclass) Ranger).  Also, options that "build" off of previous powers as you level (like a Great Cleave option that you can use in place of an encounter power), and more at-wills in general.  Also, a system to cover "improvised" actions in a way that's more comparable to powers.  Perhaps reducing power redundancy and/or streamlining the power list for each class.  A huge undertaking, to be sure. 

Races:  Cultural options for different races would have indeed been awesome.  Racial utility powers also came into the game much too late.

Classes:  Some interesting thoughts, but I doubt I'd touch much here.  One thought I've had lately was making the Druid similar to the Berserker, with Wild Shape functioning as an on/off switch to go from a controller to a striker or defender.  I may just homebrew a new subclass for that.

Skills:  Flat out disagree with the author here.  I like the existence of skills, but I'd re-do the mathematical details while keeping the basic skill list (which I find waaayyy more functional than 3.xE's).  In short, I hate the +1/2 level scaling of 4E skills and I'd keep DCs flatter across a character's career with less numerical growth (ideally I'd alter the whole game in such a way, but then I'd have to re-write all of the monsters, and no thanks).

Feats:  Obviously I'd bake in Expertise and Improved Defenses for free, but I'm strongly considering scrapping the feat system altogether.  For a simplified version certainly, but in general I'd probably have to just reduce the importance of feats.  After all, without them multiclassing and hybrids won't work properly.  Still, there's a lot that can be done and I don't think it would take much effort.

Combat:  Disagree with the author a lot here, as I think 4E's style of combat is an intentional feature.  Still, a "simple combat" option would be nice (especially for less important encounters), and I think power/feat/magic item tweaks that I would be making anyways would go a long way toward reducing option paralysis.  In short, I can probably get away with reducing average combat length but I wouldn't go so far as to try to remove the grid.  If you don't want to play with a grid, you probably don't want to be playing 4E.  I see the value in both styles (indeed, it's been refreshing to go gridless in The One Ring). 

Items:  Only barely touched upon here, but I'd make the most drastic changes here.  First, inherent bonuses would be the default, and I'd make my inherent damage bonus (which don't stack with item bonuses) standard.  Magic items would, by default, be reminiscent of 1E when they were uncommon and getting one would be special and mysterious.  I might consider implementing the Magic Item Reset from Square Fireballs.  Too soon to tell.  Also, I might flesh out basic implements a little bit; much like a weapon-user can choose between a +2 or +3 proficiency weapon, I might make Superior Implements selectable by default, with an Accurate Implement being the equivalent of a +3 weapon.

So there you have it.  All of this game-design talk spurred by 5E has really forced me to think about the state of D&D, and I think that a (somewhat) heavily house-ruled 4E that fits the preferences of my own gaming group (and possibly others out there) would be valuable.  4E provided an excellent framework, and it doesn't look like 5E will build on that.  Someone should, and I'd like to at least attempt it.

Further impressions of the Knight

My initial playtest encounters with the Knight went well, but I recently pitted the party against a group of enemies that included 4 highly mobile skirmishers (Thri-Kreen scouts) and 2 brutes with a push on their MBA's (Blackscale Lizardfolk). Against enemies like these, the Knight is virtually helpless.

The Lizardfolk weren't a problem for my Knight, per se, because he's a Dwarf. But any non-Dwarf Knight is extremely susceptible to forced movement, as enemies can push you away from their allies (leaving them out of your aura, utterly preventing you from doing your job). With the traditional marking mechanic even if you were unable to punish enemies too far away to violate your mark, at least they still had the -2 penalty to attack against everyone but you.

The Thri-kreen had an encounter power that lets them jump their speed without provoking OAs. Deathjump spiders are another nasty skirmisher that can do this. Point being, the enemy neither attacked an enemy while in the aura nor shifted, so the punishment mechanic doesn't apply. The movement itself doesn't provoke OAs, so they can basically move wherever they want and the Knight can't stop them. The Scout in my playtest got obliterated when multiple Thri-kreen swarmed him, and he spent about half the fight on the ground dying.

This makes the Knight the swingiest defender I've seen in action. They can be extremely effective, but have a situational weakness that renders them inadequate as a defender.

Balanced Spring Sentinel build

Purpose of this build:
This build is designed to be a versatile, playable leader that focuses mostly on defensive buffing, healing and funneling damage to the companion or a summon, while still packing some offensive punch. Summons serve a double purpose of increasing your damage soaking capabilities (which ultimately prevents damage to the party), while incidentally boosting your DPR in the process.

Damage funneling is accomplished in several ways. 1) The summons chosen provide lockdown capabilities, which set up the summon or companion as the only available target for a monster to attack, 2) Utility powers and your at-will are used to buff melee allies taking advantage of the wolf's aura with AC boosts, invisibility, and THP. Enemies can either attack buffed allies with reduced effectiveness, or attack the unbuffed companion and have damage wasted, and 3) the wolf's CA-granting aura should be enough to incite many enemies to attack it and get rid of the offensive buff, especially if you have allies that can do extra damage with CA (Rogues, Scouts, and Wild Shape Druids).

This build has a respectable amount of healing, especially from Paragon onward. It should be plenty for any party, especially given how much damage prevention is emphasized via buffs, THP, and most importantly the damage-soaking companion and summons. Save-granting ability is fair, with Knack for Success providing some respite in Heroic, and Clear the Chaff being your big-guns, mass save granter/buffer.

You don't actively grant many (if any) offensive buffs, but the wolf's aura is active as long as it's on the field, providing a solid, consistent boost for ally attacks. You also pack more personal offensive power than most leaders thanks to Combined Attack. Your typical nova round looks like this: Standard action: Combined Attack. Action Point: Tending Strike (you can only use Combined Attack 1/turn, despite having multiple uses of it). Instictive Action: whichever summon you have active. Basically, if you have a summon out and use an action point, you're making 4 attacks in a turn, which isn't too shabby at all.

Race: Half-Elf
Class: Druid (Sentinel)
Paragon Path: Spiral Wind's Ally
Season: Spring
Level: 11

I chose Half-Elf because the new racial power offers some leader functionality that otherwise isn't available to low-level Sentinels. Dwarf is also a superb choice, as your companion regains a surge's worth of HP for free when you second wind, which the Dwarf can do as a minor action. The Paragon Path is currently the best option for improving the leadership capabilities of a Druid, offering plenty of additional healing. Spring was chosen because the Wolf's aura provides a good counterbalance to the otherwise highly defensive nature of this build. Obviously the Bear works well for a purely defensive build, but I prefer a more balanced approach. All leaders should contribute to offense in some way.

Ability Scores:

Str-11, Con-21, Dex-14, Int-12, Wis-21, Cha-9

Con and Wis were bumped at each opportunity. Alternatively, you can switch Dex and Int around which reduces your Initiative, but you can qualify for Blade Initiate (Swordmage M/C) which allows you to use heavy and light blades as an implement. Doing so frees up your weapon enchantment for something other than an Alfsair Spear.

Hit Points / Bloodied: 93/46 (12 base + 21 Con + 50 level + 10 Toughness)
Healing Surges: 14 (7 base + 5 Con +2 Durable)
Healing Surge Value: 28 (1/4 HP + 4 Swift Recover +1 Belt of Vigor)

Since you want your animal companion and summons to soak as much damage as possible, you want to make sure that you have enough HP and surges to take that punishment. More importantly, you want your surge value to be as high as possible. This is because when you re-summon your companion after it's been reduced to 0 HP, it comes back with HP equal to your healing surge value. It also gets free HP equal to your healing surge value when you use your second wind, so the higher your surge value the more damage your companion can soak.

Defenses
AC: 27 (10 base +5 level +5 Con +2 enh +3 Hide +1 shield +1 feat)
Fortitude: 24 (10 base +5 level +5 Con +2 class +2 enh)
Reflex: 20 (10 base +5 level +2 Dex +2 enh +1 shield)
Will: 22 (10 base +5 level +5 Wis +2 enh)

Initiative: +7 (+5 level +2 Dex)

Speed: 6

At-Will Powers
Animal Attack
Tending Strike

This build is primarily focused on defensive buffing, so Tending Strike is a natural choice. It's best to buff up melee allies that focus on enemies within your wolf's aura; this way enemies must choose to either attack a buffed PC, or the damage-soaking companion. Either way you're doing your job.

Encounter Powers
Combined Attack x3
Spiral Gust

Combined Attack can't be traded out, so you might as well make the most of it. Focus fire on an enemy that a Summon will use its Instinctive Action on for impressive burst damage for a leader. It'll be your go-to attack when Tending Strike's THP aren't needed. It's also useful for shuffling around your companion's position (Move action: you move adjacent to an enemy, companion shifts. Standard Action: Combined Attack allows companion to move its speed as a free action, and you both attack target).

Daily Powers
1: Summon Pack Wolf
5: Life Blood Harvest
9: Summon Crocodile

The Pack Wolf synergizes extremely well with the Wolf companion, resulting in enemies being locked down (via the Pack Wolf's prone and companion's OA) next to a summon and a companion, both of which you want to funnel attacks onto. The Crocodile works much the same way, only by directly grabbing an enemy and holding it in place (make sure that place is in your Wolf's aura). Life Blood Harvest gives you a nice emergency heal for when your Healing Words and buffing/damage funneling just won't cut it.
Variant 1: Destructive Harvest makes a good alternative to Life Blood Harvest if you find that you don't need the healing all that much (especially true if there's another leader in the party). It's great against solos and elites, as it provides a nice damage buff to allies adjacent to the target. Works particularly well if you have a lot of melee multi-attackers in your party (Rangers, Monks, and Whirling Barbarians).
Variant 2: This is another variant on your level 5 selection. If you want to go with a full summoning theme, and if your party can coordinate to keep enemies from running away, Summon Shadow Ape simultaneously brings a defensive buff, a DPR boost, and damage funneling to the table.

Utility Powers
2: Barkskin
6: Camouflage Cloak
10: Clear the Chaff
F: Swift Recovery (heal)

Barkskin and Camouflage Cloak both provide excellent defense buffs to allies with a minor action. They can both help you funnel damage onto a summon or your companion if you use them on melee allies that are taking advantage of the wolf's aura. Once again, enemies must choose between attacking buffed allies or the annoying wolf that's providing CA. Clear the Chaff is a phenomenal save granter, which by this level is probably going to get plenty of use. Prior to this Knack for Success was the only way you could grant saves.
Variant: If you prefer to have more offensive buffing power, choose Guided Shot (perception) for your skill power, which turns an ally's missed attack against AC into an attack vs Reflex (which will likely hit, if it didn't miss by much initially).

Misc Powers
R: Knack for Success
U: Restore Life

Knack for Success is the major reason why Half Elf was chosen for this build. Because Sentinels get Combined Attack forced on them, they have fewer leader options during combat that other leader classes.

Feats
1: Melee Training (Wis)
2: Versatile Expertise (spear weapon, spear implement)
4: Swift Recovery
6: Skill Power
8: Toughness
10: Durable
11: Armor Specialization (Hide)

Other feats that work well for this build are Improved Defenses, Superior Will, Strong Willed Summoning in late Heroic or early Paragon, and Battlewise if you prefer getting your wolf into position before your allies take their first turn (however, since you don't specialize in offensive buffing or de-buffing, you don't really need to go first as much as some of the more aggressive leaders or your controller counterparts). Blade Initiate is an option if you want to wield something other than an Alfsair Spear, and if you want to focus more on off-striking with Combined Attack then damage boosting feats like Weapon Focus, TWF, etc are useful. Check out Initiate of the Faith (Cleric M/C) if you want an extra Daily heal, though you may want to train it out once the build's healing capabilities start to pick up.


Items
Main-Hand: Alfsair Spear +2 with Siberys Shard of the Mage +1
Off-Hand: Light Shield
Armor: Lifeblood Armor +2
Neck: Healer's Brooch +2
Arms: Iron Armbands of Power
Waist: Belt of Vigor
Companion: Friend's Gift

Lifeblood Armor makes sure that you're buffed with THP at the start of every encounter. You'll need the Alfsair Spear to use both Weapon and Implement attacks. You'll definitely want to use implement attacks, as Summons are much better than most of the weapon-based dailies. The Shard and Iron Armbands keep your damage up to par since Combined Attack pretty much forces you to be an off-striker. Belt of Vigor boosts your surge value, and the Friend's Gift gives your Animal Companion extra HP when you spend a healing surge to have it re-gain HP. This definitely works when you second wind, though it's unclear whether it works when you re-summon. "Doing so causes your animal companion to appear in the nearest unoccupied space, with hit points equal to your healing surge value." IMO it works fine since the companion goes from 0 HP to surge value HP as a direct result of you spending a minor action and a healing surge, but the wording is a little ambiguous.

Essentials Playtest

Long time since I've posted! I guess that'll happen when you've been living in free Forest Service "housing" for several months.

Anyways, I decided to take some of the new builds out for a spin, via a couple of "solitaire" encounters. The party was 6th level, and consisted of a Half-Elf Spring Sentinel, an Elf Scout, a Dwarf Knight, and an Elf Predator Druid (since I know the class well, and I wanted at least one non-essentials PC).

Knight: I'll start with this guy since he was released first in HotFL. It was kind of nice, especially for a solitaire encounter where I was controlling everything, that the mechanics for defending were so simple without compromising effectiveness. The defender aura is more intuitive than marking, and doesn't require minis or tokens to be labeled. Honestly, it was a pain before when multi-marks (from Come and Get it, for example) would end after a turn and I'd have to remember to remove labels so I didn't over-extend marks accidentally. One less thing to book-keep.

Mark punishment was brutal! Since it's an OA instead of an immediate action, you can punish multiple enemies per turn. Plus you benefit from whatever stance is active, and you can make punishment more deadly by using Power Strike with it. Higher level elite brutes usually have no qualms about triggering punishment and soaking the damage to do whatever they want, but when the punishment is enhanced with a stance effect and a Power Strike even they start to think twice! Even with two stances, I found it tactically engaging to juggle them on any given turn. You may want one stance for your standard action attack, but another one might work better with your OAs. Assuming you're already in melee, you can switch stance, attack, and then switch stance back. Both of my stances (Defend the Line and Hammer Hands) were useful for standard action attacks and OAs, albeit under different circumstances. A savvy player could certainly be satisfied with the tactical options that the Knight presents, despite its apparent lack of variety in powers.

I'd like to note that I started the first encounter with Measured Cut, and for the first 2 or 3 rounds found myself wishing that I had Hammer Hands. I basically just stayed in Defend the Line for those rounds, and finally decided "screw it, it's a playtest so I'll trade out stances mid-encounter!" As frequently as Hammer Hands was useful, I actually didn't have much luck with it, though that was purely the fault of the dice. Fortunately the Predator could cover the forced movement whenever the Knight missed, but at the expense of other options.

Sentinel: I was really excited about this build, but the play experience was a little dry. That may have been because the Knight and Scout were so surprisingly fun whereas the Sentinel was pretty much what I expected it would be. I also made some "beginner" mistakes with the positioning of the wolf. Basically, the wolf and Knight didn't play all that well together because there were several occasions where I wanted to use Hammer Hands, but it would have pushed the enemy outside of the wolf's aura. Plus you almost always want the wolf to get attacked since it's such an effective damage sponge, but the Knight's aura basically shut that function down. The wolf should almost always go off to establish a "second front" to attract the rest of the party to a focus-fire bonanza, with the Sentinel either joining it or helping the defender. It's hard to judge with a solitaire experience, but I found that the Sentinel itself didn't get attacked all that much. Obviously they want the pet to take the brunt of attacks, but early to mid encounter it's beneficial give the companion free HP via second wind before it's knocked out. The Sentinel just never took enough damage to justify using a second wind. Perhaps he was hanging around the Knight too much.

I can see new players possibly being unsatisfied with the Sentinel, because it's difficult to appreciate how the companion prevents damage. I also found myself spamming Tending Strike most of the time, and it got to the point where the encounter didn't seem all that dangerous between monsters having to chew through THP and wasting attacks on the companion and summon. Effective, yes, but in a very passive way. In two higher level encounters (with one party member short, no less) I actually only used one Healing Word. I'm guessing that this subtle defense was a major motivating factor for the developers locking this guy into Combined Attack. I must admit it was nice respite from all of that damage prevention. Too bad I missed with the initial attack 3 out of 4 uses of it (at least the wolf always got to hit!).

Overall, the wolf's aura was pretty amazing. There was not a single round in 2 encounters that the Predator and Scout lacked for CA (it also helped that both had Cunning Stalker). The lockdown synergy with Summon Pack Wolf worked brilliantly, and I was almost sad when the monster was finally killed.

Scout: Ever since the first PHB I've wanted a Dex-based melee ranger, though the real disappointment had always been that Twin Strike spamming was so gosh-darn boring. Finally, my wishes have come true, and it doesn't disappoint! Between the Wolf's aura and Cunning Stalker this guy could pretty much do whatever he wanted and count on having CA for it (same goes for the Predator Druid, who had never gotten so much use out of Claw Gloves!). My Aspects were Lurking Spider and Cunning Fox, which was a very fun combination. Can't beat Lurking Spider for straight damage and nova rounds, but I found myself mostly sticking with Cunning Fox. Never have hit and run tactics been so easy and fluid to employ. Let me tell you, Scouts absolutely thrive in parties with a good controller that liberally applies immobilized/restrained/dazed/prone. Speaking of which, World Serpent's Grasp turned the Predator Druid into an absolute beast, especially with the Knight constantly slowing with Defend the Line. Probably another reason why these encounters seemed like cakewalks :)

Scouts may not pack the nova punch of their Two-Blade Style cousins, but they're not too shabby. I picked up the Rogue M/C feat for an encounter use of sneak attack (I literally always have CA, and use a rapier + short sword, so it's kind of a no-brainer). My nova round typically involved charging a lone enemy or an enemy in the wolf's aura (with a vanguard rapier). I'd be in the Lurking Spider stance for the extra damage, and I'd blow a Sneak Attack and a Power Strike, then follow up with a Dual Weapon Strike. Bazinga! Between charging, CA, and using light blades accuracy was not even remotely an issue.

I'm usually not the biggest fan of strikers, and the ones I do like tend to be good secondary controllers (Monks, Rogues, and Warlocks). But skirmishing around with the Scout was a blast! It's certainly not as tactically engaging as a controller or leader, but between bouncing around everywhere and juggling stances there's enough there to keep you entertained. Plus I love the Ranger archetype, so it's nice to finally have my vision of the class realized mechanically.

Looking forward to logging some more time with these guys, particularly some more challenging encounters.

Unifying Controller feature?

In a recent article on the upcoming D&D Essentials line, Mike Mearls notes that a new rules update that will be released with the rules compendium will give Wizards miss effects with their encounter powers. The example that they used was that Burning Hands will now do half damage on a miss (and this seems to be whether or not you're playing the original class or the Essentials version of a Wizard). Personally, I'm really hoping that this change will affect not just Wizards, but all controllers (Druids, Invokers, Psions, and Seekers, as well).

As was brought up in the blog Square Fireballs, this would make for a perfect "controller feature" to unify all of the controller classes, much like all leaders get a minor action 2/enc heal, all defenders mark, and all strikers get bonus damage. Thus far, controllers have fulfilled their role almost solely through their powers. Technically they'd still be doing that with this feature, with the major difference being that their encounter powers simply work fundamentally differently from the encounter powers of other roles. The precedent of powers working differently has already been set with the Psionic classes that use power points (Psion, Ardent, and Battlemind).

Ideally, the miss effects would embody more than just half damage - after all, controllers are typically more about status effects. Half damage would be the easiest blanket errata to implement, but miss effects could also be implement without re-writing every single encounter power. Perhaps effects could be ranked, such that a power that dazes on a hit might slow on a miss. The penalties of debuffs could be halved on a miss. For effects that don't have an obvious "weaker version," a -2 attack penalty could be inflicted (fluff-wise, the enemy was able to shake off the effect but the effort distracted and/or drained them enough to compromise their offense). Or perhaps missed powers with effects could still inflict the original effects, but would instead deal no damage.

Overall though, even just half damage would be pretty nifty, as a controller would be making a positive contribution every time it used an encounter power, guaranteed. Given that controllers tend to have a lot of AoE's, multi-target attacks, and/or "splash damage" attacks, even missing the majority of targets would result in decent total damage spread out over multiple creatures. Plus their ability to destroy minions would be unparalleled, such that a Monk with Five Storms or a Swordmage with Sword Burst could no longer become just as effective a minion sweeper as a controller.

The only concern would be that this type of feature might place controller classes slightly above the power curve, relative to the other roles. Or perhaps I've just gotten used to the balance of power as it currently stands. I still hear plenty of complaints about controllers, even if I personally find them perfectly competitive and sometimes brutally effective.

D&D Essentials classes

I know it's been a long time since I've posted, but with all the buzz surrounding the recent Cleric preview from the upcoming Essentials line I figured I might as well throw in my opinion. The similarity to previous editions, where new class features are gained through leveling, is readily apparent. This is actually one thing I didn't like about 3.x edition (the edition that I started playing; I can't comment on anything earlier), so I'm a little nervous about that. I always felt like certain class features were a big part of the appeal of a given class, and I kind of felt gypped when I didn't start out with them. The Druid's Wild Shape is the perfect example, as a Druid didn't gain that ability until 5th level. Our campaigns generally started at 1st or 3rd level, and were almost always one-shots. A failure of the group, I know, but I was still stuck with playing a Druid that didn't quite feel right (I liked shapeshifting). I know my group couldn't have been the only one that didn't get past low levels very often. After all, everyone likes to get experience with different classes.

The fact that the Druid gets Wild Shape right out of the box, and the Wizard can always cast spells (thanks to the at-will system), etc., were some of the biggest reasons why I was drawn to 4e. So a step backwards to level-dependent class features seems like exactly that-a step backwards. But then again, 4e classes obviously gained different abilities when they leveled; it's just that they were called powers. The main difference being that no one power comprised a huge chunk of a given class's essence, and there were often multiple "versions" of an ability at different levels. Scorching Burst may not be called Fireball, but for all intents and purposes it serves the same thematic purpose. Your Wizard could blast multiple enemies with arcane flame. Perhaps the Essentials class features will feel more like powers (or rituals), in which case I wouldn't mind such a progression.

Another major difference is that different classes will have varying levels of complexity. This is a welcome change, as new players would benefit from simpler classes, but also veteran players who control multiple PCs, for example, but don't want something quite as streamlined as a DMG2 companion character. Besides, the point that's been made about Daily powers on Martial characters not making sense is valid. I can live with it because it makes Fighters, etc much more interesting, but there's an appeal to having the more "realistic" version as well.

This brings me to my final point, on why I think that the Essentials line is overall a very good thing for the system. It adds variety, and has the potential to appeal to more people. This is especially nice in the case of those classes that have original versions and Essentials versions (Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, and Warlock, for now). Say, for example, you really like the Wizard archetype. Now you have 2 different ways to play a Wizard within the same system. This goes beyond having a choice of builds. What the Essentials classes do is give you a different mechanical interpretation of a class. Personally, I'm very interested in how they re-imagine these classes. These new takes on classic classes may appeal more to some people than the original 4th edition version. And the beauty of it is that they don't render the original versions obsolete, because there are invariably going to be people who prefer those versions to the new ones. Personally, I expect that I'd rather play the original Fighter, even if I do recognize that a simplified non-Daily version enhances the game. And given the cross compatibility, and the fact that Essentials versions are free to pick up any class power, including the original ones, it seems like players can even create a class that's a happy medium between the original version and the Essentials version.

As always, more options are good.

PHB3 Skill Powers

First of all, the reason for my recent lack of posts is because I have a seasonal job for the Forest Service, and where I'm living I don't have consistent internet access. Still, I may post something every now and then.

Now on to the subject of the post. I skimmed through the skill powers in the PHB3 and thought "meh." Some looked sort of useful, worth the Skill Power feat but probably not a replacement for a class utility power slot (unless, of course, it's one of the newer classes with fewer power choices, which inevitably leads to levels with no interesting choices). Then I was reading the WotC message board, and someone commented about all the new ways to heal, citing skill powers as one of them. My interest was piqued. I hadn't really read through the powers for Heal, but there are some real gems in there!

Starting as early as level 2, you can get an encounter "let an ally spend a surge" (albeit, a dying ally). At level 6 there's 2 melee range powers, one that lets you or an ally spend a surge, and one that lets an ally second wind without taking an action to do so (the former is a standard action, the latter a minor). At level 10 you can allow an ally to regain second wind. And at level 16 you essentially get the Cleric's CLW (underpowered for its level, but still).

Endurance is even better, at level 10. And immediate reaction to spend a healing surge when you become bloodied! As an encounter power!

So why are these skill powers that facilitate healing so significant? Simply put, it mitigates a role imbalance that has been present in 4e from the outset, namely that the most important role to have in your party is the Leader. Sure, every character has a second wind, but for difficult encounters most parties will need more than that to survive. Now, any character with the Heal (or Endurance) skill can boost the party's (or their own) survivability by trading out their own class Utility powers, or even better, for the price of a feat.

Leaders are still extremely valuable (for buffing, and for easier healing resources), but now most groups will feel less pressured to include a leader in the party just because they feel that they have to (especially since controllers share the responsibility of buffing/debuffing with leaders).

Plus, skill powers obviously make skill choice more meaningful. Heal and Endurance were fairly low priority skills before (at least in my experience), and this makes them more competitive. So in general, while skill powers tend to be slightly underpowered compared to class powers, they can be invaluable in filling gaps in the party, and having the option to either trade out a class Utility or spend a feat (or do both) provides even more options for customization.

Dark Sun Preview Characters

This year's campaign setting is Dark Sun, and CriticalHits.com has posted up the sample characters (from DnD Experience, I believe). Now I've never really followed Dark Sun, but I've got to admit that after this it's piqued my interest more than the 4e incarnations of Forgotten Realms or Eberron have. It seems that Dark Sun won't offer any new classes, but it does introduce the Sorcer-King Pact Warlock (setting-specific fluff) and the Animist Shaman.

On top of this, players also get to choose a "theme" for their characters, which is basically just a way of further individualizing them. The themes from the previews are Gladiator (the Fighter and Barbarian), Veiled Alliance (Wizard), Templar (Warlock), Wilder (Battlemind), and Elemental Priest (Shaman). As far as I can tell the only benefit of a theme is that it grants an encounter power, which, don't get me wrong, is a great benefit! Gives 1st level characters an additional option. What I like most about these themes is that allows for greater specialization. For example, going with just the PHB you can make a one handed or two handed weapon Fighter. Martial Power introduced Tempest Fighter and Battlerager (which are more distinct fighting styles than simply weapon choice), Martial Power 2 is adding even more craziness (the Brawler Build is what we know of), and now you can add a theme too (well, not exactly "now," as Dark Sun won't be released until August). So a Fighter that started out as just a 2 Handed Weapon Talent Fighter may have been updated as a Battlerager after MP2 because it fit the player's concept better, and now that Battlerager could even pick up a theme (Gladiator, for example). Essentially, I like how it makes the character "imagination" process a bit more immersive.

Dark Sun also introduces 2 new races, the Thri-Kreen (essentially big Psionnic Mantids) and the Mul (Half-Dwarves). The Thri-Kreen is another Dex/Wis race, which apparently even has a speed 7, making it very similar to the Elf. Instead of sleeping, it goes into a Torpor (mechanically, this is like an Eladrin or a Drow's Trance), and once per turn it can draw or sheathe an item/weapon as a free action (multiple arms). The Racial Power is a Melee 1 attack that targets 1, 2, or 3 creatures for damage (the Thri-Kreen essentially mauls the hell out of everyone with its claws). Definitely a solid race (it helps that Dex/Wis are useful stat bumps), but the Elf is still the king of the Dex/Wis races; Wild Step and Elven Accuracy are just too darn impressive to be overshadowed by a racial Quick Draw and a melee attack racial power.

It's not really clear how the Mul works, as it doesn't have a racial encounter power. A Twitter message hints that they have some sort of resistance/save bonus against status effects though. Also, they do get flexible stat bumps: Con and either Str or Wis. They possibly get a bonus healing surge (though these preview characters are notorious for having typos), and they have an ability called Tireless, which basically means that they only have to sleep every 72 hours (they still benefit from extended rests that the party takes, but it basically means that they can stay up all night 2 out of every 3 nights on watch).

Interesting stuff! The only other detail that caught my eye was a new Shaman At-Will, Spirit Infusion. Fluff-wise, your Spirit Companion (SC) possesses an ally and attacks through their body. Mechanically, your SC disappears and the target (ally) with a +2 bonus to the attack roll! Plus with your SC disappearing as part of your standard action, and calling it back is a free action with Sudden Call, re-positioning the SC will be easier than ever! Overall an excellent "grant a friend a free attack" at-will, with by far the best fluff of the bunch!

Other recent news, the 4th PHB3 race has been leaked, and it's called the Shardmind. Pretty much crystalline humanoids. Uhhh, kinda lame but whatever. The 6th class has also been leaked (as well as the mechanics for the Battlemind, which I'm not impressed with): it's a Divine leader called the Runepriest. Seems different enough from the Cleric too! It's a melee leader that can switch between different "Rune States," the two known being "destruction" and "protection." Essentially, depending on which Rune State you're in, your powers will provide either an offensive or a defensive buff. So instead of choosing between offensive and defensive powers, you get both with every power you choose (and it sounds like you can switch Rune States each time you use a power). So a melee leader with a strong focus on buffing, and great flexibility between offensive and defensive buffs. What do you know, it fills it's own niche! Sounds much more fun than a Cleric too, IMO (the flavor just screams Dwarf to me). I'll bet it's not a very good healer, but that's what Clerics are for!

Druid CharOp Guide

So I'm finally writing my own Optimization guide for Druids on the WotC forums: Master of Forms, Storms, and Swarms: A Druid Handbook. So far this has been even more time consuming than my Controlling 101 guide, so it's still not finished yet.

Advice on Playing the Controller Role

I have a guide on the WotC forums called Controlling 101. It highlights what the controller classes bring to the table, and how to best utilize their abilities tactically. Not much else to say about it; check it out!

The Ardent: A Theoretical Fix

I'll ignore, for now, the conceptual problem that I have with the Ardent (namely, the disjunct between its flavor as a "mood reader," or empath, and its mechanics as an exclusively weapon-wielding melee class). Fixing this would be an undertaking far too large for me to attempt, seeing as it would require a complete re-working of the powers to accomodate ranged implement psychic attacks, and wouldn't see publication anyways. So I'll grudgingly make my peace with the fact that there's very little in the mechanics that reflect the flavor well.

This leaves the AC problem. I'm assuming that the Ardent is going to be published as-is, so there's really no option for giving them shield proficiency out of the box. Pity, as that would have been a simple solution and provided an incentive for Ardents to wield something other than a polearm. This leaves a feat patch as a solution. There's precedent for feat patches (see Expertise feats), and there are also existing feats that serve as de-facto patches to compensate for design flaws (Chainmail Proficiency for Con Shamans). Sure, Scale proficiency or Light Shield proficiency could be taken to patch the Ardent's AC, but both require 13 Str and Scale requires 13 Con as well. So as it stands, improving the Ardent's AC exacerbates the inferiority of the class, as it requires a more MAD build. Thus, a new feat is in order.

Quell Savagery
Prerequisite: Ardent Mantle
If your off hand is free, you gain a +2 feat bonus to AC against all attacks originating from within your Ardent Mantle.

I'm assuming that the Ardent MC feat doesn't grant the Ardent Mantle class feature, so there shouldn't be any cheese with other classes stacking the bonus on top of their already respectable AC. Fluffwise, it fits the concept of an empath in that as an enemy is attacking, the Ardent projects a pulse of emotion into their mind to suppress their volatile temperament, reducing the efficacy of the attack. It also makes further use of the Mantle, which seems to be the Ardent's defining feature.

By going the Swordmage Warding route and requiring a free hand, deciding between a two handed weapon (likely a polearm) and a one-handed weapon is now a meaningful choice. The reason why I made the AC bump +2 instead of +1 was because A) +1 AC may not have been a good enough incentive for an Ardent to dump the polearm, and B) since Ardents should have gotten light shield prof. anyways, a +2 bonus represents the same investment that a Warlord would make to get heavy shield proficiency (1 feat, with the Str prerequisite being irrelevant for a Warlord).

Furthermore, there are tradeoffs that don't make it strictly superior to getting shield/armor proficiencies. In the case of Quell Savagery vs. lt. shield proficiency, the shield nets you a +1 to AC and Reflex, but requires a 13 Str. Quell Savagery gets you a higher AC bonus and doesn't require a Str investment, but it doesn't improve your Reflex and only applies to attacks originating within your Mantle (leaving you more open to ranged attacks). In comparison to Scale Armor proficiency, Scale would get rid of the armor check penalty that the Ardent keeps if he/she remains in Chain (with Quell Savagery). Furthermore, Scale may be attractive in that it offers enchantments not available to Chain (but once again, requires a Str and Con investment).

Overall, while I'm not a fan of "feat taxes" I'd rather have an option like Quell Savagery than requiring a class to become too MAD to fix an AC that's simply insufficient for a front line leader (and secondary defender, to boot). This way, a Mantle of Clarity Ardent can invest stat points in Cha and Wis and then choose to bump either Reflex (and possibly initiative) or Fortitude (and possibly surges) without being pressured into putting points in Str or wielding a polearm. This is especially important since new players might not see the necessity of these two courses of action, and will feel very squishy if they run around with a longsword and chainmail. At least Quell Savagery would be a fairly attractive feat choice for a new player, and it would be right in the first place that they often look for feats (the class feats list).

Debut: The Ardent

The Ardent debut article is up on D&D Insider, and it contains the Mantle of Clarity build for this new Psionic Leader. The full class will appear in the PHB3 in March.

What's in a Name?

First, a comment on the name. I hate it. A lot. Judging by the discussions on the WotC forums many people agree with this sentiment. The problem is partially that the word "ardent" is an adjective. You're left thinking, "so what exactly is this guy ardent about?" You can say that members of the class are ardent, but you can also say that Rogues are sneaky; does that mean that the Rogue class could be called "Sneaky" and make sense? "Sneak" would make sense, but that's a noun. Same goes for renaming "Barbarian" to "Reckless." Or we could just re-name the Wizard the "Intelligent." Grammatical faults aside, there was already a widely speculated name for the Psionic leader: Empath. The Empath was a Psion build in 3rd edition, so there's even a precedent (to be fair the Ardent was a 3rd edition class from Complete Psionic, but it doesn't resemble the 4E Ardent except that they both have "mantles"). Here's the kicker: the flavor of the 4E Ardent could not possibly be more suited for the name Empath. They Psionically read the emotional state of their enemies, as well as influence the emotional state of their allies. They're empathic. I liked the name Empath. It made sense. Ardent is just silly.

Mechanics

Anyways, moving on to the actual mechanics of the class. Not surprisingly, they use Charisma as their primary stat. Also not surprisingly, Wisdom is secondary for the Mantle of Clarity build (secondary defender). The other build, to be released in the PHB3, is the Mantle of Elation, and is a secondar striker that uses Constitution as a secondary stat. If you can't already see a problem with the Mantle of Clarity build, I'll point it out right now. Like certain builds of other classes (for example, Charisma Paladins), the Mantle of Clarity Ardent gets a primary and a secondary stat that contribute to the same defense, Will. That's a little odd for a secondary defender, wouldn't you think? But wait, there's more. Their armor proficiency goes up to Chain (so at least not having a secondary or primary stat for AC doesn't hurt them too much), but they don't get any shield proficiencies. That's an AC of 16 at 1st level. And they're a melee class. I'll reiterate that: the party leader (who is supposed to play backup defender) is sent to the front lines with minimal armor and no shield. This is the guy who you want to keep standing so he can heal you. And shouldn't the secondary defender build get Con secondary instead of the striker? So yeah, you'll have very few healing surges too. And if you want to improve your armor you'll need at least a 13 in both Con and Str (just Str if you're going for lt shield, but consider your surges!). And forget about a heavy shield completely unless you want to waste enough stat points for a Str of 15. So yeah, improving your AC is both feat intensive, and stat intensive. If you're a race that gets a bonus to Str it would definitely be worth it, but everyone else loses out. And with all the points you're throwing into Cha, Wis, Str, and Con, your Reflex is really going to suffer.

I'm thinking that polearms will be pretty much mandatory for these guys if they want to not die. You have proficiency with military melee weapons, and the picture in the article has a glaive. So have fun hiding behind your defender and attacking around him, just like every other Ardent will be doing.

Like the Psion, the Ardent gets an extra at-will power and can replace at-wills as they level with more powerful ones. These at-wills can be augmented to be more powerful with power points. They do not get encounter powers because of this (a fully augmented at-will is equivalent to an encounter power, and they get enough power points to cast the same amount of fully augmented powers as other classes get encounter powers). Power points recharge after each short rest. The benefits to this system are that Psions/Ardents can use the same "encounter" power twice instead of using two different ones. You can also augment an at-will with 1 power point instead of 2 (full), essentially giving yourself two weaker encounter powers instead of 1 standard one. All of this can be done spontaneously, when you attack. So yeah, great flexibility with how you use your powers, but less flexibility in terms of how many different things you can do. Example: whereas a Wizard could have an at-will that debuffs attack and an encounter power that dazes, a Psion would have an at-will that debuffs attack, with the ability to augment that power to either debuff more targets or debuff with a bigger penalty (whatever is laid out in the power). Kind of like a one trick pony that's really flexible with that one trick.

Mantles

The 2/enc healing power is called Ardent Surge, and it's pretty standard in terms of what it heals (normal xD6 progression for extra HP). What makes it unique is that it has a different effect depending on your Mantle. Mantle of Clarity Ardents give the target a +1 bonus to all defenses until the end of your next turn, and Mantle of Elation Ardents give a +1 attack bonus. This is actually a pretty cool way to distinguish the builds that we (surprisingly) haven't seen in a leader until now.

In terms of other differences between the mantles, nothing else about the Mantle of Elation is specified. It can be assumed that it's similar to the Mantle of Clarity though, which is a constantly active close burst 5 "aura" that grants any allies within it a defense bonus against opportunity attacks (equal to Wis, your secondary stat) and a +2 bonus to Insight and Perception checks. Flavorful. Also, as I learned when playtesting my World Speaker Shaman, granting a solid bonus against opportunity attacks can potentially alter party tactics, reducing the risk of risky maneuvers (things that provoke OAs). Artful Dodger Rogues in particular will be virtually invulnerable to OAs, especially if they're Halflings.

Summary

I really like the flavor of the class. It's pretty much exactly what you'd expect a Psionic leader to be, minus the crappy name (if I ever make an Ardent I'm just going to call it an Empath). The Mantles are pretty standard in terms of their mechanical influences on the different builds, which is a good thing since I've heard that mantles in 3.x were not done very well. I've never seen Complete Psionic so I don't exactly know in what ways the 3rd edition Ardent was poorly designed, but I trust the prevailing opinions on the WotC forums, especially considering the Psionics Handbook (which I do own). I do suspect that the 4E Ardent will carry over the legacy of being somewhat inferior, and unfortunately the reason should have been easy to foresee on the part of the devolopers. Proficiency with the light shield at the very least would give Ardents an option other than polearms, and having some ranged implement attacks would mitigate the low AC, as the Ardent wouldn't have to be in melee constantly to be effective. And on top of all of this the Mantle of Clarity build's two highest stats feed the same NAD (non AC defense). The result is that Ardents will feel the need to "catch up" to their fellow leaders, most likely through feats (armor/shield proficiencies will be attractive options, but will require investment tertiary/quaternary stats, making the Ardent quite MAD (multi attribute dependent)).

Con-based Shamans have a similar AC problem (and similarly need to invest in Str for better armor), and people have been complaining since the release of the preview (and are still complaining, for that matter). The situation is arguably more dire for Ardents since they'll have to be in melee almost constantly. A simple comparison can be drawn with the Warlord, which is another exclusively melee leader and is known for taking a beating if played carelessly. The Ardent is at a disadvantage in terms of initial AC (since Warlords have shield prof.), and also in terms of improving AC (Warlords attack with Strength, the main prerequisite stat for armor prof., whereas Ardents would not normally want to invest in Strength). In particular this build (Mantle of Clarity) is supposed to play secondary defender, but will have stats spread out between Cha, Wis, Con, and Str if it wants to be even passably effective at it. I can't imagine any race except the Dragonborn being able to make this work.