Revising the Archaic d20 System

There were two very intriguing articles posted on the Gaming Security Agency recently - Die, d20 die and its follow-up, Extreme Makeover, d20-ish Edition.  When I first read them I thought "huh, that's interesting, and the arguments certainly have merit," but it didn't go much beyond that.  During last week's Pathfinder game I remembered these articles again, and it brought to light how the d20 system is actively impairing my gameplay.

I'm playing a Bard with 10 Wisdom and no ranks in Perception, so I'm rocking a +0, yeah!  For two levels a running joke has been that I might as well not even bother rolling Perception.  Aside from the fact that my d20s all hate me, often I won't even be successful if I take a 20.  For a while I just went with it, accepting that it was one of my character's weaknesses.  But then I got to thinking - isn't a score of 10 explicitly stated to be the human average?  Why am I running around like a blind guy just for having an average ability score?

The answer, of course, is due to a mechanical quirk exemplified by the Druid in our party.  He has a +20something in Perception (23 or 28 come to mind, but I honestly don't know for sure).  Granted he's specifically specialized in Perception, but that's a pretty big gap for level 5.  His static modifier is noticeably larger than the randomizer, and thinking about it THAT way really brings the point home.

Though the Druid is on the extreme end of the spectrum, the other PCs probably have modifiers around +10 for Perception, with no specialization other than putting ranks into it.  And that's already HALF of the randomizer.  Basically, the DCs have to be set pretty high to challenge PCs skilled in that area, but pretty soon every task you go up against is one in which your average guy literally stands no chance of succeeding.  This is an inherent problem in systems that represent increased skill by increasing the maximum result.  It's an archaic piece of game design that many modern games have abandoned.

The fix presented in the GSA article essentially turns a d20 roll into a d10 dice pool mechanic.  Instead of rolling 1d20, you roll 2d10.  Skill training, feats like Skill Focus, etc. all add an additional d10 to the dice pool instead of providing a static modifier, and you keep the best 2 results.  No need to project DCs into the stratosphere, smaller numbers equals quicker math, and you model that fact that skilled characters are still more likely to succeed while still giving unskilled characters a chance.

I like this.  Because it's no fun eliminating an option because my chance of success is slim to none.

On Fairness and Rolling for Ability Scores

Ah, the age old question that comes up when first starting a new campaign - "are we rolling for ability scores or using point buy?"  There are good arguments for both camps, with many gamers having a strong preference for one or the other.  Rolling for ability scores is more organic, and it can be quicker and less fiddly.  Unfortunately, it can also lead to some pretty significant power disparities.  It sucks to be the guy who rolled 15, 13, 13, 12, 10, 10 (huh, that looks an awful lot like my Bard's array in the Pathfinder game that I'm currently playing...) when everyone else in the party has at least one 17 or 18 (pre-racial), and much stronger secondary abilities than a mere 13.

Granted, this isn't a problem for everyone.  Indeed, a lot of players really like taking up the challenge of playing whatever array the Fates have granted them, which goes hand in hand with being ok with a weaker character.  The flaws can be what makes the character fun and memorable.  But a lot of players prefer as much balance between PCs as possible.  What gets really awkward is when you have both types of players mixed in the same group.

I usually lean more toward preferring a balanced starting point, as there are other ways of roleplaying flaws than having gimped ability scores.  But I noticed a funny thing while building several characters for 13th Age playtesting: I was building them using point buy, without even looking at the sample arrays in the back of the book, but they all ended up having the EXACT same array.  16, 14, 14, 12, 10, 8.  How boring.  Flipping through the sample arrays in general there is a heavy preference for even numbers, which makes sense because it's optimal starting out, but when you hit 4th level that ability boost that's supposed to be so awesome and meaningful ends up doing exactly nothing.  I found myself yearning for more "organic" arrays with a mix of odd and even numbers, and even looking back at those ability-rolling days with fondness.  Until I joined that Pathfinder game.

What I've come up with is a hybrid of the two methods.  Below I've listed 20 arrays, many of which are from the sample arrays in the core book, but I did some tweaking to provide more odd values.  You might also notice that some arrays are repeated, and I left out certain types of arrays that I personally find extremely unappealing (anything that starts with 18 pre-racial, anything with three 8's, or even two 8's).  Anyways, the idea is that when you create your character you roll a d20 to determine which array you get.  It's random and organic, but it's still relatively balanced as every single array uses the standard 28 point buy found in the 13th Age core rulebook.  I think it could potentially be a very nice middle ground between the two camps.

1. 16, 16, 14, 10, 8, 8
2. 16, 15, 14, 10, 10, 8
3. 16, 14, 14, 12, 10, 8
4. 16, 14, 12, 12, 10, 10
5. 15, 15, 15, 10, 10, 8
6. 15, 14, 14, 12, 10, 10
7. 14, 14, 14, 14, 12, 8
8. 15, 14, 13, 13, 10, 10
9. 15, 14, 13, 13, 9, 11
10. 16, 15, 13, 12, 9, 8
11. 16, 14, 14, 11, 11, 8
12. 16, 13, 13, 13, 10, 9
13. 16, 13, 13, 12, 10, 10
14. 15, 15, 14, 12, 10, 8
15. 15, 15, 13, 13, 10, 8
16. 16, 14, 14, 12, 10, 8
17. 16, 15, 13, 11, 11, 8
18. 15, 15, 14, 12, 10, 8
19. 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10
20. 16, 14, 13, 13, 10, 8

Again, this list of arrays is specifically for 13th Age, though it would seem perfectly at home in D&D 4E or 3.x/PF.  For older editions where ability scores tended to be lower you'd obviously want to tweak the list.  And of course you could make tweaks based on personal aesthetic preferences as well, including running a "low-powered" or "high-powered" game.

Flow of Information

The issue of Perception and how it grants PCs information in TTRPGs has been a popular topic in the blogosphere lately.  It's also one that I've struggled with personally.

To start with, most players consider Perception to be the most powerful/useful skill in D&D 4E.  I know I would train it with virtually all of my characters.  But then a funny thing happened; I started reading and researching more narrative-centric RPGs with their fail-forward philosophies and what-not, and my character ideas began to deliberately ditch Perception.  For one thing it's often not an "active" skill, but rather one that the GM calls upon PCs to roll, and second things can simply get more interesting (albeit more difficult as well) if you fail a Perception check.  I'd rather have to claw my way out of a tight spot that I could have avoided if it was memorable as opposed to getting some piece of information that basically tells me what's up.

Unfortunately this doesn't always work in practice.  In the Pathfinder campaign that I'm currently playing in there was a lot of "roll Perception" results as we were exploring a dungeon.  Failure came with its typical problems; players knew something was up and then either got no information, or got a surprise scythe-blade trap to the back.  But success was equally boring.  "Rogue, you find another trap there."  "I roll Disable Device."  "Ok, you disabled the trap."  Lather, rinse, repeat.  I'm glad the Rogue got to be useful (he certainly hasn't been in combat), but it still wasn't very exciting.

A while ago there was an article on Thought Crime that explored this very issue.

Dungeon World

Since a lot of the blog articles reference Dungeon World, we'll step back for a second and examine how Perception is handled in that system.  One of the Basic Moves in Dungeon World is "Discern Realities."  You roll (2D6) +Wis and on a 10+ you can ask 3 questions, and one question on a 7-9 (the "partial success" ubiquitous in Dungeon World rolls).  The list of questions is as follows:

• What happened here recently?
• What is about to happen?
• What should I be on the lookout for?
• What here is useful or valuable to me?
• Who's really in control here?
• What here is not what it appears to be?

By reading the list of questions it should be apparent that Perception is a very player-driven process.  It's also worth mentioning that a Move in Dungeon World can only be triggered by the fiction as described by that player.  The player says what he's doing, and the GM may say "sound's like you're trying to Discern Realities; roll + Wis."  Or the player can specify that, but it won't work unless his description of the PCs actions also match up with the Move's trigger.  For Discern Realities, you have to "closely observe your target," and it's also called out that you "can't just stick your head in the doorway," but rather you have to closely examine the surroundings; pick things up, get up close and personal, etc.  A really helpful clarifying statement from the book:  "Discern Realities isn't just about noticing a detail, it's about figuring out the bigger picture."

That's a key difference with the classic Perception check - the GM isn't just going to tell the player "you find a trap," but rather they're answering a player's specific question.  The detail of "there are traps here" might still be included, but the specifics will vary depending on what question was asked.  Furthermore, if the player succeeds they will learn something even if the GM didn't plan for anything; by asking the question they are injecting a fact into the narrative based on the GMs response.  As a further carrot for the PCs, when acting on the answers they get a +1 forward (bonus to a future action).

This sounds cool and all (I haven't actually played Dungeon World yet), but rolling a 6 or less is still a null result, and the player doesn't get to ask any questions.  It's easy enough to incorporate a "fail forward" philosophy, which leads back to another blog post.

Query-Based Perception Hack

Yesterday there was a heavily Dungeon-World inspired article over at Mystic Theurge about Query-Based Perception.  The hack draws questions from several *World games and applies them to several different systems, including 13th Age.  In some ways this sub-system is more interesting than Dungeon World's.  It doesn't offer the "ask 3 questions" option, but it does let PCs ask a question regardless of whether they pass or fail, and either way they'll gain a +2 bonus to any actions while acting on the information.  On a failure, the information is wrong (or incomplete), but interesting results are sure to ensue when players risk acting on misinformation to get the +2 bonus.  It's a clever way to inject fail-forward into the system.

Clues and Mysteries

Thought Crime posted an interesting sub-system that might serve investigative style games quite well.  Ephemera are like temporary Backgrounds in 13th Age, and one such type is the "Clue."  Clues can be earned through a Perception or other investigation-related check much like the above system (or Discern Realities in Dungeon World), but they can also be gained from Icon rolls or as loot.  Though it's only orthogonally related to the Perception issue, I LOVE the idea of handing out Clues as loot, since they come with a built-in mechanism to entice players to play with the information (the ephemera bonus, which stacks with Backgrounds).  A later post outlines how a GM can structure an adventure around these mechanics with an example mystery.

Lorefinder

We're getting a little further from straight Perception here, but that's ok because Perception is only one facet of the bigger issue - how the GM doles out information to the players.  I've been eyeing a third-party supplement for Pathfinder for a while now; it incorporates the GUMSHOE system (which is the system that games such as Trail of Cthulu and Ashen Stars uses), and is called Lorefinder.  As I understand it, the way that GUMSHOE/Lorefinder works is that simply having an investigative skill is enough to give you some basic information in a situation that relates to that skill.  Your proficiency in an Investigative skill (which works differently from your standard skills like Climb, etc.) grants you a number of points that you can use per session rather than a modifier to a d20 roll.  You can use one or more of these points from the pool to gain additional information beyond the baseline.  The basic information will usually be just enough to get by without grinding the plot to a halt, while the "extra" information will obviously be more useful.  The GM will just give the PC the information, no roll required.  But the PC will have to decide when to spend those limited points, because some information will obviously be more useful than other.

What to Take Away from all of these Systems?

Clearly a case can be made for facilitating the flow of information between GM and PCs that minimizes both the tedium and roadblocks of straight Perception or investigative skill rolls.  Query-based Perception (including that used by the *World games) allows players to steer the details a bit by framing the information they obtain in the form of specific questions.  This works best when combined with a fail-forward philosophy, and a bonus when acting on the information further promotes player engagement and can lead to interesting consequences if the information is wrong or incomplete.  Expanding the idea of such bonuses (or "ephemera") to investigation in general, temporary Backgrounds (13th Age style) in the form of Clues provide a tangible reward above and beyond the information itself, as well as possibly being used as a limited resource ("spending" clues to move toward solving the mystery).  Lorefinder (and GUMSHOE in general) also does a great job of giving players a limited-use investigative resource, and is perhaps the most well-known system for handing out relevant information.

Have I used any of this in my own games?  Not directly, no (aside from general "fail-forward").  But I can see the promise, and I wish something like this were in place for the Pathfinder game I'm playing in.  Having spent much of the last few hours reading up on these various options, I'm not even sure if everything has really sunk in yet.  Using everything would be redundant and, more importantly, overly complex, and I'm not quite sure what would suit my needs best.  If my curiosity gets the best of me and I end up purchasing Lorefinder, I may have more to say on the subject.

13th Age Mechanics in Pathfinder

Well, I did something I never thought I would do again - I started playing in a Pathfinder game.  Largely because one of the players from my 13th Age campaign is GMing it, and he's incorporating some 13th Age mechanics into the game, outlined below.

• Icons.  The published list is used as a base, though several of them have been changed to some degree or another.  Also, there's only 10 or 11 of them.  Icon relationships in the party include the High Druid, the General (sort of a combination of the Emperor and the Crusader, but not evil), the Prince of Shadows, the Archmage, the Great Gold Wyrm, and The Holy Mother (a slightly modified Priestess).  
• One Unique Thing.  This is used as-is, though some of the players have elected to keep theirs a secret.  My character's OUT is "stolen" from Angel (The Buffy spinoff), as he can read someone's destiny when they sing (like Lorne, though the character is human, and even though he's a Bard he doesn't sing himself).  Interesting, one of the other players completely independently said that his character's OUT is that he knows that his fate is death, but doesn't yet know how he'll die.
• The Escalation Die is in, but the GM is capping it at 4 to keep the bonuses from getting out of hand (not sure how long fights will last; many of the PCs are more social/exploration oriented as opposed to strong combatants).  
• Backgrounds, much to my dismay, are NOT in.  Yep, still have to deal with that long, fiddly skill list (one of the things I like least about Pathfinder).  Oh well, I'll live.
• The GM has let me swap out Bardic Performance (like I said, my Bard doesn't sing) for the Storyteller talent from 13th Age.  It's already come into play beautifully.  As we were searching through the house of a murder (and theft, but at that point does it really matter?) victim my Bard mentioned that the Rogue really looked like he knew his stuff when it comes to breaking and entering, and asked if he recognized any patterns or anything about the way the place was searched (only very specific things were stolen).  The Rogue got to re-roll his story-guide relationship with the Prince of Shadows, and got a 6!  So we got some info, confirming the killer as belonging to his old guild.

While the fiddly bits and rules look-ups are still annoying, I've built my character to mostly avoid a lot of that stuff.  Case in point, before I thought of swapping in Storyteller, I'd flat-out stated that I was going to ignore Bardic Performance because it was too much bookkeeping and too convoluted.  The OUTs are already making for an interesting group, and the increased narrative focus is just generally making the system more tolerable.  These 13th Age mechanics mesh well with Pathfinder, despite the two systems sharing COMPLETELY different philosophies.  I'm looking forward to seeing how it all progresses.

On a related note, this week I'm wrapping up my current 13th Age campaign.  I've been driving the plot to its conclusion for the last few sessions more quickly than I'd initially intended, with a ton of cool ideas still floating around in my head.  But I'm itching to try Edge of the Empire, and so is the rest of the group, and I'm also a bit burnt out on GMing (this Pathfinder campaign aside, I haven't played a PC for about a year and a half).  It's been going 8 months strong, but I look forward to the next game when everyone has a better idea of what to expect from the character classes (for example, my Paladin player hates his class).

Expect me to focus a bit more on Star Wars and a bit less on 13th Age coming up soon, but I'm sure I'll get another 13th Age game up and running after 13 True Ways is released.

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.

The Full Attack Trap

The last thing I want to do here is to throw more fuel onto the ever-raging edition war fire.  But I've been thinking lately about my aversion to D&D 3.x/Pathfinder.  I have a game group that still plays the system, and they've asked me several times if I want to join their game.  I haven't yet, because so far the flaws of 3.x and my desire to avoid them have overpowered wanting to play in another game with this group (I do still game with them, just not Pathfinder).

I did try Pathfinder a couple of times.  The thing that stood out the most was that combats lasted longer than in 4E, but were far less interesting.  I'm cool with more simplified, streamlined combat systems, but they need to a) support narrative contributions by the player in a fun and engaging way, and b) run more quickly.  Why would I want to spend 2 hours in one fight when I'm just saying "I use Power Attack" every round?  Yes, that actually did happen.

What follows are several observations from a game design perspective; while these are not my only complaints with the system, they are some of the major contributing factors.

Full Attack Action
It sounds innocuous at first glance, but in reality this is one of the most piss-poor design elements I've ever encountered in any game.  Ever.  Multiple attacks aren't a great way for character power to scale anyways.  The more attacks you roll, the more damage you end up rolling, and the end result is a lot of dice.  There's no change to the narrative action, nor the intent of that action; the only difference (besides the obvious increase in power, which can be accomplished through other means) is that the task resolution system is becoming more complex and time-consuming.  Needlessly, I might add.

But that's not the only problem with Full Attack.  The worse offender is that it makes combat far less interesting by restricting your options.  Full Attack isn't just a standard action, but takes up all of your actions for your turn.  Because making 2-5 attacks is far more powerful than making just 1, it's a non-choice - if you can use a full attack, you really should do it.  Instead of being dynamic, combat devolves into what some call "stand and bang."  You walk up to a dude, and you both throw a bunch of dice at each other until one of you falls down.  There's very little incentive to use a skirmisher-style of play, to change opponents, to move around to tactically advantageous terrain, etc.  Those fun, interesting things are made so drastically suboptimal that they simply don't come up in play. 

Ultimately, when I play a tabletop RPG I want things to do during my turn.  I want to make choices based on what makes narrative sense, and I want those choices to carry over and have meaningful mechanical consequences.  That usually doesn't happen with martial-type characters in 3.x/PF, but that brings us to...

Spellcasters
This subject has been covered far and wide, pretty much everywhere on the internet.  So I'll keep this brief.  Martial characters are boring, so if you want to do something interesting you need to play a spellcaster.  This type of design is repellent to me because it punishes players for liking a certain archetype. 

Oddly enough, this goes both ways.  You see, spellcasters aren't universally more interesting.  At low levels they have enough spells to count on one hand (with fingers to spare!) and are otherwise reduced to taking potshots with a crossbow (this is somewhat ameliorated in Pathfinder, but the weak attack spells are a) still quite limited instead of being at-will, and b) are noticeably weaker than weapons.  Since I almost always played at low levels (1-3) back when I played 3.5, the fact that I preferred spellcasters made for some frustrating experiences (even if I wasn't aware of how frustrated I was at the time). 

Of course at high levels spellcasters are notorious for making some party members obsolete, but while they're no doubt effective, they're not necessarily fun.  First of all, being noticeably better doesn't leave you with a sense of achievement.  You've done cool things not because you made better choices than the Fighter, but because you were handed better toys.  But those toys can also be a pain.  I remember having multiple sheets of notebook paper to keep track of all of my spells, and I still had to look stuff up constantly.

Final Notes
The gap between the "boring" and "interesting" classes is just far too wide.  On one end of the scale you have the guy with the non-choices.  "I full attack" is what he says every round when it comes to his turn.  On the other end a player could get downright overwhelmed by all of his choices.  "Why am I forced to play a micromanaging bean counter just to do interesting things?"

Like I said, these aren't my only problems with the system, but I think they're two of the biggest contributors to making combat really boring, especially for players of martial characters.  Why should an increase in power come with a reduction in meaningful choices?  Perhaps if someone comes up with houserules that mitigate these problems I'd consider joining a Pathfinder game.  Maybe.

First Impressions of Pathfinder: The good, and the bad

See part 1 and part 2 of this series. For my final post, I'm basically just going to make a bullet point list of some improvements, and some gripes that I have with the system. These will be more or less random, so bear with me.

The Good

• Combat Maneuver attack and defense. Finally, random actions like grapple, trip, sunder, etc. are consolidated into a single number.
• Domains, Spell Schools, and Bloodlines give casters more magic to fall back on at low levels. This is more fun than busting out a stupid crossbow or sling.
• Some trap feats got fixed. Toughness comes to mind, as it's essentially an extra hit point per level, but the first 3 are front-loaded so first level characters still get a nice boost.
  
• The classes are more balanced than 3.x, though they're still not up to the level of 4e classes. Given the nature of the system, it's unlikely that they could be, so good effort Paizo.
  

The Bad

• Too. Many. Status. Effects. Dazed, dazzled, cowering, panicked, frightened, fatigued, exhausted, shaken, sickened, nauseated (why is this different from sickened?!), staggered, paralyzed, stunned, pinned, grappled, entangled, confused, blinded, and even a few more. A lot of these things sound exactly the same, and even mechanically could be consolidated so easily it's not even funny. The list in 4e is so much easier to memorize, and reference if you do forget something, it's not even funny. All conditions are summarized on a single page (and it's not even a whole page!). Pathfinder takes over 3 pages to summarize everything, and the print is a LOT smaller. It's bad enough that some spells are several paragraphs of description, but then you have to read even more if a status effect is referenced! Way. Too. Overly. Complicated.
  
• Dex mod still isn't added to ranged damage, yet Str mod is still added to damage of composite longbow. News flash: if you get hit with an arrow, it's going to deal damage to you regardless of whether it came from a regular longbow or a composite longbow. The composite will likely have more range, because yes it will launch the arrow with more force. But if you're going that route with the simulationism, you might as well add damage to hits at closer range because the arrow has lost less energy. Point being, the contribution of Str is negligible. Adding Dex to ranged damage makes more sense, because a high Dex character has better aim, and so is more likely to hit a vital area of the body, which would translate to more damage. Even from a simulationist view the 4e system makes more sense. Likewise, weapon finesse should add Dex to damage as well as attack rolls. Rapiers deal damage through technique, not brute strength. Same argument applies; an agile character is more likely to hit an exposed/vital area with a rapier.
• The skill list from hell still exists. But the funny thing is, Pathfinder consolidated Spot, Listen, and Search in Perception (just like 4e), but didn't consolidate any other skills! It's more a slap in the face than anything, really. That's just more stupid numbers that I have to erase and change every time I level.
• I only briefly scanned the section on combat, but despite the new Combat Maneuvers system it still looks like grappling is overly complicated.
• Stat blocks are just as bad as ever, CRs still exist, and the end result is that it looks just as annoying to DM as 3.x ever was.
  
• Spells are still walls of text that require a lot of prep work before playing, or a lot of referencing during the game. Summoning is particularly annoying since you need all relevant monster stat blocks at hand.
• Starting gold still penalizes certain classes. Yeah, I get that I normally won't need to buy a longbow as a Druid, but if I'm an Elf I'd at least like the option to do so.
• EDIT: Wow, full round actions sure are stupid, especially at 1st level for summoning. Basically, I get to spend my entire turn "casting" (even though nothing is happening), to get a summon onto the field 1 round later, and for only 1 round (at first level, at least). So I sacrifice my turn now to get 2 turns next round. Doesn't make sense, since that's one more round that the enemies are alive and hitting the party. Delayed damage is why the original Assassin is literally the worst striker in 4e. Granted, at higher levels summoning makes sense because you sacrifice an early round for several rounds where you essentially get multiple turns, but from a gaming standpoint that's still not great because it bogs down play. Really makes me appreciate the elegance of 4e summoning/pets. But most importantly, consider this: a round is 6 seconds, and each turn just details what everyone does during that round. It's all happening simultaneously, so a full round should be the same time as a full turn. Why can't my summon just pop up at the end of my turn? I don't give a crap if I can't attack with it until next round, I want enemies to see that it's there so they attack it instead of me! Especially since during that round where I'm just "casting," if I get attacked I can lose the spell if I fail a concentration check. For a game that seeks to be more simulationist that gamist, there sure are some wacky rules.
  

Alright, that's all I'm going to list for now. I feel like there are a few other things, but I can't remember them right now. I may go back and update this list.

First Impressions of Pathfinder: The Character

For part 1 of this series, click here. Turns out, I lied a little about picking up where I left off (with Druids). First I'll set the stage. After going months without playing D&D with my original gaming group, I have been making plans for some 4e games. Because of schedules, right now only a 1 shot is in the works. Turns out though, they've been playing Pathfinder regularly while I've been out of town, and I broke down and decided I'd give it a shot. After all, they described it as having fixed everything that was wrong with 3.5. Well, we'll see about that. I wonder if a taste of CoDzilla will teach them a lesson (in what few high level games we played, nobody ever rolled a Cleric or Druid, so I'm not really even sure if they're aware of the problem with them).

Unfortunately, the DMs were rotating and the new DM decided to start everyone at level 1. So much for making the 1 man version of an adventuring party. Still, I did my homework on Pathfinder just so I knew what I was getting myself into. Turns out, CoDzilla has for the most part been slain.

The Druid's Wild Shape is an odd middle ground between 3.x (where you essentially became a monster stat block) and 4e (where you keep your own stats and movement modes, but you gain access to beast form powers): You keep your stats, but gain the new forms movement modes (sort of), attacks, AC, and some other bonuses depending on size and level. The end result is that you're effective in melee while Wild Shaped...only if you're built to melee in humanoid form and sacrifice your spells. Uhhhh...ok, that's lame, 4e preserved the feel of Wild Shape (flinging spells as humanoid, being a melee character while Wild Shaped) without making it overpowered. Pathfinder may have reigned in the power level of Wild Shape, but they sacrificed some of the ability's "essence." Would it have been that hard to let you substitute Wis for Str while making attacks? You'd still be using your stats. Whatever. In any case, the alternative is being a full caster and using Wild Shape to turn into a bird and fly around casting spells (because you will pick up Natural Spell). Well, that's what I decided to go with.

Now we come to the Animal Companion. I stopped playing Druids in 3.5 because the DM always went straight for my companion and killed it as fast as he could. He said, "don't have it rush into melee if you don't want it to get hurt!" Well, what am I supposed to do, have it hang back and waste a class feature? As angry as I was about him "screwing me" at the time, I realize that it's more a design flaw than anything (but I still think he was screwing me a little bit too). I'd have to spend the next 24 hours calling a new companion, or else live with not having one for a while. Talk about a buzz kill. Fast forward to the release of Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms, and we get a 4e Druid that gets an animal companion! Best part is, it can be revived whenever you want, for the cheap price of 1 minor action and 1 healing surge! Sure, the healing surge mechanic doesn't exist in 3.x so the animal companion couldn't work like this...but then that's just another reason to prefer 4e, isn't it? Now, some might call this an example of gamism (4e) vs simulationism (3.x), but is it really that unrealistic (from a fantasy standpoint, mind you) for a Druid who has bonded him/herself to a specific animal to be able to heal that animal (using his/her own surges, albeit) at-will? Such a Druid can already heal allies! Just say it's the same type of healing magic, but since the Druid and companion share a magical bond it eats up the Druid's own healing surge. It's elegant, and allows the companion to act like a damage sponge without being at risk of disrupting adventuring. And such a damage sponge mechanic is a unique contribution to the party, and offers an interesting way to "lead."

I've been playtesting the Sentinel, so I thought about this as I was building my Pathfinder Druid. I couldn't go back to the "old way" of doing animal companions. I opted to pick up the Cleric domain instead. I wouldn't have a melee buddy/tank to protect me and flank with me, but I'd get a few extra domain spells to use per day, plus extra domain spell slots. At this point I'd like to take a moment to commend Pathfinder, because they did add a mechanic that really helps casters out at low levels. Clerics (and Druids who choose them instead of the companion) get Domains, Sorcerers get bloodlines, and Wizards get school specializations. All of these class features grant a choice, each of which offers a minor spell that you can cast a number of times per day equal to 3 + relevant ability mod. That's a good number of rounds where you would normally have to pull out a crossbow/sling/javelin and ineffectually pelt enemies because you're out of spells. It's vaguely reminiscent of 4e's at-will mechanic, though obviously it's much more limited since it's still "Vancian" at its core. So Pathfinder did patch the weakness of casters at low levels. They're still not as balanced as 4e casters/non-casters, but it's manageable. From what I've heard, however, high level casters do still dominate non-casters, though perhaps not to such an extent.

Another fun aspect of the Druid class is spontaneous casting, which is the ability to turn any prepared spell into Summon Nature's Ally on the fly. Which is sweet, because summoning is awesome, especially for a Druid who opted to give up the animal companion. It's a source of extra damage, and it's a great source of ally-friendly action denial in this game (enemies beating on summons aren't attacking allies, and you don't even lose healing surges because this game doesn't have them!). This is why I love the Druid's spontaneous casting more than the Cleric's; a Druid prevents damage (equal to the summoned creature's HP + however much damage the attack overshot it by), whereas the Cleric repairs it (with the Cure spells). Plus the Druid gets to deal damage while it's doing this, and it feels more "active." Plus the Druid can just grab a wand of whatever Cure he can afford and be able to patch up his allies just fine. So clearly I like the idea of summoning in Pathfinder/3.x, but there's a catch. You have to reference monster stat blocks all the time. Which you already sort of have to do with Wild Shape. And since I hate looking crap up in the limited supply of books at the table, I'm going to have to either copy a bunch of stat blocks down by hand, or make some kind of electronic cheat sheet using the SRD. Plus I have to do that for all of the spells that I think I'll use regularly. I'll admit that this is a problem with 4e, too, as I write out power cards on index cards by hand. But at least those are concise. A lot of Pathfinder spells, like 3.x spells, are walls of text.

To sum up the 1st level Druid I created, it seems like it'll be a fun character. Pathfinder did make an attempt to balance out the classes, but in doing so made some design choices that don't appeal to me. It annoys me that for full casters, using Wild Shape to fight in melee is not viable. Most of the time. I did manage to get around this, by picking up Weapon Finesse. Seeing as I'm Dex secondary, I can at least hit with my natural attacks, even if they won't be quite so damaging. And since I'm an elf, the feat also helps me hit with the rapier that I carry around for when I run out of spells.

First Impressions of Pathfinder: Introduction

I'm going to take a bit of a departure from my normal subject on this blog (D&D 4e) to talk about Pathfinder. First, some background. I started playing D&D 3.0e, which was actually my first experience with tabletop roleplaying. It wasn't too long before I wanted to purchase books of my own instead of bumming off of my friend's, so I picked up the 3.5 PHB (I didn't know that it had that many changes from the 3.0 PHB). It took a little bit of time, but pretty soon my regular group had upgraded to 3.5. Then I went to college, and there was less time for D&D, not to mention the fact that the few people in my school's gaming club that played D&D played a weird homebrew version where everyone had a pre-selected character: either a really powerful, kick-ass dragon, or a dragon "tamer" with a crossbow and short sword. Guess which type of character I had to be? Guess who never came back after the first session...

After graduating, I worked at Great Smoky Mountains National Park for a summer, and one of my fellow seasonal workers happened to pick up the 4e PHB. I was shocked, for I had no idea that there was a new edition coming out, and upon examining the book I was even more shocked with all of the changes. "This is blasphemy, this isn't D&D, it's a whole different game! BLAH! But I'll give it a try, I guess..." Unfortunately, my pilot session occurred toward the end of the summer, so it was the only session that we ended up playing. But the seeds were sown, even if I didn't know it at the time. Playing it "felt" more or less like D&D, and my melee Ranger was certainly performing better than melee rangers in 3e had. Plus the Cleric was healing people and attacking them, the Eladrin Rogue was teleporting to advantageous positions, and the Wizard...well, unfortunately the Wizard player wasn't at all interested in the game, and whenever her turn came up just yelled "I cast magic missile!" Which is what low level Wizards in 3.x usually did anyways, so I didn't think anything of it.

When I got back home, I started playing a 3.5 campaign. I didn't really have any strong negative impressions of that edition yet, I just recognized that there was another "version" of D&D out there that I'd played. One day I decided to find out more about 4e, so I spent a few hours on the internet researching it, reading reviews, hanging out on the WotC forums, etc. This went on for a few days, and my interest just started snowballing. The whole role systems intrigued me, even though I'd recognized that it had informally existed in previous editions. But this time you didn't need a Cleric! Any leader would do. But Clerics were actually pretty cool now, they weren't just healbots! But what really struck me was the balance between the classes. Everyone started off at roughly the same power level, and nobody blatantly outstripped anyone else as the levels went on. Given that I love playing casters, and that the vast majority of our 3.x games started out at 1st-3rd level and lasted 2 sessions if we were lucky, balance was important to me. I was sick of being weaker just because I liked casting spells better than smacking people across the head. It didn't matter that casters became godly later, because there was never a later for me. I played 1 game where I was a mid-level Wizard and it was the best game I'd ever played. The class had hit its stride, and I was able to be very creative with my spells and remain effective. Our usual DM (who swears by Fighters, even at high levels, for some odd reason...) made this Frankenstein-zombie boss called Stitches, who I decided to take out on my own when I was separated from the rest of the party (admittedly there were only two players...). I solo'd Stitches and won. Not only did I win, but I mopped the floor with this guy. And this DM is known for subjecting us to some pretty nasty bosses. So this is what it's like to be a high level Wizard...

Too bad it never happened again.

In any case, I don't want to write an entire book about the differences between 3.x and 4e. Some people prefer one edition, others the other. It wasn't long before I became a staunch proponent of 4e. Skills were more concise, balance was much better, casters never "ran out" of spells, Fighters had interesting stuff to do, leaders could heal as a minor action, the power blocks were simple, concise, and easy to reference compared to 3.x spells, and, as I later found out when I tried to convert my old gaming group, this edition was MUCH easier to DM. DMing was actually fun! The monster stat blocks made sense! Monsters had levels instead of this bogus CR crap. And page 42, oh how can't say enough good things about page 42.

And finally, once some more splatbooks were released, if I wanted to play a summoner or a Druid, I didn't have to memorize 5 million stat blocks from the Monster Manual, fuss around with templates, etc. Everything was designed to run smoothly. And I'll pick up here in part 2.